PTAB challenges

Based on a review of publicly available records, there is one active PTAB proceeding on file for US patent 10,758,652.

Proceedings overview

There is one active inter partes review (IPR) on file, IPR2025-01391, which has been instituted by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). This means the patent is facing a significant validity challenge, as the PTAB has already determined there is a "reasonable likelihood" that the petitioner will prevail in proving at least one of the challenged claims is unpatentable. For a defendant, this proceeding offers substantial defensive leverage against an assertion of this patent.

---

IPR2025-01391 — Unified Patents, LLC v. Haemonetics Corp

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2025-08-15
• Status: Pending - Instituted. The PTAB has initiated a trial to review the patentability of the challenged claims. A Final Written Decision is statutorily due one year from the institution date.
• Judge panel: Michael P. Tierney, Georgianna W. Braden, Christopher G. Paulraj
• Petition grounds: The petition challenged claims 1-3, 5, 6, 8, and 11-14.
  • § 103 (Obviousness): Claims 1-3, 5, 6, 8, and 11-14 were alleged to be unpatentable as obvious over the combination of prior art references.
• Institution decision: The trial was instituted on 2026-02-20 against claims 1-3, 5, 6, 8, and 11-14. The Board found that Unified Patents' petition established a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its obviousness grounds. The PTAB was persuaded that the prior art taught the key limitation of calculating a volume of "pure plasma" by accounting for the volume of anticoagulant, and that combining the references to arrive at the claimed invention would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time.
• Final Written Decision: Not yet issued. The statutory deadline for the FWD is approximately 2027-02-20.
• Settlement / termination: There is no public record of a settlement. The proceeding remains active.
• Appeal: Not applicable, as no Final Written Decision has been issued.
• Defensive value: This is highly valuable for a defendant. The institution of trial on all challenged claims signals that the validity of a broad swath of the patent is at significant risk. Any defendant should monitor this proceeding closely, as a finding of unpatentability would be binding on the patent owner and could resolve an infringement dispute entirely. The arguments and evidence successfully used by the petitioner can be leveraged in district court litigation, should it run in parallel.

Strategic summary

The validity of US patent 10,758,652 is currently under a serious cloud due to the instituted IPR.

• Claim Status:

  • CHALLENGED & AT RISK: Claims 1-3, 5, 6, 8, and 11-14. These claims are the subject of the instituted IPR trial and could be canceled in the Final Written Decision.
  • UNTESTED: Claims 4, 7, 9, 10, and 15-20. These claims were not challenged in the IPR and remain presumptively valid, though they could be challenged in a future proceeding or in district court.

• Estoppel Landscape: For the petitioner, Unified Patents, and its real parties-in-interest, estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e) has not yet attached, but it will upon issuance of a Final Written Decision. For any other potential defendant, the prior art grounds raised in this IPR are available to use in litigation. However, given that the PTAB found these grounds persuasive, a defendant would have a strong starting point for its own invalidity contentions.

• Pattern Signals: The petitioner is Unified Patents, a defensive organization that frequently challenges patents it deems to be of low quality, particularly those being asserted by non-practicing entities (NPEs). Their involvement suggests that patent owner Haemonetics Corp. may be actively asserting this patent in the marketplace, and that Unified's membership includes companies targeted by or concerned about this assertion campaign.

Recommended next steps

For a defendant currently facing an assertion of US patent 10,758,652, the active IPR proceeding is the most critical factor in developing a defense strategy.

• Monitor the IPR: Closely track the key upcoming milestones in IPR2025-01391, including the Patent Owner's Response, the Oral Hearing (likely in late 2026), and the Final Written Decision deadline of 2027-02-20. The outcome of this proceeding could be dispositive.

• Review IPR Filings: Obtain and analyze the Petition and the Decision to Institute from the PTAB's E2E portal for case IPR2025-01391. These documents provide a detailed roadmap of the invalidity arguments the PTAB found compelling and can form the core of an invalidity defense in any parallel litigation.

• Consider a Stay: If you are sued in district court, you should strongly consider filing a motion to stay the litigation pending the outcome of the IPR. Courts often grant such stays to conserve judicial resources and simplify the issues, particularly when an IPR has been instituted on a significant number of asserted claims, as is the case here.