12 known cases. View patent page →
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 sued Hikma Pharmaceuticals International over generic lenalidomide; the asserted patents included the '784 patent and eight other patents. The case was terminated on 2019-09-18.
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.
Celgene's ANDA/paragraph IV case against Lannett over generic thalidomide, in which Celgene asserted fifteen patents. The narrative could not confirm that '018 was among the asserted patents, although it was among Celgene's Orange Book-listed Thalomid patents. The case settled in October 2017 with a license permitting generic entry as of August 1, 2019.
Celgene action against Lotus and Alvogen over lenalidomide ANDA No. 210480. The narrative states the '018 patent was not listed among the patents challenged; the Rule 12(c) challenge involved the REMS patents '720, '977, '784, '886 and '531. The motion for judgment on the pleadings was denied without prejudice on December 14, 2018.
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.
Later antitrust complaint referencing the Thalomid distribution-method patent family and mentioning the '018 patent within the family narrative. The narrative states the '018 patent was not asserted for infringement in this matter.
Later antitrust complaint referencing the Thalomid distribution-method patent family and mentioning the '018 patent within the family narrative. The narrative states the '018 patent was not asserted for infringement in this matter.
Later antitrust complaint named alongside other related actions referencing the Thalomid distribution-method patent family and mentioning the '018 patent within the family narrative. The narrative states the '018 patent was not asserted for infringement in this matter.
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.