When do the patents on CHLOROQUINE PHOSPHATE expire, and when will CHLOROQUINE PHOSPHATE go generic?

Subscribe to access the full database, or Start Trial
Applicant	Tradename	Generic Name	Dosage	NDA	Approval Date	TE	Type	RLD	RS	Patent No.	Patent Expiration	Product	Substance	Delist Req.	Exclusivity Expiration
Hikma Pharms	CHLOROQUINE PHOSPHATE	chloroquine phosphate	TABLET;ORAL	083082-001	Approved Prior to Jan 1, 1982		DISCN	No	No	⤷ Start Trial	⤷ Start Trial				⤷ Start Trial
Md Pharm	CHLOROQUINE PHOSPHATE	chloroquine phosphate	TABLET;ORAL	087228-001	Approved Prior to Jan 1, 1982		DISCN	No	No	⤷ Start Trial	⤷ Start Trial				⤷ Start Trial
Impax Labs	CHLOROQUINE PHOSPHATE	chloroquine phosphate	TABLET;ORAL	040516-001	Aug 29, 2003	AA	RX	No	No	⤷ Start Trial	⤷ Start Trial				⤷ Start Trial
>Applicant	>Tradename	>Generic Name	>Dosage	>NDA	>Approval Date	>TE	>Type	>RLD	>RS	>Patent No.	>Patent Expiration	>Product	>Substance	>Delist Req.	>Exclusivity Expiration

Last updated: July 18, 2026

Chloroquine Phosphate Investment Scenario and Fundamentals Analysis: Pipeline, Exclusivity, Litigation Risk, and Commercial Outlook

Chloroquine phosphate is an established, off-patent antimalarial/antirheumatic active that trades as a generic input across geographies rather than as a proprietary, high-exclusivity pharmaceutical. From an investment and licensing perspective, the core fundamentals are not patent exclusivity or premium pricing, but (1) regulatory and manufacturing access, (2) margin dynamics in generic supply chains, (3) country-by-country procurement demand for antimalarial and adjunct indications, and (4) litigation and compliance exposure inherent to generic manufacturing and importation. Patent-driven upside is limited because the dominant IP around chloroquine is largely expired or irrelevant to modern commercial products, making the risk-return profile behave like a generic commodity with sporadic demand spikes from malaria programs and repurposing waves.

Is chloroquine phosphate still protected by patents, and when do key IP rights expire?

Featured snippet answer: Chloroquine phosphate itself is long off patent in most jurisdictions; the investment case typically does not rely on active composition-of-matter exclusivity. The practical IP question becomes whether any late-life, country-specific formulation, manufacturing, or indication patents exist, and whether any Orange Book-style listings are relevant (primarily US), which is usually not the case for widely marketed older actives.

What patents protect chloroquine phosphate today?

For an investment screen, the relevant patent estate categories are:

Composition-of-matter: likely expired for chloroquine and chloroquine salts in major markets.
Formulation/process: may persist as secondary patents (for example, specific salts, polymorphs, controlled-release technologies, or manufacturing methods), but these are uncommon for commodity supply unless tied to a specific marketed product.
Method-of-use (indication-specific): can exist for repurposing claims (for example, inflammatory/viral uses), but enforceability and market relevance depend on whether the patented use is practiced by the marketed labeling and whether the jurisdiction recognizes such patents against generic supply.

Key practical implication for investors

If a branded or license-backed “chloroquine phosphate” product is priced as if it had exclusivity, that is usually a red flag. The more credible thesis is procurement-led demand and contract manufacturing capacity.
Patent value, if any, is more likely to be localized (specific marketing authorization, specific formulation, or specific process) than global composition protection.

What is the Orange Book status of chloroquine phosphate in the US?

Featured snippet answer: For commodity actives like chloroquine phosphate, US FDA Orange Book listings typically show no active patents covering composition or key formulation that would constrain generic entry in the way newer drugs do.

How to interpret Orange Book risk for a generic commodity

For investment diligence, the Orange Book relevance is usually:

If no listed patents map to the marketed product: generic supply is structurally easier to obtain, with competition driven by sourcing, GMP compliance, and cost.
If formulation/process patents appear: generic entry depends on whether the ANDA would “carve out” the patented attribute or use a non-infringing manufacturing route.

In most cases for chloroquine phosphate, the economic bottleneck is not legal exclusivity but execution: reliable manufacturing, stable supply, and tender responsiveness.

Has chloroquine phosphate faced Paragraph IV challenges, and what does that mean for generic entry risk?

Featured snippet answer: For older, commodity antimalarials, Paragraph IV (Hatch-Waxman) disputes are typically less central than supply-and-regulatory gatekeeping. Where they occur, they usually do not overturn broader off-patent status.

Investment relevance of Paragraph IV

Low probability of large scale “brand protection” via settlements in a commodity segment.
Higher importance of observing actual litigation patterns involving specific manufacturers, importers, or local marketing authorizations.

What investors should watch instead

GMP observations that lead to temporary supply constraints.
Regulatory re-registrations and labeling updates.
Antimalarial procurement frameworks that can shut out suppliers not meeting tender requirements.

What generic entry risks exist for chloroquine phosphate, and what are the real barriers to entry?

Featured snippet answer: Generic entry risk for chloroquine phosphate is typically low from an IP standpoint but moderate-to-high from a manufacturing and regulatory compliance standpoint.

Barrier map: where new entrants fail

Chemistry and impurities: chloroquine salts can be sensitive to impurities and residual solvents.
GMP consistency: commodity supply is vulnerable to batch failures, out-of-spec results, and stability issues.
Global supply chain logistics: importation constraints, export certifications, and customs compliance drive delays.
Procurement eligibility: national malaria programs and large buyers require audit-ready quality systems and repeatable performance.

What this means for investment returns

Return distribution is shaped by:

contract manufacturing reliability,
cost of goods per batch and scale utilization,
the ability to pass regulatory inspections in target markets.

How does chloroquine phosphate compare with competing antimalarials on patent and commercialization fundamentals?

Featured snippet answer: Compared with newer antimalarial drugs, chloroquine phosphate behaves more like a mature generic. Newer agents can have stronger IP and higher pricing; chloroquine’s economics depend on procurement volumes and cost.

Commercial structure comparison

Newer antimalarials (often combination therapies): typically higher pricing power, but more IP complexity and longer lifecycle management.
Chloroquine phosphate: typically lower pricing, but faster entry and broader supply availability.

Investment implication

If an investor targets patent-protected upside, chloroquine phosphate is usually not the right anchor.
If the investor targets supply-chain execution and global tender liquidity, chloroquine can be a fit.

Which companies manufacture chloroquine phosphate, and how concentrated is supply?

Featured snippet answer: Chloroquine phosphate is manufactured globally by multiple generic and API-focused suppliers, leading to a competitive, price-sensitive market rather than a concentrated monopoly.

Concentration dynamics investors track

API capacity and utilization rates in India and China are key drivers of global pricing.
Quality tiering matters more than brand presence: buyers prefer suppliers with consistent compliance histories.
Lot-level reliability determines whether suppliers remain on framework agreements.

What concentration means for trading and licensing

Upside from “exclusive licensing” is limited.
Competitive differentiation is usually operational (quality systems, cost, lead time), not legal.

What formulation patents or manufacturing-method patents could affect chloroquine phosphate products?

Featured snippet answer: Any formulation or manufacturing-method patents that remain are likely narrow, product-specific, and regional. They usually do not block access to chloroquine phosphate broadly but can restrict specific dosage forms or manufacturing routes.

Formulation patent categories to screen in diligence

Salt form specifications (including impurity profiles).
Solid-state changes (polymorph control).
Controlled-release or bioavailability-enhancing variants.
Stability and packaging claims tied to specific shelf-life and storage conditions.

Manufacturing method categories

specific synthesis steps,
purification improvements to reduce impurities,
crystallization conditions and yield control.

In investment terms, these patents matter only if they map to a specific commercial product configuration that a buyer wants (strength, dosage form, release profile, or local labeling).

What indication-related IP risks exist for chloroquine phosphate in repurposed uses?

Featured snippet answer: Method-of-use patents can exist for repurposed indications, but enforcement against generic supply depends on labeling alignment, jurisdiction, and whether the patented use is actually practiced.

How to assess repurposing IP in practice

If a marketed product label does not claim the patented use, infringement theories can weaken.
Even with label coverage, enforcement against upstream generic manufacture is harder unless direct use is clearly tied to the accused product.

Investment interpretation

Repurposing-driven IP rarely converts a mature commodity into a high-margin monopoly. It may create niche barriers, but it typically does not justify a high valuation based on exclusivity.

What FDA regulatory milestones matter for chloroquine phosphate products and supply?

Featured snippet answer: For a mature active, the critical milestones are not milestone-driven exclusivity events but current Good Manufacturing Practice (cGMP) status, product registrations, and labeling/quality updates required for continued market access.

Key FDA-facing diligence points

Batch release and quality documentation readiness for inspections.
Stability programs aligned to shelf-life claims.
Compliance with current labeling and any safety communications tied to antimalarial use.

Global regulatory comparability

For investment execution, regulatory performance in the target markets (not only FDA) drives whether suppliers can win contracts, particularly in malaria procurement networks.

What litigation and compliance risks affect chloroquine phosphate manufacturers and investors?

Featured snippet answer: In commodity pharmaceuticals, litigation and enforcement risk is often dominated by GMP compliance disputes, false labeling/quality claims, and import-related actions, not by active patent injunctions.

Risk categories

Patent litigation: generally limited value unless a still-active narrow patent ties directly to a commercial configuration.
Regulatory enforcement: warning letters, consent decrees, import alerts tied to quality systems.
Product quality claims: recalls, out-of-spec events, adulteration allegations.

Investment impact

Quality events can cause sudden margin compression and contract termination.
Legal exposure is usually a function of repeat inspection outcomes and document-control robustness.

How does settlement strategy typically play out for older generic antimalarials?

Featured snippet answer: Settlement dynamics for commodity actives tend to be less central than for newer branded drugs, because there is less patent-driven leverage.

Where settlements still matter

Local disputes involving a specific formulation or dosage form.
Disagreements over exclusivity listings tied to a particular marketed product.
Contractual or commercial settlements rather than strong permanent injunction threats.

Revenue exposure: what drives demand for chloroquine phosphate?

Featured snippet answer: Revenue for chloroquine phosphate is driven by government and NGO procurement for malaria and by any adjunct demand tied to repurposing cycles, with volatility determined by stock levels, treatment guideline changes, and public health budgets.

Demand drivers

Malaria program procurement cycles (tender-based demand).
Guideline and resistance patterns: changes in recommended antimalarial strategies affect volumes.
Geographic reimbursement and distribution infrastructure.
Stockpiling and substitution: buyers shift to other antimalarials when supply or clinical guidance changes.

Investment translation

Investors should underwrite revenue based on procurement frameworks and supplier qualification status, not on long-term branded-like demand trajectories.

How strong is the patent estate for chloroquine phosphate, and is it investable?

Featured snippet answer: The patent estate for chloroquine phosphate is not typically a strong driver of outsized returns; the investability hinges on execution, regulatory access, and cost position.

Patent strength framework

Composition-of-matter: likely expired across major markets.
Formulation/process: may be present but usually narrow and insufficient for broad defensibility.
Indication method-of-use: can add limited defensive value but rarely supports durable pricing power in a commodity category.

Best-fit investment theses

supply-chain and manufacturing scale,
contract manufacturing for qualified buyers,
geographic market penetration via registration packages and dossier strength,
operational turnaround after quality remediation.

Key patent estate and exclusivity timeline (investment-relevant view)

Featured snippet answer: Any meaningful exclusivity is unlikely to be composition-based for chloroquine phosphate; the investment timeline is dominated by regulatory status and contract qualification.

Timeline driver	What it affects	Typical investor action
Off-patent composition status	Generic pricing and competition	Focus on cost, QA, and tenders
Narrow formulation/process patents (if present)	Specific dosage form manufacturing routes	Patent-to-product claim mapping in target regions
Regulatory qualification cycles	Whether a supplier can sell	Build dossiers, pass audits, sustain cGMP
Demand guideline changes	Procurement volumes	Underwrite volume scenarios by region and season
Quality events and compliance actions	Supply continuity	Risk controls, batch analytics, CAPA readiness

Commercial strategy: what licensing model works best for chloroquine phosphate?

Featured snippet answer: Licensing is most valuable for market access rights and dossier/registration assets, not for monopoly pricing.

Practical licensing targets

branded label rights in a specific jurisdiction,
dossier ownership and registration transfers,
manufacturing authorization transfers (where legally permitted),
supply framework agreements.

Why exclusivity-like licensing is rare

With off-patent actives, licensing deals usually monetize:

prequalification and registration readiness,
customer relationships,
distribution agreements,
manufacturing capability rather than legal exclusivity.

Key Takeaways

Chloroquine phosphate is a mature, commodity-like active where patent exclusivity is generally not the primary value driver.
The investment thesis is execution-led: manufacturing quality, regulatory qualification, and procurement contract capture.
Patent-related upside is typically limited to narrow, product-specific formulation/process or indication claims that do not materially change generic competition across major markets.
Revenue volatility is driven by malaria procurement cycles, guideline shifts, and buyer stock strategies.
Litigation and risk are more often compliance- and quality-driven than injunction-driven due to limited active IP leverage.

FAQs

1) Is chloroquine phosphate a good investment for patent-driven value creation?

No. The commercial economics usually do not depend on ongoing composition-of-matter exclusivity. Value creation is more aligned with manufacturing scale, regulatory qualification, and procurement execution.

2) What is the biggest operational risk for chloroquine phosphate suppliers?

Batch-to-batch quality consistency and inspection outcomes. Commodity products are vulnerable to margin compression when quality events disrupt supply.

3) Do method-of-use patents on repurposed indications block generic chloroquine phosphate sales?

Often they do not in a way that meaningfully changes broad market access, since enforceability depends on labeling, jurisdiction, and whether the patented use is practiced by the marketed product.

4) What drives pricing for chloroquine phosphate globally?

API capacity utilization, competitive supply levels, and country tender purchasing patterns. Pricing tends to be commodity-linked rather than brand-linked.

5) What due diligence best predicts whether a manufacturer can win contracts?

Regulatory inspection history, cGMP system maturity, stability and impurity analytics, and the completeness of dossier packages for target markets.

References (APA)

FDA. (n.d.). Orange Book: Approved Drug Products with Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluations. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cder/ob/
Hatch-Waxman Amendments, 21 U.S.C. § 355(j). (n.d.). U.S. Code. https://uscode.house.gov/
FDA. (n.d.). ANDA process. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. https://www.fda.gov/

US Patents:	0
Applicants:	9
NDAs:	13

AI Deep Research

Questions you can ask:

Summary for CHLOROQUINE PHOSPHATE