- Acumen Powered by Robins Kaplan LLP®
- Affirmative Recovery
- American Indian Law and Policy
- Antitrust and Trade Regulation
- Appellate Advocacy and Guidance
- Business Litigation
- Civil Rights and Police Misconduct
- Class Action Litigation
- Commercial/Project Finance and Real Estate
- Corporate Governance and Special Situations
- Corporate Restructuring and Bankruptcy
- Domestic and International Arbitration
- Entertainment and Media Litigation
- Health Care Litigation
- Insurance and Catastrophic Loss
- Intellectual Property and Technology Litigation
- Mass Tort Attorneys
- Medical Malpractice Attorneys
- Personal Injury Attorneys
- Telecommunications Litigation and Arbitration
- Wealth Planning, Administration, and Fiduciary Disputes
Acumen Powered by Robins Kaplan LLP®
Ediscovery, Applied Science and Economics, and Litigation Support Solutions
-
November 20, 2024Eighth Circuit Affirms U.S. Merchants Victory in Trade Dress Infringement Case
-
November 15, 2024Lauren Coppola Named an Emerging Leader by Profiles in Diversity Journal
-
November 11, 2024Tommy Du Honored With 2024 Sheila Sonenshine Associate Pro Bono Award
-
December 3, 2024Can You Keep a Secret? Privacy Laws and Civil Litigation
-
December 11, 20242024 Year in Review: eDiscovery and Artificial Intelligence
-
December 12, 2024Strategies for Licensing AI: A Litigation Perspective
-
November 8, 2024Trademark tensions on the track: Court upholds First Amendment protections in Haas v. Steiner
-
November 8, 2024Destination Skiing And The DOJ's Mountain Merger Challenge
-
November 6, 2024How Recent Patent Damages Precedent May Increase Reasonable Royalty Awards
-
September 16, 2022Uber Company Systems Compromised by Widespread Cyber Hack
-
September 15, 2022US Averts Rail Workers Strike With Last-Minute Tentative Deal
-
September 14, 2022Hotter-Than-Expected August Inflation Prompts Massive Wall Street Selloff
Find additional firm contact information for press inquiries.
Find resources to help navigate legal and business complexities.
Celgene Corp. v. Sun Pharma Global FZE
Subject-matter jurisdiction under the Hatch-Waxman Act does not require (i) a Paragraph IV certification by the ANDA holder; or (ii) the patents-in-suit to be listed in the Orange Book.
April 06, 2020
Case Name: Celgene Corp. v. Sun Pharma Global FZE, No. 19-10099 (SDW) (LDW), 2020 WL 1921700 (D.N.J. Apr. 6, 2020) (Wigenton, J.)
Drug Product and Patent(s)-in-Suit: Revlimid® (lenalidomide); U.S. Patents Nos. 7,977,357 (“the ’357 patent”), 8,193,219 (“the ’219 patent”), and 8,431,598 (“the ’598 patent”)
Nature of the Case and Issue(s) Presented: On May 30, 2018, Sun notified Celgene that it had filed an ANDA containing Paragraph IV certifications against three Celgene patents listed in the Orange Book covering Revlimid. Celgene sued Sun on July 13, 2018. That suit remained pending. On April 16, 2019, Celgene filed the instant suit against Sun, claiming that Sun’s proposed ANDA product would infringe three additional patents, the patents-in-suit, that were not listed in the Orange Book for Revlimid. The patents-in-suit claimed different crystal forms of lenalidomide. Sun responded by filing its motion to dismiss, arguing that Celgene’s claims lacked subject-matter jurisdiction under the Hatch-Waxman Act because the patents-in-suit were not listed in the Orange Book and were not subject to any Paragraph IV certifications from Sun. The court denied defendants’ motion.
Why Celgene Prevailed: The Hatch-Waxman Act stated, “It shall be an act of infringement to submit an [ANDA] ... for a drug claimed in a patent or the use of which is claimed in a patent, ... if the purpose of such submission is to obtain approval under such Act to engage in the commercial manufacture, use, or sale of a drug ... which is claimed in a patent or the use of which is claimed in a patent before the expiration of such patent.” Therefore the plain text of the statute did not require (i) a Paragraph IV certification to commit the technical act of infringement; or (ii) the patents-in-suit to be listed in the Orange Book. Sun argued that the statute did not authorize a patent-infringement suit against an ANDA product unless the plaintiff were to allege both (i) that the asserted patents were listed in the Orange Book in connection with the plaintiff’s drug products and (ii) that the defendants had submitted Paragraph IV certifications that the asserted patents were invalid or not infringed. But Celgene alleged neither. Instead, the court relied on Federal Circuit precedent, which held that a Paragraph IV certification was not necessary to confer subject-matter jurisdiction under § 271(e)(2). Relying on that precedent, courts in the District of New Jersey had reached the same outcome.
Related Professionals
Christopher A. Pinahs
Partner
Related Publications
Related News
If you are interested in having us represent you, you should call us so we can determine whether the matter is one for which we are willing or able to accept professional responsibility. We will not make this determination by e-mail communication. The telephone numbers and addresses for our offices are listed on this page. We reserve the right to decline any representation. We may be required to decline representation if it would create a conflict of interest with our other clients.
By accepting these terms, you are confirming that you have read and understood this important notice.