Litigation

Walgreen Co. v. Celgene Corporation

pending

2:22-cv-06440

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 New Jersey
Filed: 2022-11-03

Patents at issue (3)

Plaintiffs (1)

π Walgreen Co.

Defendants (1)

Δ Celgene Corporation

Summary

Antitrust action against Celgene; patents listed: 8,288,415; 8,315,886; 8,404,717. Assigned to Judge Esther Salas and Magistrate Michael A. Hammer. No termination date listed as of Feb. 19, 2026.

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: 8288415-2-22-cv-06440 · edit in Admin

Further reading

eBay Inc. v. MercExchange (2006)
Pre-eBay, an injunction was a kill switch a patent holder could threaten. Post-eBay, the worst is monetary damages — and for an NPE that wants license fees anyway, the four-factor test usually fails on the irreparable-harm prong.
AI prior art search tools: a 2026 buyer's guide for defendants
AI doesn't replace a patent attorney's judgment. It does replace the search step that used to cost $20,000 and take three weeks.
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.
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.
What to do if you get a patent demand letter
A patent demand letter is a request for money, not a court order. The plaintiff's leverage is your fear; preparation removes it.

All resources →