Litigation

Alvogen Pine Brook LLC v. Celgene Corporation

institution denied

IPR2018-01714

Auto-generating section 1 of 5: Case overview & background…

Each section takes ~30-60s with web-search grounding. Keep this tab open — sections will fill in below as they complete.

Court: Patent Trial and Appeal Board
Filed: 2018-09-12
Terminated: 2019-03-14

Patents at issue (1)

Plaintiffs (1)

π Alvogen Pine Brook LLC

Defendants (1)

Δ Celgene Corporation

Summary

Inter partes review petition by Alvogen Pine Brook LLC et al. against Celgene Corporation regarding U.S. Patent No. 7,968,569. The PTAB denied institution on March 14, 2019.

Case overview & background

Plain-language overview of the case: parties, accused product, patents at issue, and why the suit matters.

Not yet generated. Click Generate to run the LLM with web-search grounding (~30-60s).

Key legal developments & outcome

Major rulings, motions, claim construction, settlements, and the present posture or final disposition.

Not yet generated. Click Generate to run the LLM with web-search grounding (~30-60s).

In the news

What the press has reported about this case, summarized with links to the source articles.

Not yet generated. Click Generate to run the LLM with web-search grounding (~30-60s).

Plaintiff representatives

Counsel of record for the plaintiff(s): attorneys, firms, and roles (lead counsel, of counsel, local counsel).

Not yet generated. Click Generate to run the LLM with web-search grounding (~30-60s).

Defendant representatives

Counsel of record for the defendant(s): attorneys, firms, and roles (lead counsel, of counsel, local counsel).

Not yet generated. Click Generate to run the LLM with web-search grounding (~30-60s).

Record id: 7968569-ipr2018-01714 · edit in Admin

Further reading

The patent litigation lifecycle
Most patent cases never reach trial. A defendant who understands the lifecycle makes better decisions about when to fight, when to settle, and when to invest in IPR — instead of overspending on whatever phase they happen to be in.
Prior-art research, old way vs new way — a side-by-side comparison
Defense is expensive because reading thousands of pages of patents takes time. AI doesn't change that for the lawyer's strategic work — but the time-on-pages part collapses by orders of magnitude.
How to read a patent claim chart
The claim chart is where the plaintiff's case actually lives. The complaint is a pitch deck; the chart is the homework — and most patent troll homework doesn't survive a careful read.
Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co. (2002)
Narrow your claim during prosecution and you presumptively give up the equivalents in between. The presumption is rebuttable, but in practice the prosecution history is a defendant's gold mine.
Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International (2014)
Bolting 'on a computer' onto an abstract business process doesn't make it patentable. Most software and business-method patents that look like 'doing X on a computer' don't survive when seriously challenged under Alice.

All resources →