Litigation

(Removed antitrust action) v. Celgene

terminated

0:20-cv-02071

Auto-generating section 1 of 5: Case overview & background…

Each section takes ~30-60s with web-search grounding. Keep this tab open — sections will fill in below as they complete.

Court: U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota
Filed: 2020-09-29
Terminated: 2021-03-22

Patents at issue (1)

Defendants (1)

Δ Celgene Corporation

Summary

Removed antitrust action against Celgene, docketed in the District of Minnesota and terminated March 22, 2021. The '106 patent is referenced as part of Celgene's Revlimid patent portfolio/alleged monopolization scheme.

Case overview & background

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

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.

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.

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).

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).

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

Record id: 7119106-0-20-cv-02071 · edit in Admin

Further reading

Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc. (1996)
Claim construction is exclusively the court's job. The Markman hearing is the most consequential single ruling in nearly every patent case — and a defendant's best chance to end the litigation before trial.
Patent trolls in 2025: the year in numbers
2025 was a banner year for patent trolls — and not by accident. Filings surged while the defendant's cheapest weapon, the PTAB, was quietly taken off the table. Here's what the reporting shows, and why the two are connected.
Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International (2014)
Bolting 'on a computer' onto an abstract business process doesn't make it patentable. Most software and business-method patents that look like 'doing X on a computer' don't survive when seriously challenged under Alice.
Anatomy of a shakedown: how a patent troll campaign actually works
A patent troll demand letter isn't a lawsuit. It's the output of an industrial process designed to extract money at scale, calibrated to your defense costs, and dependent on you not coordinating with the other 199 targets in the same campaign.
KSR International v. Teleflex (2007)
Pre-KSR, an obviousness rejection required explicit teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art. Post-KSR, common sense, design needs, and predictable variations all do the work — and most patents don't survive.

All resources →