9 known cases. View patent page →
Celgene asserted multiple patents, including the '554 patent, against Natco's lenalidomide ANDA No. 201452. The '554 claims were dismissed without prejudice by stipulation on March 26, 2015; the overall case settled with a consent judgment entered January 4, 2016, and terminated January 5, 2016.
Celgene Corp. and Children's Medical Center Corp. sued Barr Laboratories over thalidomide ANDA; the '784 patent was among the patents-in-suit. The case was dismissed after Barr withdrew its ANDA, with Barr's antitrust counterclaims dismissed with prejudice and patent claims dismissed without prejudice.
Celgene's Hatch-Waxman ANDA suit against Barr Laboratories, filed in D.N.J. The narrative lists it among verified litigation naming US 6,869,399, and notes that the Barr and Lannett suits asserted a bundle of Celgene thalidomide patents including '501, '720, '977, and '784. The outcome on the '399 patent is unconfirmed.
Celgene's Hatch-Waxman ANDA suit against Lannett Holdings, filed in D.N.J. The narrative lists it among verified litigation naming US 6,869,399, and notes that the Barr and Lannett suits asserted a bundle of Celgene thalidomide patents including '501, '720, '977, and '784. The outcome on the '399 patent is unconfirmed.
Action identified as one of six district-court actions relating to the '501 patent, consolidated with the Barr actions and dismissed without prejudice on May 21, 2010. Whether the '018 patent was separately asserted in this action is unconfirmed.
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.
District-court action identified in the SCOTUS record as one of six actions relating to the '501 patent. The narrative provides no caption or outcome and does not indicate that the '018 patent was involved.
PTAB inter partes review challenging U.S. 6,315,720 and U.S. 6,045,501, not the '018 patent specifically.
Supreme Court cert petition arising from the Federal Circuit affirmance that all claims of the '501 patent and claims 1–9 and 11–32 of the '720 patent were invalid as obvious. The '018 patent is not indicated as involved.