Litigation Details for Amarin Pharma Inc. v. Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. (D. Nev. 2016)

Amarin Pharma Inc. v. Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. (D. Nev. 2016)

Docket		Date Filed	2016-10-31
Court	District Court, D. Nevada	Date Terminated	2020-03-30
Cause	35:271 Patent Infringement	Assigned To	Miranda Mai Du
Jury Demand	None	Referred To	Nancy J. Koppe
Patents	10,278,936; 7,022,713; 8,293,727; 8,293,728; 8,318,715; 8,357,677; 8,367,652; 8,377,920; 8,399,446; 8,415,335; 8,426,399; 8,431,560; 8,440,650; 8,518,929; 8,524,698; 8,546,372; 8,617,594
Link to Docket	External link to docket

Details for Amarin Pharma Inc. v. Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. (D. Nev. 2016)

Date Filed	Document No.	Description	Snippet	Link To Document
2016-10-31	1	Complaint	U.S. Patent No. 8,293,728 (“the ‘728 Patent”), U.S. Patent No. 8,318,715 (“the 7 ‘715 Patent”), U.…above. 2 33. United States Patent No. 8,293,728, entitled “METHODS OF TREATING 3 HYPERTRIGLYCERIDEMIA… Patent, the ‘335 Patent, the ‘399 Patent, 12 the ‘560 Patent, the ‘650 Patent, the ‘929 Patent, the…of the ‘728 Patent, the ‘715 Patent, the 11 ‘677 Patent, the ‘652 Patent, the ‘920 Patent, the ‘446 Patent…U.S. Patent No. 8,357,677 (“the ‘677 Patent”), U.S. Patent No. 8,367,652 (“the 8 ‘652 Patent”), U.S	External link to document
2016-10-31	135	Order	but is discussed. It is U.S. Patent No. 8,293,727 (“the ‘727 28 patent”). …the ‘715 patent”); (3) U.S. Patent No. 8,357,677 (“the ‘677 9 patent”); (4) U.S. Patent No. 8,367,652…“the ‘652 patent”); (5) U.S. Patent No. 10 8,377,920 (“the ‘920 patent”); (6) U.S. Patent No. 8,399,446…“the ‘446 patent”); (7) U.S. 11 Patent No. 8,415,335 (“the ‘335 patent”); (8) U.S. Patent No. 8,426,399… ‘399 12 patent”); (9) U.S. Patent No. 8,431,560 (“the ‘560 patent”); (10) U.S. Patent No. 13 8,	External link to document
2016-10-31	236	Motion for Summary Judgment	week.” See, e.g., Ex. 5, U.S. Patent No. 8,293,728 (“the ’728 patent”) at 3:65-4:7.1 These 11 undisputed… Ex. 6, U.S. Patent No. 8,318,715 (“the ’715 patent”), Claim 14; Ex. 7, U.S. Patent No. 8,357,677…the ’677 patent”), Claims 1, 7, and 8; Ex. 8, U.S. 19 Patent No. 8,367,652 (“the ’652 patent”), Claims…, U.S. Patent No. 8,431,560 (“the ’560 patent”), Claims 4, 7, and 17; Ex. 10, U.S. Patent No. 8,518,929…noninfringement as to all 15 asserted patent 3 claims from six related patents that Amarin contends cover methods	External link to document
2016-10-31	247	Response	728 pat. U.S. Patent No. 8,293,728 3 ’715 pat. U.S. Patent No. 8,318,715 4 ’…677 pat. U.S. Patent No. 8,357,677 5 ’652 pat. U.S. Patent No. 8,367,652 6 ’560… during prosecution of Amarin’s patent 6 applications, the Patent Office repeatedly found that the…comply with section 112 of the Patent Act, which mandates that a patent’s 9 “specification shall contain…render 15 the patents invalid as a matter of law. On their face, Amarin’s patents—which were filed	External link to document
2016-10-31	252	Response	OF ABBREVIATIONS 2 ’728 Patent U.S. Patent No. 8,293,728 (filed Jan. 12, 2012) (Defs… 16 of the '728 Patent 25 (Defs.' Ex. 5); Claim 14 ofthe '715 Patent (Defs.' Ex. 6);… the '677 Patent (Defs.' Ex. 7); Claims 1, 7, and 8 of the '652 Patent (Defs.' Ex…26 '560 Patent (Defs.' Ex. 9); an d Claims 1 and 5 of the '929 Patent (Defs.' Ex. …well beyond 12 weeks, and the patent specification (e.g., in the Patent Example), 14 describes treatment	External link to document
2016-10-31	278	Order on Motion for Partial Summary Judgment	and 16 of [U.S. Patent No. 21 8,293,728 (“the ’728 Patent”)], Claim 14 of [U.S. Patent No. 8,318,715…the ’715 patent”)], 22 Claims 1, 7, and 8 of U.S. Patent No. 8,357,677 (“the ’677 Patent”), Claims… 23 U.S. Patent No. 8,367,652 (“the ’652 Patent”), Claims 4, 7, and 17 of U.S. Patent No. 24 8,431,560…“the ’560 Patent”), and Claims 1 and 5 of U.S. Patent No. 8,518,929 (“the ’929 25 Patent”).” (ECF …infringement of Bayer’s patent 4 with a hypothetical different case where “[t]he patent does not claim a	External link to document
2016-10-31	295	Pretrial Order	5/7/2019 U.S. Patent No. 10,278,936 … U.S. Patent No. 12 8,293,728 (“the ’728 Patent”), U.S. Patent No. 8,318,715 (“the ’715 Patent”), U.…U.S. Patent No. 13 8,357,677 (“the ’677 Patent”), U.S. Patent No. 8,367,652 (“the ’652 Patent”), U.S….S. Patent No. 14 8,377,920 (“the ’920 Patent”), U.S. Patent No. 8,399,446 (“the ’446 Patent”), U.S.…U.S. Patent No. 15 8,415,335 (“the ’335 Patent”), U.S. Patent No. 8,426,399 (“the ’399 Patent”), U.S.	External link to document

Litigation summary and analysis for: Amarin Pharma Inc. v. Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. (D. Nev. 2016)

Last updated: July 19, 2026

Amarin v. Hikma (D. Nev.) 2:16-cv-02525-MMD-NJK: Litigation Summary, Patent Issues, and Generic Entry Risk

Executive summary: Amarin Pharma’s case against Hikma (D. Nevada, No. 2:16-cv-02525-MMD-NJK) is a Hatch-Waxman Orange Book dispute tied to Hikma’s planned generic entry for Amarin’s cardiovascular product and Amarin’s asserted patent rights. The litigation’s practical outcome is tied to (1) which Orange Book patents were challenged via Paragraph IV, (2) what claims Amarin asserted, (3) how the court handled infringement and validity (including claim construction), and (4) whether any FDA-related timing or settlement constrained Hikma’s launch.

What follows requires the actual docket/patent record and case documents to be accurate. Under the constraints of this task, a complete and accurate litigation summary cannot be produced from the case caption alone.

What patents were at issue in Amarin Pharma Inc. v. Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. 2:16-cv-02525-MMD-NJK?

Answer (requires Orange Book + docket): The specific Orange Book patent numbers, expiration dates, and the exact claim sets asserted by Amarin in No. 2:16-cv-02525-MMD-NJK must be pulled from the complaint, infringement contentions, and the Orange Book listing tied to Hikma’s ANDA.

Which Orange Book drug and listed patents were asserted

The case caption does not identify:

• the product name (and dosage form/strength),
• the ANDA applicant’s filing contents,
• the exact Orange Book entries Hikma certified under Paragraph IV, and
• which patents correspond to the asserted causes of action.

What infringement theories were used

A litigation analysis must specify:

• formulation vs method-of-use theories,
• direct infringement vs induced/contributory theories (if any),
• “labeling” infringement and the interaction with FDA-approved instructions,
• the claim construction positions for the asserted claims.

Those facts are in the complaint, Markman-related filings, and claim charts.

What validity arguments were litigated

A complete litigation summary must capture:

• Section 101, 102, 103, and/or 112 defenses raised,
• obviousness combinations and what references were cited,
• written description/enablement positions,
• priority dates and prosecution-history estoppel arguments (if any),
• inequitable conduct (if any).

Those details are not available from the docket caption.

When did the Amarin v. Hikma case affect exclusivity or generic launch timing?

Answer (requires docket + court orders): The launch-impact timeline depends on:

• the date of ANDA submission and certification under 21 U.S.C. §355(j)(2)(A)(vii),
• the date Amarin received notice and filed suit,
• court disposition dates (especially any dismissal, summary judgment, or final judgment),
• any automatic 30-month stay under Hatch-Waxman and whether it was modified.

30-month stay and resolution milestones

A timeline should list, at minimum:

• ANDA filing date,
• Paragraph IV notice date,
• complaint filing date,
• first substantive claim construction or dispositive motion date,
• any settlement agreement effective date (if filed as confidential or public).

Those milestones are found in the docket and court orders.

Court rulings that changed the risk profile for Hikma

Risk pivots in these cases typically occur at:

• claim construction orders,
• summary judgment on infringement and/or validity,
• voluntary dismissals or stipulations,
• injunction decisions or entry of judgment.

Those outcomes are docket-specific.

How strong is Amarin’s patent estate in Amarin v. Hikma, and what claims mattered most?

Answer (requires asserted claims + outcomes): Strength analysis must map:

• how the asserted claims read on Hikma’s proposed drug and labeling,
• whether the court adopted Amarin’s claim construction,
• which claims survived validity challenges,
• how many asserted patents were held infringed/invalid.

Without the specific asserted patents and judicial outcomes, no strength score can be stated.

Claim construction effects

If the court construed key claim terms narrowly or broadly, that typically determines infringement. A litigation summary must state the construction results and connect them to Hikma’s ANDA description and label.

Validity findings that drive generic leverage

If the court invalidated one or more asserted claims, it changes the value of remaining patents and can shift settlement posture. If claims survived, it increases infringement leverage.

Was there a Paragraph IV settlement, and what did it require from Hikma?

Answer (requires settlement or docket events): Many Hatch-Waxman cases end with a settlement that specifies:

• launch dates,
• non-launch periods measured from judgment or patent expiration,
• permitted product marketing constraints,
• “carve-outs” for certain strengths, presentations, or labeling. If there is a settlement, it is usually referenced in:
• docket entries,
• joint status reports,
• court orders acknowledging settlement.

A caption alone does not identify whether a settlement occurred.

What did the court decide on infringement, validity, and injunction in 2:16-cv-02525-MMD-NJK?

Answer (requires order list and judgment entries): A litigation analysis must report:

• final disposition (dismissed, summary judgment, bench/trial outcome, consent judgment),
• which patents/claims were enjoined (if any),
• whether an injunction is limited to specific dosage forms/labeling,
• any retained issues for later phases (damages, willfulness).

Dispositive motion outcomes

For business decisions, the key inputs are:

• infringement summary judgment results,
• invalidity summary judgment results,
• denial of injunctive relief or grant of injunction,
• any Federal Circuit appeal outcomes if the case is appealed.

How does Amarin v. Hikma compare with other Amarin patent challenges involving generic entrants?

Answer (requires other cases’ docket outcomes and same patent family): A comparison must be based on:

• shared asserted patents across cases,
• courts’ consistent or divergent claim constructions,
• outcomes for similar Paragraph IV challenges,
• whether settlements followed similar structure.

No comparative mapping is possible without the asserted patent family and case outcomes.

What generic entry risks exist for Hikma and other ANDA applicants after this case?

Answer (requires outcome and remaining enforceable patents): Generic launch risk is governed by:

• remaining un-adjudicated patents in the same Orange Book family,
• whether any claims were finally found invalid,
• whether a court entered an injunction barring launch,
• whether design-arounds or labeling changes could avoid infringement findings.

A risk matrix requires the final status of each asserted patent.

Design-around and labeling risk

If infringement depended on labeling or method-of-use instructions, generic risk can shift with:

• label carve-outs,
• proposed physician instructions,
• wording to avoid specific dosing or indication language.

Those elements are not present in the caption.

Manufacturing/IP barriers

If the asserted patents are formulation/process patents, manufacturing changes matter. If they are method-of-use, clinical-label strategy matters. The asserted patent type must be identified from the pleadings.

Regulatory status: Did FDA approval or labeling stay align with the litigation timeline?

Answer (requires FDA Orange Book + litigation dates): Hatch-Waxman litigation outcomes often align with:

• ANDA approval timing,
• launch timing relative to court orders,
• label triggers.

To answer this precisely, one needs the relevant ANDA approval letter and the Orange Book listing tied to the patents in the case.

Key Takeaways

• The case caption and docket number are insufficient to produce a complete, accurate litigation summary and analysis.
• A correct summary requires the asserted Orange Book patents, infringement theories, validity arguments, claim construction holdings, and final disposition, all of which are contained in case documents not identified here.
• Without those specifics, any statement about injunction status, settlement terms, or launch timing would not be accurate.

FAQs

1. What patents did Amarin assert against Hikma in 2:16-cv-02525-MMD-NJK?
2. Did Amarin win summary judgment on infringement or validity in this case?
3. Was there a 30-month stay in effect, and when did it lift?
4. Did the court grant or deny an injunction against Hikma’s proposed generic?
5. Which labeling or method-of-use provisions were central to the infringement analysis?

References

1. Not provided.