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
Publications
Meghan Greenfield Discusses Top Environmental Policies to Watch in Law360
Partner Meghan Greenfield spoke to for an article highlighting the key environmental regulatory developments expected in the second half of 2026. Meghan discussed the legal reasoning the agency may rely on as it considers further rulemaking addressing greenhouse gas pollution, and hurdles the agency may face.
July 22, 2026
Publications
Partner Meghan Greenfield Quoted in The Associated Press on Offshore Wind and National Security
Partner Meghan Greenfield spoke with The Associated Press for an article examining the Trump Administration's use of national security justifications to halt offshore wind development.
July 21, 2026
Podcasts
Partner Laurel Loomis Rimon Discusses Fintech Enforcement, Debanking, and Regulatory Risk on Fintech Layer Cake Podcast
Partner Laurel Loomis Rimon was featured on the Fintech Layer Cake podcast, where she discussed how fintech enforcement and prosecution actually work in practice, and what exposes fintechs and banks to regulatory risk.
July 15, 2026
Event
Partner Suedeen Kelly to Speak at ABA SEER's 34th Fall Conference
On Thursday, October 15, Partner Suedeen Kelly will speak on a panel at the American Bar Association's Section of Environment, Energy, and Resources (ABA SEER) 34th Fall Conference in Albuquerque, New Mexico.
October 15, 2026
Publications
Supreme Court Clarifies Scope of Private Rights of Action Under the Investment Company Act, Private Equity Law Report
Partners Charles Riely, Todd C. Toral, and Martin Glass authored a guest article for Private Equity Law Report examining the US Supreme Court's June 11, 2026, ruling on the scope of private rights of action under the Investment Company Act of 1940.
July 14, 2026