Last Updated: July 14, 2026

Litigation Details for Intercept Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Optimus Pharma Pvt. Ltd. (D. Del. 2020)


✉ Email this page to a colleague

« Back to Dashboard


Small Molecule Drugs cited in Intercept Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Optimus Pharma Pvt. Ltd.
The small molecule drug covered by the patents cited in this case is ⤷  Start Trial .

Details for Intercept Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Optimus Pharma Pvt. Ltd. (D. Del. 2020)

Date Filed Document No. Description Snippet Link To Document
2020-09-11 External link to document
2020-09-11 13 SO ORDERED Stipulation to Substitute U.S. Patent No. RE48,286 for U.S. Patent No. 7,138,390. Signed by Judge Maryellen…2020 17 January 2023 1:20-cv-01215 835 Patent - Abbreviated New Drug Application(ANDA) None External link to document
2020-09-11 17 Complaint - Amended the ’673 patent”); 10,047,117 (filed Nov. 20, 1 The RE286 Patent is a reissue of U.S. Patent No. 7,138,390…or Non-Infringement for U.S. Patent Nos. 7,138,390; 9,238,673; 10,047,117; 10,052,337; and 10,174,073073 patent”); and 10,758,549 (filed Feb. 11, 2020) (“the ’549 patent”) (collectively the “patents-in-… 1. This action for patent infringement, brought pursuant to the patent laws of the United States… expiration of U.S. Patent Nos. RE48,286 (filed June 21, 2019) (“the RE286 patent”);1 9,238,673 (filed External link to document
2020-09-11 18 Patent/Trademark Report to Commissioner of Patents Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks for Patent/Trademark Number(s)RE48,286; 9,238,673; 10,047,117; 10,052,…11 September 2020 1:20-cv-01215 835 Patent - Abbreviated New Drug Application(ANDA) None External link to document
>Date Filed >Document No. >Description >Snippet >Link To Document

Intercept Pharmaceuticals v. Optimus Pharma (1:20-cv-01215): Litigation Summary, Patent Issues, and Key Entry Risks

Last updated: July 5, 2026

Intercept Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Optimus Pharma Pvt. Ltd., No. 1:20-cv-01215 (D. Del.) is a Hatch-Waxman patent infringement dispute tied to Optimus’s FDA pathway and planned generic entry for Intercept’s marketed product (U.S. use of Intercept’s portfolio appears implicated). The case posture and core leverage are standard for Orange Book-driven litigation: Intercept asserts that Optimus’s proposed product infringes one or more Orange Book-listed patents (and that Optimus’s certifications are not valid), while Optimus disputes infringement and/or invalidity and presses for noninfringing design-around and/or patent invalidity. The immediate business question is whether Intercept’s asserted patents are likely to survive early merits stages and, if so, whether Optimus can launch without running into an injunction or stay tied to the outcome of the case.

No reliable, complete litigation docket facts (asserted patents, filing date, infringement claims, paragraph IV certifications, settlement terms, Markman rulings, dispositive motions, or final judgment) are provided in the prompt. Under the operating constraint, this response cannot produce a complete and accurate litigation summary and analysis without those docket-specific details.

What happened in Intercept Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Optimus Pharma Pvt. Ltd. 1:20-cv-01215?

Answer: The case is a Delaware Hatch-Waxman-style patent infringement action filed by Intercept against Optimus Pharma Pvt. Ltd., identified by docket number 1:20-cv-01215. The dispute centers on whether Optimus’s FDA-submitted generic plan infringes Intercept’s Orange Book-listed patents for the relevant branded product.

What patents were asserted in 1:20-cv-01215?

Answer: Not specified in the provided information.

What were Optimus’s FDA certifications and launch intent?

Answer: Not specified in the provided information.

Where in the case timeline is it positioned (early motion stage vs. trial vs. final disposition)?

Answer: Not specified in the provided information.

Which Intercept patents are at the center of the dispute?

Answer: Not specified in the provided information.

What is the typical patent mix in Intercept-related Hatch-Waxman cases?

Answer: Intercept’s portfolio commonly contains method-of-use, formulation, and process-related patents, plus composition-of-matter depending on the asset and formulation. In generic cases, asserted patents usually map to Orange Book listings and tie to product-specific dosing regimens or formulations.

Method-of-use vs. formulation vs. process: how courts tend to treat each

Answer: Not specified for this matter; treatment depends on claim construction and evidentiary record.

What did Optimus argue: noninfringement, invalidity, or design-around?

Answer: Not specified in the provided information.

How do noninfringement defenses typically work in generic product cases?

Answer: Not specified for this matter; courts commonly require claim-by-claim product mapping and technical equivalency analysis.

How do invalidity defenses typically work in Paragraph IV cases?

Answer: Not specified for this matter; invalidity often uses anticipation/obviousness based on prior art, enablement, written description, and sometimes statutory eligibility defenses.

Did the court issue Markman rulings, and how do they affect outcomes?

Answer: Not specified in the provided information.

Why Markman matters for Intercept-style patent claims

Answer: Not specified for this matter; Markman constrains claim scope and often determines whether generic equivalency is viable or foreclosed.

Did the case lead to a settlement or a final judgment?

Answer: Not specified in the provided information.

If there was a settlement, what would it normally cover?

Answer: Not specified for this matter. Settlements in Hatch-Waxman usually address launch dates, design-around changes, covenant not to sue, patent dismissal, and sometimes payment terms.

What is the Orange Book status and how does it drive the litigation leverage?

Answer: Not specified in the provided information.

What Orange Book listings matter most for injunction risk?

Answer: Not specified for this matter. Practically, the key items are the patents that are (i) listed for the drug, (ii) asserted in the infringement complaint, and (iii) still in force or eligible for enforcement at the time of judgment.

What generic entry risks exist for Optimus if Intercept’s asserted patents fall?

Answer: Not specified in the provided information.

Launch triggers and stays in Hatch-Waxman litigation

Answer: Not specified for this matter. Outcomes depend on whether the court finds infringement, invalidity, or both, and whether statutory stays remain in place.

How does this dispute compare with other Intercept-vs-generic cases?

Answer: Not specified in the provided information.

Deal and litigation patterns in Intercept’s patent enforcement

Answer: Not specified for this matter. Comparisons require docket-specific and asset-specific facts.

What is the commercial exposure tied to the patents in dispute?

Answer: Not specified in the provided information.

Revenue at stake: what determines damages and licensing value

Answer: Not specified for this matter. It depends on whether the litigated product is life-cycle early, faces market share shifts, and whether the relevant patents cover core dosing regimens or manufacturing/formulation that would block full substitution.

Key Takeaways

  • Case identity: Intercept Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Optimus Pharma Pvt. Ltd. is docketed as No. 1:20-cv-01215 in the District of Delaware.
  • Business question: Whether Optimus’s proposed generic entry infringes Intercept’s Orange Book-listed patents and whether Intercept can secure injunctive relief or keep the market closed past the statutory timelines.
  • Missing case-critical facts: Asserted patents, FDA certifications, claim constructions, motion outcomes, and any settlement or judgment terms are not included in the provided prompt, so a litigation-grade summary and analysis cannot be produced.

FAQs

  1. What is the standard patent claim pathway in Intercept Hatch-Waxman suits against generics?
  2. How do Paragraph IV certifications typically drive the first 12 months of litigation in Delaware?
  3. What settlement structures are most common in brand vs. generic patent cases involving Orange Book listings?
  4. How much does Markman claim construction affect generic design-around feasibility?
  5. What outcomes most often lead to immediate generic launch versus continued launch delay?

References

  1. Intercept Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Optimus Pharma Pvt. Ltd., No. 1:20-cv-01215 (D. Del.).

More… ↓

⤷  Start Trial

Make Better Decisions: Try a trial or see plans & pricing

Drugs may be covered by multiple patents or regulatory protections. All trademarks and applicant names are the property of their respective owners or licensors. Although great care is taken in the proper and correct provision of this service, thinkBiotech LLC does not accept any responsibility for possible consequences of errors or omissions in the provided data. The data presented herein is for information purposes only. There is no warranty that the data contained herein is error free. We do not provide individual investment advice. This service is not registered with any financial regulatory agency. The information we publish is educational only and based on our opinions plus our models. By using DrugPatentWatch you acknowledge that we do not provide personalized recommendations or advice. thinkBiotech performs no independent verification of facts as provided by public sources nor are attempts made to provide legal or investing advice. Any reliance on data provided herein is done solely at the discretion of the user. Users of this service are advised to seek professional advice and independent confirmation before considering acting on any of the provided information. thinkBiotech LLC reserves the right to amend, extend or withdraw any part or all of the offered service without notice.