FDA June 2026 OPOE List: 699 Immediate ANDA Opportunities, Lupin’s Kalydeco Patent Win, & Global GMP Warnings

Summary of this blog post: 5-minute read

API & IP Intelligence Roundup (31 August 2026)

This edition highlights major pipeline opportunities from the USFDA’s June 2026 Off-Patent, Off-Exclusivity (OPOE) list, key global regulatory compliance actions, and a major Hatch-Waxman patent ruling where Lupin defeated Vertex Pharmaceuticals over Kalydeco (ivacaftor).

1. Niche Generic Pipeline: USFDA Releases Updated OPOE Drug List (June 2026)

The USFDA published its biannual update to identify approved reference products that have no patent or regulatory exclusivity barriers and lack approved generic (ANDA) equivalents.

• Part I (Immediate Filing Opportunities): Lists 699 prescription products for which the Agency can immediately accept an ANDA without prior consultation. This includes 42 solid oral tablet products, such as:

  • Oncology & Speciality: Chlorambucil (2 mg), Busulfan (2 mg), Mitotane (500 mg), and Hydroxyurea (100 mg).

  • Infectious Disease: Pivmecillinam HCl (Eq 185 mg Base), Rifapentine (150 mg), Artemether/Lumefantrine (20/120 mg), and Benznidazole (100 mg).

  • Cardiovascular & CNS: Chlorthalidone (12.5 mg), Doxazosin Mesylate ER (Eq 4 mg Base), Desvenlafaxine ER (50 mg), and Selegiline HCl ODT (1.25 mg).

• Part II (Complex Pathways): Encompasses 108 products where potential regulatory, scientific, or bioequivalence complexities require pre-ANDA alignment with the Agency.

2. Global Regulatory & Compliance News

• US Vaccine Settlement Oversight: Lawmakers have questioned Health Secretary Kennedy regarding disclosure discrepancies concerning his financial stakes and subsequent handoff in legal settlements involving Merck’s Gardasil® litigation.

• Global GMP Enforcement: The FDA issued a series of warning letters to active pharmaceutical ingredient (API) and finished dosage form manufacturers across the US, China, and India, citing systemic deficiencies in quality assurance units, inadequate aseptic processing, and repeated failure to remediate prior audit observations.

3. Intellectual Property: Lupin Secures Major Non-Infringement Win vs. Vertex (Kalydeco)

In Vertex Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Lupin Ltd. (D. Del. Aug. 24, 2026), Circuit Judge Stephanos Bibas ruled that Lupin’s generic ivacaftor formulation does not infringe Vertex’s Orange Book–listed formulation patents.

• Literal Infringement Rejected: Vertex claimed solid dispersions containing "about 80%" ivacaftor. The court credited Lupin’s expert testimony, which tied "about" strictly to patent prosecution history (a variation of roughly + 1-2%). Lupin’s generic formulation, utilising 74.257% drug load, fell well outside this scope.

• Doctrine of Equivalents (DOE) Barred:

• Prosecution History Estoppel: Because Vertex narrowed its claims to 80% during prosecution to establish unexpected solubility over prior art, it was legally barred from broadening its scope under the DOE.

• Bioequivalence is not equal to Infringement: The court explicitly held that bioequivalence alone cannot establish patent infringement under the DOE, as all generic drugs are legally mandated to be bioequivalent.

• Substantial Differences: Lupin’s use of wet granulation versus Vertex’s patented dry granulation represented a tangible, non-equivalent technical distinction.

#PharmaIP #FDA #GenericDrugs #HatchWaxman #Lupin #Kalydeco #PatentLaw #PharmaManufacturing #RegulatoryIntelligence #SidvimBlog

-----------XX--------------XX------------------XX-------------------XX----------------------------

I would like to encourage you to read the detailed blog post below. 

Contents

Niche Generic Opportunities? : FDA Releases Updated Off-Patent, Off-Exclusivity (OPOE) Drug List

General information

US lawmakers question Health Secretary Kennedy on vaccine settlement disclosures

US FDA warns drugmakers in India, China and the US for GMP issues

Intellectual Property

Vertex Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Lupin Ltd

Niche Generic Opportunities? : FDA Releases Updated Off-Patent, Off-Exclusivity (OPOE) Drug List

To enhance market transparency and stimulate generic competition in underserved therapeutic areas, the USFDA publishes its updated List of Off-Patent, Off-Exclusivity (OPOE) Drugs Without an Approved Generic biannually each June and December. This regulatory intelligence tool identifies approved New Drug Application (NDA) reference products whose patents and statutory exclusivities have expired, yet lack an approved Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA) equivalent. For generic pharmaceutical developers and portfolio strategists, this dataset serves as an actionable roadmap to identify high-value, sole-source, or abandoned brand-name reference products where generic market entry is unencumbered by Orange Book patent barriers.

In the June 2026 update, the Agency categorises prescription drug opportunities into two primary actionable segments: Part I lists 699 drug products for which the FDA can immediately accept an ANDA submission without prior consultation, while Part II comprises 108 products where generic development may require addressing specific scientific, regulatory, or complex bioequivalence questions via pre-ANDA meetings. Identifying products in Part I—particularly established solid oral dosage forms—offers developers a streamlined pathway to capture commercial market share in low-competition segments with minimal litigation risk.

Selected Off-Patent Prescription Tablets without Approved Generics (Part I — Immediate ANDA Acceptance)

The following table highlights 15 notable solid oral tablet products from Part I of the FDA June 2026 list, offering immediate generic filing potential:

More details are here

General information

US lawmakers question Health Secretary Kennedy on vaccine settlement disclosures

• Merck paid $50 million this year to resolve Gardasil litigation
• Kennedy said on social media he handed over his stake in cases to law firm
• Lawmakers say Kennedy's latest account on settlement stake conflicts with prior statements

News here

US FDA warns drugmakers in India, China and the US for GMP issues

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recently sent warning letters to companies in China, India, and the US for multiple violations of good manufacturing practices (GMP) related to the production of active pharmaceutical ingredients (APIs) and finished drugs.

A recurring issue highlighted in these letters is the insufficient oversight by quality units at these facilities, inadequate aseptic practices, and a failure to learn from previous mistakes.

News here

Intellectual Property 

Vertex Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Lupin Ltd

In Vertex Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Lupin Ltd. (D. Del. Aug. 24, 2026), Circuit Judge Stephanos Bibas, sitting by designation, ruled that Lupin’s proposed generic drug does not infringe Vertex’s patents covering Kalydeco. 

Background and Patent Prosecution: Cystic fibrosis is a genetic condition where mutated genes cause lung cells to swell with salts and fill with thick mucus. Vertex discovered that ivacaftor improves lung cell function, but because ivacaftor dissolves poorly in the bloodstream, Vertex formulated it into an amorphous solid dispersion. 

The litigation involved four Vertex patents covering Kalydeco’s solid dispersion formulations, all of which are Orange Book–listed drug product patents asserted following Lupin's ANDA submission. These include U.S. Patent Nos. 10,646,481 and 11,564,916, which claim compositions containing exactly 80% ivacaftor by weight, and U.S. Patent Nos. 10,272,046 and 12,458,635, which claim formulations comprising "about 80%" ivacaftor. Because Lupin sought FDA approval through an ANDA referencing Kalydeco, Vertex asserted these Orange Book patents against Lupin’s generic formulation.

Vertex previously published that an effective ivacaftor drug could contain about 10% to 80% of the compound by weight. Due to this prior art publication, obtaining patents was difficult. The patent examiner initially rejected Vertex’s claims until Vertex showed that an exact 80% ivacaftor dispersion produced surprising solubility. When Vertex later sought broader claims ranging from "about 72 wt% to about 88 wt%," the examiner rejected them as obvious because unexpected results at 80% do not inherently span wide ranges. Consequently, Vertex secured patents claiming either exactly "80%" or "about 80%" ivacaftor (which the examiner interpreted as varying by only roughly a tenth of a percent, e.g., 79.9%). 

The Infringement Dispute: Lupin filed an ANDA to market a generic version containing 74.257% or 74.258% ivacaftor, along with different inactive ingredients. Lupin also utilised a wet-granulation manufacturing process, unlike Vertex’s dry-granulation method. Vertex sued Lupin asserting four patents: two claiming exactly 80% ivacaftor and two claiming "about 80%" ivacaftor. 

Rejection of Literal Infringement: Vertex conceded that Lupin did not literally infringe the exact "80%" patent claims, focusing instead on its "about 80%" claims. The court rejected Vertex’s literal infringement theory based on the credibility of the parties' expert witnesses: 

• Vertex’s Expert (Dr. Berkland): The court found Dr. Berkland unauthoritative, noting that he made unsupported, extreme statements. He attempted to redefine "about 80%" as an unscientific, broad category for a "high drug load" spanning 70% to 90%, a phrase found nowhere in the patents or prosecution history. 
• Lupin’s Expert (Dr. Donovan): The court found Dr. Donovan highly credible and meticulous. She defined "about" as "nearly the same as," limiting the variance to less than a couple of percentage points based on Vertex's narrow prosecution history. 

Adopting Dr. Donovan’s reading and aligning with the patent examiner's historical interpretation, the court held that Lupin’s ~74% formulation varied by more than a couple of percentage points and did not literally infringe. 

Rejection of the Doctrine of Equivalents: The court also rejected Vertex’s fallback theory under the doctrine of equivalents: 

• Claim Narrowness and Prosecution History Estoppel: Vertex’s narrow, numerically precise claim language during prosecution barred it from expanding its claims. Because Vertex obtained its patents specifically by demonstrating unexpected results at 80% to overcome prior art, it could not recapture a broader range without vitiating its claim limitations or ensnaring prior art. 
• Function-Way-Result Test: Vertex argued equivalence based on the drugs’ bioequivalence. The court explained that bioequivalence alone cannot establish infringement under the doctrine of equivalents, as generic drugs are inherently bioequivalent; ruling otherwise would effectively make all generic drugs unlawful. 
• Substantial-Differences Test: The court found the differences between the formulations to be substantial. A person of ordinary skill in the art would not view 74.257% as equivalent to 80%, particularly given the distinct wet versus dry granulation manufacturing processes.

 

Conclusion: The judge held Vertex to the strict numerical boundaries established during patent prosecution, concluding that Lupin’s generic product does not infringe Vertex's patents either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents. 

Decision here