Commitments and Contingencies	3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2020
Commitments and Contingencies [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	16. Commitments and Contingencies Legal Proceedings The Company is involved in various disputes, governmental inquiries and investigations, legal proceedings and litigation in the course of its business, including the matters described below and, from time to time, intellectual property, 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. On September 27, 2017, a purported shareholder class action, initially styled DeSmet v. Intercept Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al, was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, naming the Company and certain of its officers as defendants. The Court appointed lead plaintiffs in the lawsuit on June 1, 2018, and the lead plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on July 31, 2018, captioned Hou Liu and Amy Fu v. Intercept Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., naming the Company and certain of its current and former officers as defendants. The lead plaintiffs claim to be suing on behalf of anyone who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company’s common stock between June 9, 2016 and September 20, 2017. This lawsuit alleges that material misrepresentations and/or omissions of material fact were made in the Company’s public disclosures during the period from June 9, 2016 to September 20, 2017, in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”), and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The alleged improper disclosures relate to statements regarding Ocaliva dosing, use and pharmacovigilance-related matters, as well as the Company’s operations, financial performance and prospects. The plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary damages on behalf of the putative class, an award of costs and expenses, including attorney’s fees, and rescissory damages. On September 14, 2018, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. On March 26, 2020, the Court granted the Company’s motion to dismiss the amended complaint in its entirety, and on March 27, 2020 the Court entered judgment in favor of the Company. On May 8, 2020, the plaintiffs filed a motion to set aside the judgment and grant leave to file a second amended complaint. Separately, 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. 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. 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.

Commitments and Contingencies

3 Months Ended

Mar. 31, 2020

Commitments and Contingencies [Abstract]

16. Commitments and Contingencies

Legal Proceedings

The Company is involved in various disputes, governmental inquiries and investigations, legal proceedings and litigation in the course of its business, including the matters described below and, from time to time, intellectual property, 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.

On September 27, 2017, a purported shareholder class action, initially styled DeSmet v. Intercept Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al, was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, naming the Company and certain of its officers as defendants. The Court appointed lead plaintiffs in the lawsuit on June 1, 2018, and the lead plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on July 31, 2018, captioned Hou Liu and Amy Fu v. Intercept Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., naming the Company and certain of its current and former officers as defendants. The lead plaintiffs claim to be suing on behalf of anyone who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company’s common stock between June 9, 2016 and September 20, 2017. This lawsuit alleges that material misrepresentations and/or omissions of material fact were made in the Company’s public disclosures during the period from June 9, 2016 to September 20, 2017, in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”), and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The alleged improper disclosures relate to statements regarding Ocaliva dosing, use and pharmacovigilance-related matters, as well as the Company’s operations, financial performance and prospects. The plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary damages on behalf of the putative class, an award of costs and expenses, including attorney’s fees, and rescissory damages. On September 14, 2018, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. On March 26, 2020, the Court granted the Company’s motion to dismiss the amended complaint in its entirety, and on March 27, 2020 the Court entered judgment in favor of the Company. On May 8, 2020, the plaintiffs filed a motion to set aside the judgment and grant leave to file a second amended complaint. Separately, 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. 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.

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.