The Cigna Group v. Celgene Corporation et al.
pending- Docket:
- 1:25-cv-05237
- Court:
- S.D.N.Y.
- Filed:
- 2025-06-24
Patents:10555939
Antitrust action in S.D.N.Y. naming the '939 formulation patent as part of an alleged monopolization scheme. Pending.
Defendant
Celgene Corporation
27 cases as defendant.
- Cases
- 27
- Active
- 9
- 18 closed
- Filed
- 2015–2025
- Top venue
- D. New Jersey
- 8 cases
Also appears as a plaintiff in 71 cases → View as plaintiff
Company profile
Celgene Corporation is a US biopharmaceutical company headquartered at 86 Morris Avenue, Summit, New Jersey. Founded in 1986 as a spin-off from Celanese (some sources cite 1980), it was acquired by Bristol-Myers Squibb in November 2019 for roughly $74 billion and is now a wholly owned BMS subsidiary; it no longer trades, having formerly been NASDAQ-listed as CELG. Pre-acquisition, Celgene reported FY2017 revenue of about $13.0 billion with roughly 7,000–7,500 employees.
Celgene discovered, developed, and commercialized therapies for cancer and inflammatory disease. Its major product lines were Revlimid (lenalidomide) and Pomalyst/Imnovid (pomalidomide) for multiple myeloma and related blood cancers; Abraxane (paclitaxel protein-bound) for breast, lung, and pancreatic cancer; Thalomid (thalidomide); and the immunology drug Otezla (apremilast), which was divested to Amgen in 2019 as a condition of the BMS deal. Older products included Vidaza and Istodax.
Celgene is an operating company and an active two-way patent litigant, consistent with the 48 plaintiff / 24 defendant split in the tracked data. As plaintiff it filed Hatch-Waxman ANDA infringement suits against generic manufacturers — Hikma, Hetero, Lupin, Dr. Reddy's, Mylan, Aurobindo, Alembic, Torrent, Biocon, and Oncogen Pharma — mostly in the District of New Jersey, with appeals to the Federal Circuit. As defendant it faces antitrust and consumer/purchaser claims, largely in the S.D.N.Y. and D.N.J.; nothing in the tracked list clusters in the Eastern District of Texas.
Notable tracked matters include The Cigna Group v. Celgene (S.D.N.Y., 2025), CenterWell Pharmacy v. Celgene (S.D.N.Y., 2024), Walgreen Co. v. Celgene (D.N.J., 2022), and suits by Blue Cross Blue Shield, UnitedHealthcare, and the New York Hotel Trades Council. These actions center on alleged reverse-payment settlements and sham patent litigation concerning Revlimid and Pomalyst — allegations only, not adjudicated findings. Related non-patent litigation includes the CVR breach-of-contract dispute (UMB Bank as Celgene shareholder trustee) over Breyanzi approval timing.
Filing activity
CenterWell Pharmacy, Inc. v. Celgene Corporation
pending/consolidated- Docket:
- 1:24-cv-06924
- Court:
- S.D.N.Y.
- Filed:
- 2024-09-13
Patents:10555939
Antitrust action in S.D.N.Y. naming the '939 formulation patent as part of an alleged monopolization scheme. Pending and consolidated with related Pomalyst antitrust actions.
CenterWell Pharmacy, Inc. v. Celgene Corporation
- Docket:
- 1:24-cv-06924
- Filed:
- 2024-09-13
Patents:7968569
Antitrust action against Celgene; patents cited include U.S. Patent No. 7,968,569. Judge Edgardo Ramos presided.
New York Hotel Trades Council & Hotel Association of NYC Health Center, Inc. v. Celgene Corporation
pending- Docket:
- 1:24-cv-02230
- Court:
- S.D.N.Y.
- Filed:
- 2024-03-25
Patents:10555939
Antitrust action in S.D.N.Y. naming the '939 formulation patent as part of an alleged monopolization scheme. Pending as of the source data.
Louisiana Health Service & Indemnity Company v. Celgene Corporation
motion to dismiss granted- Docket:
- 1:23-cv-07871
- Court:
- S.D.N.Y.
- Filed:
- 2023-09-05
Patents:10555939
Antitrust action in S.D.N.Y. naming the '939 formulation patent as part of an alleged monopolization scheme. Motion to dismiss granted Mar. 2025; plaintiffs sought leave to amend.
Walgreen Co. v. Celgene Corporation
pending- Docket:
- 2:22-cv-06440
- Filed:
- 2022-11-03
Antitrust action against Celgene; patents listed: 8,288,415; 8,315,886; 8,404,717. Assigned to Judge Esther Salas and Magistrate Michael A. Hammer. No termination date listed as of Feb. 19, 2026.
(Removed antitrust action) v. Celgene
terminated- Docket:
- 0:20-cv-02071
- Filed:
- 2020-09-29
- Terminated:
- 2021-03-22
Patents:7119106
Removed antitrust action against Celgene, docketed in the District of Minnesota and terminated March 22, 2021. The '106 patent is referenced as part of Celgene's Revlimid patent portfolio/alleged monopolization scheme.
Untitled case
terminated- Docket:
- 1:20-cv-01980
- Filed:
- 2020-07-21
- Terminated:
- 2021-04-18
Patents:8288415
Clayton Act antitrust case against Celgene Corporation citing US 8,288,415 as a patent-in-suit. Terminated 2021-04-18.
Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association v. Celgene Corporation
terminated/transferred- Docket:
- 1:20-cv-01980
- Filed:
- 2020-07-21
- Terminated:
- 2021-04-18
Patents:7119106
Clayton Act antitrust action by Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association against Celgene, referencing the '106 patent as part of Celgene's Revlimid patent portfolio/alleged monopolization scheme. The case was terminated/transferred, with an aggregator-listed termination date around April 18, 2021.
Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association v. Celgene Corporation
terminated- Docket:
- 1:20-cv-01980
- Court:
- D.D.C.
- Filed:
- 2020-07-21
- Terminated:
- 2021-04-18
Patents:8530498
Antitrust action under the Clayton Act, 15:25, in which the '498 patent is a subject. The case was terminated on 2021-04-18.
United HealthCare Services, Inc. v. Celgene Corporation
transferred- Docket:
- 0:20-cv-00686
- Filed:
- 2020-03-05
- Terminated:
- 2020-12-02
Patents:8288415
Antitrust action citing US 8,288,415; terminated and transferred out on 2020-12-02.
(Consumer/purchaser) v. Celgene
terminated- Docket:
- 0:20-cv-00686
- Filed:
- 2020-03-05
- Terminated:
- 2020-12-02
Patents:7119106
Consumer/purchaser antitrust action against Celgene, docketed in the District of Minnesota and terminated December 2, 2020. The '106 patent is referenced as part of Celgene's Revlimid patent portfolio/alleged monopolization scheme.
United HealthCare Services, Inc. v. Celgene Corporation
terminated- Docket:
- 0:20-cv-00686
- Court:
- D. Minn.
- Filed:
- 2020-03-05
- Terminated:
- 2020-12-02
Patents:8530498
Antitrust litigation in which the '498 patent is a subject. The case was terminated on 2020-12-02 and noted as consolidated/transferred with a 'DO NOT DOCKET' notation.
Alvogen Pine Brook LLC v. Celgene Corporation
institution denied- Docket:
- IPR2018-01714
- Filed:
- 2018-09-12
- Terminated:
- 2019-03-14
Patents:7968569
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.
City of Providence v. Celgene Corporation
terminated- Docket:
- 2:15-cv-01605
- Filed:
- 2015-03-03
- Terminated:
- 2015-03-31
Patents:8288415
Antitrust/pay-for-delay action citing US 8,288,415 as one of the patents-in-suit in an alleged monopolization scheme. Terminated on 2015-03-31.
Purchaser antitrust action v. Celgene
terminated- Docket:
- 2:15-cv-01605
- Filed:
- 2015-03-03
- Terminated:
- 2015-03-31
Patents:7119106
Purchaser antitrust action against Celgene, docketed in the District of New Jersey and terminated March 31, 2015, likely consolidated/transferred. The '106 patent is referenced as part of Celgene's Revlimid patent portfolio/alleged monopolization scheme.
In re Pomalyst Antitrust Litigation
on appealPatents:9993467
Antitrust litigation in S.D.N.Y. challenging Celgene's enforcement of pomalidomide patents including the '467; complaints dismissed March 2025, judgment entered for defendants March 2026, and notice of appeal to the Second Circuit filed April 2026.
The Cigna Group v. Celgene Corporation
on appeal- Docket:
- 1:25-cv-05237-ER
Patents:9993467
Antitrust action by The Cigna Group against Celgene Corp. in the Pomalyst antitrust litigation; complaints dismissed March 2025, judgment entered for defendants March 2026, and appeal to the Second Circuit filed April 2026.
In re Pomalyst (pomalidomide) Antitrust Litigation
dismissed; leave to amend soughtPutative class actions filed beginning September 2023 against Celgene, Bristol Myers Squibb, and individuals alleging antitrust, consumer-protection, and unjust-enrichment claims relating to the Pomalyst patents, including the '647 family. In March 2025 the court dismissed the complaints, and plaintiffs sought leave to amend.
In re Revlimid & Thalomid Purchaser Antitrust Litigation
active- Docket:
- 2:19-cv-07532
Antitrust/pay-for-delay litigation challenging Revlimid generic settlements. Patents cited include the Revlimid patent family; on September 29, 2026, the court denied motions to dismiss, finding a plausible pay-for-delay agreement between Celgene and Natco.
The Cigna Group v. Celgene Corporation
Antitrust action against Celgene concerning Revlimid settlements; patents cited include the same Revlimid patent set as the In re Revlimid litigation.
Blue Cross Blue Shield Association plaintiffs v. Celgene Corporation et al.
Antitrust action by Blue Cross Blue Shield Association plaintiffs against Celgene/BMS concerning Revlimid settlements; patents cited include the same Revlimid patent set as the In re Revlimid litigation.
In re Revlimid & Thalomid Purchaser Antitrust Litigation
active- Docket:
- 2:19-cv-07532
- Court:
- D.N.J.
Patents:7977357
Antitrust litigation in which purchasers/insurers allege Celgene's serial ANDA suits, including those asserting the '357, '219, and '598 Form A crystal patents, were sham litigation and that settlements were reverse payments. U.S. 7,977,357 features as one of the Form A crystal patents at issue, not as a direct infringement claim; the court issued a June 6, 2024 opinion on sham-litigation allegations.
Cigna Corporation v. Celgene Corporation
active- Docket:
- 2:21-cv-11686
- Court:
- D.N.J.
Patents:7977357
Direct-purchaser opt-out antitrust case against Celgene. U.S. 7,977,357 is referenced in the narrative as part of the REVLIMID/THALOMID antitrust litigation context.
MSP Recovery Claims, Series LLC v. Celgene Corporation
active- Docket:
- 2:21-cv-20451
- Court:
- D.N.J.
Patents:7977357
Antitrust case against Celgene listed with the REVLIMID/THALOMID matters referencing U.S. 7,977,357. No additional patents or dates were provided.
In re Thalomid and Revlimid Antitrust Litigation
active- Docket:
- 2:14-cv-06997
Patents:7119106
Antitrust litigation by purchaser/insurer classes against Celgene/BMS, in which the '106 patent is directly referenced as part of Celgene's Revlimid patent portfolio/alleged monopolization scheme. The case remains ongoing with appeals and summary-judgment briefing in 2024 (see Dkt. 446, 2:19-cv-07532).
In re Thalomid and Revlimid Purchaser Antitrust Litigation
consolidated- Docket:
- 2:14-cv-06997
Consolidated purchaser/insurer antitrust litigation alleging Celgene improperly listed Thalomid/Revlimid distribution-method patents in the Orange Book and pursued sham litigation. The '018 patent is referenced within the distribution-method patent family but is not asserted for infringement.