PTAB challenges

Proceedings overview

There has been one AIA trial proceeding filed against US patent 10,980,934, which resulted in an institution denial on discretionary grounds. This means the patent has survived its only PTAB challenge to date on a procedural basis without a decision on the merits, which slightly strengthens its defensive posture but does not "harden" it against the prior art asserted in the petition.

IPR2026-00045 — Terumo BCT, Inc. v. Haemonetics Corp.

• Type: Inter Partes Review (IPR)
• Filed: 2025-10-24
• Status: Discretionary Denial — The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) declined to institute a trial, not based on the merits of the petitioner's invalidity arguments, but for other procedural reasons.
• Judge panel: I do not have access to the specific judge panel information for this non-instituted proceeding. This information would be available in the denial decision on the USPTO's PTAB E2E portal.
• Petition grounds: I do not have access to the specific claims challenged or the prior art cited in the IPR petition. This would require a review of the petition document itself, which is publicly available on the USPTO's PTAB E2E portal.
• Institution decision: The petition for review was denied on 2026-04-21. A discretionary denial typically occurs when there is a co-pending district court litigation involving the same patent, and the Board exercises its discretion under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) to deny institution, often based on the factors outlined in Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc., IPR2020-00019, Paper 11 (Mar. 20, 2020). This avoids potentially duplicative efforts and conflicting outcomes between the PTAB and the district court.
• Final Written Decision: None was issued because the trial was not instituted.
• Settlement / termination: The proceeding was terminated by the Board's decision not to institute; there is no public record of a settlement.
• Appeal: A decision to deny institution of an IPR is not appealable to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
• Defensive value: The patent owner successfully avoided PTAB review. However, because the denial was discretionary and not based on the merits, the invalidity arguments raised by Terumo BCT have not been tested. Another defendant is free to raise the very same arguments, either in a new IPR petition or in district court.

Strategic summary

No claims of US patent 10,980,934 have been CANCELED or SUSTAINED by the PTAB. All claims remain UNTESTED on the merits by the Board. The patent has not been narrowed or amended through any PTAB proceeding.

Critically, the petitioner in IPR2026-00045, Terumo BCT, Inc., is not subject to statutory estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e). Estoppel only attaches after a Final Written Decision is issued. Therefore, Terumo BCT (and its real parties-in-interest) could file another IPR petition against this patent, although they might face similar discretionary hurdles. For any other defendant, there is no estoppel whatsoever. The prior art and arguments raised by Terumo BCT, along with any other combinations of art, remain fully available for use in future PTAB proceedings or in district court litigation.

The single IPR filing by a direct competitor that resulted in a discretionary denial suggests that the patent is likely being asserted in parallel litigation. The patent owner, Haemonetics Corp., demonstrated its ability to use that litigation to successfully fend off the PTAB challenge on procedural grounds, a common defense strategy.

Recommended next steps

For a defendant facing an assertion of US patent 10,980,934, the key takeaway is that the patent's validity has not been affirmed by the PTAB. The prior art grounds raised in the denied IPR are still viable.

• Obtain the IPR File Wrapper: It is highly recommended to download the complete file history for IPR2026-00045 from the USPTO's PTAB E2E portal. The two most important documents will be the Petition and the Decision on Institution.
• Analyze the Petition: The petition will detail the specific claims challenged, the prior art references used, and the expert testimony marshaled by Terumo BCT. This provides a fully developed, though untested, set of invalidity arguments that can be adopted or improved upon.
• Analyze the Denial: The Board's decision will explain the precise reasoning for the discretionary denial. Understanding this is crucial for determining whether a new IPR petition could be structured to avoid the same outcome (e.g., if the circumstances of the parallel litigation have changed).