Last updated: July 23, 2026
Celgene Corp. v. Zydus Pharmaceuticals (USA) Inc., Case No. 2:17-cv-02528 (D.N.J.) is a patent infringement dispute tied to Celgene’s REVLIMID (lenalidomide) patent estate. The case’s procedural posture, asserted patent list, claim construction outcomes, and final disposition are not provided in the input, so an accurate litigation summary cannot be produced without fabricating case facts.
What patents does Celgene assert against Zydus in 2:17-cv-02528?
No asserted-patent numbers, titles, or claim groupings are included in the prompt, so the specific patent claims at issue cannot be identified.
Which REVLIMID (lenalidomide) patents are typically asserted in Celgene v. generic filers?
Common Celgene asserted families in REVLIMID-related litigations usually span:
- composition claims for lenalidomide formulations
- process and manufacturing method claims
- method-of-use claims tied to approved indications
But the specific asserted families for this docket are not stated.
Which claim types are at stake in this specific case?
The prompt contains only the caption and docket number, not the complaint or operative infringement contentions.
What is the litigation timeline for 2:17-cv-02528 and key dates?
The prompt does not provide dates for:
- complaint filing
- answer and venue transfer motions
- preliminary injunction motions
- Markman/claim construction schedule
- summary judgment
- trial (if any)
- final judgment or consent judgment
- appeals (if any)
Without those dates, a timeline would be speculative.
How does the court’s claim construction affect infringement and invalidity in 2:17-cv-02528?
No Markman order, claim construction holdings, or patents’ claim terms are included.
Were any claims found not infringed or not valid at the claim construction stage?
Not stated.
What defenses does Zydus raise in Celgene v. Zydus (2:17-cv-02528)?
The prompt does not provide:
- invalidity theories (anticipation/obviousness, §112, enablement, indefiniteness)
- non-infringement theories
- FDA-related linkage (e.g., 505(b)(2)/505(j) posture)
- prosecution history estoppel or doctrine of equivalents limits
- inequitable conduct allegations
So defenses cannot be summarized without introducing errors.
What is the status of motions (TRO, preliminary injunction, summary judgment) in 2:17-cv-02528?
No motion docket entries are included.
Did the case result in a settlement before final judgment?
Not stated.
Did Zydus launch a generic or enter a design-around?
Not stated.
What settlement terms (if any) govern generic entry for Zydus in 2:17-cv-02528?
Settlement agreements and entry-forbearance terms are not included in the prompt.
Are there delayed-launch dates or covenant terms tied to specific patents?
Not provided.
What is the Orange Book status of the patents-in-suit for the product at issue?
No Orange Book listings or patent numbers tied to the docket are included in the prompt.
Which FDA filing pathway is implicated for Zydus in 2:17-cv-02528?
The prompt does not state whether Zydus filed:
- an ANDA (505(j))
- a Paragraph IV certification under 21 U.S.C. §355(j)(2)(A)
- or another regulatory pathway
So the FDA linkage and certification posture cannot be analyzed.
How does Celgene’s patent estate for lenalidomide compare with Zydus’s potential infringement risks?
This requires:
- the specific asserted patent set
- Zydus’s ANDA product description and manufacturing/process facts (or alleged equivalents)
- expert analysis
None of that is present.
Key Takeaways
- The prompt does not provide the operative complaint, asserted patent list, claim construction, motion outcomes, settlement terms, or final judgment for Case No. 2:17-cv-02528.
- Any litigation summary would be speculative and risks misstating infringement scope, validity holdings, and entry implications.
FAQs
- What patents were asserted in Celgene Corp. v. Zydus Pharmaceuticals (USA) Inc., 2:17-cv-02528?
- Did Celgene secure an injunction or win on summary judgment in 2:17-cv-02528?
- Which REVLIMID formulation or method-of-use claims were targeted by Zydus’s Paragraph IV?
- What FDA certification type was at issue (Paragraph IV vs. other) in 2:17-cv-02528?
- Were there any Federal Circuit appeals tied to the 2:17-cv-02528 docket?
References
(No sources were provided in the prompt.)
