PTAB challenges

Proceedings overview

There is one AIA trial proceeding on file for US Patent 12324873. This proceeding, a Post-Grant Review, resulted in a discretionary denial of institution on procedural grounds. Therefore, no claims of the patent were invalidated or sustained by the PTAB, leaving the patent's claims untransformed by AIA review. This gives a defendant a posture where the patent's claims have not been substantively tested and remain active.

PGR2026-00009 — Terumo BTC, Inc v. Michael Ragusa

• Type: Post-Grant Review
• Filed: 2025-11-03
• Status: Discretionary Denial — This means the petition was not instituted for trial, and the merits of the patentability challenges were not adjudicated.
• Judge panel: Not publicly available from the provided data; a specific search for the denial decision would be required to identify the panel.
• Petition grounds: A search for the petition or the denial decision would be necessary to ascertain the specific claims challenged, the prior art cited, and the statutory bases (§ 102 / § 103 / § 112) alleged.
• Institution decision: Denied. The status indicates a "Discretionary Denial - Procedural". The date of the last modification was 2026-04-21, which may correspond to the denial date. Without the specific decision, the detailed reasoning is not available, but "procedural" suggests reasons other than the merits of the patentability challenge (e.g., timeliness, standing, claim construction issues, or other factors under 35 U.S.C. § 324(a)).
• Final Written Decision: Not issued, as institution was denied.
• Settlement / termination: Not applicable, as the petition was denied institution.
• Appeal: Not applicable, as there was no Final Written Decision to appeal.
• Defensive value: This denial means the claims of US12324873 were not substantively reviewed or changed by this PGR. While the patent owner prevailed in preventing a trial, the specific prior art grounds raised in the petition were not judged on their merits. Therefore, these grounds may potentially be available for a defendant in other forums, subject to applicable estoppel rules and the specifics of the procedural denial.

Strategic summary

The single PTAB proceeding, PGR2026-00009, did not result in any claim invalidations for US Patent 12324873. The petition was denied institution on procedural grounds, meaning the patent claims were not substantively examined for patentability by the PTAB. Consequently, all claims (1-30) of US12324873 remain unexamined and in their original form as granted.

Regarding estoppel, 35 U.S.C. § 325(e)(2) states that the petitioner (Terumo BTC, Inc.) and its real parties in interest or privies are estopped from asserting in any other proceeding before the Office, or in any civil action, that a claim is invalid on any ground that the petitioner raised or reasonably could have raised during the PGR. Since institution was denied on procedural grounds, the precise scope of estoppel for Terumo BTC, Inc. would depend on the specific rationale for the discretionary denial and whether any grounds were technically "raised" for the purpose of estoppel, even if not fully litigated. For other potential defendants, the prior art grounds that Terumo BTC, Inc. attempted to raise in this PGR may still be available for challenging the patent's validity in other proceedings, as they were not substantively adjudicated.

There are no apparent patterns of multiple filings by the same petitioner on this patent based on the provided data, nor is there information on PTAB appeals by the patent owner or the involvement of defensive aggregators.

Recommended next steps

For a potential defendant facing assertion of US12324873, it is crucial to understand the exact procedural basis for the denial of PGR2026-00009. This would involve obtaining and reviewing the PTAB's decision on institution for PGR2026-00009. This decision will clarify whether the grounds presented by Terumo BTC, Inc. were considered at all, and thus, the extent to which those or similar grounds might still be viable in a new challenge. Given the lack of substantive review, the patent has not been "hardened" against prior art challenges in the way a patent that survives an instituted IPR/PGR would be. An analysis of the prior art initially asserted by Terumo BTC, Inc. in their petition, alongside a broader prior art search, would be a prudent next step to evaluate potential invalidity contentions.

The USPTO E2E system can be accessed at: https://e2e.uspto.gov/e2e/ (Login required to access detailed documents).
The Unified Patents PTAB data indicates the status of PGR2026-00009.