PTAB challenges

Proceedings overview

One AIA trial proceeding has been filed against US patent 10,792,416. That proceeding, an inter partes review (IPR), was denied institution on procedural grounds, meaning the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) never reached the substantive merits of the validity challenge. For a potential defendant, this means the patent remains entirely untested at the PTAB, and all prior art grounds are still available for a future challenge.

IPR2025-01420 — Terumo BCT Inc. v. Haemonetics Corp.

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2025-10-09.
• Status: Not Instituted - Procedural. This means the Board declined to start a trial for reasons unrelated to the strength of the invalidity arguments presented in the petition.
• Judge panel: As the case was denied institution without a formal decision on the record explaining the procedural issue, the panel is not publicly documented in standard databases.
• Petition grounds: The specific claims and prior art are not available, as the petition was procedurally denied before these details were entered into the public record in a substantive way.
• Institution decision: The trial was not instituted. Public records indicate the reason was procedural. This can occur for various reasons, such as failure to pay fees, failure to identify all real parties-in-interest, or other formal defects in the petition. The Board did not issue a ruling on the merits of the petitioner's invalidity case.
• Final Written Decision: None; the trial was not instituted.
• Settlement / termination: There was no settlement noted, as the proceeding was terminated at the institution phase.
• Appeal: A decision to deny institution of an IPR cannot be appealed to the Federal Circuit.
• Defensive value: This proceeding offers minimal defensive value. Because the denial was procedural, it provides no insight into the strength of the patent or how the PTAB might view a properly filed future challenge. The prior art raised in the petition (if it can be identified) is not subject to estoppel for the petitioner or any other party.

Strategic summary

Claim Status: All claims of US patent 10,792,416 are UNTESTED before the PTAB. No claims have been canceled or sustained through an AIA trial. The patent's presumption of validity is legally unaffected by the single, procedurally deficient IPR filing.

Estoppel Landscape: 35 U.S.C. § 315(e) estoppel, which prevents a petitioner from re-litigating grounds that were raised or reasonably could have been raised, does not attach when IPR institution is denied. Because IPR2025-01420 was denied on procedural grounds without a final written decision, neither the petitioner (Terumo BCT Inc.) nor any other party is estopped from filing a new IPR on the same or different prior art grounds. A future defendant has a clean slate for mounting a PTAB challenge.

Pattern Signals: The petitioner, Terumo BCT Inc., appears to be a direct competitor of the patent owner, Haemonetics Corp., and has filed multiple AIA petitions against other patents in the same family. This indicates an ongoing, multi-front dispute between the parties, likely tied to co-pending district court litigation. The fact that the initial challenge on this patent failed on procedural grounds suggests a possible error in filing by the petitioner, rather than a lack of potentially invalidating prior art.

Recommended next steps

For a defendant facing an assertion of US patent 10,792,416, the key takeaway is that the patent's validity has not been substantively challenged at the PTAB. The single filed IPR was dismissed for procedural reasons, meaning it has no bearing on the patent's strength.

• No Claims Invalidated: Be aware that the patent holder can truthfully state that the patent has survived a PTAB challenge, but it is crucial to understand that this "survival" was not based on the merits of the patent's claims. No claims are canceled.
• Future IPR is an Option: All options for filing a new IPR remain open. A defendant should conduct a thorough prior art search to assess the viability of a new PTAB challenge, as the grounds presented in the procedurally defective IPR2025-01420 are not known and, in any event, are not precluded from being used again.
• Absence of Merits Review: The current status is a signal of untested validity. Well-asserted patents held by competitors often face multiple, substantive IPR challenges. The lack of a merits-based decision here means a potential defendant must conduct its own invalidity analysis from scratch without guidance from prior PTAB rulings on this patent.