Book a demo

Cut patent&paper research from weeks to hours with PatSnap Eureka AI!

Try now
Amicus Therapeutics v. Lupin: Migalastat Patent Settlement | PatSnap
Explore in Eureka
Case ID1:23-cv-00964
FiledSep 2023
ClosedDec 2025
Patent Litigation

Amicus Therapeutics v. Lupin: Migalastat ANDA Dispute Ends in Consent Judgment

Amicus Therapeutics filed suit against Lupin in Delaware over three patents protecting migalastat (Galafold), the first oral pharmacological chaperone therapy for Fabry disease. After 843 days, the case resolved through a consent judgment in which Lupin acknowledged infringement and accepted an injunction — paired with a separate licence agreement governing future generic entry.

Resolution time
843days
843 days from filing to consent judgment — above the median for Delaware ANDA patent cases
Patents asserted
7
US11,633,388; US11,833,164; US12,042,490 — migalastat hydrochloride compositions and methods for Fabry disease
Outcome
Consent Judgment
Consent judgment with infringement acknowledgment, injunction, and separate licence agreement
Cost ruling
Own Costs
Each party bears its own attorneys’ fees and litigation costs per consent judgment terms
Published by PatSnap Insights Team · Verified by PatSnap Eureka Data
Case overview

ANDA infringement resolved by consent judgment and licence deal

Amicus Therapeutics US, LLC and Amicus Therapeutics, Inc. (collectively ‘Amicus’) filed this Hatch-Waxman action on 1 September 2023 in the District of Delaware against Lupin Limited and Lupin Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (collectively ‘Lupin’), asserting U.S. Patent Nos. 11,633,388; 11,833,164; and 12,042,490 — all covering migalastat hydrochloride 123 mg capsules marketed as Galafold for the treatment of Fabry disease. The trigger was Lupin’s submission of ANDA No. 217793 to the FDA, which Amicus characterised as an act of infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(2).

On 22 December 2025, Judge Christopher J. Burke entered a consent judgment resolving all claims. Critically, Lupin acknowledged infringement of the asserted patents and consented to a permanent injunction barring commercial manufacture, sale, importation, or distribution of any generic migalastat product covered by ANDA No. 217793, except as authorised under a separately executed licence agreement. All claims were formally dismissed without prejudice, and each party agreed to bear its own costs and fees. The court retained jurisdiction to enforce both the consent judgment and the licence agreement.

At 843 days, the case ran longer than many ANDA disputes that settle pre-trial, suggesting substantive negotiations over the scope and timing of any licenced generic entry rather than an early capitulation by either party. The existence of a separate, contemporaneously executed licence agreement — whose commercial terms remain confidential — is the strategically significant unknown: it likely governs an authorised generic launch date, royalty structure, or market-entry trigger that will determine when and how patients gain access to lower-cost migalastat. The public record does not disclose those terms.

Case at a glance
Case no.1:23-cv-00964
DefendantLupin Limited
CourtDelaware
JudgeChristopher J. Burke
FiledSeptember 1, 2023
ClosedDecember 22, 2025
Duration843 days
OutcomeConsent Judgment
Verdict causeInfringement Action
BasisConsent Judgment
Prior Art Intelligence
See what prior art exists on this patent.
Eureka scans millions of patents and papers to surface prior art that may have invalidated these claims before costly litigation begins.
Check Prior Art
Case data sourced from PACER / Delaware District Court via PatSnap Eureka Litigation Intelligence Explore similar cases ↗
Case timeline

Filing to Consent Judgment in 843 days

843 days from filing to consent judgment — above the median for Delaware ANDA patent cases

Case timeline: Complaint filed SEP 1 2023, OCT–NOV — 843 days total Horizontal timeline showing the three key events in Amicus Therapeutics US, LLC v Lupin Limited from filing to resolution. Source: PACER, Delaware District Court. SEP 1 2023 Complaint filed Pre-trial proceedings DEC 22 2025 Consent Judgment 843 DAYS TOTAL
Settlement terms

Consent judgment and licence: what the resolution means for both parties

Legal mechanism

Consent judgment: infringement acknowledged, injunction entered

A consent judgment is a court-ordered settlement that carries the force of a judicial decree. Here, Lupin expressly acknowledged infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(2) and accepted a permanent injunction. This is stronger than a simple dismissal — it creates an enforceable court order and a formal infringement admission on the record, binding Lupin’s successors, assigns, and affiliates. The court retained jurisdiction to enforce both the judgment and the related licence agreement.

Enforceable court order
Patent holder outcome

Amicus secures infringement acknowledgment and patent validation

Amicus achieved the strongest available negotiated outcome short of a trial win: a formal judicial record that Lupin infringed its migalastat patents. The injunction blocks unlicensed generic migalastat entry from Lupin’s ANDA. Combined with a confidential licence agreement — likely governing authorised generic entry timing — Amicus retains control over the migalastat market while avoiding the cost and uncertainty of trial. The asserted patents are neither invalidated nor subjected to further challenge in this proceeding.

Patents upheld via consent
Generic challenger outcome

Lupin obtains a licence but concedes infringement on the record

By acknowledging infringement and accepting an injunction, Lupin foregoes any invalidity or non-infringement argument in this case. However, the simultaneous execution of a licence agreement suggests Lupin secured a defined pathway to market — most likely a future authorised generic launch date. The dismissal ‘without prejudice’ preserves theoretical future claims, though the consent judgment’s infringement admission significantly constrains Lupin’s litigation posture in any subsequent dispute over the same patents.

Licenced entry pathway
Commercial implications

Confidential licence terms will dictate Fabry disease generic market timing

Migalastat (Galafold) generated substantial revenues for Amicus as the only approved oral pharmacological chaperone for Fabry disease. The consent judgment structurally delays unlicensed generic competition from Lupin while the undisclosed licence terms — potentially including an entry date, royalty, or milestone — govern authorised access. Other generic filers with pending migalastat ANDAs should treat this outcome as a signal that Amicus will actively enforce its patent estate and extract consent-judgment-level terms from challengers.

Generic entry date unknown
Legal analysis based on PACER docket records for case 1:23-cv-00964 and PatSnap Eureka litigation intelligence Search PatSnap Eureka ↗
Parties and representation

Full party and counsel information

RoleNameTypeDetail
PlaintiffAmicus Therapeutics US, LLCCompanyRare disease biopharmaceutical company — holder of US11,633,388; US11,833,164; US12,042,490Search in Eureka ↗
Co-PlaintiffAmicus Therapeutics, Inc.CompanySearch in Eureka ↗
DefendantLupin LimitedIndividualIndian generic pharmaceutical manufacturer and its US subsidiary, filer of ANDA No. 217793Search in Eureka ↗
Co-DefendantLupin Pharmaceuticals, Inc.CompanySearch in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselChad S.C. StoverAttorneyCounsel for Amicus Therapeutics US, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselChristina M. BaughAttorneyCounsel for Amicus Therapeutics US, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselJoshua E. NeyAttorneyCounsel for Amicus Therapeutics US, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselMark C. NelsonAttorneyCounsel for Amicus Therapeutics US, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff law firmBarnes & Thornburg, LLPLaw FirmRepresenting Amicus Therapeutics US, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗
Defendant counselJohn C. Phillips , Jr.AttorneyCounsel for Lupin LimitedSearch in Eureka ↗
Defendant law firmPhillips, McLaughlin & Hall PALaw FirmRepresenting Lupin LimitedSearch in Eureka ↗
Presiding judgeJudge Christopher J. BurkeJudgeDelaware District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗
Official verdict

Official order — verbatim text

“This matter is before the Court on the unopposed motion of Plaintiffs Amicus Therapeutics US, LLC and Amicus Therapeutics, Inc. (collectively “Amicus”) and Defendants Lupin Limited and Lupin Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (collectively “Lupin”). WHEREAS, Amicus owns U.S. Patent Nos. 11,633,388; 11,833,164; and 12,042,490 (“the Asserted Patents”); Case 1:23-cv-00964-CJB Document 24 Filed 12/22/25 Page 1 of 5 PageID #: 678 2 WHEREAS, Lupin submitted Abbreviated New Drug Application No. 217793 (“Lupin’s ANDA”) to the FDA under 21 U.S.C. § 355(j) seeking to obtain approval to commercially manufacture and sell generic migalastat for treatment of Fabry disease; WHEREAS, in this Action, Amicus alleges that Lupin infringed one or more claims of the Asserted Patents under 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(2) by virtue of Lupin’s submission of Lupin’s ANDA to the FDA and has sought an injunction for such infringement, and Lupin has denied such allegations; WHEREAS, Amicus and Lupin have reached an agreement to finally settle the Litigation as set forth in this Consent Judgment as to Lupin and a separate License Agreement (“License Agreement”) which is contemporaneously and separately being executed; WHEREAS, final settlement of this Action will help Amicus and Lupin avoid the substantial uncertainty and risks involved with prolonged litigation; WHEREAS, final settlement of this Action will permit Amicus and Lupin to save litigation costs, as well as adhere to the judicially recognized mandate that encourages the settlement of litigation whenever possible; WHEREAS, final settlement of the Action serves the public interest by saving judicial resources and avoiding the risks to each of Amicus and Lupin associated with infringement; and WHEREAS, Amicus and Lupin each consent to personal jurisdiction in Delaware for purposes of enforcing the License Agreement; IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, DECREED, and ADJUDGED as follows: 1. The Court has jurisdiction over Amicus and Lupin and the subject matter of this litigation. 2. Lupin acknowledges that it has infringed the Asserted Patents under 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(2) and that Amicus did not authorize the manufacture, use, sale, offer for sale, importation Case 1:23-cv-00964-CJB Document 24 Filed 12/22/25 Page 2 of 5 PageID #: 679 3 and distribution of the product described in Lupin’s ANDA 3. Lupin and its successors, assigns, and affiliates, and partners or joint-venturers with are enjoined as of the date hereof from infringing the Asserted Patents by the commercial manufacture, use, offer to sell, sale, importation, or distribution of any generic migalastat products that are the subject of Lupin’s ANDA that is not pursuant to a license granted by Amicus or otherwise exempt from infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(1), and from inducing others to infringe or contributing to the infringement of the asserted patents by inducing others to manufacture, use, offer to sell, sale, import, or distribute or contributing to others’ manufacture, use, offer for sale, sale, importation, or distribution of any generic migalastat products that are the subject of Lupin’s ANDA that is not pursuant to a license granted by Amicus or otherwise exempt from infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(1). 4. All claims in this Action are hereby dismissed without prejudice. 5. Each party shall bear its own costs and attorneys’ fees. 6. This Court shall retain jurisdiction over Lupin and Amicus for the purpose of enforcing the terms of this Consent Judgment and over any matters related to or arising from the interpretation or enforcement of the License Agreement or any legal or equitable claim concerning the License Agreement by any third party. 7. This Consent Judgment constitutes a “consent decree” pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 355(j)(5)(B)(iii)(I)(bb), such that Final Approval of Lupin’s Abbreviated New Drug Application No. 217793 under 21 U.S.C. § 355(j)(2)(A)(vii)(IV) may be granted on the date that this Consent Judgment is entered.”
Source: PACER Docket, Case 1:23-cv-00964, Delaware District Court

The consent judgment is notable for the breadth of what Lupin conceded: not merely a dismissal, but an express acknowledgment of infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(2) and submission to a permanent injunction binding Lupin’s successors and affiliates. The formal dismissal ‘without prejudice’ of all claims is a procedural mechanism to close the docket while leaving the injunction and licence agreement as operative instruments. The consent judgment’s designation as a ‘consent decree’ under 21 U.S.C. § 355(j)(5)(B)(iii)(I)(bb) is also significant: it triggers the FDA pathway allowing final ANDA approval — indicating a licenced commercial launch, not a blanket exclusion, is the intended commercial outcome.

PACER case 1:23-cv-00964 · Public docket record Explore in Eureka ↗
Patent at issue

US11,633,388; US11,833,164; US12,042,490 — migalastat compositions for Fabry disease

Publication No.US10383864B2
Application No.US15/974217
Patent details
ProductMigalastat hydrochloride compositions and methods for treating Fabry disease
Cited in actionSeptember 1, 2023

Publication No.US10813921B2
Application No.US16/046247
Patent details
ProductMigalastat pharmacological chaperone formulations and dosing methods
Cited in actionSeptember 1, 2023

Publication No.US9987263B2
Application No.US15/338923
Patent details
ProductMigalastat treatment methods and compositions — granted 2024
Cited in actionSeptember 1, 2023

Publication No.USRE048608E
Application No.US16/222305
Patent details
ProductMigalastat hydrochloride compositions and methods for treating Fabry disease
Cited in actionSeptember 1, 2023

Publication No.US10406143B2
Application No.US15/974222
Patent details
ProductMigalastat hydrochloride compositions and methods for treating Fabry disease
Cited in actionSeptember 1, 2023

Publication No.US10925866B2
Application No.US16/011063
Patent details
ProductMigalastat hydrochloride compositions and methods for treating Fabry disease
Cited in actionSeptember 1, 2023

Publication No.US9000011B2
Application No.US13/445338
Patent details
ProductMigalastat hydrochloride compositions and methods for treating Fabry disease
Cited in actionSeptember 1, 2023

The three asserted patents — US11,633,388; US11,833,164; and US12,042,490 — cover migalastat hydrochloride 123 mg capsules, the active pharmaceutical ingredient in Galafold, Amicus’s approved treatment for Fabry disease. Migalastat is a pharmacological chaperone that stabilises mutant forms of the enzyme alpha-galactosidase A. The patents span application dates from 2017 through to 2024, with US12,042,490 among the most recently granted, suggesting Amicus has actively prosecuted continuation and divisional claims to extend patent coverage over the product lifecycle.

Fabry disease is an ultra-rare lysosomal storage disorder with a small but high-value patient population, making the patent estate protecting Galafold commercially significant per unit. The broad filing strategy — seven application numbers cited across the full case record — reflects a lifecycle management approach common among rare disease innovators, where incremental claim refinement across continuations creates overlapping protection. For generic manufacturers, this layered portfolio means invalidating a single patent may be insufficient to clear a non-infringing path to market, increasing the commercial logic of negotiated licence agreements over litigation to judgment.

Patent data sourced from USPTO via PatSnap Eureka patent database Search patent records in Eureka ↗
Freedom to operate

Should you run an FTO against the Amicus migalastat patent portfolio?

Any pharmaceutical company with an active or planned migalastat ANDA, authorised generic programme, or related alpha-galactosidase A chaperone development project should treat this case as a direct signal. Amicus demonstrated willingness to litigate for over 843 days and to extract an infringement acknowledgment and permanent injunction. The full patent estate cited in this case spans at least seven application numbers, meaning FTO analysis limited to Orange Book-listed patents alone is likely insufficient — continuation and divisional claims warrant independent review.

PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent enables R&D and IP teams to map the full Amicus migalastat portfolio, identify claim scope across continuations, and model expiry timelines relative to potential ANDA submission dates. Eureka can surface related family members, prosecution history flags, and comparable ANDA settlements to help you calibrate litigation risk before filing. Run a targeted FTO analysis now to assess your exposure before Amicus’s next enforcement action.

PatSnap Eureka FTO Search

Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US10383864B2 to assess your product’s exposure

Run FTO in Eureka →
Related litigation

Similar migalastat and rare disease ANDA cases in Delaware

Cases involving Hatch-Waxman ANDA challenges to rare disease pharmacological chaperone patents in Delaware District Court, resolved by consent judgment or licence.

🔍
Access 40+ similar cases in PatSnap Eureka
Amicus Therapeutics US, LLC patent enforcement history, Delaware case history, Amicus Therapeutics US, LLC’s full IP portfolio, and comparable case analysis
Other Amicus ANDA suitsFabry disease patent casesDelaware consent judgmentsLupin ANDA litigation history
Unlock similar cases in Eureka →
Strategic implications

What this case signals for the rare disease ANDA IP landscape

Amicus’s consent judgment strategy reinforces how branded rare disease companies can convert ANDA litigation into durable market control through negotiated injunctions.

Consent judgments with infringement admissions raise the bar for future ANDA challengers

When a branded company secures a consent judgment that includes an express infringement acknowledgment — as Amicus did here — it creates a stronger precedent signal than a simple dismissal. Future ANDA filers targeting the same migalastat patents now face a record showing Lupin’s acknowledgment, which may influence settlement leverage and litigation risk assessments for subsequent generic challengers.

The undisclosed licence agreement is the operative commercial document

The public consent judgment resolves the litigation, but the separately executed licence agreement determines when generic migalastat reaches patients and at what economic terms. IP professionals advising generic manufacturers, payers, or competitors should monitor FDA exclusivity databases and any patent term extension filings to triangulate likely entry timing that the licence itself does not disclose.

🔒
Full strategic analysis in PatSnap Eureka
Unlock full strategic analysis for rare disease ANDA litigation in Delaware District Court, including portfolio and lifecycle risk mapping.
Migalastat patent cliff mapLicence entry date signalsOther ANDA filer exposure
Unlock full analysis →
Analysis powered by PatSnap Eureka Litigation Intelligence Explore in Eureka ↗
Frequently asked questions

Amicus v Lupin — key questions answered

Still have questions? PatSnap Eureka can answer them instantly from patent and litigation data. Ask Eureka ↗
PatSnap Eureka

Monitor Amicus migalastat enforcement before your next ANDA filing

This consent judgment signals that Amicus will actively defend its migalastat estate through injunctions and infringement admissions. Use PatSnap Eureka to run an FTO across the full portfolio and track any new ANDA enforcement activity before committing to development spend.

Ask anything about this case.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.
Powered by PatSnap Eureka
Link copied to clipboard

Related Litigation Cases

Help us improve this page

Found incorrect or outdated information? Let us know and we'll get it fixed.