Invalidity dossier
US 5112298
Apheresis method and device
Current assignee: Baxter International Inc
Added 9/23/2026, 1:50:16 PM
Active provider: DeepSeek · deepseek-flash
Patent summary
Title, assignee, inventors, filing/issue dates, abstract, and a plain-language overview of the claims.
Patent Overview: US 5,112,298 A — "Apheresis Method and Device"
Bibliographic data (from supplied text):
- Patent number: US 5,112,298 A
- Application number: US 07/542,846
- Filing date / priority date: 1990-06-25
- Publication (grant) date: 1992-05-12
- Inventors: Paul R. Prince, William Miller, Grant S. Benjamin
- Assignee: Baxter International Inc. (original assignee; assignment recorded to "Baxter International Inc., a corp of DE")
- Legal status: Expired – Lifetime; anticipated expiration 2010-06-25
- Classification: A61M1/00, A61M1/14, A61M1/30, A61M1/301, A61M1/303 (single-needle dialysis/reciprocating systems for pheresis; details including a reservoir for treated blood to be returned)
Purpose and plain-language scope:
The supplied text describes the invention as an apheresis method and device. Its keyword and classification data indicate a blood-separation system in which blood is withdrawn from and returned to a patient, with a reservoir for treated blood to be returned. Related concepts indexed in the text include blood fractions, reinfusion, a concentrate, weighing, pumping, peristaltic effects, plasmapheresis, plasma, cells, anticoagulant, priming, and sodium chloride—suggesting a single-needle, reciprocating apheresis procedure in which a separated fraction is reinfused and fluid balance is monitored by weight. The excerpt, however, does not reproduce the claims, abstract, or description text, so the precise scope of the claims and the specific method steps are not established here.
Source: https://patents.google.com/patent/US5112298/en
What the excerpt does not establish:
- The actual wording of any claim, the abstract, or the specification (all omitted).
- The specific apparatus components, control logic, or numerical parameters of the method.
- The field of search, cited prior art, or any comparison/obviousness analysis.
- Any litigation, licensing, ownership transfer beyond the recorded assignment, or validity conclusion.
This overview is limited strictly to the supplied Google Patents text.
Generated 10/1/2026, 9:52:48 PM
Cases on file (0)
Specific litigation cases in our database that name US patent 5112298. The free-form analysis below may also discuss cases beyond this list.
No cases on file mention this patent. Upload a CSV or add a case manually in Admin → Manage litigation cases.
Litigation summary
Past and pending lawsuits — plaintiffs, defendants, jurisdictions, outcomes, and notable rulings.
Proceedings on file (0)
All PTAB activity →AIA trial proceedings (IPR / PGR / CBM) filed at the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board against this patent. Sourced from the USPTO Open Data Portal and refreshed every six hours; each proceeding number deep-links to the PTAB E2E docket.
No PTAB proceedings on file. This patent has not been challenged via IPR, PGR, or CBM. The absence is itself a signal — well-asserted patents eventually attract IPRs. The LLM analysis below may surface filings the ODP feed hasn’t indexed yet.
PTAB challenges
AIA trial proceedings at the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board — IPR, PGR, and CBM. Petitioners, judge panels, claim-level invalidation outcomes from Final Written Decisions, and Federal Circuit appeals. The single most important defensive datapoint after litigation history.
Assignment history
Inventors, original assignee, and the chain of ownership recorded with the USPTO — including the correspondent attorney who recorded each assignment, since shell-LLC chains often share one repeat-player attorney even when the entity names look unrelated. Surfaces NPE / patent-troll patterns: shell-entity transfers, known asserters in the chain, repeat correspondent fingerprints, pre-litigation assignments, and bankruptcy fire-sales.
Prior art
Earlier patents, publications, and products that may anticipate or render the claims unpatentable.
Obviousness
Combinations of prior art that suggest the claimed invention would have been obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Extensions
Patent term adjustments, term extensions, continuations, divisionals, family members, and expiration dates.
Derivative works
Defensive disclosure: derivative variations of each claim designed to render future incremental improvements obvious or non-novel.