Invalidity dossier
US 8628489
Three-line apheresis system and method
Current assignee: Haemonetics Corp
Added 9/23/2026, 2:15:51 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 — US8628489B2
Title: "Three-line apheresis system and method"
Patent number: US8628489B2
Application number: US12/102,407
Inventors: Etienne Pagès and Michael Ragusa
Assignee: Haemonetics Corporation (originally assigned 2008-09-02 via assignment of interest; current assignee listed as Haemonetics Corp)
Dates: Filed 2008-04-14; priority date 2008-04-14; published as US20090259163A1 on 2009-10-15; granted 2014-01-14. Legal status shown as Active, with an adjusted expiration of 2029-10-07.
Purpose and plain-language scope: The patent is directed to a three-line apheresis system and method. Based on the title words and classifications supplied, it concerns an extracorporeal blood circuit used to separate blood components by centrifugation (A61M1/3693) and to remove constituents from donor blood while returning the remainder to the body (A61M1/38). Classifications also reference continuous centrifugation with means for adding or withdrawing liquid substances (A61M1/3696); optimization of blood component yield (A61M1/382); multiple bag systems for separating or storing blood components, including with filters (A61M1/0209, A61M1/0218); single-needle/reciprocating systems with a reservoir for treated blood to be returned (A61M1/30, A61M1/301, A61M1/303); and a treatment chamber used as a reservoir, such as a centrifuge bowl or filter with movable membrane (A61M1/304). The listed prior-art keywords are "blood," "blood component," "line," "separation device," and "processing system." Related family filings are identified for Austria (AT09733360T), Hong Kong (HK11111884.3A), China (CN200980120814.6A), the PCT (PCT/US2009/040166), Europe (EP09733360A), and Japan (JP2011504195A).
What the excerpt does not establish: It does not supply the abstract, claims, written description, or drawings, so the specific three-line architecture, the number and arrangement of pumps and lines, and the exact separation method cannot be determined. No litigation, ownership transfers beyond the recorded assignment, validity, or prior-art analysis is provided or asserted here.
Source: https://patents.google.com/patent/[US8628489](/patent/US8628489)/en
Generated 10/1/2026, 9:52:26 PM
Cases on file (0)
Specific litigation cases in our database that name US patent 8628489. 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.