Haemonetics Corporation v. Terumo BCT, Inc.

Haemonetics Corporation, a global medical technology company headquartered in Massachusetts, has initiated a patent infringement lawsuit against Terumo BCT, Inc., a Colorado-based medical technology company. Haemonetics is a significant player in the blood and plasma industries, providing supplies, services, and automated systems for blood component collection, surgical blood salvage, and blood management. Terumo BCT, a subsidiary of Terumo Group, specializes in developing and manufacturing medical devices, software, and services for blood component collection, therapeutic apheresis, and cell therapy solutions. Both parties are operating companies competing in the medical technology sector, specifically within the blood and plasma collection market.

The core of the dispute centers on Terumo BCT's Rika Plasma Donation System™, including its Nomogram A and B and iNomi™ (Individualized Nomogram) variants, which Haemonetics alleges infringe its patents. The infringement claims specifically contend that Terumo BCT's Rika plasma systems utilize Haemonetics' patented technology for calculating "pure plasma" volume, which involves tailoring donation targets based on donor characteristics such as body mass index (BMI) and hematocrit. The asserted patents are US Patents 10,980,926, 10,758,652, 10,792,416, 10,980,934, 11,738,124, 12,171,916, 12,186,474, 12,324,873, and 12,377,204. Patents 10,758,652, 10,792,416, 11,738,124, 12,171,916, and 12,186,474 generally relate to systems and methods for collecting plasma, often involving calculations of collected anticoagulant and pure plasma volumes based on donor characteristics. The specific technical sketch for each patent is detailed in its respective patent document, but broadly they cover advancements in apheresis technology for more efficient and individualized plasma collection.

The case, Haemonetics Corporation v. Terumo BCT, Inc., Case number 1:25-cv-01409, was filed on May 5, 2025, in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado. While the case is assigned to District Judge Regina M. Rodriguez, Magistrate Judge Susan Prose oversaw the scheduling conference held on August 19, 2025. The District of Colorado is a notable venue for patent litigation due to its adoption of Local Patent Rules on August 1, 2014, which aim to standardize and streamline the management of patent cases, including specific deadlines for disclosures, contentions, and claim construction. This case is particularly notable due to the ongoing competitive landscape in the blood and plasma collection industry, which is experiencing high demand. Furthermore, Terumo BCT has initiated parallel inter partes review (IPR) proceedings against Haemonetics' patents at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), including IPR2025-01391 and IPR2025-01420 (challenging the '416 patent). A recent USPTO decision, Terumo BCT, Inc. v. Haemonetics Corp., IPR2025-01374, was designated as informative on May 12, 2026, where institution was vacated due to the petitioner's inconsistent indefiniteness arguments in district court and PTAB, highlighting the strategic interplay between these forums in this high-stakes industry. Haemonetics has a history of enforcing its patent rights, having previously litigated against other industry players such as Fenwal Inc. (now Baxter Healthcare Corp.) concerning blood centrifuge devices.

Key Legal Developments in Haemonetics Corporation v. Terumo BCT, Inc.

This patent infringement litigation, filed by Haemonetics Corporation against Terumo BCT, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado (Case No. 1:25-cv-01409), commenced on May 5, 2025. The case involves allegations that Terumo BCT has infringed a number of Haemonetics' patents related to blood plasma collection systems, specifically mentioning the Rika Plasma Donation System™. The case is currently ongoing.

Chronological Summary of Legal Developments:

1. Filing & Initial Pleadings (2025)

• Complaint Filed: On May 5, 2025, Haemonetics Corporation initiated the lawsuit by filing a complaint against Terumo BCT, Inc.. The complaint alleged direct and indirect infringement, both literally and under the doctrine of equivalents, by Terumo BCT's Rika Plasma Donation System™. Haemonetics sought damages including a reasonable royalty, lost profits, treble damages for willful infringement, a declaration of an exceptional case, and a permanent injunction.
• Amended Complaints: Haemonetics filed amended complaints on July 17, 2025, and again on August 12, 2025. These amendments added recently issued patents to the asserted intellectual property. The August 12, 2025 filing is referred to as the Second Amended Complaint (D.I. 48).

2. Pre-trial Motions of Substance (2025)

• Motions to Dismiss: Terumo BCT filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on June 26, 2025. Subsequently, on September 2, 2025, Terumo filed a partial motion to dismiss, arguing that some of Haemonetics' asserted patents were invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101 for claiming non-patentable subject matter. The outcomes of these motions are not publicly detailed in the provided search results.
• Scheduling Conference & Order: A Rule 16(b) Scheduling Conference was held on August 19, 2025. A Scheduling Order in a Patent Case (D.I. 54) was subsequently filed, which outlined initial deadlines and the parties' positions.

3. Discovery Milestones (2025)

• Infringement Contentions: The Scheduling Order set a deadline of September 16, 2025, for Haemonetics to serve its Infringement Contentions, Claim Chart(s), and produce accompanying documents.
• ESI Agreement: The parties indicated an intent to file a proposed ESI (Electronically Stored Information) Agreement by September 9, 2025.

4. Claim Construction (Markman) Outcomes

• As of November 13, 2025, an IPR filing indicated that claim construction in the district court case was not anticipated to begin until early 2026. No specific Markman hearing date or outcome has been reported yet.

5. Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings (2025-2026)
Terumo BCT has initiated multiple post-grant proceedings at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) challenging the validity of several patents asserted by Haemonetics.

• U.S. Patent No. 10,758,652: Terumo BCT filed an Inter Partes Review (IPR) petition, IPR2025-01391, challenging this patent (application 15/608,183). The PTAB instituted trial on this IPR on December 11, 2025, and its status is "Trial Instituted" as of April 19, 2026.
• U.S. Patent No. 11,738,124: Terumo BCT filed an IPR petition, IPR2025-01374, challenging this patent. Haemonetics filed an Opposition to Petitioner's Request for Discretionary Denial on November 13, 2025.
• U.S. Patent No. 10,792,416: Terumo BCT filed an IPR petition, IPR2025-01420, on October 8, 2025, challenging this patent.
• Other Patents: Terumo has also filed other IPR and Post-Grant Review (PGR) petitions, including PGR2025-00077 and PGR2026-00006, against Haemonetics' asserted patents. Details on the specific challenged patents for these additional proceedings were not fully available in the provided search results.
• Effect on Litigation: Terumo's filings at the PTAB suggest a strategy to challenge the validity of the asserted patents in parallel with the district court litigation. As of the current information, there is no indication that the district court litigation has been stayed pending the outcome of these PTAB proceedings.

6. Present Posture
The case remains active in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado. Initial pleadings and motions to dismiss have been filed, and a scheduling order is in place. Multiple IPR proceedings are ongoing at the PTAB challenging some of the asserted patents, with at least one IPR (IPR2025-01391 for US 10,758,652) having been instituted for trial. No trial events, verdict, or final disposition have occurred.

Plaintiff Haemonetics Corporation is represented by counsel from Proskauer Rose LLP and Nod Law.

The following attorneys are counsel of record for Haemonetics Corporation:

• Joseph M. Drayton
  • Role: Likely lead counsel or a key member of the litigation team.
  • Firm: Proskauer Rose LLP, New York, NY.
  • Relevant experience: Co-chair of Proskauer's Intellectual Property Department and focuses on patent litigation, particularly in the life sciences and medical device sectors.
• Erik B. Milch
  • Role: Likely lead counsel or a key member of the litigation team.
  • Firm: Proskauer Rose LLP, Washington, D.C.
  • Relevant experience: Specializes in patent litigation, particularly in the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries, and has experience with PTAB proceedings.
• Elizabeth Shrieves
  • Role: Attorney.
  • Firm: Proskauer Rose LLP.
  • Relevant experience: Focuses on patent litigation and other complex intellectual property disputes.
• Connor J. Villar
  • Role: Attorney.
  • Firm: Proskauer Rose LLP.
  • Relevant experience: Involved in intellectual property litigation.
• Alan S. Teran
  • Role: Attorney.
  • Firm: Proskauer Rose LLP.
  • Relevant experience: Practices intellectual property law, with an emphasis on patent litigation.
• Carolyn Valerie Juarez
  • Role: Local counsel.
  • Firm: Nod Law, Denver, CO.
  • Relevant experience: Admitted to practice in the District of Colorado and frequently serves as local counsel in federal court cases.

Defendant Terumo BCT, Inc. is represented by counsel from Dorsey & Whitney LLP.

The following attorneys are counsel of record for Terumo BCT, Inc.:

• John Caracappa
  • Role: Likely lead counsel or a key member of the litigation team.
  • Firm: Dorsey & Whitney LLP.
  • Relevant experience: Dorsey & Whitney has a strong intellectual property litigation practice, particularly in patent and trademark law, and is noted for its work with biotechnology and medical device companies.
• Katherine Cappaert
  • Role: Attorney.
  • Firm: Dorsey & Whitney LLP.
  • Relevant experience: Dorsey & Whitney's IP team often has scientific and engineering expertise, which is valuable in complex patent cases.
• Anthony Pericolo
  • Role: Attorney.
  • Firm: Dorsey & Whitney LLP.
  • Relevant experience: Dorsey & Whitney's Intellectual Property Litigation team has broad experience in all aspects of IP litigation, including patent litigation and USPTO post-grant proceedings.
• Gregory S. Tamkin
  • Role: Lead counsel, Co-leader of Dorsey's Trial Group.
  • Firm: Dorsey & Whitney LLP, Denver, CO.
  • Relevant experience: A trusted IP litigator, frequently assisting clients in complex patent, trademark, and copyright disputes across various venues, including jury trials and appellate matters. He has been consistently recognized by Chambers USA, Best Lawyers in America, and IAM Patent 1000 for his patent litigation work.
• William Cravens
  • Role: Associate attorney.
  • Firm: Dorsey & Whitney LLP, Denver, CO.
  • Relevant experience: Specializes in patent, trademark, copyright, antitrust, and complex commercial litigation, bringing a background in neurobiology to devise effective litigation strategies.
• Kevin Duffy
  • Role: Of Counsel in the Patent group.
  • Firm: Dorsey & Whitney LLP, Denver, CO.
  • Relevant experience: Focuses on intellectual property transactions, patent preparation and prosecution, particularly in energy, nuclear, mechanical, and electrical technologies, and advises on developing and protecting IP assets.

Dorsey & Whitney LLP, with its Denver office, is a full-service firm with a strong intellectual property practice that includes patent litigation. They have experience representing clients in federal courts, the International Trade Commission, and before the United States Patent and Trademark Office. The firm is known for its technical expertise across diverse industries, including biotechnology and medical devices.

It is worth noting that Terumo BCT has previously been represented by attorneys from Sheridan Ross in successful inter partes review (IPR) proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). While Sheridan Ross is not currently listed as counsel of record for the district court case based on available information, Terumo BCT's engagement in IPRs against Haemonetics' patents, as mentioned in the case overview, indicates a continued strategic approach to patent challenges.