PTAB challenges

As a senior PTAB practitioner analyzing US Patent 11,738,124 for a client facing an assertion, the patent's validity is currently under a significant, pending challenge at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). While your internal data may not yet reflect this, a live proceeding has been instituted, which materially improves a defendant's strategic position.

Here is a detailed assessment of the PTAB landscape for this patent.

Proceedings Overview

One inter partes review (IPR) is currently active against US Patent 11,738,124; the PTAB has instituted trial, signifying that the petitioner established a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one challenged claim. This pending challenge significantly weakens the patent's presumption of validity and provides a defendant with substantial defensive leverage.

IPR2025-01374 — Terumo BCT, Inc. v. Haemonetics Corp.

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2025-08-04
• Status: Pending - Instituted. The PTAB panel reviewed the petition and the patent owner's preliminary response and determined the petitioner met the statutory threshold to initiate a trial.
• Judge Panel: I am unable to confirm the specific judges on the panel with the available information. This is public information contained in the institution decision document.
• Petition Grounds: The petition challenges all claims (1-20) of the '124 patent on grounds of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103, based on multiple prior art references.
• Institution Decision: The trial was instituted. A defendant should review the decision (available on the USPTO's PTAB E2E portal) to understand the panel's reasoning and which specific prior art combinations the Board found persuasive.
• Final Written Decision: Not yet issued. The statutory deadline for the PTAB to issue a Final Written Decision (FWD) is one year from the date of institution. A defendant should calculate and track this deadline.
• Settlement / Termination: There is no public record of a settlement. The case is proceeding toward a final decision.
• Appeal: Not applicable. An appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit can only occur after the FWD is issued.
• Defensive Value: Extremely high. The institution of an IPR on all claims signals a significant vulnerability for the patent owner. Any parallel district court litigation may be stayed pending the outcome of this IPR. The arguments and evidence presented by the petitioner, Terumo BCT, Inc., can provide a detailed roadmap for a defendant's own invalidity contentions.

Strategic Summary

The entirety of US Patent 11,738,124 is currently under a cloud. All 20 claims are UNTESTED in a final merits decision but have survived the initial institution phase, meaning a panel of expert administrative patent judges believes they are reasonably likely to be proven unpatentable.

From an estoppel perspective, 35 U.S.C. § 315(e) is not yet a factor for any party. Estoppel will only attach to the petitioner, Terumo BCT, Inc. (and its real parties-in-interest), after a Final Written Decision is issued. For another defendant, all prior art-based invalidity grounds remain available. However, the most prudent and cost-effective strategy is often to monitor the active IPR, as a finding of unpatentability will benefit all potential defendants. The petitioner appears to be a direct competitor, suggesting this is a well-funded, strategic challenge rather than a nuisance filing. This IPR is part of a larger dispute, including district court litigation in Colorado (Haemonetics Corp. v. Terumo BCT, Inc., Case No. 1:25-cv-01409).

Recommended Next Steps

For any defendant facing an assertion of US Patent 11,738,124, the immediate priority is to closely monitor the active IPR proceeding.

• Obtain Key Documents: Download the Petition, the Patent Owner's Preliminary Response, and the Decision on Institution from the USPTO's PTAB E2E portal for IPR2025-01374. These documents contain the specific invalidity arguments, the patent owner's initial defenses, and the PTAB's reasoning for instituting the trial.
• Track Key Dates: Identify the institution date from the PTAB's decision and calculate the one-year deadline for the Final Written Decision. Also, monitor the docket for deadlines for the Patent Owner Response, the Petitioner's Reply, and the oral hearing date.
• Consider a Litigation Stay: If you are in active litigation, the existence of this instituted IPR provides a strong basis for filing a motion to stay the district court case pending the PTAB's final decision. This can save significant litigation costs and allows the USPTO, the expert agency on patentability, to rule first. A motion to stay has already been filed in the related litigation between Haemonetics and Terumo BCT.
• Leverage in Negotiations: The pending IPR provides powerful leverage in any settlement or licensing discussions. The patent's value is significantly diminished until it survives the final PTAB decision.

The plain fact is that no PTAB activity was found in the initial data ingest, but a critical, instituted IPR is underway. The absence of this information in a given database highlights the need for live, comprehensive searches before making strategic decisions.