Haemonetics Corporation v. Fresenius Kabi USA, LLC et al.

Haemonetics Corporation, a global medical technology company specializing in blood and plasma component collection and management, has filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Fresenius Kabi USA, LLC, Fenwal Inc., and their German parent company, Fresenius Kabi AG. Haemonetics operates as an innovative medical device company, developing products and solutions for blood and plasma collection, the surgical suite, and hospital transfusion services. The defendants, operating under the umbrella of Fresenius Kabi AG, are also significant players in the healthcare sector, providing a wide range of medical products, including transfusion technologies, and have a specialized focus on blood collection, separation, and processing through its subsidiary, Fenwal Inc.

The complaint, filed on July 25, 2025, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Case Number: 1:25-cv-08680), alleges that the defendants' Aurora Xi Plasmapheresis System infringes U.S. Patent No. 12,186,474, among other patents. The Aurora Xi Plasmapheresis System is an automated device designed for source plasma collection, utilizing a proprietary spinning membrane and enhanced algorithms to rapidly separate plasma from whole blood, facilitating faster procedures and optimized plasma yield. While the full technical scope of all asserted patents would require a review of the complete complaint, U.S. Patent No. 12,186,474 generally pertains to systems and methods for optimizing plasma collection. The case has been assigned to Judge Lashonda A Hunt.

This litigation is notable as it pits two major competitors in the blood and plasma collection industry against each other over core technology. The outcome could have implications for the design and efficiency of plasmapheresis systems, a critical area for the supply of plasma-derived therapies. While Haemonetics is an operating company and not a Patent Assertion Entity (PAE), it is an active participant in patent enforcement and defense, as evidenced by its involvement in other inter partes reviews (IPRs) concerning different patents. The Northern District of Illinois is a frequent venue for patent disputes, though specific ties of the parties to this district beyond general business operations have not been detailed.

Overview of Haemonetics Corporation v. Fresenius Kabi USA, LLC et al.

The patent infringement lawsuit, Haemonetics Corporation v. Fresenius Kabi USA, LLC et al., case number 1:25-cv-08680, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on July 25, 2025. The plaintiff, Haemonetics Corporation, alleges that the defendants, Fresenius Kabi USA, LLC, Fenwal Inc., and Fresenius Kabi AG, infringe U.S. Patent No. 12,186,474, among other patents, through their Aurora Xi Plasmapheresis System. The case is currently ongoing.

Key Legal Developments:

• Filing & Initial Pleadings (2025-07-25): Haemonetics Corporation filed its complaint for patent infringement against Fresenius Kabi USA, LLC, Fenwal Inc., and Fresenius Kabi AG on July 25, 2025. While specific dates for the defendants' answers and any counterclaims are not publicly detailed in the available snippets, indications suggest that Fenwal Inc. and Fresenius Kabi have been designated as "Counter Claimant[s]," implying that responsive pleadings, including counterclaims, have likely been filed.
• Pre-trial Motions of Substance (2025-10-02): An early development in the case involved a joint motion by the parties to vacate case deadlines (Docket Entry 27). The in-person motion hearing initially set for October 2, 2025, at 10:00 AM was converted to a telephonic hearing on the same date and time by order of the Honorable LaShonda A. Hunt. This suggests early case management adjustments are underway.
• Claim Construction (Markman): As of May 2026, the case is still in its relatively early stages. There is no public information indicating that the claim construction (Markman) phase has been reached or concluded.
• Discovery Milestones: No specific, strategically significant discovery milestones have been publicly reported beyond the motion to vacate deadlines, suggesting that discovery is likely in its initial phases.
• Trial Events, Verdict, and Post-Trial Motions: Given the filing date in mid-2025, the case has not yet reached the trial stage, nor have any verdicts or post-trial motions occurred.
• Settlement, Dismissal, Judgment, or Appeal: The case status remains "Open" as of the current date, indicating no final judgment, dismissal, or settlement has been reached.
• Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings: A search for Inter Partes Review (IPR) or Post-Grant Review (PGR) proceedings at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) specifically for U.S. Patent No. 12,186,474 did not yield any active or concluded proceedings in the available public information. While Fresenius Kabi has been involved in other IPR proceedings for different patents (e.g., U.S. Patent No. 9,856,287 and U.S. Patent No. 10,231,981 B2), no such challenges appear to have been filed or made public for the patent at issue in this specific litigation.

Haemonetics Corporation, the plaintiff, is represented by attorneys from Proskauer Rose LLP.

The following attorneys are identified as counsel for the plaintiff:

• Joseph Michael Drayton

  • Role: Likely lead counsel or a key member of the litigation team.
  • Firm: Proskauer Rose LLP, New York, NY, and Washington, D.C. (firm website indicates presence in both locations and his focus on patent litigation).
  • Experience Note: Co-chair of Proskauer's Patent Law Group and focuses on patent litigation, particularly in life sciences and medical device industries.

• Todd J. Ohlms

  • Role: Likely lead counsel or a key member of the litigation team.
  • Firm: Proskauer Rose LLP, Boston, MA.
  • Experience Note: Head of the Boston Litigation Group and focuses on patent and intellectual property litigation.

• Elizabeth Shrieves

  • Role: Member of the litigation team.
  • Firm: Proskauer Rose LLP, Washington, D.C.
  • Experience Note: Focuses on intellectual property litigation, including patent, trade secret, and copyright matters.

• Alan Salvador Teran

  • Role: Member of the litigation team.
  • Firm: Proskauer Rose LLP, Los Angeles, CA.
  • Experience Note: Practices in intellectual property and complex commercial litigation.

• Connor James Villar

  • Role: Member of the litigation team.
  • Firm: Proskauer Rose LLP, New York, NY.
  • Experience Note: Focuses on intellectual property litigation, particularly patent disputes.

While Erik Milch from Cooley LLP is listed in some docket aggregators for the case, other sources directly link Proskauer Rose LLP as the plaintiff's counsel and for related PTAB matters involving Haemonetics. Based on the available information, the primary counsel for Haemonetics in this district court case appears to be Proskauer Rose LLP.

The defendants, Fresenius Kabi USA, LLC, Fenwal Inc., and Fresenius Kabi AG, are likely represented by attorneys with extensive experience in pharmaceutical and medical device patent litigation. While specific counsel for this exact case (1:25-cv-08680) were not immediately available through direct docket searches, previous litigation involving these entities offers strong indications of their likely legal representation.

Based on past cases, the following firms and attorneys have represented Fresenius Kabi and Fenwal in patent matters:

For Fresenius Kabi USA, LLC:

• Rakoczy Molino Mazzochi Siwik LLP (RMMS): This firm has a strong track record of representing Fresenius Kabi in patent litigation, particularly in the pharmaceutical space.
  • William A. Rakoczy: A founding partner of RMMS, he is frequently listed as a lead attorney for Fresenius Kabi in patent disputes and is recognized for his expertise in pharmaceutical patent litigation.
  • Paul J. Molino: Also a partner at RMMS, he has appeared alongside Mr. Rakoczy in representing Fresenius Kabi.
  • Heinz J. Salmen, Eric R. Hunt, Matthew V. Anderson, Kevin P. Burke, Conly S. Wythers, Ty W. Callahan, and Adrianne C. Rose: These attorneys have also been listed as part of RMMS teams representing Fresenius Kabi.
• Farnan LLP: This firm has also represented Fresenius Kabi in patent infringement cases.
  • William A. Rakoczy: (Also listed with RMMS) appears with Farnan LLP in some dockets for Fresenius Kabi, suggesting potential co-counsel arrangements or transitions.
  • Brian E. Farnan: A key attorney at Farnan LLP, he has represented Fresenius Kabi.
• McGuireWoods: This firm represented Fresenius Kabi USA, LLC in an antitrust appeal related to drug patents.
  • Amy B. Manning: Identified as counsel for Fresenius Kabi USA, LLC, with a focus on litigation.
  • Angelo M. Russo and Sarah A. Zielinski: Also listed as counsel for Fresenius Kabi USA, LLC from McGuireWoods' Chicago office.
• Heyman Enerio Gattuso & Hirzel LLP: This firm represented Fresenius Kabi Deutschland GmbH in patent litigation.
  • Robert M. Vrana: Listed as an attorney for Fresenius Kabi Deutschland GmbH.
• Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP: While representing Merck against Fresenius Kabi in some Hatch-Waxman cases, this firm is known for its extensive life sciences and pharmaceutical patent litigation experience, and could be involved in various capacities.
• In-house Counsel: Fresenius Kabi has internal intellectual property expertise.
  • Corinna Sundermann: Senior Vice President Intellectual Property at Fresenius Kabi.

For Fenwal Inc.:

Fenwal Inc. is a medical device company with its own patent portfolio related to apheresis and blood processing systems. While specific litigation counsel for Fenwal Inc. in the context of this case were not found, it is common for medical device companies to use firms with strong patent litigation practices. Given the nature of the alleged infringement by the Aurora Xi Plasmapheresis System, Fenwal would likely engage counsel experienced in medical device patent defense.

It is important to note that without direct PACER access or a more current docket search for case 1:25-cv-08680, these are based on past representation and common practices. Counsel appearances can change, and new firms or attorneys may be retained for specific cases. Filings might also be sealed, or counsel may not have formally appeared in the specific case yet.