PTAB challenges

Proceedings overview

One IPR proceeding has been filed against US patent 10,980,926, which the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) discretionarily denied. Consequently, no claims have been invalidated or sustained, and the patent has not been tested on the merits at the PTAB. For a defendant, this means the patent is not "hardened" by surviving a substantive review, but the patent owner has successfully used procedural tactics to fend off the only challenge to date.

IPR2026-00046 — Terumo BCT, Inc. v. Haemonetics Corp.

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2025-10-17
• Status: Discretionary Denial — The PTAB declined to institute a trial. This was not a decision on the merits of the prior art arguments but was based on other factors, precluding a full review.
• Judge panel: I am unable to locate the specific Administrative Patent Judge (APJ) panel for this decision with high confidence. This information is typically found in the Decision to Institute, which can be accessed via the USPTO's PTAB E2E portal.
• Petition grounds: I do not have access to the specific petition documents to detail the exact claims challenged or the prior art references used. An IPR petition would have asserted that one or more claims of US 10,980,926 were unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102 (anticipation) or § 103 (obviousness) based on prior art patents or printed publications.
• Institution decision: Institution was denied on 2026-04-21. A discretionary denial suggests the Board exercised its authority under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) to deny review. Often, this occurs when there is a co-pending district court case between the parties that is nearing trial, making the parallel PTAB proceeding inefficient under the Board's Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc. framework. It can also occur under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) if the petition presents arguments the examiner previously considered.
• Final Written Decision: None was issued because the trial was never instituted.
• Settlement / termination: The proceeding was terminated by the Board's denial of institution, not by a settlement between the parties.
• Appeal: A decision to deny institution of an IPR is final and non-appealable to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
• Defensive value: This proceeding offers limited defensive value. Because the denial was discretionary and not on the merits, the prior art asserted by Terumo BCT has not been substantively reviewed by the PTAB. A future defendant is not estopped from using that same art in a new petition. However, it signals that the patent owner, Haemonetics Corp., may successfully leverage co-pending litigation to block future IPRs, a factor any new challenger must consider.

Strategic summary

All claims of US patent 10,980,926 remain UNTESTED by the PTAB. No claims have been canceled, and none have been affirmed as patentable over a petitioner's challenge. The patent's scope has not been narrowed through an AIA trial proceeding.

The estoppel landscape is clear. Because the PTAB did not institute trial in IPR2026-00046, the statutory estoppel provisions of 35 U.S.C. § 315(e) do not apply to the petitioner (Terumo BCT, Inc.) or any party in privity with them. This means Terumo BCT, or any other defendant, could file a new IPR on US 10,980,926. They could re-use the same grounds from the denied petition or present new ones. However, a new petitioner would need to overcome the basis for the original discretionary denial, for example by filing before parallel litigation has advanced significantly.

The single proceeding shows a direct competitor, Terumo BCT, attempting to invalidate the patent, which is typical in the medical device field. The discretionary denial suggests that Haemonetics may be engaged in active district court litigation and is using that litigation as a shield against PTAB review. There is no indication of involvement from defensive patent aggregators.

Recommended next steps

• For a defendant facing a demand letter citing US 10,980,926, it is crucial to understand that all original claims remain presumptively valid and in force. The prior IPR attempt did not weaken the patent.
• There are no active PTAB proceedings pending. The key deadline in IPR2026-00046 was for the institution decision, which has already passed, resulting in termination.
• The absence of further PTAB activity is a neutral signal. While many heavily-asserted patents attract multiple IPRs, the successful procedural defense in the first instance may have created a temporary deterrent. A defendant should not assume the patent is immune to challenge but must plan any future PTAB strategy around the potential for another discretionary denial.