Defendant
1 case as defendant.
Let me verify the specific litigation context.
Overview. The entity tracked in our database as "Cipla USA affiliate" corresponds to Cipla USA, Inc., the U.S. operating arm of Cipla Limited ("Cipla"). Cipla Limited was founded in 1935 by Khwaja Abdul Hamied and is headquartered in Mumbai, India. It is publicly listed on the National Stock Exchange of India (NSE: CIPLA) and BSE (500087), with a GDR listing in Luxembourg; it has no parent corporation. Market capitalization is roughly US$11 billion and FY2025 revenue about ₹27,500 crore (≈US$3.2–3.3B), with roughly 30,000 employees. Cipla USA's corporate disclosure filings state it is a 100%-owned subsidiary of InvaGen Pharmaceuticals, Inc., itself wholly owned by Cipla (EU) Limited, wholly owned by Cipla Limited. Cipla USA's principal U.S. address is 10 Independence Boulevard, Warren, New Jersey; InvaGen (founded 2003, based in Hauppauge, New York) was acquired by Cipla in 2016.
Operations. Cipla develops, manufactures, and markets generic and branded-generic formulations plus active pharmaceutical ingredients across respiratory (including metered-dose inhalers and spacers), anti-retroviral/HIV, oncology, cardio-metabolic, urology, CNS, and anti-infective therapies. Its New Ventures segment covers consumer healthcare (Cipla Health) and biosimilars (Cipla BioTec). The company reports operations and manufacturing across India, the U.S., Canada, and South Africa. This is clearly an operating company, not a patent-assertion entity.
Litigation posture. The tracked data show 0 cases as plaintiff and 1 as defendant, in the District of New Jersey — consistent with an operating generic manufacturer defending Hatch-Waxman (ANDA/Paragraph IV) suits brought by brand owners. Cipla is a frequent and repeat defendant in such suits in D.N.J., a common venue for ANDA litigation, and has periodically asserted invalidity/non-infringement counterclaims rather than affirmative patent suits.
Notable case. Celgene Corporation v. Cipla Ltd. et al., No. 2:19-cv-14731 (D.N.J., filed July 3, 2019), concerned Cipla's ANDA for generic REVLIMID® (lenalidomide) capsules and asserted patents including 7,465,800; 7,855,217; 7,968,569; 8,530,498; 8,648,095; 9,101,621; 9,101,622; 7,189,740; 8,404,717; and 9,056,120. It followed earlier Celgene suits (No. 2:17-cv-06163 and 2:18-cv-08964, D.N.J.). The parties settled in December 2020 via consent judgment: Cipla received a volume-limited license beginning after March 2022 and an unlimited license no earlier than January 31, 2026. Yes/No
Celgene sued Cipla and a Cipla USA affiliate in D.N.J. over generic lenalidomide. The asserted patents included '800, '217, '569, '498, '095, '621, '622, '740, '717, and '120; a stipulated consent judgment was entered December 14, 2020. The case number was not confirmed in the sources.