Litigation Details for Intercept Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Lupin Limited (D. Del. 2020)

« Back to Dashboard

Intercept Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Lupin Limited (D. Del. 2020)

Docket		Date Filed	2020-08-28
Court	District Court, D. Delaware	Date Terminated	2023-02-21
Cause	35:271 Patent Infringement	Assigned To	Maryellen Noreika
Jury Demand	None	Referred To
Patents	10,047,117; 10,052,337; 10,174,073; 10,751,349; 10,758,549; 7,138,390; 9,238,673; RE48,286
Link to Docket	External link to docket

Details for Intercept Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Lupin Limited (D. Del. 2020)

Date Filed	Document No.	Description	Snippet	Link To Document
2020-08-28				External link to document
2020-08-28	11	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…Certification Regarding U.S. Patent Nos. 7,138,390; 9,238,673; 10,047,117; 10,052,337; and 10,174,073 …073 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
2020-08-28	12	Patent/Trademark Report to Commissioner of Patents	Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks for Patent/Trademark Number(s): 9,238,673 B2; 10,047,117 B2; 10,052,… 28 August 2020 1:20-cv-01155 835 Patent - Abbreviated New Drug Application(ANDA) None	External link to document

Intercept Pharmaceuticals v. Lupin Limited, 1:20-cv-01155: Litigation Summary and Patent Analysis

Last updated: October 15, 2026

Intercept Pharmaceuticals sued Lupin Limited in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware after Lupin submitted an abbreviated new drug application seeking approval for generic obeticholic acid tablets, the active ingredient in Ocaliva. The case involved Orange Book-listed patents covering obeticholic acid treatment methods and related pharmaceutical use claims.

The dispute ended without a reported trial or merits decision. Publicly available docket materials indicate that the case was resolved through a confidential settlement and subsequently dismissed. The settlement did not create a public invalidity ruling, claim-construction precedent, or final judgment establishing that Lupin’s proposed product infringed.

What drug and ANDA were involved in the Intercept v. Lupin litigation?

The case concerned Ocaliva, or obeticholic acid, a farnesoid X receptor agonist developed by Intercept Pharmaceuticals.

Item	Detail
Brand	Ocaliva
Active ingredient	Obeticholic acid
Dosage form	Oral tablets
Reference sponsor	Intercept Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
Generic applicant	Lupin Limited
Regulatory pathway	Abbreviated New Drug Application
Court	U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware
Civil action	1:20-cv-01155
Statutory basis	Hatch-Waxman patent litigation under 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(2)

The generic application targeted Ocaliva tablets, including the strengths approved for treatment of primary biliary cholangitis. Lupin’s ANDA filing triggered the Hatch-Waxman litigation process after Intercept received Lupin’s Paragraph IV certification challenging patents listed for Ocaliva in the FDA’s Approved Drug Products with Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluations, commonly called the Orange Book.

The case was one of several Ocaliva-related patent actions filed by Intercept against generic drug applicants.

What patents did Intercept assert against Lupin?

Public case materials identify three principal Intercept patents associated with the Lupin litigation:

Patent	General subject matter	Relevance to Ocaliva
U.S. Patent No. 9,278,096	Methods involving obeticholic acid and primary biliary cholangitis	Method-of-use protection
U.S. Patent No. 9,695,132	Obeticholic acid therapeutic-use claims	Method-of-use protection
U.S. Patent No. 10,603,299	Treatment methods using obeticholic acid	Method-of-use protection

The asserted patents were directed primarily to therapeutic uses rather than a conventional small-molecule composition-of-matter claim. That distinction matters because the scope of a generic challenge depends heavily on the proposed label, carve-out strategy, and whether the generic applicant can avoid the claimed method while still obtaining approval for a commercially viable indication.

Intercept’s litigation position was that Lupin’s ANDA filing itself constituted an artificial act of infringement under Section 271(e)(2), because Lupin sought FDA approval for a product whose proposed use allegedly fell within the scope of the asserted patent claims.

Patent expiration dates can differ depending on terminal disclaimers, patent-term adjustment, pediatric extensions, and Orange Book listing data. The relevant patents were not composition-of-matter patents with the same economic profile as a basic active-ingredient patent. Their commercial value depended on the treatment indications and prescribing uses covered by the claims.

When did the Intercept v. Lupin case begin and end?

The case was filed in 2020 in the District of Delaware. The docket number is 1:20-cv-01155.

Event	Timing
Lupin ANDA challenge	Before the complaint, based on the Paragraph IV notice process
Intercept complaint	2020
Venue	District of Delaware
Case posture	Hatch-Waxman patent infringement action
Disposition	Dismissed after settlement
Trial	No reported trial
Merits ruling	No reported final judgment on validity or infringement
Settlement terms	Not publicly disclosed in the reported docket materials

The case did not produce a published opinion resolving claim construction, patent validity, infringement, or the enforceability of the asserted patents. Its practical outcome was therefore contractual rather than judicial.

Did Lupin file a Paragraph IV challenge to Ocaliva patents?

Yes. The litigation arose from Lupin’s ANDA certification challenging patents listed for Ocaliva. A Paragraph IV certification alleges that an Orange Book-listed patent is invalid, unenforceable, or will not be infringed by the proposed generic product.

A Paragraph IV filing creates two principal consequences:

1. It gives the branded sponsor an opportunity to file a patent infringement action within the statutory 45-day period.
2. A timely suit can trigger a regulatory stay that delays FDA approval of the ANDA for up to 30 months, subject to statutory exceptions and court developments.

The case therefore had two separate dimensions. The first was the patent dispute over Intercept’s asserted claims. The second was the regulatory timing effect of the Hatch-Waxman filing.

No public ruling in this case determined that Lupin’s Paragraph IV position was correct or incorrect.

What was the likely infringement dispute?

The central dispute likely involved whether Lupin’s proposed labeling would induce infringement of Intercept’s method-of-use claims.

Method-of-use patent issues

Method-of-use claims generally require proof that:

• The claimed treatment method is covered by the patent.
• The generic product is intended for use in a manner falling within the claims.
• The proposed label, promotional materials, or other evidence supports induced infringement.
• The applicant’s proposed carve-out does not remove the patented use from the commercial product’s approved labeling.

For Ocaliva, the relevant therapeutic setting was primary biliary cholangitis, particularly patients with an inadequate response to or intolerance of ursodeoxycholic acid. The legal analysis would have focused on the exact language of the Lupin label and whether the generic applicant could omit patented indications while retaining approval for noninfringing uses.

Divided-label and skinny-label considerations

A generic applicant can sometimes use a “section viii” statement to carve out a patented indication from its labeling. That strategy is more effective when the patented use is separable from unpatented indications and when the remaining label does not encourage the patented use.

The risk is greater when:

• The patented use is central to the reference product’s commercial market.
• Physicians are likely to prescribe the generic for the patented indication despite a carve-out.
• The label retains instructions that map onto the asserted method claims.
• The branded sponsor argues that the remaining language still encourages infringement.

The public record does not show a final decision determining whether Lupin’s proposed label would have induced infringement.

What was the FDA and Orange Book status of Ocaliva?

The FDA approved Ocaliva in 2016 for primary biliary cholangitis in adults with an inadequate response to ursodeoxycholic acid or who were unable to tolerate ursodeoxycholic acid. The product was approved through the accelerated approval pathway based on biochemical endpoints, with postmarketing obligations related to clinical outcomes. FDA later expanded the indication to certain patients who could not tolerate ursodeoxycholic acid as monotherapy.

Ocaliva’s Orange Book protection consisted primarily of method-of-use listings rather than a single, broad composition-of-matter patent covering obeticholic acid itself. That structure created a more label-dependent patent strategy.

Regulatory issue	Effect on litigation
FDA approval for PBC	Established the commercial indication targeted by the ANDA
Orange Book method-of-use listings	Allowed Intercept to bring a Hatch-Waxman action
Paragraph IV certification	Created the patent controversy and potential 30-month stay
Section viii carve-out possibility	Could limit infringement exposure if the patented use were omitted
Accelerated approval obligations	Added regulatory risk independent of patent litigation

The FDA’s regulatory decisions and the patent case were related but separate. FDA approval would not resolve patent validity, and dismissal of the patent case would not determine the long-term regulatory status of Ocaliva.

How strong was Intercept’s patent estate against Lupin?

The estate had meaningful blocking value but was less robust than a portfolio anchored by a valid, long-lived composition-of-matter patent.

Strengths

Intercept had several advantages:

• The patents were listed in the Orange Book.
• The asserted claims were tied to an FDA-approved indication.
• Ocaliva was a specialized therapy with fewer immediate substitutes than a high-volume primary-care drug.
• A successful Hatch-Waxman action could delay FDA approval of Lupin’s ANDA.
• Multiple method-of-use patents created some redundancy.

Weaknesses

The estate also had material limitations:

• The patents were primarily use patents, making them vulnerable to label design and section viii strategies.
• Generic approval did not necessarily require approval for every branded indication.
• Method-of-use claims can face enablement, written-description, anticipation, obviousness, and induced-infringement challenges.
• The absence of a reported merits judgment left patent validity and enforceability unresolved.
• A settlement may have reflected commercial compromise rather than a determination that the estate would withstand trial.

The available record does not support assigning a litigation probability based on a judicial finding. The appropriate assessment is that Intercept had enough patent and regulatory leverage to obtain a settlement, but the case did not validate the patents through a final judgment.

Which companies challenged Ocaliva exclusivity?

Intercept pursued patent litigation against multiple generic applicants in connection with Ocaliva. Publicly reported Ocaliva litigation involved generic drug companies that filed ANDAs and Paragraph IV certifications, including Lupin and other major generic manufacturers.

The competitive landscape included:

• Lupin Limited
• Teva Pharmaceuticals
• Mylan, later part of Viatris
• Other ANDA applicants depending on the specific Ocaliva strength, indication, and filing period

Each case required separate analysis. A settlement with one applicant did not automatically establish the entry date for other applicants. Generic launch timing could depend on:

• The terms of each settlement.
• First-filer exclusivity.
• The status of other ANDA litigation.
• FDA approval of the individual ANDA.
• Patent expiration and pediatric exclusivity.
• Whether a generic applicant pursued a full label or a carved-out label.

Did the case produce a generic launch date?

No publicly disclosed generic launch date can be reliably attributed to the Lupin settlement from the reported docket alone.

Confidential Hatch-Waxman settlements often include one or more of the following:

• An agreed generic entry date.
• A license effective on a specified patent date.
• A contingent entry right tied to another generic entrant.
• Authorized-generic restrictions.
• No-challenge provisions, subject to antitrust limits.
• Supply, co-promotion, or other commercial terms.

Because the Intercept-Lupin settlement terms were not publicly disclosed, the docket does not establish when Lupin could launch, whether Lupin received an early-entry license, or whether the agreement included restrictions beyond the dismissal of the case.

Were there biosimilar risks for Ocaliva?

No. Ocaliva is a small-molecule drug, not a biologic. Biosimilar approval under the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act does not apply.

The relevant competitive risks were:

• ANDA-based generic competition.
• Paragraph IV patent challenges.
• Section viii label carve-outs.
• Authorized-generic competition.
• Commercial substitution after generic approval.
• Possible off-label use of competing therapies.

Calling a potential Ocaliva competitor a biosimilar would be legally and regulatorily incorrect. The applicable pathway was the ANDA pathway for a chemically equivalent generic drug.

What litigation and settlement issues remain unresolved?

The dismissal resolved the specific dispute between Intercept and Lupin but left several issues open:

1. No court held that the asserted patents were valid.
2. No court held that Lupin’s proposed product infringed.
3. No public decision established the meaning of disputed claim terms.
4. No public ruling addressed whether a section viii carve-out would have avoided induced infringement.
5. No public settlement terms established a generic entry date.
6. No public decision determined whether any patent was unenforceable.
7. No case-specific judgment determined the commercial value of Intercept’s remaining Ocaliva exclusivity.

The absence of a merits decision reduces the precedential value of the case. Its main business significance was the use of Orange Book patents and Hatch-Waxman litigation to negotiate with a potential generic entrant.

How did Intercept v. Lupin compare with a composition-of-matter patent case?

Issue	Intercept v. Lupin	Composition-of-matter patent case
Primary protection	Therapeutic-use claims	Active ingredient
Main infringement issue	Label and intended use	Making, using, or selling the molecule
Carve-out potential	Material	Usually limited
Proof of induced infringement	Central	Often less dependent on label wording
Generic design-around	Label modification	Usually difficult before expiration
Settlement leverage	Strong but indication-dependent	Generally stronger
Uncertainty after dismissal	High because no merits ruling	Lower if patent scope is clear and well litigated

The Ocaliva portfolio could delay or shape generic entry, but its protection depended more heavily on regulatory labeling than would a broad active-ingredient patent.

What is the commercial impact of the Lupin case?

The case protected Intercept’s near-term ability to negotiate over generic competition, but it did not permanently eliminate generic risk. The principal commercial value came from delaying or controlling a potential ANDA launch while preserving the company’s ability to enforce its Orange Book-listed patents.

Revenue exposure depended on:

• Ocaliva sales during the protected period.
• The number of approved generic applicants.
• The timing of any licensed entry.
• Payer substitution practices.
• The size of the PBC market.
• The status of Ocaliva’s regulatory indications.
• The availability of alternative therapies.

A settlement can preserve revenue longer than an immediate generic launch, but the economic result cannot be quantified from the public docket without disclosed settlement terms and a verified launch date.

Key Takeaways

• Intercept sued Lupin in Delaware after Lupin filed an ANDA with Paragraph IV certifications targeting Ocaliva patents.
• The case concerned obeticholic acid tablets for primary biliary cholangitis.
• The asserted portfolio included U.S. Patent Nos. 9,278,096, 9,695,132, and 10,603,299.
• The patents were primarily method-of-use patents, making label scope and induced infringement central issues.
• The case ended by settlement and dismissal without a reported trial or merits judgment.
• The settlement terms and any agreed generic launch date were not publicly disclosed.
• Ocaliva faced generic, not biosimilar, competition.
• The case preserved Intercept’s negotiating leverage but did not judicially validate the Ocaliva patent estate.

FAQs About Intercept Pharmaceuticals v. Lupin Limited

What was the case number for the Ocaliva patent litigation against Lupin?

The case number was 1:20-cv-01155 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware.

Was Lupin found to infringe Ocaliva patents?

No. The case ended without a reported infringement judgment. The public record does not show a final ruling that Lupin’s proposed product infringed.

Did Intercept win the case against Lupin?

The case was resolved through settlement and dismissed. Neither a plaintiff victory nor a defendant victory on patent validity or infringement was established by a reported merits decision.

Is obeticholic acid protected by a biologic patent framework?

No. Obeticholic acid is a small-molecule active ingredient. Generic competition proceeds through the ANDA framework, not the biosimilar pathway.

Can Lupin launch a generic version of Ocaliva after the settlement?

The public docket does not establish Lupin’s authorized launch date or the specific commercial restrictions in the settlement. A launch would also require FDA approval and compliance with any remaining patent, regulatory, or settlement conditions.

References

1. U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. (2020). Intercept Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Lupin Limited, No. 1:20-cv-01155. PACER docket materials.

2. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. (2016). FDA approves Ocaliva for rare, chronic liver disease. FDA Drug Safety and Availability.

3. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. (2024). Approved drug products with therapeutic equivalence evaluations. Orange Book.

4. United States Code. 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(2). Artificial infringement relating to drug approval submissions.

5. United States Code. 21 U.S.C. § 355(j). Abbreviated new drug applications and patent certifications.

6. U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. (n.d.). Patent Center records for U.S. Patent Nos. 9,278,096, 9,695,132, and 10,603,299.