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 Dunn Wettre
Parties	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	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				External 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
2017-09-06	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
2017-09-06	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
2017-09-06	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
2017-09-06	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
2017-09-06	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

Litigation summary and analysis for: CELGENE CORPORATION v. LOTUS PHARMACEUTICAL CO., LTD. (D.N.J. 2017)

Last updated: April 25, 2026

What Happened in Celgene Corp. v. Lotus Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. (2:17-cv-06842)?

Celgene Corporation v. Lotus Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., No. 2:17-cv-06842 (D.N.J.) is a US patent infringement case in the Hatch-Waxman ecosystem. The matter is docketed as a federal civil action in the District of New Jersey, filed in 2017, and includes claims tied to Celgene’s branded oncology and immunology IP portfolio and Lotus’s commercial or development activity related to those products. The litigation’s practical consequence is an attempted boundary-setting over whether Lotus’s proposed or marketed product infringes Celgene’s asserted patents and whether any statutory exceptions or invalidity positions apply.

Case Posture and Claims (What does the docket indicate the dispute is about?)

The case is docketed as Celgene Corp. v. Lotus Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., 2:17-cv-06842 (D.N.J.). The caption and venue align with the District of New Jersey’s routine role in ANDA-related patent litigation. The docket number 2:17-cv-06842 places the action within Celgene’s common litigation pattern: asserted patents covering composition, formulation, polymorphs, or method-of-use concepts tied to Celgene’s specific therapeutic products; Lotus’s challenge and defenses typically revolve around non-infringement, invalidity, and statutory defenses used in the Paragraph IV context.

Parties

• Plaintiff: Celgene Corporation
• Defendant: Lotus Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd.

Court and docket

• Court: US District Court for the District of New Jersey
• Docket: 2:17-cv-06842
• Year: 2017 (case filing year)

Which patents were at issue?

No patent numbers, asserted claims, or detailed claim charts are provided in the information available in the prompt. Without the asserted-patent list and the specific asserted claim elements, a precise infringement and validity analysis cannot be produced.

What did each side argue? (Infringement and invalidity positions)

No litigation briefs, claim construction orders, or trial-related filings are included in the input. Without those documents, the dispute can only be described at a high level consistent with the statutory and procedural posture of Hatch-Waxman patent cases: Celgene’s position generally centers on claim-by-claim infringement of the asserted patent(s) by Lotus’s product or proposed product, while Lotus’s position typically includes one or more of the following:

• Non-infringement of at least one claim limitation
• Invalidity under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102, 103, and/or 112
• Statutory arguments tied to the regulatory framework (including scope of the infringement inquiry)

Timeline (What can be said from the case number and filing year?)

Only limited timing can be stated from the provided data:

• 2017: Case filed (based on docket number: 2:17-cv-06842)

No service dates, scheduling orders, Markman dates, or dispositive motion dates are available in the prompt.

Procedural outcomes (Dismissal, settlement, or final judgment)

No disposition documents, docket termination entries, or settlement terms are provided in the prompt. Without the docket’s final entry text and dates, the case resolution type cannot be stated.

Business impact (What this means for IP strategy and market risk)

Even without the specific asserted patents and outcome, the case context matters for business decision-making in two ways:

1) Patent “block” risk for generics

Actions filed by branded innovators against generic entrants in this docket category typically target market entry timelines. The key question for a generic or commercialization partner is whether the asserted claims are likely to survive and whether any injunction or entry delay is likely.

2) Freedom-to-operate posture for Lotus

For Lotus, this case signals a need for disciplined FTO:

• Ensure technical and regulatory dossiers map precisely to claim limitations
• Identify whether the product design avoids contested claim features
• Stress-test invalidity positions on the specific prior art relevant to the asserted claims

Litigation intelligence you should be tracking (for any ongoing or future similaires)

Because the prompt does not include the asserted patent list or motion outcomes, the actionable tracking set is limited to generic but operationally critical litigation artifacts for Hatch-Waxman cases:

1. Asserted patent identification and claim numbers
2. Claim construction (Markman) outcomes
3. Infringement analysis tied to specific formulation, polymorph, or method-of-use elements
4. Invalidity rulings tied to specific references and claim constructions
5. Disposition entry: settlement vs. judgment vs. dismissal
6. Any stay, injunction, or consent judgment tied to the regulatory timeline

Key Takeaways

• Celgene Corp. v. Lotus Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., 2:17-cv-06842, is a District of New Jersey patent infringement action filed in 2017 in the Hatch-Waxman litigation lane.
• The prompt does not include asserted patent numbers, claim constructions, briefs, or disposition documents, so a claim-level infringement and validity analysis cannot be produced from the provided information.
• Business risk from this case, in general, centers on market entry timing and whether Lotus’s product design or regulatory path triggers injunction exposure tied to the asserted claims.

FAQs

1) What court handles 2:17-cv-06842?

It is in the US District Court for the District of New Jersey.

2) Who are the parties in the case?

Celgene Corporation is the plaintiff; Lotus Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. is the defendant.

3) What is the subject area of the dispute?

It is a patent infringement dispute in a Hatch-Waxman-type regulatory context, consistent with Celgene’s typical branded IP enforcement against generic or proposed generic activity.

4) When was the case filed?

The docket number indicates a 2017 filing.

5) What is the case outcome?

The prompt provides no disposition entry or final judgment text.

---

References

[1] Celgene Corporation v. Lotus Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., No. 2:17-cv-06842, United States District Court for the District of New Jersey (filed 2017).