Litigation Details for CELGENE CORPORATION v. LOTUS PHARMACEUTICAL CO., LTD. (D.N.J. 2017)

CELGENE CORPORATION v. LOTUS PHARMACEUTICAL CO., LTD. (D.N.J. 2017)

Docket		Date Filed	2017-09-06
Court	District Court, D. New Jersey	Date Terminated	2019-09-05
Cause	15:1126 Patent Infringement	Assigned To	Susan Davis Wigenton
Jury Demand	None	Referred To	Leda D. Wettre
Parties	ALVOGEN PINE BROOK, LLC; CELGENE CORPORATION; HON. GARRETT E. BROWN, JR.; LOTUS PHARMACEUTICAL CO., LTD.
Patents	6,045,501; 6,315,720; 6,561,977; 6,755,784; 7,189,740; 7,465,800; 7,765,106; 7,765,107; 7,855,217; 7,895,059; 7,968,569; 8,112,290; 8,315,886; 8,404,717; 8,457,988; 8,530,498; 8,589,182; 8,626,531; 8,645,160; 8,648,095; 8,731,963; 9,056,120; 9,101,621; 9,101,622
Attorneys	AARON SCOTT ECKENTHAL; BRIAN JOHN FORSATZ; CHARLES MICHAEL LIZZA; DAVID LEIGH MOSES; FRANK CHARLES CALVOSA; GARRETT E. BROWN , JR.; SARAH ANN SULLIVAN; TEDD WILLIAM VAN BUSKIRK; WILLIAM C. BATON; WILLIAM L. MENTLIK
Firms	Jams; Lerner David Littenberg Krumholz and Mentlik LLP; Lerner, David, Littenberg, Krumholz & Mentlik, LLP; Quinn Emanuel Uquhart & Sullival LLP; Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLC; Saul Ewing Arnstein & Lehr LLP
Link to Docket	External link to docket

Details for CELGENE CORPORATION v. LOTUS PHARMACEUTICAL CO., LTD. (D.N.J. 2017)

Date Filed	Document No.	Description	Snippet	Link To Document
2017-09-06	1		expiration of United States Patent Nos. 5,635,517 (“the ʼ517 patent”); 6,315,720 (“the ʼ720 … 35 PageID: 2 patent”); 6,561,977 (“the ʼ977 patent”); 6,755,784 (“the ʼ784 patent”); 7,189,740 (“the…“the ʼ740 patent”); 7,465,800 (“the ʼ800 patent”); 7,855,217 (“the ʼ217 patent”); 7,968,569 (“the ʼ569…ʼ569 patent”); 8,315,886 (“the ʼ886 patent”); 8,404,717 (“the ʼ717 patent”); 8,530,498 (“the ʼ498 patent…,531 (“the ʼ531 patent”); 8,648,095 (“the ʼ095 patent”); 9,056,120 (“the ʼ120 patent”); 9,101,621 (“the	External link to document
2019-01-30	101		Covenant Not to Sue for Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,855,217 (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service… 5 September 2019 2:17-cv-06842 835 Patent - Abbreviated New Drug Application(ANDA) None	External link to document
2019-02-21	105		BIFURCATION AND STAY WITH RESPECT TO U.S. PATENT NOS. 6,315,720, 6,561,977, 6,775,784, 8,315,886 AND 8,626,531… 5 September 2019 2:17-cv-06842 835 Patent - Abbreviated New Drug Application(ANDA) None	External link to document
2019-03-29	109		Judgment, the term Patents-in-Suit shall mean U.S. Patent Nos. 5.635,517; 6,3 15,720; 6,561,977; 6,755,784; …the term “Patents—in—Suit” shall mean U.S. Patent Nos. 5.635,517; 6,3 15,720; 6,561,977; 6,755,784… 4. Until expiration of the Patents.ineSuit, Lotus, including any of Its successors…parties in connection with any infringement of the Patents-in-Suit by any such third panics in connection…C.F.R. § 31 4.94(a)( 12) with respect to the Patents-in-Suit. 9. Nothing	External link to document
2018-06-21	69		disclose prior art U.S. Patent No. 6,045,501, which according to the REMS Patents: [P]rovides…the “REMS Patents”1) ____ fall precisely within this category. These patents claim the patent-ineligible…the REMS Patents are listed as an inventor on any other asserted patents, and the REMS Patents have distinct…’886 Patent Is Invalid For Claiming A Patent-Ineligible Abstract Idea The ’886 Patent is also… B. The Drug Delivery Patents Are Invalid For Claiming A Patent-Ineligible	External link to document
2018-08-08	81	Statement	, and interest in United States Patent No. 7,855,217 (“the ’217 patent”). Celgene hereby agrees… FOR INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,855,217 Case 2:17-cv-06842-SDW-LDW Document 81 Filed…successors in interest, for infringement of the ’217 patent based on the filing of Abbreviated New Drug Application…covenant, Celgene does not concede that the ’217 patent is not infringed, is invalid, or is unenforceable… 5 September 2019 2:17-cv-06842 835 Patent - Abbreviated New Drug Application(ANDA) None	External link to document
2018-09-07	82		Pat. No. 8,645,160 (Entereg); U.S. Pat. No. 7,765,106 (Xyrem); U.S. Pat. No. 7,765,107 (Xyrem); U.S.… Lotus’s reasoning, every method-of-use patent would be patent-ineligible because it can be reduced … by their own patents. Under Lotus’s theory, however, those other REMS and REMS patents would cover …s REMS Patents were directed to an abstract idea (which Celgene disputes), they remain patent eligible…that a patent infringement suit can be dismissed at the pleading stage for lack of patentable subject	External link to document