Untitled case

The PTAB case PGR2026-00009 involves Haemonetics Corp as the patent owner and Terumo BTC, Inc. as the petitioner. Haemonetics Corporation is a global provider of blood and plasma supplies and services, offering medical products and solutions in areas such as blood and plasma component collection, surgical suites, and hospital transfusion services. Terumo BTC, Inc. is a subsidiary of Terumo Corporation, a global medical technology company that manufactures and markets medical products, including blood bags and blood component separation systems, often competing with Haemonetics in the blood management space.

The patent at issue is U.S. Patent No. 12,324,873. While a detailed technical sketch from an official abstract or claims is not immediately available from the search results, given Haemonetics' business, it is highly probable the patent relates to automated blood processing, blood component collection, or surgical blood salvage systems. Haemonetics specializes in devices that automate blood collection and separation into components like red cells, platelets, and plasma, and also provides surgical blood salvage devices for reinfusion during surgery.

This case was filed at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) as a Post-Grant Review (PGR), designated as PGR2026-00009. The procedural posture is "Not Instituted - Procedural," which means the PTAB declined to initiate the review on a procedural ground rather than on the merits of the patentability challenge. Specifically, the docket indicates the status as "Discretionary Denial". This suggests the PTAB exercised its discretion, potentially under recent guidance from the USPTO Director, to deny institution. Recent changes in PTAB practice, particularly in 2025 and 2026, have seen the Director issuing memoranda regarding discretionary denials, including considerations for domestic industry and the timing and nature of petitions, which favor PGRs but also allow for discretion in denying institution under certain circumstances.

The case is notable as it highlights the increasing use of discretionary denials by the PTAB, which can significantly impact a petitioner's ability to challenge patent validity outside of district court litigation. The competition between Haemonetics and Terumo BTC in the blood management technology sector adds a layer of industry relevance, as challenges to key patents can have substantial market implications. The "Discretionary Denial" status means that Terumo BTC, Inc. was prevented from even having its validity arguments heard on the merits, potentially due to factors beyond the technical strength of its arguments, such as the timing of the petition or other policy considerations.

The PTAB case PGR2026-00009 involved a Post-Grant Review (PGR) petition filed by Terumo BTC, Inc. against Haemonetics Corp.'s U.S. Patent No. 12,324,873. The case was ultimately "Not Instituted - Procedural" due to a "Discretionary Denial" by the PTAB.

Here's a chronological overview of the key legal developments and outcome:

Parallel District Court Litigation:

• 2025-05-05: Haemonetics Corporation filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Terumo BCT, Inc. in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado, Case No. 1:25-cv-01409.
• 2025-07-17: Haemonetics filed a First Amended Complaint, asserting U.S. Patent No. 12,324,873, among others.
• 2025-07-25: The parties held their Rule 26(f) meeting.
• 2025-08-08: The parties exchanged Rule 26(a)(1) disclosures.
• 2025-08-12: Haemonetics filed a Second Amended Complaint.
• 2025-08-19: A Rule 16(b) Scheduling Conference took place.
• 2025-09-09: The parties were scheduled to file a proposed ESI order.
• In the district court case, Terumo BCT denied infringement and challenged the validity of the asserted patents under 35 U.S.C. §§ 101, 102, 103, and 112, and unenforceability under doctrines of unclean hands, patent misuse, and inequitable conduct. Terumo also indicated it would raise counterclaims. This district court case is ongoing.

PTAB Proceedings (PGR2026-00009 and related IPRs):

• 2025-10-24: Terumo BCT Inc. filed IPR2026-00045 challenging U.S. Patent No. 10,980,934, which was also "Not Instituted - Procedural."
• 2025-11-03: Terumo BCT, Inc. filed the Post-Grant Review petition, PGR2026-00009, challenging U.S. Patent No. 12,324,873.
• 2026-03-10: The PTAB issued a "Discretionary Denial" in PGR2026-00009, resulting in the case being "Not Instituted - Procedural." This denial was based on procedural grounds rather than the merits of the patentability challenge.
• 2026-05-12: In parallel IPRs (IPR2025-01374 and IPR2025-01391) also involving Terumo BCT, Inc. as Petitioner and Haemonetics Corp. as Patent Owner, the Director of the USPTO vacated prior institution notices and denied institution. The Director found that Terumo took inconsistent positions on claim construction in the district court and before the PTAB. Specifically, Terumo argued a "plain and ordinary meaning" for claims in its IPR petitions, but then argued in district court a week after institution that certain claims reciting a "controller" were indefinite. The Director emphasized that petitioners should present a single, consistent claim construction position across both the PTAB and district court proceedings. This discretionary denial highlights the USPTO's stance against using IPRs as a litigation strategy to gain an advantage through inconsistent arguments.

In PGR2026-00009, Terumo BTC, Inc. is the petitioner and Haemonetics Corp is the patent owner. Since the case was "Not Instituted - Procedural" with a "Discretionary Denial," specific counsel appearances on the merits might not be extensively detailed in public records as they would be in an instituted case. However, based on general PTAB practice, firms specializing in patent litigation and post-grant review frequently represent parties in these proceedings.

Information on the specific counsel of record for Terumo BTC, Inc. in PGR2026-00009 is not readily available through direct public search results for this specific case. PTAB docket information, while generally public, often requires direct access to the USPTO's Patent Trial and Appeal Board End-to-End (PTAB E2E) system for detailed document review and counsel listings. Publicly accessible summaries often do not include granular attorney details for non-instituted cases.

However, based on typical PTAB proceedings and general patent litigation counsel for similar entities, firms like Morrison Foerster are known for representing clients in high-stakes and complex patent litigation matters, including before the PTAB. Firms with strong life sciences and patent litigation practices, such as those with attorneys experienced in pharmaceutical, chemical, and biotechnology matters, are also frequently involved in cases where the patent relates to medical technology, as is likely the case here.

Without access to the specific docket entries for PGR2026-00009, identifying the exact individuals and firms representing Terumo BTC, Inc. as the petitioner remains elusive. In cases of discretionary denial, the details of legal representation are sometimes less prominent in public summaries compared to fully litigated cases. It is also possible that filings are sealed, or counsel has not appeared in a way that is easily searchable in public databases.

Haemonetics Corp, as the patent owner in the PTAB case PGR2026-00009, likely relied on experienced patent litigation counsel, especially given the "Not Instituted - Procedural" status due to a "Discretionary Denial." While direct counsel information for this specific, non-instituted PTAB case is not readily available through general public searches, we can infer potential representation based on Haemonetics' involvement in other patent litigation and PTAB proceedings.

Haemonetics has been represented by Cooley LLP in other patent disputes, including a district court case against Terumo BCT, Inc. (1:25-cv-01409-RMR-SBP in the District of Colorado), which involves the same U.S. Patent No. 12,324,873 at issue in this PGR. In that case, Erik Milch, Carolyn Juarez, and Elizabeth Shrieves of Cooley LLP were listed as counsel for Haemonetics.

• Erik Milch (Lead Counsel or Key Member of litigation team)
  • Firm: Cooley LLP, Washington, D.C.
  • Experience Note: Active in patent litigation, including representing Haemonetics in disputes concerning blood processing technology.
• Carolyn Juarez (Counsel)
  • Firm: Cooley LLP
  • Experience Note: Represented Haemonetics in patent infringement litigation.
• Elizabeth Shrieves (Counsel)
  • Firm: Cooley LLP
  • Experience Note: Represented Haemonetics in patent infringement litigation.

Another firm, Proskauer Rose LLP, has also been identified as plaintiff's counsel for Haemonetics in related PTAB matters and district court cases. Joseph Michael Drayton of Proskauer Rose LLP is noted for his focus on patent litigation in life sciences and medical device industries and is co-chair of Proskauer's Patent Law Group.

• Joseph Michael Drayton (Lead Counsel or Key Member of litigation team)
  • Firm: Proskauer Rose LLP, New York, NY, and Washington, D.C.
  • Experience Note: Co-chair of Proskauer's Patent Law Group, focuses on patent litigation, particularly in life sciences and medical device industries.

Given the nature of PTAB proceedings, particularly with the recent emphasis on discretionary denials, it is common for patent owners to engage firms with strong PTAB practices. Firms like Covington & Burling LLP and Banner Witcoff are known for their significant experience in PTAB proceedings, representing both petitioners and patent owners. While these firms are not directly tied to PGR2026-00009 for Haemonetics based on available searches, their expertise highlights the type of counsel typically involved in such cases.

It is important to note that specific details of counsel appearing in "Not Instituted" PTAB cases can be less prominent in public records compared to cases that proceed to a full trial. The USPTO's rules for PTAB proceedings require designation of lead and back-up counsel, with lead counsel being a registered practitioner.