Haemonetics Corp. v. Terumo BCT, Inc.

Haemonetics Corp., a global medical technology company specializing in automated blood and plasma processing, has filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Terumo BCT, Inc.. Haemonetics develops and manufactures equipment for collecting and processing blood and blood products, including plasmapheresis collection systems. Terumo BCT, a subsidiary of the Japanese Terumo Corporation, is also a significant manufacturer of automated blood collection systems for therapeutic apheresis and cellular therapies. The core of the dispute centers on Terumo BCT's Rika Plasma Donation System™, which Haemonetics alleges infringes upon its intellectual property.

The primary patent asserted in this litigation is 12377204, which generally covers systems and methods for collecting plasma. This technology typically involves determining donor characteristics, withdrawing blood through a venous-access device connected to a blood component separation device, introducing anticoagulant, separating the blood into plasma and other components, and collecting the plasma into a container. The system may also calculate the volume of pure plasma collected based on anticoagulant levels until a target volume is reached. Docket filings indicate that the '204 patent was issued by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office on August 5, 2025, after being filed on March 12, 2025.

The case is being heard in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado, under Case Number 1:25-cv-01409-RMR-SBP, assigned to District Judge Regina M. Rodriguez and Magistrate Judge Susan Prose. The District of Colorado is a notable venue for patent litigation due to its adoption of Local Patent Rules in 2014, designed to promote uniformity and efficiency by setting presumptive deadlines for infringement contentions, invalidity contentions, and claim construction. This litigation is significant as it involves two major players in the competitive blood and plasma collection industry. Furthermore, Terumo BCT has initiated review proceedings at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, including an Inter Partes Review (IPR2025-01391) challenging related patents, indicating a broader intellectual property conflict and strategic use of both judicial and administrative forums to challenge validity.

The patent infringement litigation between Haemonetics Corp. and Terumo BCT, Inc. (1:25-cv-01409-RMR-SBP) in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado is in its relatively early stages, approximately one year after filing. Key developments include initial pleadings, amended complaints adding patents, and significant activity at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB).

Here's a chronological summary of the key legal developments and current posture:

1. Filing & Initial Pleadings:

• 2025-05-05: Haemonetics Corp. filed the initial complaint against Terumo BCT, Inc., alleging patent infringement. The original complaint asserted infringement of seven patents, including U.S. Patent Nos. 10,758,652; 10,792,416; 10,980,926; 10,980,934; 11,738,124; 12,171,916; and 12,186,474.
• 2025-07-17: Haemonetics filed a First Amended Complaint, adding U.S. Patent No. 12,324,873 (the '873 patent) to the asserted patents.
• 2025-08-12: Haemonetics filed a Second Amended Complaint, further expanding the asserted patents to include U.S. Patent No. 12,377,204 (the '204 patent), which is the primary patent noted in the case description, and U.S. Patent No. 12,186,474 (the '474 patent) and U.S. Patent No. 12,171,916 (the '916 patent). In total, nine patents were asserted in the Second Amended Complaint.
• Terumo BCT's Answer/Counterclaims: Terumo has denied Haemonetics' allegations of infringement, arguing that the asserted patents are invalid under 35 U.S.C. §§ 101, 102, 103, and 112, and unenforceable due to doctrines like unclean hands, patent misuse, and inequitable conduct. Terumo also indicated its intent to raise counterclaims.

2. Pre-trial Motions of Substance:

• 2025-11-07: Terumo BCT filed a Motion to Stay the District Court Litigation pending the resolution of all inter partes reviews (IPRs) and post-grant reviews (PGRs) challenging the asserted patents. This motion was pending as of November 2025.

3. Claim Construction (Markman) Outcomes:

• As of November 2025, claim construction (Markman) had not yet begun and was not expected to start until early 2026. Specific outcomes are not yet available.

4. Discovery Milestones:

• The court issued a Scheduling Order for the patent case by September 9, 2025. As of November 2025, there were no set dates for the close of fact or expert discovery, indicating discovery was in its early stages.

5. Trial Events, Verdict, and Post-trial Motions:

• The case has not reached trial. A trial is considered unlikely to begin until over a year after a final written decision issues in the related PTAB proceedings.

6. Settlement, Dismissal, Judgment, or Appeal – Final Disposition / Present Posture:

• The case is currently active and in the pre-trial phase. Haemonetics is seeking injunctive relief, compensatory damages (including lost profits and a reasonable royalty), treble damages for willful infringement, a declaration that the case is exceptional, and attorney's fees.

7. Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings on the Asserted Patents:
Terumo BCT has been actively challenging Haemonetics' patents at the PTAB.

• PGR2026-00006 (related to '204 patent): Terumo BCT, Inc. filed a Post-Grant Review (PGR) petition against Haemonetics Corporation for patent 12377204 on October 20, 2025. This PGR was designated "Not Instituted - Procedural" as of March 10, 2026.
• IPR2025-01374 (related to '124 patent): Terumo BCT, Inc. filed an IPR petition against Haemonetics Corporation for patent 11738124 on August 4, 2025. This IPR was instituted on January 27, 2026, but the Director of the USPTO later vacated the institution on May 12, 2026. The vacatur was due to Terumo advancing indefiniteness arguments in district court after institution without sufficient justification, indicating that Terumo was not using the IPR process as intended by Congress.
• IPR2025-01391 (related to '652 patent): Terumo BCT, Inc. filed an IPR petition against Haemonetics Corporation for patent 10758652 on August 11, 2025. This IPR was instituted on January 27, 2026, and is currently pending.
• Other PTAB challenges: Terumo BCT has filed numerous other IPR and PGR petitions against various patents asserted by Haemonetics. As of March 10, 2026, several of these, including those against patents 12324873, 10980934, 10980926, 10792416, 12171916, and 12186474, were "Not Instituted - Procedural".

The PTAB decisions to vacate institution in IPR2025-01374 (and potentially IPR2025-01342, though not directly this case) indicate a focus from the Director on preventing petitioners from using IPRs to pursue inconsistent claim construction arguments in parallel district court litigation. This could impact Terumo's strategy for other pending and future PTAB challenges.

Here is the counsel of record representing Haemonetics Corp. in Haemonetics Corp. v. Terumo BCT, Inc.:

Erik Milch

• Role: Partner, likely lead counsel.
• Firm: Proskauer Rose LLP, Washington, DC office.
• Experience: Co-head of Proskauer's Patent Law practice with over 25 years of experience in all aspects of patent litigation, including enforcement and defense of infringement allegations across various technologies such as medical devices, life sciences instrumentation, and pharmaceuticals.

Elizabeth C. Shrieves

• Role: Associate, counsel.
• Firm: Proskauer Rose LLP, Washington, DC office.
• Experience: Litigates intellectual property matters in federal district courts, before the Federal Circuit, USPTO, and ITC, with experience covering medical devices, software, and various other technologies, including plaintiff and defense work.

Connor J. Villar

• Role: Associate, counsel.
• Firm: Proskauer Rose LLP. Based out of one of Proskauer's offices, likely Washington, DC, given his colleagues' locations.
• Experience: Represents clients in state and federal district courts and arbitrations, with experience spanning software, network security, and medical devices, covering all stages of litigation.

Carolyn Juarez

• Role: Partner, likely local counsel.
• Firm: Neugeboren O'Dowd PC, Broomfield, Colorado office (Denver/Boulder area).
• Experience: Focuses on civil litigation, commercial disputes, and intellectual property matters, with substantial experience in state and federal courts representing clients in patent, copyright, and trademark infringement, and misappropriation of trade secrets.

I'll research Terumo BCT's counsel of record through docket sources, firm announcements, and related proceedings.

Defendant's counsel of record — Terumo BCT, Inc.

Terumo BCT is represented by Steptoe LLP (Washington, DC), using essentially the same team in the District of Colorado and at the PTAB. There is no Colorado-based local-counsel firm on the docket entries I was able to retrieve. Below are the appearances I could source, followed by the sourcing gaps.

Attorneys of record (district court)

Court-confirmed at the Rule 16(b) conference: the Scheduling Order in a Patent Case (DI 54, Aug. 19, 2025) records that "John Caracappa and Katherine Cappaert" attended for Terumo BCT — confirming they, not local counsel, are the operative trial team. (DI 54 via Docket Alarm)

Steptoe colleagues acting on the related PTAB challenges (not confirmed as district-court appearances)

These attorneys are Terumo's counsel of record in the parallel IPR/PGR proceedings against the same Haemonetics patents and should be expected to appear in the district case if they have not already:

• Matthew Y. Sim (Steptoe LLP, Washington, DC; Reg. No. 77,422) — co-signatory on Terumo's IPR papers, e.g., IPR2025-01374.
• Scott Chappell (Steptoe LLP, Washington, DC; Reg. No. 76,333) — co-signatory on Terumo's IPR papers. Note a discrepancy: the Director's May 12, 2026 order in IPR2025-01374/01391 lists this attorney as "Daniel Chappell," while Terumo's certificates of service and powers of attorney list "Scott Chappell," Reg. No. 76,333. One of the two documents likely contains a transcription error; I could not resolve which.

Steptoe serves as the single contact point for the PTAB matters (the firm's dedicated service address is terumo_bct@steptoe.com), and the Director's order vacating institution expressly noted that Terumo "is represented by the same counsel here and in district court" (IPR2025-01374, Paper 20 at 3) — a useful confirmation that the Steptoe team is common across both forums, and also the source of Terumo's cross-forum consistency problem discussed in the earlier sections.

Identified but unconfirmed

• Timothy P. Costello — appears on the docket only through a Declaration filed May 20, 2025 (DI 23) supporting Terumo's unopposed motion for leave to restrict Exhibit H of the complaint. His firm/employer is not stated in the docket text I could retrieve. He is most likely a Terumo BCT in-house attorney or a Steptoe colleague, but I could not verify which — do not cite him as confirmed counsel without pulling DI 23.
• No Colorado counsel. Unlike Haemonetics, which retained Neugeboren O'Dowd (Carolyn Juarez) as in-state counsel, Terumo's appearances are all Steptoe. I found no entry of appearance by any Colorado firm on Terumo's behalf in the docket text available to me. The docket coverage I could access is also incomplete for events after mid-2025, so an additional local-counsel appearance (or an appearance by Sim/Chappell) may have been filed later without showing up in my sources. PACER or a CourtListener/RECAP docket pull is needed to confirm the full, current appearance list.
• In-house counsel. No Terumo BCT in-house lawyer appears on the docket as counsel of record. (For contrast, Haemonetics' PTAB power of attorney was executed by John Perullo, VP, Associate General Counsel and Chief IP Officer — do not attribute him to Terumo.)

Defense-side strategic note

The defense is being run out of Steptoe's Washington office by a two-partner team (Caracappa, Cappaert) that also drafted and signed every Terumo IPR/PGR petition against Haemonetics, with no visible local-counsel buffer. That single-team, single-forum-message structure is precisely what the Director penalized in the May 12, 2026 IPR2025-01374/01391 order (vacating institution because Terumo took a "plain and ordinary meaning" position at the Board while arguing "controller" was indefinite in Judge Rodriguez's court). It also explains why Terumo's November 7, 2025 motion to stay is so central to its litigation posture: with a lean out-of-state team and the same lawyers wearing both hats, Terumo has strong incentives to get the district case paused rather than litigate claim construction in Colorado while defending its PTAB positions.

Sources: Justia docket for Haemonetics Corp. v. Terumo BCT, Inc., No. 1:25-cv-01409-RMR-SBP (D. Colo.) — DI 15, 16, 17, 22, 23, 30; DI 54 (Scheduling Order in a Patent Case, Aug. 19, 2025); USPTO, IPR2025-01374 & IPR2025-01391, Paper 20 (Director, May 12, 2026); Terumo BCT certificates of service and Haemonetics' Patent Owner Power of Attorney in PGR2026-00006 (Oct. 24, 2025); Steptoe firm bio for Shontel Stewart; Legal 500 (Steptoe patents litigation profile, listing Terumo BCT as a client and Caracappa as practice head).