United States ex rel. Brown v. Celgene Corp.

Good Law
226 F. Supp. 3d 1032·2016 WL 7626222·2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 180628
United States District Court, Central District of CaliforniaDecember 28, 2016Case No. CV 10-03165-GHK (SSx)California14,017 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

King, J.

Presiding: The Honorable

Proceedings: (In Chambers) Order re: Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 325)

Defendant Celgene Corp. (“Celgene”) moves for summary judgment on all claims asserted by Plaintiff-Relator Beverly Brown (“Brown”) in her Third Amended Complaint. We have considered the parties’ joint brief (Doc. 325), the authorities and record citations referenced therein, the joint statement of uncontroverted facts (Doc. 326), the United States’ Statement of Interest (“SOI”) and the response thereto *1035 (Docs. 328, 338), the State of Texas’s SOI and -the response and reply thereto (Docs. 340, 345 361), and the notices of supplemental authority filed by the parties (Docs. 342, 364-368). We deem this matter appropriate for resolution without oral argument. L.R. 7-15. We grant the motion in part and deny it in part.

I. BACKGROUND

Celgene is a pharmaceutical company. Two of its drugs are at issue in this case: Thalomid and Revlimid. Thalomid first received FDA approval in July 1998 for treatment of erythema nodosum leprosum (“ENL”), a complication associated with leprosy. Doc. 329-58. In May 2006, Thalo-mid received a second approval for use (in combination with…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.