Litigation

The Cigna Group v. Celgene Corp. et al.

pending

1:25-cv-05237

Court: U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey
Filed: 2025-06-24

Patents at issue (1)

Plaintiffs (1)

π The Cigna Group

Defendants (2)

Summary

Antitrust/purchaser-overcharge action against Celgene and Bristol Myers Squibb. The complaint references the '3939 patent and the method-of-treatment patent tree as part of the alleged monopolization scheme. Case is pending.

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: 8673939-1-25-cv-05237 · edit in Admin

Further reading

District court vs. PTAB: where to fight a patent challenge
Every defendant who actually fights a patent ends up choosing — sometimes implicitly — between district court invalidity, PTAB IPR, or both in parallel. The trade-offs are not symmetric; the choice often determines the case.
Most-litigated US patents: 12 patents that defined the patent troll era
If a demand letter lands on your desk citing one of these, you are not the first. The campaign playbook is on file. The defenses other defendants used are public record.
How patent trolls operate (and why the business model works)
A junk patent generates settlement income exactly the same way as a strong one, because nobody pays $1M to test a $200k demand. The mechanics matter because the failure modes — what makes assertion campaigns expensive or risky for the troll — are exactly where defendants find leverage.
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.
Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co. (2002)
Narrow your claim during prosecution and you presumptively give up the equivalents in between. The presumption is rebuttable, but in practice the prosecution history is a defendant's gold mine.

All resources →