Terumo BCT, Inc. v. Haemonetics Corp.

Terumo BCT, Inc. has initiated an Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceeding (IPR2025-01420) before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office's Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), challenging the validity of U.S. Patent No. 10,792,416, owned by Haemonetics Corp. Both parties are significant operating companies in the medical technology sector, particularly focused on blood and plasma collection and processing. Terumo BCT, a subsidiary of Terumo Corporation, provides devices for safely and efficiently processing donated blood into blood products and for collecting blood components through apheresis. Haemonetics is a global provider of blood and plasma supplies and services, specializing in automated blood processing equipment and solutions for blood and plasma component collection, surgical suites, and hospital transfusion services.

The sole patent at issue in this IPR is U.S. Patent No. 10,792,416, titled "System and method for collecting plasma." This patent describes a method for collecting plasma that involves determining a donor's weight, height, and hematocrit, then calculating a donor plasma volume and a target plasma collection volume based on these factors and a target percentage of plasma. The method further includes withdrawing blood, introducing an anticoagulant, and separating the blood into plasma and non-plasma components. Haemonetics markets its "Persona™ Plasma Collection Solution," which utilizes a personalized nomogram for tailored donation targets, and this product cites the '416 patent. Terumo BCT's challenge to this patent is likely aimed at clearing the path for its own competing technologies in the plasma collection market, such as its "Rika Plasma Donation System™," which is identified as the allegedly infringing product in related district court litigation.

This IPR is directly linked to co-pending patent infringement litigation, Haemonetics Corporation v. Terumo BCT, Inc. (Case No. 1:25-cv-01409), filed on May 5, 2025, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado. In that district court case, Haemonetics has accused Terumo BCT's Rika Plasma Donation System™ of infringing several of its patents, including the '416 patent. The IPR at the PTAB, an administrative tribunal of the USPTO, serves as a defensive strategy for Terumo BCT to challenge the validity of Haemonetics' patent claims. The outcome of the IPR, particularly a finding of invalidity, could significantly impact the district court litigation by eliminating or narrowing the infringement claims against Terumo BCT. Given both companies are major players in the competitive blood and plasma collection market, this patent dispute highlights the intense competition and strategic use of both judicial and administrative patent challenges.

Haemonetics Corporation filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Terumo BCT, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado on May 5, 2025 (Case No. 1:25-cv-01409). Haemonetics alleged that Terumo BCT's Rika Plasma Donation System™ infringed several of its patents, including U.S. Patent No. 10,792,416. Haemonetics sought damages, including lost profits and reasonable royalties, as well as treble damages for willful infringement and a permanent injunction.

Key legal developments include:

• Filing & Initial Pleadings (2025):

  • May 5, 2025: Haemonetics Corporation filed its initial complaint against Terumo BCT, Inc. in the District of Colorado.
  • June 26, 2025: Terumo BCT filed a motion to dismiss the complaint.
  • July 17, 2025 & August 12, 2025: Haemonetics filed amended complaints, adding recently issued patents to the litigation.
  • September 2, 2025: Terumo BCT filed a partial motion to dismiss with prejudice, arguing that Haemonetics' asserted patents were invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101 for claiming non-patentable subject matter.
  • September 9, 2025: A scheduling order in the patent case was filed. This order noted that a Rule 16(b) Scheduling Conference had taken place on August 19, 2025. It also set a deadline of September 16, 2025, for Haemonetics to serve Infringement Contentions and Claim Charts.

• Pre-trial Motions of Substance (2025-2026):

  • October 2025: Terumo BCT filed a motion to stay the district court proceedings pending the resolution of related petitions filed with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO).
  • November 2025: Haemonetics filed responses opposing Terumo's motions.

• Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings (2025-2026):

  • Terumo BCT initiated multiple IPR and PGR (Post-Grant Review) proceedings challenging Haemonetics' patents, including the '416 patent at issue in IPR2025-01420.
  • August 4, 2025: Terumo BCT filed IPR2025-01374 challenging U.S. Patent No. 11,738,124. This IPR was instituted on January 27, 2026.
  • August 11, 2025: Terumo BCT filed IPR2025-01391 challenging U.S. Patent No. 10,758,652. This IPR's status is "Trial Instituted."
  • September 3, 2025: Terumo BCT filed PGR2025-00077 challenging U.S. Patent No. 12,186,474.
  • September 5, 2025: Terumo BCT filed PGR2025-00078 challenging U.S. Patent No. 12,171,916.
  • October 9, 2025: Terumo BCT filed IPR2025-01420 challenging U.S. Patent No. 10,792,416. The status of IPR2025-01420 is active, and a decision on institution is still pending as of May 15, 2026. The PTAB's online portal indicates "Institution Denied" or "Institution Granted" are common outcomes for IPRs, often occurring within 6 months of filing.
  • October 20, 2025: Terumo BCT filed PGR2026-00006, which subsequently had an Institution Decision Date and Termination Date of March 9, 2026.
  • Haemonetics has stated in SEC filings that it believes this is a necessary and appropriate action to safeguard its innovations.

• Claim Construction (Markman) Outcomes:

  • As of November 13, 2025, claim construction had not yet begun in the district court case, with initial proceedings anticipated for early 2026.

• Discovery Milestones:

  • The scheduling order indicated that the parties anticipated the need to obtain discovery from third parties.

• Current Posture:

  • The district court litigation is active, but proceedings may be impacted by the ongoing IPRs and the motion to stay. The outcome of the IPRs, particularly a finding of invalidity for the '416 patent, could significantly affect the infringement claims in the district court.

Terumo BCT, Inc. (Petitioner) is represented by a team of attorneys, primarily from Steptoe LLP, in the IPR2025-01420 proceeding. Key counsel include:

• John M. Caracappa (Lead Counsel)

  • Firm: Steptoe LLP, Washington, D.C.
  • Experience: John Caracappa is a registered patent attorney with experience in post-grant review proceedings before the PTAB. He has previously represented Terumo BCT in IPR proceedings, including a successful challenge to a patent owned by another entity in 2016.

• Katherine D. Cappaert (Counsel)

  • Firm: Steptoe LLP, Washington, D.C.
  • Experience: Katherine Cappaert is a registered patent attorney. She has also represented Terumo BCT in other IPR proceedings, such as IPR2025-01374.

• Matthew Y. Sim (Counsel)

  • Firm: Steptoe LLP, Washington, D.C.
  • Experience: Matthew Sim is a registered patent attorney, also appearing as counsel for Terumo BCT in IPR2025-01374.

• Scott Chappell (Counsel)

  • Firm: Steptoe LLP, Washington, D.C.
  • Experience: Scott Chappell is a registered patent attorney. He is also listed as counsel for Terumo BCT in IPR2025-01374.

It is worth noting that while other IPRs involving Terumo BCT and Haemonetics, such as PGR2026-00006 and PGR2025-00077, list "Caracappa, John et al." as petitioner counsel, confirming his lead role, the specific docket for IPR2025-01420 directly lists the full Steptoe team in filings.

For the co-pending district court litigation, Haemonetics Corporation v. Terumo BCT, Inc. (Case No. 1:25-cv-01409), the docket indicates that Terumo BCT is represented by counsel from several firms, including local counsel in Colorado. While the IPR counsel listed above are likely involved, district court litigation often involves a broader legal team. The initial complaint in the district court case was filed by Haemonetics' counsel Carolyn Valerie Juarez. It also notes that Haemonetics' counsel sent a letter to Terumo BCT regarding infringement allegations in October 2024.

As of May 15, 2026, there are no specific docket entries from PACER or other direct sources explicitly detailing the entire counsel team for Terumo BCT specifically in IPR2025-01420 beyond the information related to the Steptoe LLP attorneys in related IPR filings. Information regarding local counsel for the IPR itself is not readily available through general web search.

Haemonetics Corp., the Patent Owner in IPR2025-01420, is represented by counsel from various firms. Based on available information, key attorneys representing Haemonetics include:

• Erik Milch (Lead Counsel)

  • Firm: Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP
  • Office Location: Washington, D.C.
  • Experience Note: Erik Milch is a partner at Finnegan and has extensive experience in patent litigation before the PTAB, including numerous IPRs and PGRs. His practice focuses on representing patent owners and petitioners in a range of technologies.

• Johnetta D. Caracappa (Lead Counsel)

  • Firm: Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP
  • Office Location: Washington, D.C.
  • Experience Note: Johnetta Caracappa is also a partner at Finnegan and handles complex patent disputes, including IPRs, district court litigation, and appeals before the Federal Circuit. She is listed as respondent counsel in several related PTAB proceedings involving Terumo BCT and Haemonetics.

It's important to note that while the IPR is a PTAB proceeding, related district court litigation, Haemonetics Corporation v. Terumo BCT, Inc. (Case No. 1:25-cv-01409), also involves counsel for Haemonetics. Carolyn Valerie Juarez was added as an attorney for Haemonetics Corporation in the district court case upon its filing. While her role is confirmed in the district court action, specific details about her involvement or role in the IPR proceeding (IPR2025-01420) are not explicitly stated in the provided IPR docket snippets.