Litigation

Celgene Corporation v. Lotus Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd.

settled

2:17-cv-06842

Court: U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey
Filed: 2017-09-06

Patents at issue (1)

Plaintiffs (1)

π Celgene Corporation

Defendants (1)

Δ Lotus Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd.

Summary

Patent infringement action listed for U.S. Patent No. 7,968,569. The related Lotus/Alvogen dispute was resolved by a 2019 settlement; Lotus/Alvogen also filed IPR2018-01714.

Case overview & background

Plain-language overview of the case: parties, accused product, patents at issue, and why the suit matters.

Save related patent research

Not yet generated. Click Generate to run the LLM with web-search grounding (~30-60s).

Key legal developments & outcome

Major rulings, motions, claim construction, settlements, and the present posture or final disposition.

Save related patent research

Not yet generated. Click Generate to run the LLM with web-search grounding (~30-60s).

In the news

What the press has reported about this case, summarized with links to the source articles.

Save related patent research

Not yet generated. Click Generate to run the LLM with web-search grounding (~30-60s).

Plaintiff representatives

Counsel of record for the plaintiff(s): attorneys, firms, and roles (lead counsel, of counsel, local counsel).

Save related patent research

Not yet generated. Click Generate to run the LLM with web-search grounding (~30-60s).

Defendant representatives

Counsel of record for the defendant(s): attorneys, firms, and roles (lead counsel, of counsel, local counsel).

Save related patent research

Not yet generated. Click Generate to run the LLM with web-search grounding (~30-60s).

Record id: 7968569-2-17-cv-06842 · edit in Admin

Further reading

Bilski v. Kappos (2010)
Machine-or-transformation isn't the only § 101 test, business-method patents survived as a category, and the specific Bilski hedging method was unpatentable. The trio of Bilski, Mayo, and Alice gave defendants the modern § 101 motion.
Joint defense groups: economics, formation, and the privilege framework
An NPE sues twenty defendants on one patent. Solo, each faces $3-5M in defense costs. Pooled into a joint defense group, the per-defendant number drops to $200-500K. The economics only work if the privilege framework is set up correctly.
Lumen View v. FindTheBest (2013-2016): when a defendant fought back, the troll paid
Same patent. Same plaintiff playbook. Different outcome — because the defendant had the resources and the will to fight. Most don't. That's the asymmetry this site is built to fix.
The first 30 days after a patent infringement complaint
Most defendants spend the first 30 days reacting. The defendants who do well spend it sequencing — because every move you make in month one shapes the budget, leverage, and exit options for the next two years.
What it costs to get a patent (AIPLA Economic Survey)
A US utility patent costs a median of $8,000-$12,000 in attorney fees to draft and file, depending on the technology — before USPTO fees, before drawings, and before the first office action. Here's the full bill, and why it's a rounding error next to enforcing the thing.

All resources →