10093649

Hatch-Waxman ANDA infringement action filed by Celgene against Hetero entities; the complaint expressly asserts the '647, '648, and '649 patents. Consolidated with related 2019 cases before Judge Esther Salas / M.J. Michael A. Hammer and docket shows termination Oct. 28, 2020.

Hatch-Waxman ANDA infringement action by Celgene against Aurobindo; consolidated with the 2019 wave and later resolved by a Celgene-Aurobindo settlement in spring 2021.

Hatch-Waxman ANDA action filed by Celgene; defendants not verified (narrative notes likely Breckenridge and/or Natco but not confirmed). Consolidated with the 2019 wave.

Hatch-Waxman ANDA infringement action by Celgene against Apotex; consolidated with the 2019 wave before Judge Esther Salas / M.J. Michael A. Hammer.

Hatch-Waxman ANDA action by Celgene against Teva; consolidated with the 2:19-cv-05797/05799/05802 group; later resolved by a Celgene-Teva settlement in March 2021.

Appeal captioned Celgene Corporation v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc.; related to the D.N.J. Mylan venue dismissal and the consolidated 2019 action.

Antitrust complaint referencing the '647/'648/'649 crystal-form patents as part of an alleged scheme.

Antitrust complaint referencing the '647/'648/'649 crystal-form patents as part of an alleged scheme.

Antitrust monopolization suit challenging Celgene's Pomalyst crystalline-form patents, including the '647/'648/'649 patents; Celgene/BMS moved to dismiss.

Consolidated class/insurer/MSP purchaser antitrust litigation attacking the Pomalyst patent family, including the '647/'648/'649 crystalline-form patents.

Celgene sued Breckenridge (with Natco) in D.N.J. asserting the '647, '648, and '649 patents against a Pomalyst ANDA. The case was resolved via consolidation/settlement; Natco/Breckenridge later settled with agreed generic entry in Q1 2026.

Celgene filed this D.N.J. action against Synthon (Alvogen) on the '262, '939, '428, '427 and the '647/'648/'649 patents. The docket shows termination on May 13, 2019, indicating dismissal or consolidation.

Putative 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.

CenterWell filed monopolization claims under Section 2 of the Sherman Act against Celgene and Bristol Myers Squibb, citing the '647/'648/'649 patents as part of an alleged pay-for-delay scheme.