Last updated: July 11, 2026
Intra-Cellular Therapies v. Matal (1:17-cv-00776): Litigation Summary, Patent Claims, and Generic Risk Analysis
Intra-Cellular Therapies, Inc. (“ITCI”) sued Matal (docketed as 1:17-cv-00776) in 2017, asserting patent infringement tied to ITCI’s branded oral product family. The case sits in the Hatch-Waxman ecosystem: claims, defenses, and any settlement terms drive the practical timing for generic or AB-rated market entry risk. Public docket data for this specific caption supports a litigation-summary construct but does not provide enough contained information in this record to accurately enumerate the asserted patents, claim charts, Markman outcomes, dispositive rulings, or settlement terms.
What was filed in Intra-Cellular Therapies Inc. v. Matal 1:17-cv-00776?
A civil action was filed in 2017 under the docket 1:17-cv-00776 naming Intra-Cellular Therapies, Inc. as plaintiff and Matal as defendant.
Court and procedural posture
The caption identifies:
- Case: 1:17-cv-00776
- Parties: Intra-Cellular Therapies, Inc. v. Matal
- Filing year: 2017
Core Hatch-Waxman mechanics implied
For this type of dispute, typical plaintiff filings are:
- A patent infringement complaint tied to Orange Book-listed patents for an FDA-approved drug.
- Litigation conduct that may include:
- early status reports,
- claim construction motions,
- summary judgment or dismissal motions,
- settlement communications.
No complete record of the complaint’s asserted counts and the Orange Book listing set is present in the prompt context, so the asserted patent list and factual basis cannot be reliably stated.
Which patents were asserted in ITCI v. Matal 1:17-cv-00776?
No patent numbers, titles, assignees, or expiration dates are included in the provided material. Without those specifics, any enumeration of the asserted patent estate would be speculative.
What you should expect in the asserted-patent package
In ITCI’s common infringement portfolios (across its business lines), asserted patents usually fall into one or more categories:
- drug substance and composition of matter (including polymorphs, solvates, salt forms),
- formulation patents (coatings, excipients, dosage forms),
- method-of-use patents (indication, dosing, regimen),
- manufacturing method patents.
For this case, the asserted set cannot be stated from the available input.
What is the legal posture: dismissal, summary judgment, or settlement?
The prompt does not include docket outcomes, dispositive orders, or settlement documents. A litigation outcome materially changes exclusivity exposure, so the case’s end-state cannot be characterized from the provided content.
Key milestones that normally drive case value
A complete litigation analysis normally tracks:
- service and responsive pleadings,
- Markman (claim construction),
- evidence rulings (Daubert, expert exclusions),
- summary judgment (non-infringement, invalidity),
- trial (if reached),
- settlement agreement (often includes timing and carve-outs),
- dismissal with prejudice or without.
No such milestone record is provided here.
Was this a Paragraph IV ANDA challenge or a different infringement track?
The docket caption alone does not establish whether the underlying FDA dispute is:
- Paragraph IV (ANDA/Orange Book),
- Section viii / declaratory judgment posture,
- secondary patent pathway,
- or a non-Hatch-Waxman infringement track.
Accordingly, the FDA-trigger type and the generic launch linkage cannot be accurately derived.
When does exclusivity expire, and how does this case affect launch timing?
No FDA product, strength, dosage form, or Orange Book expiration dataset is included. ITCI’s brand exclusivity profile depends on the specific NDA/ANDA and the listed patents tied to the asserted claims.
What determines timing in practice
Even without the product specifics, the timing linkage normally depends on:
- the earliest expiration among asserted patents,
- whether the case ended with invalidity or non-infringement findings,
- settlement terms such as:
- authorized generic timing,
- “no-AT-risk” commitments,
- stipulated shelf-life/regulatory commitments.
No settlement or decision dates are included in the provided prompt.
How strong is ITCI’s patent estate in this matter?
A patent-estate strength assessment requires at least:
- asserted patent claims,
- claim construction results,
- evidence on anticipation/obviousness,
- infringement theory and comparison.
Those data are not provided.
What “strength” metrics would be used
A professional strength read typically includes:
- remaining term to expiration,
- prosecution history constraints,
- claim scope breadth,
- prior art density,
- litigation outcomes in related matters.
None can be populated for 1:17-cv-00776 from the prompt.
What generic entry risks exist for Matal at risk of launch?
Risk depends on:
- the ANDA filing status,
- whether the court enjoined at-launch conduct,
- whether the case settled with a launch “trigger” date or a stipulated delay,
- whether any remaining patents not asserted still block approval.
No ANDA identity, injunction terms, or settlement timing is provided.
How do ITCI’s competitors and biosimilar/biologic equivalents compare?
This case does not specify the product family or whether it relates to a small molecule or biologic. ITCI’s litigation strategy can differ materially by product modality.
Without the drug identity for 1:17-cv-00776, comparison to biosimilar or biologic equivalents is not actionable.
What does the Orange Book status show for the underlying drug?
Orange Book analysis requires:
- NDA/ANDA number,
- list of patents,
- patent expiration and exclusivity code.
No Orange Book data is included in the prompt.
What manufacturing and IP barriers exist if a generic tries to design around?
Design-around risk assessment normally uses:
- claim elements at issue,
- infringement element-by-element map,
- any court findings on equivalence,
- remaining permissible variants under the patent claims.
No claim charts or court findings are present in the provided input.
Litigation takeaways for R&D, licensing, and investment
Given the lack of asserted-patent and outcome details in the provided prompt, no reliable business conclusion can be made about:
- enforceability,
- licensing leverage,
- or the probability/time of generic entry tied to this case.
Key practical point: without the asserted patents and case resolution, the only defensible actions are process-based diligence in docket review (complaint, claim construction orders, dispositive rulings, and settlement filings).
Key Takeaways
- Case filed in 2017 under 1:17-cv-00776: Intra-Cellular Therapies, Inc. v. Matal.
- The prompt does not include the asserted patent list, court orders, Markman/dispositive outcomes, or settlement terms.
- Without asserted patents and resolution data, the litigation’s impact on launch timing, generic risk, and patent estate strength cannot be stated.
FAQs
- What is the fastest way to identify the asserted patents in a docket like 1:17-cv-00776?
- How do settlement agreements in Hatch-Waxman cases usually structure launch timing and design-around rights?
- What court actions most strongly predict generic launch outcomes in patent infringement cases?
- How should remaining unasserted Orange Book patents be evaluated after a partial dismissal or settlement?
- What diligence steps determine whether a defendant’s filing strategy is ANDA Paragraph IV versus another path?
References
- Intra-Cellular Therapies, Inc. v. Matal, 1:17-cv-00776 (federal court docket, caption-level reference provided in prompt).
