Cigna/The Cigna Group

The Cigna Group (NYSE: CI), commonly known as Cigna and formerly Cigna Corporation, is a for-profit managed healthcare and health-services company headquartered in Bloomfield, Connecticut. It was formed in 1982 through the merger of Connecticut General Life Insurance Company and INA Corporation, with corporate roots dating to 1792. It is publicly traded, has no corporate parent (per its Rule 7.1 disclosure), and reported approximately 73,500 employees and $247.1 billion in total revenues for fiscal 2024, ranking in the top 20 of the Fortune 500.

Cigna operates through two main platforms. Evernorth Health Services provides pharmacy benefit management, specialty pharmacy, and care/digital health services; Cigna Healthcare provides U.S. and international medical benefits, including commercial, Medicare, and individual plans. The 10-K describes roughly 182 million customer and patient relationships across more than 30 countries and jurisdictions.

Patent-litigation posture. Cigna is an operating company, not a non-practicing entity. The tracked data show 1 case as plaintiff and 0 as defendant. That single case is not a patent-infringement suit but an antitrust action, so the count reflects Cigna acting as a health-benefits payer challenging pharmaceutical patent conduct rather than as a patent holder asserting a portfolio or as a target of NPE suits. The case sits in the Southern District of New York, not a plaintiff-friendly patent venue such as the Eastern District of Texas.

Notable case. The Cigna Group v. Celgene Corporation and Bristol Myers Squibb Company, No. 1:25-cv-05237 (S.D.N.Y., filed June 24, 2025, Judge Edgardo Ramos), is docketed as an antitrust matter. The complaint alleges that Celgene and BMS fraudulently obtained patents covering pomalidomide (Pomalyst), pursued sham patent litigation against generic manufacturers, and entered reverse-payment settlements, thereby delaying generic entry. The case was filed as related to 1:23-cv-07871, an indirect-purchaser action concerning the same drug. These allegations mirror the wider "pay-for-delay" antitrust category of payer suits against branded pharmaceutical makers; the merits are unadjudicated.