PTAB challenges

As a senior PTAB practitioner, here is my analysis of the AIA trial proceedings for US patent 12,377,204 for a defendant considering their options.

Proceedings overview

There has been one Post-Grant Review (PGR) filed against US patent 12,377,204, which the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) declined to institute. This means all claims of the patent survived the challenge untouched, as the Board did not proceed to a trial on the merits. For a defendant, this means the patent is not "hardened" by a PTAB victory on the merits, but it does show the patent owner, Haemonetics, has successfully navigated a PTAB challenge.

PGR2026-00006 — Terumo BCT, Inc v. Haemonetics Corporation

• Type: Post-Grant Review
• Filed: 2025-10-21.
• Status: Discretionary Denial. This means the PTAB used its discretion to decline a trial, so it did not rule on the substantive arguments that the patent claims were invalid. The proceeding was closed on 2026-04-21.
• Judge panel: Information on the specific judge panel for the denial is not available in the provided search results.
• Petition grounds: The specific claims challenged and the prior art asserted are not detailed in the available documents, but a PGR can be based on any ground of invalidity, including § 101, § 102, § 103, and § 112.
• Institution decision: The petition was denied on a discretionary basis. While the specific reasoning for the denial in this case isn't public, such denials often occur when there is significant overlap with a co-pending district court case (under the Fintiv factors) or when the Board finds the petition presents arguments already considered by the patent examiner. Given the parallel litigation between the parties, a Fintiv-based denial is a strong possibility.
• Final Written Decision: None was issued, as a trial was not instituted.
• Settlement / termination: The proceeding was terminated by the discretionary denial, not by a settlement between the parties.
• Appeal: Decisions to deny institution of a PTAB trial are generally not appealable to the Federal Circuit.
• Defensive value: This proceeding provides limited direct value for a future defendant. Because the denial was discretionary and not on the merits, the patentability of the claims was not affirmed by the PTAB. The petitioner, Terumo BCT, is not estopped from raising the same arguments again. This outcome primarily benefits the patent owner by avoiding the cost and risk of a PTAB trial.

Strategic summary

• Claim Status: All claims of US patent 12,377,204 are currently valid and enforceable. No claims have been CANCELED, SUSTAINED, or otherwise modified by a PTAB trial. The patent is legally untested at the PTAB.

• Estoppel Landscape: No AIA estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 325(e) attaches to the petitioner, Terumo BCT, Inc., or any other party. This is a crucial point for a defendant: any prior-art ground, including any that may have been raised in the PGR petition, remains available for a future challenge in either district court or a new IPR/PGR petition.

• Pattern Signals: The patent owner, Haemonetics Corporation, and the petitioner, Terumo BCT, Inc., are competitors involved in parallel district court litigation (Haemonetics Corp. v. Terumo BCT, Inc., Case No. 1:25-cv-01409-RMR-SBP in the District of Colorado). The PGR was likely filed as a defensive measure in response to being sued for infringement. This is a common strategy. The discretionary denial suggests the PTAB may have deferred to the district court to resolve the validity dispute. Haemonetics has faced numerous PTAB challenges from Terumo across its patent family, indicating an aggressive, ongoing competitive dispute.

Recommended next steps

For a defendant facing an assertion of this patent, the path is clear: the patent's validity is entirely open to challenge.

• The discretionary denial in PGR2026-00006 does not prevent a new challenge. A defendant should review the petition and denial decision (once publicly available through the PTAB's End-to-End system) to understand the arguments made and the Board's reasons for denial. A new, more persuasive petition could potentially be filed. You can access PTAB documents via the USPTO Open Data Portal.

• Focus on the parallel litigation. The primary venue for this dispute appears to be the District of Colorado. Any defensive strategy must be centered there.

• Note the absence of a merits decision. The fact that US patent 12,377,204 has not yet had its claims substantively reviewed and confirmed by the PTAB is a key signal. Unlike a patent that has survived a Final Written Decision, this patent carries no presumption of being "hardened" against invalidity attacks. All defensive options, including raising prior art from the denied PGR, remain on the table.