Commitments and Contingencies | 15. Commitments and Contingencies Legal Proceedings The Company is involved in various disputes, legal proceedings and litigation in the course of its business, including the matters described below and, from time to time, governmental inquiries and investigations and employment and other litigation. These matters, which could result in damages, fines or other administrative, civil or criminal remedies, liabilities or penalties, are often complex and the outcome of such matters is often uncertain. The Company may from time to time enter into settlements to resolve such matters. Shareholder Litigation Separately, on December 1, 2017, a purported shareholder demand was made on the Company based on substantially the same allegations as those set forth in the securities case above. In addition, on January 5, 2018, a follow-on derivative suit, styled Davis v. Pruzanski, et al., was filed in New York state court by shareholder Gregg Davis based on substantially the same allegations as those set forth in the securities case above. On November 5, 2020, a purported shareholder class action, initially styled Chauhan v. Intercept Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, naming the Company and certain of its officers as defendants. The lawsuit was transferred to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on January 4, 2021. The Court appointed lead plaintiff in the lawsuit on January 25, 2021, and the lead plaintiff filed a corrected amended complaint on March 15, 2021, captioned Richard Rice, as Trustee of the Richard E. and Melinda Rice Revocable Family Trust 5/9/90, and Christian Stankevitz v. Intercept Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., naming the Company and certain of its current and former officers as defendants. The lead plaintiff claims to be suing on behalf of anyone who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company’s securities between September 28, 2019 and October 7, 2020. This lawsuit alleges that material misrepresentations and/or omissions of material fact were made in the Company’s public disclosures during the period from September 28, 2019 to October 7, 2020, in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The alleged improper disclosures relate to statements regarding the Company’s New Drug Application for OCA for the treatment of liver fibrosis due to NASH and the use of Ocaliva in patients with PBC, as well as the Company’s operations, financial performance and prospects. The plaintiff seeks unspecified monetary damages on behalf of the putative class, and an award of costs and expenses, including attorney’s fees. On April 26, 2021, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. Separately, on December 29, 2020, a follow-on derivative suit, styled Rabinovich v. Fundarò, et al., was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York by shareholder Delfin Rabinovich based on substantially the same allegations as those set forth in the securities case immediately above. This lawsuit was subsequently transferred to the United States District Court for the District of Delaware on January 28, 2021. On February 1, 2021, a second follow-on derivative suit, styled Fung v. Fundarò, et al., was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware based on the substantially same allegations as those set forth in the securities case immediately above and the Rabinovich derivative action. On March 1, 2021, these follow-on derivative suits were consolidated in a single suit titled In re Intercept Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Derivative Litigation. On March 15, 2021, the District of Delaware entered an order staying the consolidated derivative litigation pending a decision on the motion to dismiss in the related securities case. While the Company believes that it has a number of valid defenses to the claims described above and intends to vigorously defend itself, the matters are in the early stages of litigation and no assessment can be made as to the likely outcome of the matters or whether they will be material to the Company. Accordingly, an estimate of the potential loss, or range of loss, if any, to the Company relating to the matters is not possible at this time. Patent Litigation The Company has received paragraph IV certification notice letters from six generic drug manufacturers indicating that each such manufacturer has submitted to the FDA an Abbreviated New Drug Application (“ANDA”) seeking approval to manufacture and sell a generic version of the Company’s 5 mg and 10 mg dosage strengths of Ocaliva® (obeticholic acid) for PBC prior to the expiration of certain patents protecting Ocaliva. Apotex Abbreviated New Drug Application In July 2020, the Company received a paragraph IV certification notice (the “Apotex PIV Notice”) from Apotex Inc. (“Apotex”) indicating that Apotex has submitted to the FDA an ANDA seeking approval to manufacture and sell a generic version of the Company’s 5 mg and 10 mg dosage strengths of Ocaliva® (obeticholic acid) for PBC prior to the expiration of the Company’s U.S. Patents Nos. 9,238,673 (the “‘673 Patent”), 10,047,117 (the “‘117 Patent”), 10,052,337 (the “‘337 Patent”), and 10,174,073 (the “‘073 Patent”, and collectively with the ‘673 Patent, ‘117 Patent and ‘337 Patent, the “Apotex Challenged Patents”), which are listed for Ocaliva in the FDA’s Approved Drug Products with Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluations (referred to as the “Orange Book”). The Apotex PIV Notice alleges that the Apotex Challenged Patents are invalid, unenforceable, and/or will not be infringed by the commercial manufacture, use or sale of the generic products described in Apotex’s ANDA. Apotex did not make a paragraph IV certification against the Company’s U.S. Patents Nos. 7,138,390 (the “‘390 Patent”), 8,058,267 (the “‘267 Patent”) or 8,377,916 the (“‘916 Patent”), which are also listed for Ocaliva in the Orange Book. The Company initiated a patent infringement suit against Apotex in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware within 45 days of receipt of the Apotex PIV Notice. As a result, under the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984 (the “Hatch-Waxman Act”), the FDA cannot grant final approval of Apotex’s ANDA before November 27, 2023 or a court decision in Apotex’s favor, whichever is earlier. Recently, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (the “USPTO”) awarded the Company two additional patents that were subsequently listed in the Orange Book for Ocaliva: U.S. Patents Nos. 10,751,349 (the “‘349 Patent”) and 10,758,549 (the “‘549 Patent”). In September and October 2020, the Company received additional paragraph IV certification notices from Apotex challenging the ‘349 Patent and the ‘549 Patent, respectively. The Company amended its complaint against Apotex in November 2020 to add infringement allegations for the ‘549 Patent. In January 2021, the Company received a further paragraph IV certification notice from Apotex challenging a reissue patent, U.S. Patent No. RE 48,286 (the “‘286 Patent”), as described below. The Company further amended its complaint against Apotex in March 2021 to add infringement allegations for the ‘286 Patent. In response to the Company’s allegations of infringement, Apotex has taken the position that the patents asserted against it are invalid and/or not infringed. Lupin Abbreviated New Drug Application In July 2020, the Company received a paragraph IV certification notice (the “Lupin PIV Notice”) from Lupin Limited (“Lupin”) indicating that Lupin has submitted to the FDA an ANDA seeking approval to manufacture and sell a generic version of the Company’s 5 mg and 10 mg dosage strengths of Ocaliva® (obeticholic acid) for PBC prior to the expiration of the ‘390 Patent, the ‘673 Patent, the ‘117 Patent, the ‘337 Patent and the ‘073 Patent (collectively, the “Lupin Challenged Patents”), which are listed for Ocaliva in the FDA’s Orange Book. The Lupin PIV Notice alleges that the Lupin Challenged Patents are invalid, unenforceable, and/or will not be infringed by the commercial manufacture, use or sale of the generic products described in Lupin’s ANDA. Lupin did not make a paragraph IV certification against the ‘267 Patent or the ‘916 Patent, which are also listed for Ocaliva in the Orange Book. The Company initiated a patent infringement suit against Lupin in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware within 45 days of receipt of the Lupin PIV Notice. As a result, under the Hatch-Waxman Act, the FDA cannot grant final approval of Lupin’s ANDA before November 27, 2023 or a court decision in Lupin’s favor, whichever is earlier. In September 2020, the Company received an additional paragraph IV certification notice from Lupin challenging the ‘349 Patent and the ‘549 Patent. In November 2020, the Company received an additional amended paragraph IV certification notice from Lupin challenging the ‘286 Patent. The Company amended its complaint against Lupin in November 2020 to add infringement allegations for the ‘549 Patent and to substitute the ‘286 Patent for the ‘390 Patent. In response to the Company’s allegations of infringement, Lupin has taken the position that the patents asserted against it are invalid and/or not infringed. Amneal Abbreviated New Drug Application In July 2020, the Company received a paragraph IV certification notice (the “Amneal PIV Notice”) from Amneal Pharmaceuticals of New York, LLC, as U.S. agent for Amneal EU Limited (“Amneal”), indicating that Amneal has submitted to the FDA an ANDA seeking approval to manufacture and sell a generic version of the Company’s 5 mg and 10 mg dosage strengths of Ocaliva® (obeticholic acid) for PBC prior to the expiration of the ‘673 Patent, the ‘117 Patent, the ‘337 Patent and the ‘073 Patent (collectively, the “Amneal Challenged Patents”), which are listed for Ocaliva in the FDA’s Orange Book. The Amneal PIV Notice alleges that the Amneal Challenged Patents are invalid, unenforceable, and/or will not be infringed by the commercial manufacture, use or sale of the generic products described in Amneal’s ANDA. Amneal did not make a paragraph IV certification against the ‘390 Patent, the ‘267 Patent or the ‘916 Patent, which are also listed for Ocaliva in the Orange Book. The Company initiated a patent infringement suit against Amneal in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware within 45 days of receipt of the Amneal PIV Notice. As a result, under the Hatch-Waxman Act, the FDA cannot grant final approval of Amneal’s ANDA before November 27, 2023 or a court decision in Amneal’s favor, whichever is earlier. In October 2020, the Company received an additional paragraph IV certification notice from Amneal challenging the ‘349 Patent and the ‘549 Patent. The Company amended its complaint against Amneal in November 2020 to add infringement allegations for the ‘349 Patent and the ‘549 Patent. In response to the Company’s allegations of infringement, Amneal has taken the position that the patents asserted against it are invalid and/or not infringed. Optimus Abbreviated New Drug Application In July 2020, the Company received a paragraph IV certification notice (the “Optimus PIV Notice”) from Optimus Pharma Pvt Ltd (“Optimus”) indicating that Optimus has submitted to the FDA an ANDA seeking approval to manufacture and sell a generic version of the Company’s 5 mg and 10 mg dosage strengths of Ocaliva® (obeticholic acid) for PBC prior to the expiration of the ‘390 Patent, the ‘673 Patent, the ‘117 Patent, the ‘337 Patent and the ‘073 Patent (collectively, the “Optimus Challenged Patents”) which are listed for Ocaliva in the FDA’s Orange Book. The Optimus PIV Notice alleges that the Optimus Challenged Patents are invalid, unenforceable, and/or will not be infringed by the commercial manufacture, use or sale of the generic products described in Optimus’s ANDA. Optimus did not make a paragraph IV certification against the ‘267 Patent or the ‘916 Patent, which are also listed for Ocaliva in the Orange Book. The Company initiated a patent infringement suit against Optimus in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware within 45 days of receipt of the Optimus PIV Notice. As a result, under the Hatch-Waxman Act, the FDA cannot grant final approval of Optimus’s ANDA before November 27, 2023 or a court decision in Optimus’s favor, whichever is earlier. In October 2020, the Company received an additional paragraph IV certification notice from Optimus challenging the ‘349 Patent and the ‘549 Patent. The Company amended its complaint against Optimus in November 2020 to add infringement allegations for the ‘549 Patent and to substitute the ‘286 Patent for the ‘390 Patent. In response to the Company’s allegations of infringement, Optimus has taken the position that the patents asserted against it are invalid and/or not infringed. MSN Abbreviated New Drug Application In July 2020, the Company received a paragraph IV certification notice (the “MSN PIV Notice”) from MSN Pharmaceuticals Inc. and MSN Laboratories Private Limited (collectively, “MSN”) indicating that MSN has submitted to the FDA an ANDA seeking approval to manufacture and sell a generic version of the Company’s 5 mg and 10 mg dosage strengths of Ocaliva® (obeticholic acid) for PBC prior to the expiration of the ‘390 Patent, the ‘673 Patent, the ‘117 Patent, the ‘337 Patent and the ‘073 Patent (collectively, the “MSN Challenged Patents”) which are listed for Ocaliva in the FDA’s Orange Book. The MSN PIV Notice alleges that the MSN Challenged Patents are invalid, unenforceable, and/or will not be infringed by the commercial manufacture, use or sale of the generic products described in MSN’s ANDA. MSN did not make a paragraph IV certification against the ‘267 Patent or the ‘916 Patent, which are also listed for Ocaliva in the Orange Book. The Company initiated a patent infringement suit against MSN in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware within 45 days of receipt of the MSN PIV Notice. As a result, under the Hatch-Waxman Act, the FDA cannot grant final approval of MSN’s ANDA before November 27, 2023 or a court decision in MSN’s favor, whichever is earlier. In November 2020, the Company received an additional paragraph IV certification notice from MSN challenging the ‘349 Patent, the ‘549 Patent, and the ‘286 Patent. The Company amended its complaint against MSN in December 2020 to add infringement allegations for the ‘549 Patent and to substitute the ‘286 Patent for the ‘390 Patent. In response to the Company’s allegations of infringement, MSN has taken the position that the patents asserted against it are invalid and/or not infringed. DRL Abbreviated New Drug Application In December 2020, the Company received a paragraph IV certification notice (the “DRL PIV Notice”) from Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, Inc. and Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, Ltd. (collectively, “DRL”) indicating that DRL has submitted to the FDA an ANDA seeking approval to manufacture and sell a generic version of the Company’s 5 mg and 10 mg dosage strengths of Ocaliva® (obeticholic acid) for PBC prior to the expiration of the ‘286 Patent, the ‘390 Patent, the ‘673 Patent, the ‘117 Patent, the ‘337 Patent, the ‘073 Patent, the ‘349 Patent and the ‘549 Patent (collectively, the “DRL Challenged Patents”) which are listed for Ocaliva in the FDA’s Orange Book. The DRL PIV Notice alleges that the DRL Challenged Patents are invalid, unenforceable, and/or will not be infringed by the commercial manufacture, use or sale of the generic products described in DRL’s ANDA. DRL did not make a paragraph IV certification against the ‘267 Patent or the ‘916 Patent, which are also listed for Ocaliva in the Orange Book. The Company initiated a patent infringement suit against DRL in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware within 45 days of receipt of the DRL PIV Notice. As a result, under the Hatch-Waxman Act, the FDA cannot grant final approval of DRL’s ANDA before November 27, 2023 or a court decision in DRL’s favor, whichever is earlier. In response to the Company’s allegations of infringement, DRL has taken the position that the patents asserted against it are invalid and/or not infringed. In October 2020, the USPTO granted to the Company a reissue patent, ‘286 Patent. By operation of law, the ‘390 Patent was withdrawn and replaced by the ‘286 Patent, which contains composition of matter claims to OCA and has the same term as the ‘390 Patent. In February 2021, a patent term extension certificate was issued, which extends the term of the ‘286 Patent into 2027. The ‘286 Patent has been listed in the Orange Book. These proceedings are costly and time consuming. Successful challenges to the Company’s patent or other intellectual property rights through these proceedings could result in a loss of rights in the relevant jurisdiction and may allow third parties to use the Company’s proprietary technologies without a license from the Company or its collaborators. While the Company intends to vigorously defend and enforce its intellectual property rights protecting Ocaliva, the Company can offer no assurance as to when the lawsuits will be decided, whether the lawsuits will be successful, or that a generic equivalent of Ocaliva will not be approved and enter the market before the expiration of the Company’s patents. |