SAN JOSE, CA – September 5, 2026 (STL.News) Investors in PROCEPT BioRobotics Corporation (NASDAQ: PRCT) are approaching a Sept. 22, 2026, deadline to seek appointment as lead plaintiff in a federal securities class action alleging the medical technology company and certain executives made materially false or misleading statements concerning handpiece sales, customer demand, and inventory.
The lawsuit covers investors who purchased or otherwise acquired PROCEPT common stock between Feb. 28, 2024, and Feb. 25, 2026, inclusive. The case is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California and is captioned Operating Engineers Construction Industry and Miscellaneous Pension Fund v. PROCEPT BioRobotics Corporation, No. 5:26-cv-07691. Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP announced July 24 that it filed the class action.
The Rosen Law Firm issued another investor notice Sept. 1 reminding shareholders of the upcoming lead plaintiff deadline. Rosen said investors who purchased PROCEPT common stock during the class period may be eligible to participate in any potential recovery, although a class has not yet been certified.
The allegations have not been proven, and the filing of a lawsuit does not establish that PROCEPT or any individual defendant violated securities laws.
What the PROCEPT lawsuit alleges
PROCEPT is a medical technology company whose products include systems used to deliver Aquablation therapy for treating benign prostatic hyperplasia, commonly known as an enlarged prostate.
At the center of the securities case are allegations concerning the company’s sales of single-use handpieces used with its systems.
According to the complaint, as summarized by multiple law firms, PROCEPT allegedly ran an extensive discount program that encouraged customers to buy bulk handpieces beyond underlying procedure demand.
Plaintiffs allege that the practice pulled future sales into earlier reporting periods and artificially increased reported U.S. handpiece unit sales and revenue. They further allege that the difference between handpieces sold and procedures actually performed increased over time, eventually producing substantial excess inventory among customers.
By the end of the class period, the lawsuit alleges that excess field inventory had surpassed 10,000 handpieces. Plaintiffs contend that the alleged inventory buildup made representations about handpiece sales and utilization of PROCEPT’s installed systems materially misleading and exposed the company to undisclosed financial and operational risks.
These statements are allegations made by the plaintiffs and should not be interpreted as established findings of fact.
PRCT stock declines become part of lawsuit
The complaint identifies several disclosures that plaintiffs contend gradually revealed information previously unknown to investors.
On Aug. 6, 2025, PROCEPT reported second-quarter 2025 results. According to a case summary from Kirby McInerney LLP, the company reported approximately 12,750 U.S. handpiece sales and projected approximately 13,350 units for the following quarter, below market expectations.
PRCT shares subsequently fell from $45.69 on Aug. 6 to $38.41 on Aug. 8, down about 16%.
Another disclosure followed on Nov. 4, 2025, when PROCEPT reported approximately 13,225 handpiece sales for its third quarter and reduced its annual handpiece sales guidance from 53,000 to 52,000 units.
Management also discussed customer inventory levels during the associated earnings call. PRCT shares declined from $35.02 on Nov. 4 to $31.30 by Nov. 6, according to the case summary.
The disclosure that figures most prominently in the lawsuit came Feb. 25, 2026.
PROCEPT reported fourth-quarter and full-year 2025 results and disclosed information regarding procedures and handpiece sales. The lawsuit alleges the information showed U.S. handpiece sales had exceeded actual procedures during every quarter since the first quarter of 2023.
The company also disclosed that it was eliminating a bulk-order discount program that encouraged customers to make larger purchases near the end of quarters, according to summaries of the complaint.
PROCEPT’s U.S. handpiece sales fell from about 13,225 units in the third quarter to about 9,400 in the fourth quarter, a sequential decline of nearly 30%. PRCT shares fell from $27.84 on Feb. 25 to $22.69 on Feb. 27, a decline of more than 18%.
Plaintiffs contend these stock declines caused damages to investors who purchased shares at allegedly artificially inflated prices during the class period.
Law firms involved in PROCEPT investor claims
A significant number of securities law firms have issued notices concerning the PROCEPT case or are investigating related investor claims.
Importantly, that does not mean every firm listed below is counsel of record in the filed lawsuit. Robbins Geller announced that it filed the underlying action, while numerous other firms are notifying shareholders, evaluating claims, or seeking investors interested in pursuing lead plaintiff status.
Firms publicly identified in connection with the PRCT securities matter include:
- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP — announced that it filed the securities class action on July 24, 2026.
- The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. — has issued notices concerning the filed lawsuit and the Sept. 22 lead plaintiff deadline.
- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP — is investigating claims and soliciting information from investors in connection with the pending action.
- Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check LLP — has notified PRCT investors about the lawsuit and lead plaintiff process.
- Levi & Korsinsky LLP — has issued notices to PROCEPT shareholders concerning the class action and deadline.
- Glancy Prongay Wolke & Rotter LLP — is accepting inquiries from investors concerning potential recovery under federal securities laws.
- Bernstein Liebhard LLP — has issued shareholder notices concerning the filed PRCT securities class action.
- Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP — is advising investors regarding the lawsuit and Sept. 22 deadline.
- Kirby McInerney LLP — maintains an investigation concerning PROCEPT and identifies the same class period and lead plaintiff deadline.
- The Gross Law Firm — has issued notices to PRCT shareholders concerning the pending lawsuit.
- Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. — has opened a PRCT securities class action matter and is informing investors of the deadline.
- Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP — is encouraging affected PROCEPT investors to contact the firm regarding the pending action.
- Bleichmar Fonti & Auld LLP — is evaluating PROCEPT investor claims and lists Sept. 22 as the leadership deadline.
The number of firms issuing notices is not unusual in a securities class action. Investors are free to select counsel, and issuing an investor notice does not establish that a particular firm will ultimately be appointed lead counsel.
Sept. 22 deadline for PRCT investors
The principal upcoming date is Sept. 22, 2026.
Investors seeking appointment as lead plaintiff must generally file the appropriate motion with the court by that deadline. The lead plaintiff represents the proposed investor class and helps direct the litigation, including selecting counsel, subject to court approval.
Investors do not necessarily have to become lead plaintiff to remain potential members of the proposed class or participate in a future recovery if the case ultimately succeeds. Rosen specifically notes that an investor’s ability to share in a potential recovery does not depend on serving as lead plaintiff.
The case is still in its early stages. No class has been certified, the allegations have not been adjudicated, and investors are not guaranteed to recover money.
Following the lead plaintiff deadline, the court can consider competing motions from investors seeking leadership of the litigation. The defendants may also challenge the complaint, including through motions seeking dismissal of some or all claims.
The outcome will depend on subsequent proceedings in federal court.
Disclaimer: This article is provided for news and informational purposes only and does not constitute legal or investment advice or a solicitation to participate in litigation. The allegations described are contained in a civil securities complaint and related attorney notices. They have not been proven in court. PROCEPT BioRobotics Corporation and the individual defendants are entitled to contest the allegations, and no court has determined that they committed securities fraud or other wrongdoing.
