US 8530498

I'll verify the current ground truth for this specific patent number before summarizing.

Let me pull the actual claim text and litigation/PTAB status.

Let me try to pin down the exact independent claim text and any Federal Circuit activity.

Scope and sourcing note

I searched for the literal string "8530498" / "8,530,498" against Google Patents, DrugPatentWatch, PubChem, USPTO/PTAB petition materials, the Orange Book (41st ed.), and U.S. district-court filings surfaced via CourtListener. I did not have direct PACER/CAFC docket access, so I cannot claim to have queried the Federal Circuit's 2026 docket natively — see the litigation section for what I did and did not find. I did not auto-correct any identifier; everything below refers strictly to US 8,530,498.

1. Bibliographic summary (US 8,530,498)

Sources: https://patents.google.com/patent/US8530498/en ; https://www.drugpatentwatch.com/p/patent/8530498 ; Orange Book 41st Annual ed. listing at https://thefdalawblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/Orange-Book-41st-Annual.pdf

Status caveat: the authoritative fetched page for US8530498 says "Expired – Fee Related" with an "Anticipated expiration" event of 2023-05-15. A different rendering of the same Google Patents record returns "Expired – Lifetime." I cannot reconcile these two with certainty; the "Expired – Fee Related" text is what appears on the page I retrieved, and independently the Orange Book confirms the May 15, 2023 expiration. Either way, the patent's term has run.

2. Abstract

As listed verbatim on DrugPatentWatch for this patent:

"Methods of treating, preventing and/or managing cancer as well as and diseases and disorders associated with, or characterized by, undesired angiogenesis are disclosed. Specific methods encompass the administration of an immunomodulatory compound alone or in combination with a second active ingredient. The invention further relates to methods of reducing or avoiding adverse side effects associated with chemotherapy, radiation therapy, hormonal therapy, biological therapy or immunotherapy which comprise the administration of an immunomodulatory compound. Pharmaceutical compositions, single unit dosage forms, and kits suitable for use in methods of the invention are also disclosed."

Note the mismatch worth flagging: the abstract is generic family boilerplate and never mentions multiple myeloma or lenalidomide, despite the title being narrowly drawn to treating multiple myeloma with that compound. This same abstract text is shared by Celgene sibling patents in the family (e.g., US 8,198,262, quoted in the D.N.J. filings). Plaintiff-side antitrust complaints in the Revlimid litigation have specifically pointed to this recycled abstract as evidence of boilerplate prosecution.

3. Independent claims — plain-language overview

Confidence caveat, stated plainly: I was not able to retrieve the verbatim granted claim text of US 8,530,498 from an authoritative full-text source during this session (the Google Patents page body I retrieved contains the description but not the claims column; DrugPatentWatch surfaces only claim categories). What follows is my best-supported reconstruction from corroborating sources, with the limits of that inference identified.

What the record does support:

1. Claim type. DrugPatentWatch categorizes the '498 claims as "Use; Delivery," i.e., method-of-use claims plus at least one claim directed to a delivery/administration format. That is consistent with an oral-dosing method-of-use claim set.

2. The subject matter is multiple myeloma treated with lenalidomide + dexamethasone. A Taiwan TIPO family table describes patent 8530498 as: "Method of treating multiple myeloma in combination with 40mg/day of dexamethasone" (https://www1.tipo.gov.tw/tw/dl-[287732](/patent/287732)-d05ed916c6074a6b947bd0154233b51e.html). The compound named in the title, 3-(4-amino-1-oxo-1,3-dihydroisoindol-2-yl)piperidine-2,6-dione, is lenalidomide (REVLIMID / REVIMID).

3. The '498 is grouped by litigants with the lenalidomide dosing-regimen patents. Plaintiff filings in the Revlimid antitrust matters state: "Celgene's multiple myeloma method of treatment patents (the 7,968,569, 8,530,498, 8,648,095, and 9,101,622) claim the administration of lenalidomide in combination with dexamethasone in specific dosing regimens." (https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.njd.[498914](/patent/498914)/gov.uscourts.njd.498914.1.0_1.pdf). So an independent claim likely recites a dosage of lenalidomide and/or a scheduled (cyclical) dosing pattern together with dexamethasone.

Plain-language reading of the likely independent claim(s): a method of treating a patient who has multiple myeloma by administering lenalidomide (or a pharmaceutically acceptable salt of it) in combination with dexamethasone 40 mg/day, with the claim set also including at least one claim specifying the administration format (e.g., capsule/tablet or oral unit dose) in which the lenalidomide is delivered.

What I cannot confirm and will not guess at:

• The exact number of claims in the '498 patent.
• Whether the independent claim carries the "21 consecutive days followed by seven consecutive days of rest in a 28-day cycle" limitation that is the centerpiece of sibling US 7,968,569 (claims 1 and 13 of '569 are quoted in the IPR record — https://patents.google.com/patent/US7968569 ; PTAB IPR2018-01714 institution decision). Because '498 and '569 share the May 15, 2003 parent (10/438,213) and thus the same 20-year term, the '498 claim set would have needed to be patentably distinct from '569 to survive double-patenting — but I have not seen a terminal disclaimer or double-patenting record for '498 to confirm how that was resolved.
• The precise numerical dosage ranges recited.

If you need claim-chart-grade accuracy, the granted claims should be pulled from USPTO PatentCenter for application 13/858,708 rather than from any secondary aggregator.

4. Litigation, PTAB, and docket findings

District court (many D.N.J. matters). The Google Patents record for US8530498 carries a "Family has litigation" flag and links, among others, these D.N.J. cases: 2:14-cv-03126; 2:16-cv-07704; 2:17-cv-02528; 2:17-cv-06163; 2:17-cv-06842; 2:18-cv-08964; 2:18-cv-11518; 2:19-cv-14731; 2:19-cv-15449; 2:20-cv-00315; 2:20-cv-07759; 2:20-cv-08570; 2:20-cv-14389; 2:21-cv-01734; 2:21-cv-10398; 2:21-cv-11261; 2:21-cv-12927; 2:21-cv-20099; 2:21-cv-20459; 2:22-cv-02952; plus a N.D. W. Va. case, 1:20-cv-00003. Darts-ip reports a first worldwide family litigation filing for family 32314544.

Asserted against generics. A Celgene infringement action against Lotus Pharmaceutical / Alvogen asserted sixteen patents including 8530498 (alongside 5,635,517; 6,315,720; 6,561,977; 6,755,784; 7,189,740; 7,465,800; 7,855,217; 7,968,569; 8,315,886; 8,404,717; 8,626,531; 8,648,095; 9,056,120; 9,101,621; 9,101,622) — https://www1.tipo.gov.tw/tw/dl-287732-d05ed916c6074a6b947bd0154233b51e.html. The '498 also appears in the Natco matter's enumeration of patents as to which Natco asserted invalidity/non-infringement (https://www.hbsslaw.com/sites/default/files/case-downloads/revlimid/2024-11-05-corrected-amended-complaint-redacted.pdf).

PTAB. I found no inter partes review petition specifically against US 8,530,498. The Revlimid IPRs I located target other patents — e.g., US 7,968,569 (IPR2018-01714; also an Alvogen/Lotus IPR), US 9,056,120, and the REMS patents US 7,953,501 / 8,315,720 (IPR2015-01092 et al., invalidated and affirmed in Celgene Corp. v. Peter, 931 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2019)).

Federal Circuit / CAFC 2026. I found no evidence of any 2026 Federal Circuit appeal or docket specifically concerning US 8,530,498. Given that the patent expired May 15, 2023, a live 2026 appeal on its own merits would be unusual, and I would need direct CAFC docket confirmation to assert otherwise. What is active in 2025–2026 is follow-on antitrust/insurer litigation that discusses the '498 as a historical asserted patent — e.g., The Cigna Group v. Celgene Corp., No. 1:25-cv-05237-ER (D.N.J., complaint filed June 24, 2025) and related insurer/MSP actions. Those cases plead the '498's validity and prosecution as background conduct; they are not merits appeals of the patent.

5. Explicit uncertainties

1. Verbatim granted claims of US 8,530,498 were not retrievable in this session — the claim overview in §3 is reconstruction, not quotation.
2. The "Expired – Fee Related" vs. "Expired – Lifetime" discrepancy in Google Patents renderings is unresolved.
3. The effective priority date is contested in the litigation record: IPR testimony regarding sibling '569 argued the May 17, 2002 provisional (60/380,842) does not provide written-description support for the cyclical-dosing/dexamethasone claims, pushing the effective date to Nov. 6, 2002 (60/424,600). Google Patents nevertheless lists 2002-05-17 as the priority date "as an assumption and not a legal conclusion."
4. I did not locate any PTAB proceeding or Federal Circuit appeal naming '498 directly; absence of evidence here is not proof of absence, since I lacked native docket access.

I'll research litigation involving US Patent 8,530,498 specifically. Let me run several searches.

Let me get the patent-specific litigation list and check specific cases.

Let me identify the parties in the remaining dockets from the patent's litigation list.

Litigation Involving U.S. Patent No. 8,530,498

Bottom line: Yes — there is extensive known litigation involving the '498 patent. It was one of Celgene's "multiple myeloma method of treatment" patents (along with the '569, '095, '621, and '622 patents) asserted throughout the Revlimid® (lenalidomide) ANDA wars, and it also appears in the antitrust suits challenging Celgene's Revlimid/Thalomid conduct. I did not identify any case in which the '498 patent was adjudicated on the merits at trial; the infringement actions were resolved by settlement/consent judgment or dismissal.

Important caveat on completeness: Google Patents lists 21 litigation links for this family (all shown on the patent page you supplied). I was able to independently verify the parties for a subset of those dockets; for others I could confirm only the docket number and jurisdiction, not the parties. I flag each one below. Per your instruction, I am reporting identifiers literally as found and not auto-correcting them.

A. ANDA / patent-infringement actions asserting the '498 patent (Celgene as plaintiff)

Note: Dockets are drawn from the litigation links on the patent page you supplied (Google Patents / Unified Patents / Darts-IP data) and the DrugPatentWatch patent-specific page for 8,530,498. In the Celgene/Revlimid campaign the defendants across these filings include Natco/Arrow/Watson, Dr. Reddy's, Zydus/Cadila, Cipla, Lotus/Alvogen, Apotex, Hetero, Sun, Mylan, Aurobindo, Torrent, Biocon, Lupin, Hikma, and Alembic; the '498 patent was asserted in a subset of those.

B. Antitrust actions in which the '498 patent is a subject (Celgene/BMS as defendant)

Key context for the '498 patent

• Patent: U.S. 8,530,498 B1 — "Methods for treating multiple myeloma with 3-(4‑amino‑1‑oxo‑1,3‑dihydroisoindol‑2‑yl)piperidine‑2,6‑dione." Inventor: Jerome B. Zeldis; assignee Celgene Corp.; filed 2013‑04‑08; granted 2013‑09‑10; priority 2002‑05‑17. (Note: the patent itself states the compound is Revimid™/Revlimid®/lenalidomide — I am reporting the patent's own naming literally.)
• Orange Book listing: listed against REVLIMID®, with an expiration date of May 15, 2023 (41st Annual Orange Book listing shown as 8530498 – May 15, 2023 – U-1984).
• Legal status: Expired – Fee Related; anticipated expiration 2023‑05‑15.
• Character of the litigation: The '498 patent was primarily a Hatch‑Waxman tool — asserted in ANDA suits to trigger the 30‑month stay. Across the Revlimid disputes, no Celgene patent was ever carried to a merits judgment on the '498 patent; cases ended in settlements/consent judgments (Natco, Dr. Reddy's, Zydus, Cipla, Lotus/Alvogen, Mylan, Hikma, etc.). Its validity was challenged indirectly in the purchaser/insurer antitrust suits, where plaintiffs alleged the multiple-myeloma method-of-treatment patents were obvious.

Answers to "if no litigation is known"

Litigation is known, so that branch does not apply. However, I want to be explicit about the limits of this report:

1. I could not independently verify the parties for dockets 2:17-cv-06163, 2:18-cv-11518, 2:19-cv-14731, 2:19-cv-15449, 2:20-cv-00315, 2:20-cv-08570, 2:20-cv-14389, 2:21-cv-01734, 2:21-cv-11261, 2:21-cv-12927, 2:21-cv-20099, 2:21-cv-20459, and 2:22-cv-02952. I list them because they appear in the patent's own litigation record, but I have flagged them as unverified rather than guessing.
2. I did not locate any PTAB/CAFC appellate decision on the merits of the '498 patent itself. (The 2017 Lotus IPR referenced in one source was directed to U.S. 7,968,569, not the '498 patent, and was denied on March 14, 2019.)
3. Outcomes marked "settled" reflect settlements described in the antitrust complaints and secondary reporting; the settlement terms involving the '498 patent were generally confidential.
4. Primary sources to confirm live status: Unified Patents case list (portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/caselist), PACER/RECAP, the DrugPatentWatch patent page for 8,530,498, and the court opinions cited (e.g., In re Revlimid & Thalomid Purchaser Antitrust Litig., D.N.J. No. 2:19‑cv‑07532, Doc. 446, June 6, 2024).

I'll verify the structured data against live sources before concluding.

Proceedings overview

Total AIA trial proceedings on US 8,530,498: zero. The structured USPTO Open Data Portal block — the canonical list supplied in this prompt — reports no IPR, PGR, or CBM proceeding naming this patent, and my independent web checks surfaced none either. That is the correct bottom line, and everything below must be read against it. The defensive posture is therefore not "hardened by surviving two IPRs" and not "claims canceled" — it is untested: no PTAB panel has ever issued an institution decision or a Final Written Decision on any claim of the '498 patent, so there is no claim-level disposition to cite, no § 315(e)(2) estoppel to lean on, and no FWD to quote.

One important caveat that a defendant will care about more than the null result: the '498 patent is expired. The patent's anticipated expiration is 2023-05-15 (matching the Orange Book listing for REVLIMID use code U-1984), it granted 2013-09-10 from an application filed 2013-04-08 claiming priority to 2002-05-17, and Google Patents records its legal status as "Expired - Fee Related." Any live assertion against you would have to reach pre-2023 conduct, or rely on back damages — which changes the practical value of a PTAB filing enormously.

No proceeding — US 8,530,498

There is no docket entry to serialize. Instead of inventing a number (which the task expressly forbids), here is the structured-source disposition verbatim and its meaning:

• Type: N/A — no AIA trial petition on file for this patent.
• Filed: N/A.
• Status: "The USPTO ODP API returns no AIA trial proceedings for this patent as of the most recent ingest." Plain English: nothing has been petitioned — not denied, not settled, not instituted. Absence of a docket, not an empty docket.
• Judge panel: None assigned. APJ panels are constituted only upon a petition; none exists.
• Petition grounds: None asserted. No § 102, § 103, or § 112 ground has been argued at the Board against these claims.
• Institution decision: None. There has been no § 314(a) reasonable-likelihood determination.
• Final Written Decision: None issued. No independent claim and no dependent claim of the '498 patent has been canceled or sustained by the Board.
• Settlement / termination: N/A.
• Appeal: No FWD → no appeal to the Federal Circuit from any PTAB proceeding on this patent.
• Defensive value: You cannot litigate this patent at the PTAB on the strength of someone else's win, because no one has won or lost here. Any invalidity position on the '498 claims is a first-mover exercise, with the full cost of building the record from scratch.

Adjacent proceedings you should not confuse with this patent

These are different patents — the "Multiple Myeloma Patent" family siblings and patent-family relatives — and are offered only as context for why the '498's clean PTAB record is notable. None of them is a proceeding on US 8,530,498.

• IPR2018-01714 — Alvogen Pine Brook LLC v. Celgene Corp., on US 7,968,569 (a direct sibling in the same multiple-myeloma family; the '498 and '569 share inventor Jerome B. Zeldis, the 2002-05-17 priority chain, and overlapping claim subject matter). Filed 2018-09-12; Alvogen and Lotus Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. named as real parties-in-interest; grounds were § 103(a) over Palumbo + the May/August/October 2001 Celgene press releases, and Palumbo + Hideshima. Institution was denied on 2019-03-14 (Paper 7), and petitioner's $15,000 post-institution fee was refunded (Notice of Refund, 2019-12-17). Institution denial is not a merits validation — the Board never reached patentability. This is the proceeding that established Alvogen/Lotus as the party with a demonstrated appetite for PTAB challenges to this family.
• Dr. Reddy's IPRs on the Celgene MDS patents (filed 2018-08-03): institution denied 2019-02-11 in three parallel decisions on a single evidentiary ground — Dr. Reddy's had not proven Celgene's own press releases were publicly available. Celgene won on the publication-date technicality, not on the merits.
• IPR on US 5,635,517 (the Revlimid active-ingredient patent) by entities associated with Kyle Bass and Erich Spangenberg: institution denied; Celgene, represented by Quinn Emanuel, adopted nearly all of its arguments (as described in Quinn Emanuel's 2019 life-sciences résumé).

The pattern that matters: every AIA petition filed against a Celgene lenalidomide patent appears to have been denied institution. No FWD, no claim cancellation anywhere in this family. Celgene got out of the PTAB on the merits threshold and on evidentiary technicalities, and then resolved its exposure through district-court settlements ahead of any merits ruling.

Strategic summary

Claim status on US 8,530,498. No claim is canceled; no claim is sustained by the Board; all claims are UNTESTED at the PTAB. Because no FWD exists, there is no claim-by-claim disposition to list and no surviving-claim set to quote — anyone who tells you "claims 1–5 were canceled" or "claim 1 survived IPR" on this patent is misattributing a sibling reference or making it up. Note also the patent's length: it issued 2013-09-10 (a continuation off the 2002 priority chain) and expired 2023-05-15, so the enforcement window has closed absent pre-expiration damages theories.

Estoppel landscape. Because there has been no IPR/PGR on the '498 patent, § 315(e)(2) estoppel is a non-issue from AIA trials — no petitioner is barred, and no privity chain (Alvogen → Lotus, for example) has been forged against these claims. The offsetting risk is symmetric: you also get no benefit from anyone else's institution denial, and there is no estoppel to point to that would constrain a parallel district-court invalidity attack. The § 315(b) one-year bar is similarly untriggered unless you have been served with a complaint on the '498 specifically.

Pattern signals. No petitioner has filed multiple IPRs on this patent (there are none). The patent owner — Celgene Corporation, now within Bristol-Myers Squibb — has not pursued any PTAB appeal on this patent, for the straightforward reason that it never needed to: no adverse Board decision ever issued against the '498. There is no defensive aggregator in the chain; no Unified Patents or similar NPE-defense entity appears anywhere in the file for this patent. The litigation activity attached to the '498 is ordinary Hatch-Waxman ANDA litigation — Celgene asserting the MM family (including the '498) against Lotus/Alvogen, Zydus, Dr. Reddy's, Sun, Cipla and others in D.N.J. — not NPE assertion, which is exactly why it never attracted a defensive-aggregator IPR.

Recommended next steps

1. Treat the null PTAB result as the headline. If you are a defendant and someone is asserting US 8,530,498, do not expect to ride an existing FWD to invalidity. There is none. Any validity challenge must be built from first principles.
2. Check expiration and damages before spending anything. The patent's anticipated expiration is 2023-05-15 and its status is "Expired - Fee Related." Confirm with the Orange Book (N 021880, use code U-1984) and the USPTO PatentCenter record whether any assertion of this patent can reach your conduct. If the demand letter cites the '498 for post-expiration activity, that is a strong reason to push back hard.
3. If you do file, you are the first mover. No petition has been filed, so there is no § 315(b) bar running against you yet and no estoppel to inherit. But there is also no institution-denial record to distinguish, and you would be litigating § 103 obviousness on a family where the Board has denied every petition it has seen — largely because the prior-art references (particularly Celgene's own 2001 press releases) carry publication-date proof problems. If you go to the PTAB, lock down public-availability evidence for every printed publication in the record before filing; that is precisely where Dr. Reddy's and others failed.
4. Do not rely on the sibling denials. IPR2018-01714's denial on US 7,968,569 establishes nothing about the '498, and institution denial is not a merits holding — the Board never reached the patentability of the '569 claims. The same is true for the '517 and MDS denials. Cite them for background only.
5. Verify before relying on this analysis. My conclusion rests on the structured ODP block supplied as canonical plus targeted web searches; the searches were not exhaustive of PTAB E2E. Before filing or responding to a demand, confirm directly against the PTAB E2E docket and PatentCenter for US 8,530,498, and re-run the ODP query at the current ingest date.

Key sources: Structured USPTO ODP "PTAB proceedings on file" block (canonical, states no AIA trial proceedings); IPR2018-01714 record including the 2019-03-14 institution denial and 2019-12-17 Notice of Refund (https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2018-01714/); Celgene v. Lotus/Alvogen, No. 2:17-cv-06842 (D.N.J.) complaint identifying the '498 among the patents-in-suit; Orange Book 41st ed. listing for N 021880 (REVLIMID) — 8,530,498, expiration 2023-05-15.

I'll verify what I can against live sources before reconstructing the chain.

Good — I have a directly analogous assignment record from the same family. Let me pull more specifics.

I hit the tool-call ceiling mid-verification. Below is what I could confirm, with unverified items explicitly flagged rather than filled in.

Assignment Record Reconstruction — US 8,530,498 B1

Verification note up front: Google Patents legal events for this patent (the authoritative text supplied) show exactly one recorded assignment event — the inventor-to-Celgene recordation on 2013-04-08. I was able to retrieve a sibling assignment record in the same family (Reel/Frame 021461/0407) but I could not retrieve the reel/frame for application 13/858,708 itself from live sources before exhausting my search budget. I am not going to invent that reel/frame number. Treat any reel/frame below tagged "(sibling app)" as corroborating family evidence, not as the record for this patent.

Inventors

Unusual-pattern check — negative. The classic fire-sale precursor (all inventors leaving the original assignee within ~12 months of filing) is absent, and in fact inverted. Zeldis remained at Celgene for roughly 19 years after the 2002-05-17 priority date and did not depart until 2016. There is no inventor-decoupling signal here.

One caveat worth logging: because this is a continuation (application 13/858,708, filed 2013-04-08) claiming 2002-05-17 priority, "employer at the time of filing" is ambiguous — but it is Celgene on both ends of that window (2002 and 2013), so the ambiguity is immaterial.

Original assignee

Celgene Corporation — Delaware corporation. Two addresses appear across the family records:

• 7 Powder Horn Drive, Warren, New Jersey 07059 (address in the 2003-executed assignment document)

• 86 Morris Avenue, Summit, New Jersey 07901 (address in the sibling USPTO record and in Celgene's PTAB real-party-in-interest notices)

• Primary line of business: commercial biopharmaceutical company; the claims here read on REVLIMID® (lenalidomide), Celgene's flagship multiple myeloma / MDS drug — one of the highest-revenue small molecules in the world.

• Did they ship a product embodying the claims? Yes, unambiguously. US 8,530,498 is listed in the FDA Orange Book against Lenalidomide/REVLIMID with a patent expiration of May 15, 2023 (Orange Book code U-1984, 41st Annual Edition). The title compound is lenalidomide itself.

• Current status: Operating, but no longer independent. Celgene was acquired by Bristol Myers Squibb (all-stock, ~$74 B) and the deal closed in November 2019. Celgene Corporation survived as a legal entity/subsidiary, which is why — see below — no assignment was ever recorded for the BMS deal.

Assignment timeline

Chronological, with confirmed vs. corroborating items separated.

1. 2003-09-03 (executed) / recorded 2008-08-19 — Reel 021461/0407 (sibling application 12/229,074 → US 8,198,262; SAMED inventor, SAME assignee, SAME family)

   • Conveyance: ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS' INTEREST (SEE DOCUMENT FOR DETAILS)
   • Assignor: ZELDIS, Jerome B. — 157 Christopher Drive, Princeton, NJ
   • Assignee: CELGENE CORPORATION, 86 Morris Avenue, Summit, New Jersey 07901
   • Correspondent: attorney of record Pennie & Edmonds LLP; correspondence address 222 East 41st Street, New York, New York 10017-6702. The body of the assignment expressly authorizes "my attorney, of Pennie & Edmonds, LLP" to insert application data.
   • Context: routine inventor → employer title perfection for a pharma employee invention. Nothing transactional.

2. 2013-04-08 (executed/recorded) — reel/frame NOT VERIFIED

   • Conveyance: Assignment of assignors' interest (inferred from Google Patents event type "Assigned to CELGENE CORPORATION"; the underlying document was not retrievable)
   • Assignor: ZELDIS, JEROME B. (named as sole assignor in the Google Patents legal-events record)
   • Assignee: CELGENE CORPORATION
   • Correspondent: not retrievable from the sources I reached
   • Context: formality re-recordation at filing of the continuation. Celgene already held the entire right, title and interest; this recording perfects the chain for the newly filed 13/858,708 application. This is not a change in beneficial ownership.

3. No further recorded assignments. Celgene Corp remains the listed current assignee on Google Patents.

Critical negative finding: the Bristol Myers Squibb / Celgene merger produced no USPTO assignment record. That is expected and not suspicious — BMS acquired Celgene by stock merger, and Celgene Corporation continued as a legal entity holding its own patents. The absence of a BMS recordation is therefore not evidence of a missing link.

Reference point for the family (not this patent, but useful for the recurring-correspondent question): US 5,635,517, the genus patent in the lenalidomide family, was assigned Muller / Stirling / Chen → Celgene, recorded 1996-07-23, Reel 8147, Frame 954 (per Celgene's own IPR2015-01169 RPI notice). Same pattern: inventor-to-operating-company, one link, no downstream transfers.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 8530498
    2002 : Priority date 17 May
    2003 : Zeldis assignment executed 3 Sep
    2008 : Family assignment recorded 19 Aug
    2013 : Continuation 13 858 708 filed 8 Apr
         : Assignment to Celgene recorded
         : Patent issued 10 Sep
    2014 : Earliest D N J case in family 2 14 cv 03126
    2017 : Asserted against generic ANDA filers
    2019 : Celgene acquired by Bristol Myers Squibb
    2023 : Patent expired 15 May

NPE / troll-pattern signals

Verdict

Operating-company assertion.

US 8,530,498 has a one-link ownership chain: Jerome B. Zeldis → Celgene Corporation, on the family's standard assignment paperwork (exemplified by Reel 021461/0407, executed 2003-09-03, recorded 2008-08-19), re-recorded for the 2013 continuation. Celgene manufactured and shipped lenalidomide (REVLIMID®), the compound the claims cover, and listed this patent in the Orange Book; it then enforced the patent in its own name against generic ANDA filers — e.g. Celgene Corp. v. Zydus Pharmaceuticals, D.N.J. 2:17-cv-02528 (2017-04-12), which the Stanford NPE Litigation Database tags as "Product company / Practicing Entity" — and settled with Natco (2015), Alvogen/Lotus (2019) and Dr. Reddy's (2020). There is no shell transfer, no asserter entity, no cascading LLC chain, and no pre-litigation assignment, so zero of the eight NPE signals fire. Note the one thing I could not verify and did not guess: the specific reel/frame for the 2013 recordation on application 13/858,708. Confirm it directly at the USPTO Assignment Center (search by patent number 8530498) — https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ and https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html — before relying on the chain-of-title citation in any filing.

I'll research the USPTO record for US 8,530,498 and its cited prior art. Let me run several searches.

Prior-Art Analysis — US 8,530,498 B1

1. Patent identification (as-recorded, verified)

URL: https://patents.google.com/patent/US8530498/en

Identifier-noise warning (per your instruction not to auto-correct): searches for the string "8530498" also surface unrelated identifiers — e.g., Australian family member "AU 8530498 A" and PubMed ID "8530498." Those are not US 8,530,498 and I have excluded them.

2. Important disclosure about the citation data (please read before relying on the list)

The authoritative full text you supplied for US 8,530,498 does not contain the front-page "References Cited / U.S. Patent Documents" table — that portion of the Google Patents record is absent from the supplied extract, and within my tool limits I could not retrieve the examiner‑cited front‑page list itself (the searches returned the description, classifications, family, and litigation data, but not the "Patent Citations" block).

Accordingly, I am not reporting an examiner-citation table I did not actually see, because doing so would be fabrication. What I can ground with confidence is:

• (A) references expressly cited inside the specification of US 8,530,498 (these appear verbatim in the text you supplied); and
• (B) the references cited in the search report of a sibling family member (EP 1,567,158 A4 / WO 2004/043377, Celgene "Methods and compositions using immunomodulatory compounds…"), which appears in the same DOCDB simple family as US 8,530,498 B1.

Both sets are flagged as such below. If you need the literal front-page "References Cited" list for the 8,530,498 docket, it must be pulled from USPTO Patent Center / the printed patent PDF — I could not verify it here.

Second caveat: the claim set of US 8,530,498 was not present in the supplied text. Because § 102 anticipation is claim-by-claim, my "which claims" column is keyed to claim categories implied by the title/description (a compound, a method of treating multiple myeloma, and a method using a second active agent). I cannot print verbatim claim language without seeing it.

3. Set A — References cited in the specification of US 8,530,498

These are recited in the background/section 5.1 of the patent itself.

4. Set B — References cited in the sibling family's search report (EP 1,567,158 A4 / WO 2004/043377, Celgene) — the most probative art

Because the EP search report was drafted against the same immunomodulatory-compound/MM subject matter, it is the best proxy for what the examiner would have considered on 8,530,498. Category codes are the EPO's (X = alone destructive; DX = document combined, "D" = cited in application).

5. Bottom line — the most relevant prior art, ranked

1. Richardson et al., Blood 98(11) Part 1:775a (Nov 16, 2001) — the single most relevant reference, because it discloses the claimed compound (CC‑5013/lenalidomide) being administered to multiple myeloma patients. This is the reference most capable of invalidating claims to "a method of treating multiple myeloma comprising administering [the compound]" under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) (pre‑AIA).
2. US 5,635,517 (Muller/Celgene) — the compound genus patent; § 102(a)/(b) against any compound/composition claims, and the mandatory § 103 base for all method claims.
3. US 6,281,230 / US 6,316,471 (Muller/Celgene) — class-level chemistry and TNF‑α utility; § 103 base (US 6,316,471 expressly cited "DX" in the family search report).
4. D'Amato, Semin. Oncol. 28(6):597‑601 (Dec 2001) and Lentzsch, Cancer Res. 62:2300‑2305 (Apr 15, 2002) — contemporaneous mechanism/preclinical art tying IMiDs to multiple myeloma / B-cell neoplasia; strongest as § 103 combinations with Richardson.
5. Marketletter items (June 18 and Oct 9, 2001) — § 102(b) trade-press publications; corroborating and potentially anticipatory on narrower facts.

6. Analytical caveats you should carry forward

• Anticipation is element-by-element. None of the compound patents (A1–A3, A5) disclose the multiple myeloma treatment step; conversely the Richardson abstract does not, on its face, disclose the broad dose ranges or the dexamethasone/second-agent combinations recited elsewhere in the description. Expect the real fight on 8,530,498 to be § 103, not § 102, except for the compound-overlap claims.
• Timing matters under pre-AIA law (priority 2002‑05‑17): only references published before that date are § 102(a)/(b) art; later-published items (WO 02/059106, WO 02/064038, the 2002 Figg paper) qualify only via § 102(e) or as § 103 support.
• I did not see the front-page "References Cited" list for US 8,530,498, nor its claim set. The above is built from (i) citations appearing verbatim in the patent's own specification and (ii) the sibling family's EPO search report. Treat Set B as the high-confidence core and Set A as intrinsic-citation context — and pull the actual USPTO front page and claims before filing anything.

I'll ground this in the page's prior-art record and the actual claim text before running the §103 analysis.

Let me pull the actual claim text and the cited-references record.

Now let me try to pin down the granted claims and the face-of-patent references.

Building on the prior sections — new facts surfaced, and one contradiction to flag

Newly confirmed since the earlier sections: (a) Google Patents returns "Expired – Lifetime" for application 13/858,708 in the family tables I retrieved this session — a third rendering alongside the "Expired – Fee Related" and "Expired – Lifetime" variants already noted. The status caveat in the earlier summary stands; the May 15, 2023 term (Orange Book, U-1984, NDA 021880) is uncontradicted. (b) The '498 sits in the continuation web of 10/438,213 (filed May 15, 2003 → US 7,968,569), with US 12/640,702 → US 8,198,306 (proteasome-inhibitor method claims) among its relatives — consistent with the earlier §3 inference that '498 and '569 share a specification and a term. (c) My earlier statement that I had no verbatim claim text remains true for '498 specifically. I was not able to retrieve a granted-claims column for 13/858,708 this session either. I will therefore analyze the claim scope I can support and label the rest as reconstruction, rather than importing '569's claims into '498.

What the page's "Prior Art" record actually contains. The fetched Google Patents page does not render a formal "Citations / References Cited" table. Its prior-art signal is limited to (i) the listed prior-art keywords — patients, administered, compound, cancer, immunomodulatory compound — and (ii) the references the specification itself incorporates by name. I supplemented with the family's EP search report (EP 1567158 A4), which lists the same art under "DX"/"X" categories. Everything below is tagged to which of those it came from.

1. §103 framework and the POSA

Under Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1 (1966), and KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007), the inquiry is scope/content of the prior art, differences from the claims, level of ordinary skill, and secondary considerations. For method-of-treatment claims, the art must be shown to render the administering-to-treat step obvious; a mere "obvious to try" rationale needs a finite set of identified, predictable solutions with a reasonable expectation of success (In re Kubin, 550 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2009); In re O'Farrell, 853 F.2d 894 (Fed. Cir. 1988)). Dose/cycle limitations are not automatically non-obvious, but the art must actually reach them (In re Kao, 639 F.3d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 2011)).

POSA: a team — a hematologist/oncologist with MM trial experience and a medicinal chemist/pharmacologist — with ordinary skill in thalidomide-class IMiD development as of May 17, 2002.

Claim-scope reconstruction for '498 (confidence: low-moderate): preamble "A method of treating multiple myeloma…"; administration of 3-(4-amino-1-oxo-1,3-dihydroisoindol-2-yl)piperidine-2,6-dione (= lenalidomide) or a salt thereof; at least one claim reciting combination with 40 mg/day dexamethasone (per the Taiwan TIPO family description: "Method of treating multiple myeloma in combination with 40mg/day of dexamethasone"); DrugPatentWatch classifies the set as "Use; Delivery," implying at least one administration-format claim. Whether '498 carries the "21 consecutive days + 7 days rest in a 28-day cycle" limitation is unverified; that limitation is documented for sibling '569 claims 1 and 13 (IPR2018-01714 petition/exhibits; Natco Markman briefing, D.N.J. 2:17-cv-02528, ECF 252), and I will analyze it as an alternative, not an assumption.

2. The prior-art record

3. Combinations rendering the claims obvious

Combination A — '517 + Richardson 2001 (outcome-determinative for a bare MM-use claim). '517 discloses the genus that includes the 4-amino-1-oxoisoindoline at the heart of '498's title, and its incorporation into '498's own specification is an admission that the compound is old. Richardson 2001 discloses administering that compound (CC-5013) orally to relapsed/refractory MM patients. If '498's independent claim reads on "treating MM by administering lenalidomide," Richardson alone is anticipatory under §102(b) (published Nov. 16, 2001, before the May 17, 2002 priority date); at minimum, '517 + Richardson makes it obvious. Motivation: thalidomide had just shown single-agent activity in refractory MM (Singhal et al., NEJM 1999), creating a strong push toward analogs with less sedation/neuropathy/teratogenicity, and the '517 class was known as more potent TNF-α inhibitors and T-cell co-stimulators. Expectation of success: the mechanism (TNF-α suppression, anti-angiogenesis, direct MM-cell effect) was shared across the class, and Richardson's phase 1 was already in the clinic.

Combination B — A + Kyle 2001/Coleman 2002 + Cohen 1982 (for a dexamethasone-combination and/or 21/7-cycle claim). Kyle 2001 and Coleman 2002 teach treating MM with thalidomide plus dexamethasone, including 40 mg dexamethasone; Cohen 1982 teaches the 21-on/7-off cycle with dexamethasone. Motivation: dexamethasone was the standard MM backbone and was already being combined with thalidomide clinically; preserving the steroid backbone while substituting the better-tolerated IMiD is the paradigm case of an obvious substitution of one known agent for a structurally and functionally related one. Celgene Corp. v. Peter, 931 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2019), affirming invalidation of Celgene's thalidomide REMS claims under §103, illustrates that this family's dosing/monitoring claims have not fared well against analogous art.

Combination C — A/B + the specification's own "Cycling Therapy" and dose disclosures. The '498 specification itself recites the operative dosing: e.g., "an immunomodulatory compound of the invention and a second active ingredient are administered orally, with administration of an immunomodulatory compound … occurring 30 to 60 minutes prior to a second active ingredient, during a cycle of four to six weeks"; "one cycle comprises the administration of from about 10 to about 25 mg/day of REVIMID™ … daily for three to four weeks and then one or two weeks of rest"; and "dexamethasone (40 mg/day orally on days 1 to 4) every four to six weeks." To the extent '498 claims a 5-25 mg/day lenalidomide range with a 21/7 or 3-4 week-on/1-2 week-off cycle, that range is disclosed in the specification and is the routine output of a phase 1 dose-escalation — In re Kao permits finding such a regimen obvious where the art directs the artisan to the parameters.

Combination D — administration-format claim. A claim to an oral unit dose (e.g., 5, 10, 25 mg capsule) is obvious over the use art plus Remington's Pharmaceutical Sciences and the '498 specification's own lactose-free/anhydrous capsule disclosure. The PTO applied exactly this rationale to Celgene's pomalidomide formulation family ("It would have been prima facie obvious … to have made oral dosage forms comprising pomalidomide and excipients such as mannitol and pre-gelatinized starch … because Zeldis et al. taught such oral dosage forms" — Hagens Berman complaint ¶174).

4. The priority-date fork (critical and frequently overlooked)

• If a claim is entitled to May 17, 2002: only pre-May-2002 art counts. Combinations A and B still stand on '517 + Richardson + Kyle/Coleman/Cohen.
• If a claim is not so entitled: IPR testimony against the sibling '569 argued the 60/380,842 provisional lacks any written description of a 28-day cycle or of lenalidomide + dexamethasone (Tricot Declaration, IPR2018-01714), pushing the effective date to Nov. 6, 2002 (60/424,600). That opens the door to post-May-2002 art — including the 2005-2007 Phase III MM-009/MM-010 publications relied on in the '498 file (Dimopoulos et al., NEJM 2007; Blood 2005 ASH abstracts) and the 2006 Revlimid label (25 mg days 1-21 of a 28-day cycle with dexamethasone 40 mg). Under that reading, the claims are obvious over the clinical literature and the label.
• Independent of §103: because the 13/858,708 claims were filed in 2013, any claim not supported by the 2002/2003 disclosure also faces §112(a) and obviousness-type double patenting exposure over the same-family patents that share a common expiration (no term extension available).

5. Secondary considerations — and their limits

For patentability: the '498 specification's own FIG. 1 compares lenalidomide ("Revimid™") with thalidomide in inhibiting proliferation of MM cell lines ([³H]-thymidine uptake) — i.e., the applicant put comparative potency data on the record, which is the strongest Graham factor available here, and it is in-specification, not attorney argument. Revlimid's commercial success and its superiority to thalidomide in MM (MM-009/MM-010) supply nexus arguments.

Against: (i) the comparative data is in vitro and may not be commensurate with the full claim scope (dosing, cycle, combination); (ii) the MM-009/MM-010 trials postdate the priority date and cannot rebut obviousness at the 2002 date; (iii) the examiner in the parallel pomalidomide family treated the "unexpected results" showing as the crux of allowability, and the antitrust pleadings allege that representation was false (Hagens Berman complaint ¶¶155-163) — a collateral attack that, if credited, would strip the '498 of the same rebuttal. Balance: the examiner's allowance is itself evidence that the 21/7 + 40 mg dexamethasone combination was not considered squarely disclosed, and the PTAB denied institution of IPR2018-01714 against the analogous '569 (per the TIPO family narrative, decision Mar. 14, 2019) — so the "obvious-to-try" argument did not carry on that record.

6. Bottom line

Explicit uncertainties (consistent with, and extending, the earlier section): I still could not retrieve the granted claim text of US 8,530,498 from an authoritative source; the paragraph-level citations above are to the shared family specification, which I have flagged as such. The "Expired – Fee Related" vs. "Expired – Lifetime" discrepancy now has a third data point and is unresolved. Finally, because the patent expired May 15, 2023, this analysis is litigation-facing (past damages/antitrust) rather than prospective — but expiration does not moot §103.