OBETICHOLIC ACID Drug Patent Profile

When do Obeticholic Acid patents expire, and what generic alternatives are available?

Obeticholic Acid is a drug marketed by Apotex, Lupin, and MSN. and is included in three NDAs.

The generic ingredient in OBETICHOLIC ACID is obeticholic acid. There is one drug master file entry for this compound. Additional details are available on the obeticholic acid profile page.

Summary for OBETICHOLIC ACID

US Patents:	0
Applicants:	3
NDAs:	3
Raw Ingredient (Bulk) Api Vendors:	62
Clinical Trials:	40
Patent Applications:	1,493
Patent Litigation and PTAB cases:	See patent lawsuits and PTAB cases for OBETICHOLIC ACID
DailyMed Link:	OBETICHOLIC ACID at DailyMed

Recent Clinical Trials for OBETICHOLIC ACID

Identify potential brand extensions & 505(b)(2) entrants

Sponsor	Phase
Assiut University	PHASE3
Intercept Pharmaceuticals	PHASE3
Intercept Pharmaceuticals	Phase 2/Phase 3

See all OBETICHOLIC ACID clinical trials

Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical (ATC) Classes for OBETICHOLIC ACID

A05AA	Bile acids and derivatives
A05A	BILE THERAPY
A05	BILE AND LIVER THERAPY
A	Alimentary tract and metabolism

Paragraph IV (Patent) Challenges for OBETICHOLIC ACID

Tradename	Dosage	Ingredient	Strength	NDA	ANDAs Submitted	Submissiondate
OCALIVA	Tablets	obeticholic acid	5 mg and 10 mg	207999	5	2020-05-27

US Patents and Regulatory Information for OBETICHOLIC ACID

Applicant	Tradename	Generic Name	Dosage	NDA	Approval Date	TE	Type	RLD	RS	Patent No.	Patent Expiration	Product	Substance	Delist Req.	Exclusivity Expiration
Apotex	OBETICHOLIC ACID	obeticholic acid	TABLET;ORAL	214862-001	May 30, 2023		DISCN	No	No
Lupin	OBETICHOLIC ACID	obeticholic acid	TABLET;ORAL	214980-002	May 30, 2023		DISCN	No	No
Apotex	OBETICHOLIC ACID	obeticholic acid	TABLET;ORAL	214862-002	May 30, 2023		DISCN	No	No

EU/EMA Drug Approvals for OBETICHOLIC ACID

Company	Drugname	Inn	Product Number / Indication	Status	Generic	Biosimilar	Orphan	Marketing Authorisation	Marketing Refusal
ADVANZ PHARMA Limited	Ocaliva	obeticholic acid	EMEA/H/C/004093Ocaliva is indicated for the treatment of primary biliary cholangitis (also known as primary biliary cirrhosis) in combination with ursodeoxycholic acid (UDCA) in adults with an inadequate response to UDCA or as monotherapy in adults unable to tolerate UDCA.	Authorised	no	no	yes	2016-12-12

Obeticholic Acid Market Dynamics and Financial Trajectory

Last updated: August 6, 2026

Obeticholic acid, marketed as Ocaliva by Intercept Pharmaceuticals, generated a commercial business in primary biliary cholangitis but failed to secure full FDA approval after safety and efficacy concerns. The drug’s NASH opportunity collapsed after FDA rejection in 2020, and the agency declined accelerated-approval conversion in 2023. Intercept’s acquisition by Alfasigma shifted Ocaliva’s commercial ownership, but did not remove regulatory, competitive, or patent-cycle risks.

What is obeticholic acid used for?

Obeticholic acid is a semi-synthetic bile acid and farnesoid X receptor agonist. Ocaliva is approved in the United States for adults with primary biliary cholangitis who have an inadequate response to ursodeoxycholic acid or cannot tolerate it.[1]

The approved U.S. label does not include nonalcoholic steatohepatitis, now generally called metabolic dysfunction-associated steatohepatitis. The NASH program was the principal source of the drug’s projected value before its clinical and regulatory setbacks.

Item	Status
Active ingredient	Obeticholic acid
Brand	Ocaliva
Original developer	Intercept Pharmaceuticals
Current commercial owner	Alfasigma, following its acquisition of Intercept
Primary approved use	Primary biliary cholangitis
FDA pathway	Accelerated approval
Initial U.S. approval	May 2016
NASH status	Not approved
Primary commercial market	PBC patients with inadequate or intolerant response to UDCA

How did Ocaliva receive FDA approval?

The FDA granted accelerated approval in May 2016 based on reductions in alkaline phosphatase, a biochemical marker associated with PBC disease activity.[1] The approval required a postmarketing trial to verify clinical benefit through outcomes such as liver transplantation or death.

The PBC indication was narrower than the broader market Intercept initially pursued. Ocaliva was positioned primarily as a second-line therapy after ursodeoxycholic acid, limiting the addressable population relative to first-line therapies.

The FDA later strengthened warnings concerning hepatic decompensation and death in patients with advanced cirrhosis. In 2021, the agency added a contraindication for patients with advanced cirrhosis or prior decompensation.[2]

What caused obeticholic acid’s NASH failure?

The NASH opportunity failed because the FDA determined that the clinical benefit did not outweigh the safety risks.

Intercept’s REGENERATE Phase 3 trial produced a statistically significant result on one fibrosis endpoint in a prespecified interim analysis. The FDA concluded in 2020 that the available data did not establish a favorable benefit-risk profile for approval in NASH.[3]

Key problems included:

• Pruritus, or severe itching, which was frequent and treatment-limiting.
• Dose-related increases in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol.
• Liver-related adverse events.
• Concern that patients with advanced fibrosis could experience hepatic decompensation.
• Uncertainty that histologic improvements would translate into reduced mortality, transplantation, or other clinical outcomes.

The NASH failure eliminated the drug’s largest potential expansion market. NASH had a materially larger patient population than PBC, but it also required stronger evidence across a more heterogeneous and clinically complex population.

When did the FDA reject full approval for Ocaliva?

The FDA declined to approve Ocaliva’s supplemental new drug application for PBC in June 2023.[4] The agency determined that the required confirmatory trial had not verified clinical benefit.

This decision was separate from the 2020 NASH rejection. The 2023 action affected the drug’s continued status under the accelerated-approval framework and placed pressure on the commercial viability of the PBC franchise.

The regulatory sequence was:

Date	Event
May 2016	FDA grants accelerated approval for PBC
February 2020	FDA issues complete response letter for NASH
June 2021	FDA adds major liver-safety restrictions and contraindications
June 2023	FDA declines conversion of Ocaliva’s accelerated PBC approval to traditional approval
September 2023	Alfasigma agrees to acquire Intercept
Late 2023	Transaction closes, transferring Ocaliva and Intercept’s other assets to Alfasigma

How large was the Ocaliva market?

Ocaliva was a niche specialty drug with annual revenue in the hundreds of millions of dollars, rather than a billion-dollar product. Its commercial base depended on a relatively small PBC population, long-term treatment, and pricing substantially above generic ursodeoxycholic acid.

Intercept’s annual reports showed continued growth in Ocaliva sales before the 2023 FDA decision, although growth was constrained by safety restrictions and the absence of NASH approval.

Financial period	Approximate Intercept product revenue trend
2020	Approximately $250 million
2021	Approximately $315 million
2022	Approximately $310 million to $330 million
2023	Approximately $350 million to $360 million before ownership transition

Reported figures vary depending on whether the disclosure is based on product sales, net revenues, or total revenue. Ocaliva accounted for the overwhelming majority of Intercept’s commercial revenue during this period.[5]

The revenue profile had four defining characteristics:

1. The business was concentrated in one approved product.
2. Revenue depended on PBC rather than the larger NASH market.
3. U.S. regulatory action created direct downside risk.
4. Commercial growth did not justify the valuation originally associated with a successful NASH launch.

Why did Alfasigma acquire Intercept?

Alfasigma agreed to acquire Intercept for approximately $794 million in an all-cash transaction.[6] The transaction gave Alfasigma:

• Ocaliva commercial rights.
• Intercept’s PBC infrastructure.
• International regulatory and commercial operations.
• An established specialty-care product.
• Potential value from additional bile-acid and liver-disease assets.

The acquisition price was materially below the valuation Intercept had commanded when investors expected Ocaliva to enter NASH. The deal reflected a restructuring of the asset’s value from a potential global metabolic-liver franchise to a smaller PBC specialty product with regulatory overhang.

For Alfasigma, the rationale was commercial diversification and access to an established rare-disease product. For Intercept shareholders, the transaction crystallized value after the loss of the NASH thesis and the FDA’s 2023 action.

What is the FDA regulatory status of Ocaliva?

As of the FDA’s June 2023 decision, Ocaliva remained available in the United States for its accelerated PBC indication, subject to the product label and required postmarketing obligations.[4]

The regulatory risk was substantial because accelerated approval can be withdrawn when a sponsor fails to verify benefit, when confirmatory studies do not establish benefit, or when the benefit-risk profile becomes unfavorable.

The 2023 decision created several commercial questions:

• Whether the FDA would require withdrawal of the accelerated indication.
• Whether Alfasigma would continue funding confirmatory development.
• Whether physicians would reduce use because of the liver-safety warnings.
• Whether payers would impose additional restrictions.
• Whether competing therapies would capture second-line PBC patients.

The distinction between “FDA-approved” and “fully confirmed” is material. Ocaliva had FDA approval for PBC, but its regulatory foundation remained dependent on the accelerated-approval framework.

What competing drugs affect obeticholic acid?

Ocaliva competes with established therapy, newer PBC drugs, and emerging mechanism-based treatments.

Ursodeoxycholic acid

Ursodeoxycholic acid remains the standard first-line treatment for PBC. It is available in generic form and has a lower cost base than Ocaliva. This limits Ocaliva’s role primarily to patients with inadequate biochemical response or intolerance.

Fibrates

Fibrates, including bezafibrate outside the United States and off-label fenofibrate use in some markets, compete with Ocaliva in patients who need additional biochemical control. Their use varies by jurisdiction and treatment guidelines.

Elafibranor

Elafibranor, marketed as Iqirvo, received FDA approval in 2024 for PBC in combination with UDCA for patients with inadequate response to UDCA, or as monotherapy for patients unable to tolerate UDCA.[7] Its entry creates direct second-line competition for Ocaliva.

Seladelpar

Seladelpar, marketed as Livdelzi, also entered the PBC market through the FDA accelerated-approval pathway in 2024.[8] Its approval adds another targeted option and increases pressure on Ocaliva’s prescribing base.

The competitive issue is not only price. Pruritus and liver-safety concerns are central to treatment selection. A drug with a cleaner tolerability profile can displace Ocaliva even if its nominal price is similar.

Product	Mechanism or class	PBC position	Competitive effect
Ursodeoxycholic acid	Bile acid	First-line	Low-cost treatment anchor
Ocaliva	FXR agonist	Second-line	Incumbent specialty therapy
Iqirvo	PPAR agonist	Second-line	Direct branded competitor
Livdelzi	PPAR-delta agonist	Second-line	Direct branded competitor
Fibrates	PPAR-related activity	Often off-label or region-specific	Additional biochemical-response option

What patent protection covers obeticholic acid?

Obeticholic acid was protected by composition-of-matter and use-related intellectual property developed by Intercept and predecessor entities. The commercial patent estate covered the active ingredient, methods of treating cholestatic liver diseases, and related therapeutic uses.

The estate’s practical strength declined as the product moved beyond its core composition-of-matter period and as the NASH indication failed. Patent protection for Ocaliva was therefore less important than regulatory exclusivity and the continuing commercial value of the PBC indication.

Key patent-risk categories include:

• Composition-of-matter claims covering obeticholic acid.
• Methods of treating PBC.
• Methods of treating NASH and liver fibrosis.
• Dosing regimens for patients with specific disease severity.
• Formulation and solid-state claims.
• Manufacturing processes and intermediates.

What formulation patents protect Ocaliva?

Ocaliva’s principal commercial protection was associated with the active ingredient and therapeutic use rather than a complex delivery system. The product is an oral tablet, which generally creates a lower formulation barrier than injectable biologics, long-acting depots, or device-enabled products.

Formulation patents can still delay generic entry if they claim a specific crystalline form, dosage strength, excipient combination, or manufacturing process. Their value depends on whether the claims are listed in the FDA Orange Book and whether a generic applicant can design around them.

What is the Orange Book status of Ocaliva?

Ocaliva was listed in the FDA’s Orange Book as an approved drug product associated with Intercept. Orange Book protection depends on the specific patents listed, their expiration dates, pediatric extensions, and any approved use codes.[9]

The main commercial questions for generic entry are:

• Which patents remain listed for the marketed strengths?
• Whether an ANDA applicant files a Paragraph IV certification.
• Whether Intercept or Alfasigma initiates patent litigation within 45 days.
• Whether the litigation triggers a 30-month stay.
• Whether the generic applicant challenges only the drug’s label or also the active ingredient and formulation claims.

The value of an Ocaliva patent challenge is constrained by the small PBC market and by the possibility of regulatory withdrawal. A generic company may avoid a costly challenge if market size is insufficient or if clinical restrictions reduce expected uptake.

Which companies could challenge Ocaliva patents?

Potential challengers would primarily be generic manufacturers with hepatology or specialty-pharmacy capabilities. The commercial incentive is lower than for high-volume primary-care drugs because Ocaliva treats a smaller population and carries substantial safety-monitoring requirements.

A Paragraph IV challenge could still become attractive if:

• Ocaliva sales remain above several hundred million dollars annually.
• Remaining patents extend beyond the core composition-of-matter term.
• The generic can enter with a lower-cost product despite label restrictions.
• The FDA maintains the PBC approval.
• Alfasigma continues active promotion and reimbursement support.

No major public patent-litigation campaign had displaced Ocaliva’s PBC business through the FDA’s 2023 regulatory decision. The most material threat remained regulatory and competitive rather than an announced large-scale generic launch.

What generic entry risks exist for obeticholic acid?

Generic entry risk is moderate to high over the medium term, but the timing depends on the remaining Orange Book patents and the survival of the PBC indication.

The key risk scenarios are:

Scenario	Commercial outcome
Accelerated approval remains active and no early generic	Ocaliva retains a declining specialty franchise
New PBC competitors gain share	Ocaliva revenue declines before generic entry
FDA withdraws the indication	Commercial value falls sharply
Paragraph IV challenge succeeds	Generic launch can occur before full patent expiry
Generic enters after patent expiry	Price erosion accelerates, especially in the U.S.
Alfasigma maintains focused promotion	Revenue decline may be slower in selected markets

A generic launch would likely produce rapid price erosion in the United States, but the absolute revenue impact would depend on payer substitution, physician acceptance, and the number of approved competitors.

What patent litigation and settlement risks affect Ocaliva?

The major legal risk is tied to the interaction between patent enforcement and regulatory status. A patent settlement could delay generic entry, but a settlement would have limited value if the FDA withdraws the PBC indication or if competing branded products make Ocaliva commercially unattractive.

Relevant legal issues include:

• Orange Book listing accuracy.
• Paragraph IV certification validity.
• Patent-term expiration.
• Use-code scope for PBC.
• Induced infringement based on a generic label.
• Antitrust scrutiny of delayed-entry settlements.
• Regulatory withdrawal under the accelerated-approval rules.

The commercial importance of any settlement is therefore conditional. A settlement that protects exclusivity without preserving the FDA indication would not preserve the original asset value.

How strong is the obeticholic acid patent estate?

The estate is technically meaningful but commercially weakened.

Factor	Assessment
Active-ingredient protection	Historically strong, but aging
PBC method-of-use protection	Relevant to the approved market
NASH use patents	Limited value after regulatory failure
Formulation protection	Less central than active-ingredient and use claims
Biologic exclusivity	Not applicable
Manufacturing barriers	Manageable for experienced small-molecule manufacturers
Regulatory moat	Weakening because of accelerated-approval uncertainty
Competitive moat	Weakening because of newer PBC therapies

The strongest remaining barrier is not manufacturing complexity. It is the combination of regulatory requirements, limited market size, physician caution, and the cost of conducting a PBC generic-development program.

What is the international market status of Ocaliva?

Ocaliva received marketing authorization in the European Union for PBC and was also developed for NASH. European regulators later imposed restrictions and required additional evidence after safety concerns emerged.

Geographic value differs by market:

• The United States has the highest pricing potential and the most important Orange Book implications.
• Europe has broader payer controls and national reimbursement negotiations.
• Japan and other markets have smaller commercial opportunities but may offer differentiated regulatory pathways.
• Emerging markets are more exposed to generic substitution and price controls.

The regulatory status must be assessed country by country. Approval in one jurisdiction does not establish continued commercial viability elsewhere, particularly where national authorities reevaluate accelerated approvals independently.

What is the likely financial trajectory for Ocaliva?

Ocaliva’s financial trajectory is more likely to be a managed decline than a return to high-growth pharmaceutical economics.

The principal drivers are:

1. Declining confidence in the product’s safety profile.
2. Loss of the NASH expansion opportunity.
3. New PBC competitors.
4. Potential FDA withdrawal or additional restrictions.
5. Future generic or biosimilar-like price pressure, although Ocaliva is a small-molecule drug and not a biologic.
6. Alfasigma’s willingness to fund commercialization and confirmatory development.

Revenue could remain meaningful in the near term if the FDA indication stays active and physicians continue prescribing Ocaliva for selected PBC patients. Longer term, competition and regulatory uncertainty are likely to reduce volume and pricing power.

Ocaliva does not face biosimilar risk because obeticholic acid is a chemically synthesized small molecule. Its relevant substitution risk is generic, branded-competitor, and therapeutic-class competition.

Key Takeaways

• Ocaliva is approved for PBC, not NASH.
• FDA approval was granted through the accelerated-approval pathway in 2016.
• The FDA rejected Ocaliva for NASH in 2020 and declined full PBC approval in 2023.
• Intercept’s revenue reached the mid-hundreds of millions of dollars annually, but the NASH failure removed the product’s largest growth opportunity.
• Alfasigma acquired Intercept for approximately $794 million.
• Elafibranor and seladelpar increased direct competition in PBC.
• Patent protection is aging, and regulatory status is more important than manufacturing complexity.
• Generic entry risk is meaningful but depends on remaining Orange Book patents and continued FDA approval.
• Ocaliva’s likely value is a declining specialty franchise rather than a platform for major expansion.

FAQs

Is obeticholic acid still approved for primary biliary cholangitis?

Yes. Ocaliva retained its accelerated PBC approval after the FDA’s June 2023 decision, subject to the product label, safety restrictions, and postmarketing obligations.

Was obeticholic acid approved for NASH?

No. The FDA rejected Intercept’s NASH application in 2020 because the available efficacy and safety data did not support approval.

Is Ocaliva a biologic or a small-molecule drug?

Ocaliva is an orally administered small-molecule drug. Biosimilar rules do not apply; generic-drug competition is the relevant substitution risk.

Who owns Ocaliva?

Alfasigma owns Ocaliva following its acquisition of Intercept Pharmaceuticals in a transaction valued at approximately $794 million.

Which newer PBC drugs compete with Ocaliva?

Elafibranor, marketed as Iqirvo, and seladelpar, marketed as Livdelzi, are newer therapies competing with Ocaliva in patients who have inadequate response or intolerance to ursodeoxycholic acid.

References

1. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. (2016). FDA approves Ocaliva for rare, chronic liver disease.
2. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. (2021). FDA warns about serious liver injury with Ocaliva for patients with primary biliary cholangitis.
3. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. (2020). FDA issues complete response letter for obeticholic acid in nonalcoholic steatohepatitis.
4. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. (2023). FDA issues complete response letter for supplemental new drug application for Ocaliva in primary biliary cholangitis.
5. Intercept Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (2023). Annual report pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
6. Alfasigma S.p.A. (2023). Alfasigma to acquire Intercept Pharmaceuticals.
7. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. (2024). FDA grants accelerated approval to elafibranor for primary biliary cholangitis.
8. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. (2024). FDA grants accelerated approval to seladelpar for primary biliary cholangitis.
9. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. (2024). Approved drug products with therapeutic equivalence evaluations: Orange Book.