FTC Challenges Medical Device Coating Transaction
Client Alerts
March 12, 2025
On March 7, 2025, the FTC filed a complaint in federal court seeking to block GTCR BC Holdings, LLC, a Chicago private equity firm, from acquiring Surmodics, Inc. The FTC alleges that Surmodics is the leading provider of a specialized “hydrophilic” coating applied to a wide range of interventional medical devices used inside the human body, such as catheters and guidewires. These devices are used to perform high-stakes neurological, cardiovascular, and peripheral vascular procedures. Hydrophilic coatings are primarily purchased by companies that design, develop, and manufacture these medical devices.
The FTC alleges that the transaction violates the Clayton Act because GTCR holds a majority stake in another leading provider of hydrophilic coatings in the United States, Biocoat, Inc. As a result, the FTC claims the acquisition “would result in a combined company that controls over 50 percent of the US market for outsourced hydrophilic coatings.” The FTC excludes in-house coating from its relevant market because even though hydrophilic coatings can be manufactured by OEMs in house, the vast majority opts to purchase hydrophilic coatings from specialized third-party manufacturers like Surmodics and Biocoat.
In addition to high market shares, the FTC alleges the acquisition would eliminate head-to-head competition between Biocoat and Surmodics, noting that these companies “target the same [OEM] customers and compete aggressively for their business.” The FTC alleges that this loss of competition would result in diminished coating quality, degradation in services offered, and reduced incentive to innovate. This lost competition would harm OEM customers and ultimately the patients who benefit from these critical inputs to lifesaving medical devices.
There are a few takeaways from the first merger challenge to be voted out of the FTC under Chair Andrew Ferguson. First, the complaint advances traditional theories of harm relating to structure of the market and lost head-to-head competition. There are no novel theories here. Second, market-definition fights will continue to be key to merger challenges. If the parties can demonstrate that the market improperly excludes in-house coating, the structure of the market and the competitive dynamics likely change dramatically. And lastly, internal documents remain key to merger review. The complaint quotes what appear to be internal documents where Biocoat describes Surmodics as the “#1 player in our space” and the “market leader.” It is vital to involve antitrust counsel early in any dealmaking process to identify relevant evidence and analyze antitrust risk.
In addition to high market shares, the FTC alleges the acquisition would eliminate head-to-head competition between Biocoat and Surmodics, noting that these companies “target the same [OEM] customers and compete aggressively for their business.” The FTC alleges that this loss of competition would result in diminished coating quality, degradation in services offered, and reduced incentive to innovate. This lost competition would harm OEM customers and ultimately the patients who benefit from these critical inputs to lifesaving medical devices.
There are a few takeaways from the first merger challenge to be voted out of the FTC under Chair Andrew Ferguson. First, the complaint advances traditional theories of harm relating to structure of the market and lost head-to-head competition. There are no novel theories here. Second, market-definition fights will continue to be key to merger challenges. If the parties can demonstrate that the market improperly excludes in-house coating, the structure of the market and the competitive dynamics likely change dramatically. And lastly, internal documents remain key to merger review. The complaint quotes what appear to be internal documents where Biocoat describes Surmodics as the “#1 player in our space” and the “market leader.” It is vital to involve antitrust counsel early in any dealmaking process to identify relevant evidence and analyze antitrust risk.
Related Capabilities
© 2026 Jenner & Block LLP. Attorney Advertising. Jenner & Block LLP is an Illinois Limited Liability Partnership including professional corporations. This publication, presentation, or event is not intended to provide legal advice but to provide information on legal matters and/or firm news of interest to our clients and colleagues. Readers or attendees should seek specific legal advice before taking any action with respect to matters mentioned in this publication or at this event. The attorney responsible for this communication is Brent E. Kidwell, Jenner & Block LLP, 353 N. Clark Street, Chicago, IL 60654-3456. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Jenner & Block London LLP, an affiliate of Jenner & Block LLP, is a limited liability partnership established under the laws of the State of Delaware, USA and is authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority with SRA number 615729. Information regarding the data we collect and the rights you have over your data can be found in our Privacy Notice. For further inquiries, please contact dataprotection@jenner.com.
Client Alerts
March 12, 2025
On March 7, 2025, the FTC filed a complaint in federal court seeking to block GTCR BC Holdings, LLC, a Chicago private equity firm, from acquiring Surmodics, Inc. The FTC alleges that Surmodics is the leading provider of a specialized “hydrophilic” coating applied to a wide range of interventional medical devices used inside the human body, such as catheters and guidewires. These devices are used to perform high-stakes neurological, cardiovascular, and peripheral vascular procedures. Hydrophilic coatings are primarily purchased by companies that design, develop, and manufacture these medical devices.
The FTC alleges that the transaction violates the Clayton Act because GTCR holds a majority stake in another leading provider of hydrophilic coatings in the United States, Biocoat, Inc. As a result, the FTC claims the acquisition “would result in a combined company that controls over 50 percent of the US market for outsourced hydrophilic coatings.” The FTC excludes in-house coating from its relevant market because even though hydrophilic coatings can be manufactured by OEMs in house, the vast majority opts to purchase hydrophilic coatings from specialized third-party manufacturers like Surmodics and Biocoat.
In addition to high market shares, the FTC alleges the acquisition would eliminate head-to-head competition between Biocoat and Surmodics, noting that these companies “target the same [OEM] customers and compete aggressively for their business.” The FTC alleges that this loss of competition would result in diminished coating quality, degradation in services offered, and reduced incentive to innovate. This lost competition would harm OEM customers and ultimately the patients who benefit from these critical inputs to lifesaving medical devices.
There are a few takeaways from the first merger challenge to be voted out of the FTC under Chair Andrew Ferguson. First, the complaint advances traditional theories of harm relating to structure of the market and lost head-to-head competition. There are no novel theories here. Second, market-definition fights will continue to be key to merger challenges. If the parties can demonstrate that the market improperly excludes in-house coating, the structure of the market and the competitive dynamics likely change dramatically. And lastly, internal documents remain key to merger review. The complaint quotes what appear to be internal documents where Biocoat describes Surmodics as the “#1 player in our space” and the “market leader.” It is vital to involve antitrust counsel early in any dealmaking process to identify relevant evidence and analyze antitrust risk.
In addition to high market shares, the FTC alleges the acquisition would eliminate head-to-head competition between Biocoat and Surmodics, noting that these companies “target the same [OEM] customers and compete aggressively for their business.” The FTC alleges that this loss of competition would result in diminished coating quality, degradation in services offered, and reduced incentive to innovate. This lost competition would harm OEM customers and ultimately the patients who benefit from these critical inputs to lifesaving medical devices.
There are a few takeaways from the first merger challenge to be voted out of the FTC under Chair Andrew Ferguson. First, the complaint advances traditional theories of harm relating to structure of the market and lost head-to-head competition. There are no novel theories here. Second, market-definition fights will continue to be key to merger challenges. If the parties can demonstrate that the market improperly excludes in-house coating, the structure of the market and the competitive dynamics likely change dramatically. And lastly, internal documents remain key to merger review. The complaint quotes what appear to be internal documents where Biocoat describes Surmodics as the “#1 player in our space” and the “market leader.” It is vital to involve antitrust counsel early in any dealmaking process to identify relevant evidence and analyze antitrust risk.
Related Capabilities
© 2026 Jenner & Block LLP. Attorney Advertising. Jenner & Block LLP is an Illinois Limited Liability Partnership including professional corporations. This publication, presentation, or event is not intended to provide legal advice but to provide information on legal matters and/or firm news of interest to our clients and colleagues. Readers or attendees should seek specific legal advice before taking any action with respect to matters mentioned in this publication or at this event. The attorney responsible for this communication is Brent E. Kidwell, Jenner & Block LLP, 353 N. Clark Street, Chicago, IL 60654-3456. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Jenner & Block London LLP, an affiliate of Jenner & Block LLP, is a limited liability partnership established under the laws of the State of Delaware, USA and is authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority with SRA number 615729. Information regarding the data we collect and the rights you have over your data can be found in our Privacy Notice. For further inquiries, please contact dataprotection@jenner.com.
News and Insights
Event
Jenner & Block Partners to Speak at Council on Governmental Relations Conference
On June 11, Partners Mike Vernick, Katie Wynbrandt, and Betsy Henthorne will speak on a panel at the Council on Governmental Relations (COGR) meeting.
June 11, 2026
Recognition
Jenner & Block's Law Firm Defense Practice Receives Band 1 Nationwide Ranking in 2026 Chambers USA
For the third consecutive year, Jenner & Block's Law Firm and Professional Services Defense Practice has achieved a Nationwide Band 1 ranking in the 2026 edition of Chambers USA.
June 10, 2026
Publications
Partner Emily Loeb Quoted in Semafor on Corporate Risk Ahead of Midterm Elections
Partner Emily Loeb was quoted in Semafor in an article examining how House Democrats plan to leverage a potential midterm election majority to pursue oversight investigations into corporations with ties to the Trump administration.
June 9, 2026