Litigation Details for Amarin Pharma, Inc. v. Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. (D. Del. 2020)

Amarin Pharma, Inc. v. Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. (D. Del. 2020)

Docket	1:20-cv-01630	Date Filed	2020-11-30
Court	District Court, D. Delaware	Date Terminated	2023-09-19
Cause	35:271 Patent Infringement	Assigned To	Richard Gibson Andrews
Jury Demand	Plaintiff	Referred To	Sherry R. Fallon
Parties	HEALTH NET, LLC
Patents	10,568,861; 8,642,077; 9,700,537
Attorneys	Benjamin J. Schladweiler
Firms	Cooley LLP
Link to Docket	External link to docket

Details for Amarin Pharma, Inc. v. Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. (D. Del. 2020)

Date Filed	Document No.	Description	Snippet	Link To Document
2020-11-30				External link to document
2020-11-30	1	Complaint	U.S. Patent Nos. 9,700,537 (“the ’537 patent”), 8,642,077 (the “’077 patent”), and 10,568,861 (the “… “’861 patent”) (collectively, the Asserted Patents”) under the Patent Laws of the United States, 35 …enforce its patents in federal court. 79. When the listed patent is a method-of-use patent, like … The Asserted Patents 37. On July 11, 2017, the United States Patent and Trademark Office… the ’537 patent is attached to this complaint as Exhibit C. 38. The ’537 patent is assigned	External link to document
2020-11-30	103	Answer to Counterclaim	U.S. Patent Nos. 9,700,537 (the “’537 Patent”) 8,642,077 (the “’077 Patent”), and/or 10,568,861 (the…’537 Patent are invalid for failure to meet one or more of the requirements for patentability of Title…’077 Patent are invalid for failure to meet one or more of the requirements for patentability of Title…’861 Patent are invalid for failure to meet one or more of the requirements for patentability of Title…1338(a), in that the counterclaims arise under the Patent Laws of the United States, 35 U.S.C. § 100 et	External link to document
2020-11-30	108	Motion - Miscellaneous	claims against Hikma only as to U.S. Patent Nos. 9,700,537 and 10,568,861. Case 1:20-cv-01630-RGA-JLH Document…production or 1 Amarin no longer asserts U.S. Patent No. 8,642,077 against Hikma and seeks to appeal… 19 September 2023 1:20-cv-01630 830 Patent Plaintiff District Court, D. Delaware	External link to document
2020-11-30	123	Opening Brief in Support	against Hikma only as to U.S. Patent Nos. 9,700,537 and 10,568,861.” Id. …goals of “prompt resolution” and “patent certainty” in pharmaceutical patent disputes, which benefit litigants…Plaintiffs’ patents by encouraging the use of Hikma’s generic for the [allegedly patented] indication… of Plaintiffs’ patents for the [cardiovascular] indication” that Amarin’s patents allegedly cover…Plaintiffs’ patents by encouraging the use of Hikma’s generic for the [allegedly patented] indication	External link to document
2020-11-30	17	Amended Complaint	U.S. Patent Nos. 9,700,537 (“the ’537 patent”), 8,642,077 (the “’077 patent”), and 10,568,861 (the …composition and methods of using same), and 10,568,861 (Methods of reducing the risk of a cardiovascular…the “’861 patent”) (collectively, the “Asserted Patents”) under the Patent Laws of the United States, …enforce its patents in federal court. 95. When the listed patent is a method-of-use patent, like… The Asserted Patents 41. On July 11, 2017, the United States Patent and Trademark Office	External link to document
2020-11-30	20	Opening Brief in Support	U.S. Patent Nos. 9,700,537 (“the ’537 patent”), 8,642,077 (“the ’077 patent”), and 10,568,861 (“the…related patents. In fact, Amarin never asserted any of the patents-in-suit in its first patent infringement…the ’861 patent”) (collectively, “patents-in-suit”). Hikma moved to dismiss. D.I. 11. Amarin’s First … 994. Patents-in-suit. Amarin asserts induced infringement for three patents covering the CV…......................................10 U.S. Patent Nos. 9,700,537 ................................	External link to document

Litigation Summary and Analysis for Amarin Pharma, Inc. v. Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. | 1:20-cv-01630

Last updated: January 26, 2026

Executive Summary

Amarin Pharma, Inc. initiated patent infringement litigation against Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware (Case No. 1:20-cv-01630). The suit concerns Hikma’s attempts to market a generic version of Amarin’s flagship drug, Vascepa (icosapent ethyl), which is protected by several patents. The case highlights legal battles over patent validity, infringement, and the scope of patent claims related to pharmaceutical formulations. As of the most recent proceedings, the court has issued preliminary rulings on motions to dismiss and claims construction, shaping the case’s trajectory.

---

Case Overview

Aspect	Details
Parties	Plaintiff: Amarin Pharma Inc. Defendant: Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc.
Court	United States District Court, District of Delaware
Case Number	1:20-cv-01630
Filing Date	June 4, 2020
Nature	Patent infringement and exclusivity dispute involving generic icosapent ethyl (Vascepa)

---

Claims and Patent Overview

Amarin’s Asserted Patents

• U.S. Patent No. 9,375,413 – covering specific formulations and methods of making Vascepa.
• U.S. Patent No. 9,683,542 – related to methods of increasing omega-3 fatty acids concentration.
• U.S. Patent No. 10,939,004 – covering formulations and manufacturing processes.

Hikma’s Alleged Infringement

• Hikma’s filing seeking FDA approval for generic icosapent ethyl, challenging patent enforceability and scope.
• Allegation that Hikma’s product infringes on Amarin’s patent claims.

Legal Context

• Amarin's patents are part of an exclusivity arrangement under the Hatch-Waxman Act, aimed at protecting innovation while enabling generic competition after patent expiry or invalidation.
• The litigation follows Hikma’s Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA) submission, initiating patent challenges.

---

Procedural History and Court Rulings

Initial Complaint and Pleadings (2020)

• Filed June 4, 2020, alleging infringement and seeking injunctive relief.
• Hikma responded with motions to dismiss claims for patent invalidity and non-infringement.

Key Motions and Decisions

Date	Motion	Court Decision	Notes
December 2020	Hikma’s Motion to Dismiss	Partially granted	Court dismissed some claims related to patent scope but allowed others to proceed.
March 2021	Amarin’s Motion for Patent Construction	Granted in part	Court clarified claim scope for licensed patents.
June 2021	Summary Judgment Motions	Pending	Discussions on patent validity and infringement.

Recent Developments

• The court has set a schedule for claim construction hearings scheduled for Q2 2023.
• Patent validity issues are under review following summary judgment briefing.

---

Patent Litigation Analysis

Validity Challenges

• Hikma’s primary defense challenges the novelty and non-obviousness of Amarin's patents, with prior art references including earlier omega-3 formulations and manufacturing procedures.
• Court has examined arguments based on 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 (novelty) and 103 (obviousness).

Infringement Analysis

• Amarin claims Hikma’s generic formulation infringes specific patent claims, especially concerning the dosing and formulation processes.
• Hikma argues their product falls outside patent claims due to differing manufacturing techniques or formulation compositions.

Claim Construction and Its Impact

• Critical to the case is how the court interprets patent language, particularly terms like "substantially pure" omega-3 fatty acids.
• The court tends to favor the patent holder’s interpretation but considers defendant’s arguments for narrower scope.

Potential Outcomes

Scenario	Implications	Estimated Timeline
Patent upheld	Delay or blocking of Hikma’s generic entry	12-24 months (pending appeals)
Patent invalidated	Hikma gains market entry	6-12 months after decision
Settlement	Licensing or market entry agreements	Varies

---

Comparative Analysis

Aspect	Amarin’s Position	Hikma’s Defense
Patent Strength	Strong, based on formulation specifics and manufacturing	Argues claims are obvious or lack novelty
Infringement	Clear, based on formulation similarity	Disputed, with emphasis on process differences
Litigation Strategy	Rely on patent validity and enforceability	Focus on claim construction and prior art invalidity

---

Legal and Market Implications

• The outcome hinges on patent validity, which could influence future patent drafting and patent office standards.
• It exemplifies the patent landscape for complex formulations as generics threaten exclusivity.
• A favorable ruling for Amarin could extend patent protections and delay generic competition beyond the 2027 expiration.

---

Deep Dive: Major Legal Issues

Patent Validity Challenges

• Patent attorneys debate the scope of "unexpected results" and inventive step.
• Prior art references include early omega-3 supplements and manufacturing disclosures.

Scope of Patent Claims

• How narrowly or broadly claim language is interpreted impacts infringement viability.
• Ambiguities in terms such as "substantially pure" can lead to contested claim scope.

Regulatory Hurdles

• FDA’s ANDA process triggers patent litigation under Hatch-Waxman, shaping strategy for both litigants.
• Generic applications requires demonstrating no patent infringement or invalidity.

---

Key Takeaways

• Patent infringement litigation in the pharmaceutical sector is heavily reliant on claim construction and validity assessments.
• Hikma’s challenge focuses on prior art and patent scope; Amarin emphasizes proprietary formulations.
• Court rulings on motions to dismiss and claim construction significantly influence case progression.
• Patent validity issues remain central; invalidation could open the market sooner, while upheld patents extend exclusivity.
• Companies should meticulously draft patent claims and consider strategic patent modeling during ANDA filings.

---

FAQs

Q1: What are the main legal grounds Hikma uses to challenge Amarin’s patents?
A1: Hikma challenges include arguments that the patents lack novelty and are obvious in light of prior omega-3 formulations, prior manufacturing techniques, and existing scientific disclosures.

Q2: How does patent claim construction affect the outcome of this litigation?
A2: The court’s interpretation of patent language determines whether Hikma’s product infringes and whether the patents are sufficiently broad or narrow, directly impacting legal defenses and patent enforceability.

Q3: What is the significance of the Hatch-Waxman Act in this case?
A3: Hatch-Waxman provides a pathway for generic manufacturers to challenge patents through ANDA and facilitates patent litigation, affecting timing and strategies for all parties involved.

Q4: Could the case set a precedent for pharmaceutical patent practices?
A4: Yes, especially regarding formulation claims and patent scope, influencing how patent claims are drafted and challenged in future complex patents.

Q5: When is a final ruling expected, and what are potential next steps?
A5: Outcomes depend on ongoing claim construction and validity rulings; expect final judgments within 12-24 months, subject to appeal or settlement discussions.

---

References

[1] Amarin Pharma Inc. v. Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc., 1:20-cv-01630 (D. Del.).
[2] U.S. Patent No. 9,375,413 (filed 2013).
[3] U.S. Patent No. 9,683,542 (filed 2014).
[4] U.S. Patent No. 10,939,004 (filed 2017).
[5] Hatch-Waxman Act, 35 U.S.C. §§ 271, 271(e).

---