PTAB challenges

As a senior PTAB practitioner analyzing US Patent 12,171,916 for a client facing an assertion, here is a breakdown of the patent's trial history before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.

Proceedings overview

One Post-Grant Review (PGR) has been filed against US Patent 12,171,916, which was denied institution on procedural grounds. Consequently, the patent's claims have never been reviewed on the merits by the PTAB, leaving it completely untested and giving a defendant a wide-open field for a validity challenge.

PGR2025-00078 — Unified Patents, LLC v. Haemonetics Corp.

• Type: Post-Grant Review
• Filed: The exact filing date for PGR2025-00078 is not available in the public record as of 2026-05-13, but the case number indicates it was likely filed in the latter half of 2024 or early 2025.
• Status: Not Instituted - Procedural. This means the petition was rejected for a reason unrelated to the strength of its invalidity arguments. The PTAB never reached a conclusion on whether the challenged claims were likely unpatentable.
• Judge panel: Information on the assigned panel is not publicly available due to the early, non-substantive termination of the proceeding.
• Petition grounds: Specific grounds are not publicly available due to the procedural denial, but a PGR can challenge claims on any ground of invalidity under § 101, § 102, § 103, and § 112.
• Institution decision: The proceeding was denied institution on procedural grounds. Unlike a denial on the merits, this type of rejection does not prevent another party from filing a subsequent petition using the same arguments and prior art, provided the new petition cures the procedural defect.
• Final Written Decision: No Final Written Decision was issued because the trial was never instituted.
• Settlement / termination: The case was terminated at the pre-institution phase due to a procedural issue, not a settlement.
• Appeal: An institution denial, particularly on procedural grounds, is generally not appealable to the Federal Circuit.
• Defensive value: This proceeding offers no direct defensive value, as it provides no insight into the patent's strength. However, it signals that the patent is on the radar of defensive patent aggregators like Unified Patents, and the petition itself (if it becomes public) could serve as a starting point for a defendant's own invalidity analysis.

Strategic summary

All claims of US Patent 12,171,916 remain UNTESTED by the PTAB. None have been canceled or substantively sustained. The patent emerged from its only PTAB challenge completely unscathed because the challenge was dismissed on a technicality before the merits were ever considered.

The estoppel landscape is clear: no AIA estoppel applies. Because institution of PGR2025-00078 was denied, a defendant (or any other party, including the original petitioner) is free to file a new IPR or PGR petition. All prior art and all invalidity grounds are available for a future challenge. The prior art and arguments from the denied petition could potentially be repurposed in a new, procedurally sound petition.

The involvement of Unified Patents, a defensive aggregator, is a signal that this patent may be part of a broader assertion campaign. However, their failure to get a trial instituted means that a defendant must start from scratch in building a validity defense.

Recommended next steps

For a defendant facing an assertion of US Patent 12,171,916, the key takeaway is that no PTAB proceeding has substantively tested the patent's validity. The path is clear to pursue a validity challenge without any estoppel concerns from prior proceedings.

• Conduct a thorough prior art search: Since no grounds have been estopped, a comprehensive search for prior art relevant to the asserted claims is the most critical first step. The technology space—systems for collecting blood plasma—is mature, suggesting that strong prior art likely exists.
• Evaluate a potential IPR/PGR filing: A well-drafted IPR or PGR petition remains a potent defensive option. The fact that a prior attempt was denied on procedural grounds should not be a deterrent; it is not a reflection on the merits of a potential case.
• Absence of a merits decision is a key signal: The patent has not been "hardened" by surviving a PTAB trial. In negotiations or litigation, a defendant can emphasize that the patent's validity has never been affirmed by a neutral third party in a post-grant proceeding, which represents a significant risk for the patent owner.