LENVIMA Drug Patent Profile

« Back to Dashboard

Which patents cover Lenvima, and when can generic versions of Lenvima launch?

Lenvima is a drug marketed by Eisai Inc and is included in one NDA. There are ten patents protecting this drug and one Paragraph IV challenge.

The generic ingredient in LENVIMA is lenvatinib mesylate. One supplier is listed for this compound. Additional details are available on the lenvatinib mesylate profile page.

DrugPatentWatch^® Generic Entry Outlook for Lenvima

Lenvima was eligible for patent challenges on February 13, 2019.

By analyzing the patents and regulatory protections it appears that the earliest date for generic entry will be February 26, 2036. This may change due to patent challenges or generic licensing.

There have been ten patent litigation cases involving the patents protecting this drug, indicating strong interest in generic launch. Recent data indicate that 63% of patent challenges are decided in favor of the generic patent challenger and that 54% of successful patent challengers promptly launch generic drugs.

There is one tentative approval for the generic drug (lenvatinib mesylate), which indicates the potential for near-term generic launch.

Indicators of Generic Entry

Summary for LENVIMA

US Patents:	10
Applicants:	1
NDAs:	1
Patent Litigation and PTAB cases:	See patent lawsuits and PTAB cases for LENVIMA

Paragraph IV (Patent) Challenges for LENVIMA

Tradename	Dosage	Ingredient	Strength	NDA	ANDAs Submitted	Submissiondate
LENVIMA	Capsules	lenvatinib mesylate	4 mg and 10 mg	206947	2	2019-02-13

US Patents and Regulatory Information for LENVIMA

LENVIMA is protected by ten US patents and four FDA Regulatory Exclusivities.

This potential generic entry date is based on patent 10,407,393.

Generics may enter earlier, or later, based on new patent filings, patent extensions, patent invalidation, early generic licensing, generic entry preferences, and other factors.

Applicant	Tradename	Generic Name	Dosage	NDA	Approval Date	TE	Type	RLD	RS	Patent No.	Patent Expiration	Product	Substance	Delist Req.	Exclusivity Expiration
Eisai Inc	LENVIMA	lenvatinib mesylate	CAPSULE;ORAL	206947-002	Feb 13, 2015		RX	Yes	Yes
Eisai Inc	LENVIMA	lenvatinib mesylate	CAPSULE;ORAL	206947-001	Feb 13, 2015		RX	Yes	No	7,612,208*PED				Y
Eisai Inc	LENVIMA	lenvatinib mesylate	CAPSULE;ORAL	206947-002	Feb 13, 2015		RX	Yes	Yes	11,090,386*PED				Y
Eisai Inc	LENVIMA	lenvatinib mesylate	CAPSULE;ORAL	206947-002	Feb 13, 2015		RX	Yes	Yes	12,083,112*PED				Y
Eisai Inc	LENVIMA	lenvatinib mesylate	CAPSULE;ORAL	206947-001	Feb 13, 2015		RX	Yes	No	12,226,409*PED				Y

International Patents for LENVIMA

When does loss-of-exclusivity occur for LENVIMA?

Based on analysis by DrugPatentWatch, the following patents block generic entry in the countries listed below:

Argentina

Australia

Brazil

Canada

China

Croatia

Cyprus

Denmark

European Patent Office

Finland

Hungary

Israel

Japan

Jordan

Lithuania

Mexico

Poland

Portugal

Russian Federation

San Marino

Serbia

Singapore

Slovenia

South Korea

Spain

Taiwan

Generics may enter earlier, or later, based on new patent filings, patent extensions, patent invalidation, early generic licensing, generic entry preferences, and other factors.

See the table below for additional patents covering LENVIMA around the world.

Country	Patent Number	Title	Estimated Expiration
Argentina	101695
Australia	2015309862
Brazil	112017002827
Canada	2957005
China	106660964

Supplementary Protection Certificates for LENVIMA

Patent Number	Supplementary Protection Certificate	SPC Country	SPC Expiration	SPC Description
1698623	261 5023-2015	Slovakia		PRODUCT NAME: LENVATINIB MESYLAT; REGISTRATION NO/DATE: EU/1/15/1002/001 - EU/1/15/1002/002 20150601
1415987	57/2015	Austria		PRODUCT NAME: LENVATINIB ODER EIN PHARMAZEUTISCH ANNEHMBARES SALZ DAVON ODER EIN HYDRAT DAVON; REGISTRATION NO/DATE: EU/1/15/1002/001-002 (MITTEILUNG) 20150601
1415987	2015/050	Ireland		PRODUCT NAME: LENVATINIB OR A PHARMACEUTICALLY ACCEPTABLE SALT THEREOF OR A HYDRATE THEREOF; REGISTRATION NO/DATE: EU/1/15/1002/001-/002 20150528
1698623	PA2015039,C1698623	Lithuania		PRODUCT NAME: LENVATINIBAS; REGISTRATION NO/DATE: EU/1/15/1002/001 - 002 20150528
1415987	CA 2015 00053	Denmark		PRODUCT NAME: LENVATINIB, ELLER ET FARMAKOLOGISK ACCEPTABELT SALT DERAF ELLER ET HYDRAT, HERUNDER LEVATINIB MESILAT; REG. NO/DATE: EU/1/15/1002/001-002 20150601

Last updated: July 7, 2026

LENVIMA (lenvatinib) Investment Scenario and Patent/Regulatory Fundamentals Analysis

Lenvima (lenvatinib) remains a high-value oncology and thyroid franchise with a concentrated IP tail driven by formulation, dosing, and method-of-use patents, plus ongoing payer and clinical positioning across differentiated thyroid cancer (DTC), RCC, endometrial cancer, and hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). The investment case hinges on (1) whether patent expirations and Orange Book exclusivity trigger meaningful generic or biosimilar-style substitution risk, (2) life-cycle management through additional protected indications/formulations, and (3) competitive share dynamics versus PD-1/PD-L1 combinations and other VEGFR TKI entrants.

---

What is Lenvima (lenvatinib) used for, and where does revenue exposure concentrate?

Which indications drive the commercial footprint

Lenvima (lenvatinib) is an oral VEGFR/RTK inhibitor with key FDA-approved uses spanning:

• Differentiated thyroid cancer (DTC) (including radioactive iodine-refractory DTC)
• Renal cell carcinoma (RCC) (in combination with pembrolizumab)
• Endometrial carcinoma (in combination regimens depending on prior therapy setting and mismatch repair status)
• Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) (systemic treatment for unresectable HCC; dosing history includes post-TACE/locoregional options in certain labels)

The investment-risk profile is tied less to a single-label dependence and more to whether FDA label expansions and combination uptake sustain demand as the base molecule matures.

What pricing and reimbursement risk exists for a mature TKI

As a mature oral TKI, Lenvima faces typical late-life pressures:

• increased payer scrutiny in combination regimens,
• price-to-benefit challenges against newer sequencing options,
• channel and adherence shifts versus more tolerability-friendly TKIs.

These pressures matter operationally because the IP tail affects whether manufacturers can economically compete through generics, not just clinical competition.

---

What patents protect Lenvima (lenvatinib) in the US, and how many are active?

How to interpret the Lenvima IP estate for generic-entry risk

For a small-molecule like lenvatinib, the main generic-entry vector is typically:

• Paragraph IV ANDA challenges tied to Orange Book listed patents,
• followed by approval of a generic lenvatinib drug product (solid oral dosage form).

The key investment implication is that generic entry timing determines the high-impact erosion window. Absent an ANDA-friendly patent gap, Lenvima retains market power longer.

Where patent families usually cluster for lenvatinib life-cycle

Although exact counts and expiration dates must be verified against the Orange Book listing for each dosage strength and NDA product, the Lenvima estate generally concentrates in categories that commonly survive longer than the first filing:

• Method-of-use patents for specific combinations (for example, lenvatinib with immunotherapy or chemotherapy backbone)
• Formulation/composition patents (salt forms, polymorphs, blends, or manufacturing-related claims)
• Dose regimen patents (specific dosing schedules tied to efficacy)
• Manufacturing and process patents

Investment translation

• If the estate is dominated by claims that are still listed for the exact marketed strengths, generic entry risk stays low.
• If key claims expire and remaining patents are non-relevant to the generic product design-around, the risk shifts to earlier ANDA landing.

---

When does Lenvima lose exclusivity, and what is the expiration timeline that investors model?

Typical US exclusivity structure relevant to small molecules

For US product-level exclusivity, investors generally separate:

1. Regulatory exclusivity (NCE/505(b)(1) type exclusivity if applicable)
2. Patent exclusivity via Orange Book
3. Market exclusivity driven by REMS/label controls, payer dynamics, and competition

Because the investment question is “when,” the decisive dates are the Orange Book patent expiration dates and any pediatric exclusivity extensions if present for specific listed patents.

How investors model the risk curve

The practical model is:

• Patent expiration date creates a cliff for potential ANDA conversion if no additional listed patents remain in force.
• If later-expiring method-of-use patents exist, generics may launch for the base drug product but may be restricted on certain labeled uses.
• Clinical standard-of-care adoption affects whether restricted labeling meaningfully slows substitution.

What timing matters most for Lenvima

For a TKI with multiple indications, the “effective exclusivity” for revenue depends on whether:

• generics can market the drug for the broad indications where Lenvima is used heavily, or
• remaining method-of-use patents block label-matching or require design-around strategies that impair commercialization.

---

What generic entry risks exist for Lenvima, including Paragraph IV filing scenarios?

How Paragraph IV relates to an investor’s downside

A Paragraph IV filing targets specific Orange Book patents. The investor downside scenario is:

• an ANDA challenge succeeds or is settled early at a favorable launch date,
• followed by rapid penetration through pharmacy networks and reimbursement.

What to watch in filings

For Lenvima, the highest-signal indicators include:

• multiple ANDA submissions for the same strengths,
• early Paragraph IV certifications that target the most commercially relevant patents,
• litigation outcomes tied to the earliest possible “skinny label” or full label generic entry.

Bottleneck effects

Even if a generic can be approved, market penetration can be delayed by:

• combination regimen dynamics (for example, payer preference for branded combination strategy),
• formulary inertia and prescriber familiarity.

These delays matter, but they do not change the core trigger: patent status.

---

What is the Orange Book status of LENVIMA, and how does it map to generic launch probability?

Featured snippet answer

Orange Book status is the determining factor for generic launch probability because it identifies which patents are listed against the NDA and whether an ANDA applicant can obtain approval at the earliest possible date.

Investment mapping framework

A practical mapping investors use:

• For each NDA strength, list patents by category: composition, formulation, method of use.
• Identify the subset with the latest expiration that blocks approval.
• Evaluate whether the claim scope would be avoidable by a generic applicant without triggering infringement.

Dosage-strength linkage

Small-molecule products often have multiple strengths. Investors should treat each strength as a separate commercialization lock if different patents are tied to each presentation or label.

---

Which companies are competing with Lenvima, and how does lenvatinib compare with alternative VEGFR TKIs?

Therapeutic competition versus direct generic competition

Even if generic entry is blocked, Lenvima faces:

• competing VEGFR inhibitors,
• other oral agents with different toxicity profiles,
• combination regimens that shift standard-of-care sequencing.

Clinical positioning that affects sales durability

As oncology moves toward immunotherapy-first and combination tailoring:

• lenvatinib’s ability to pair with PD-1 and other agents sustains demand,
• tolerability and dosing management drives persistence.

For investors, the key question is whether clinical differentiation remains strong enough that payer formularies keep Lenvima tiered high even as alternative brands compete.

---

What Lenvima formulation and manufacturing patents matter most for design-around?

Why formulation patents can delay generics

Even when a molecule is off patent at the “active ingredient” level, generics can be delayed by:

• polymorph-specific claims,
• controlled release or bioavailability-related composition claims,
• manufacturing process claims tied to specific critical steps.

Design-around risk

The design-around risk is higher when claims:

• tie to specific excipient blends or particle properties,
• define process parameters that are hard to replicate without infringement.

For investment, the issue is whether the generic can replicate dissolution, bioequivalence, and manufacturing steps without claim collision.

---

How do method-of-use patents affect Lenvima competition across RCC, endometrial cancer, and HCC?

Method-of-use as the main label-defense layer

For multi-indication products, method-of-use patents can block “label-matching” even if the drug product becomes generic.

That changes practical competition:

• generics may launch but be restricted from advertising or promoting certain indications,
• prescribers may still use off-label, but payer and guideline behavior can reduce realized substitution.

Combination regimens

Where lenvatinib is used with immunotherapy, the method-of-use patent estate often intersects with:

• dosing sequences,
• patient selection criteria,
• combination endpoints.

These factors can keep the brand premium in place even after a generic “product” exists.

---

What Lenvima patent litigation and settlement agreements affect the earliest generic launch date?

Why litigation outcomes dominate investment timelines

For an orally administered oncology TKI, a few weeks or months shift matters because launch timing drives:

• patent expiration leverage,
• cash-flow discounting,
• manufacturing ramp economies.

Settlement scenarios investors model

Common patterns include:

• delayed launch dates in exchange for dismissal,
• covenant-not-to-sue terms for specific launch pathways,
• license agreements that convert litigation into a predictable royalty stream.

The investment “fundamentals” conclusion is that the fastest path to downside is an early settlement or court decision that clears the earliest blocking patents.

---

What is the FDA regulatory status of LENVIMA, including approval history and label strength?

Regulatory pathway considerations

Lenvima’s regulatory status includes multiple label expansions over time, which typically reinforces:

• treatment positioning,
• payer coverage,
• prescriber adoption.

For investors, regulatory “strength” correlates with durability of:

• combination uptake,
• line-of-therapy presence,
• continued use even as new competitors enter.

---

How many years of cash-flow protection does the Lenvima patent estate provide under realistic generic penetration?

Investment-style quantification approach

Investors typically compute an “effective protection window”:

• Patent blocking ends (Orange Book or settlement-cleared)
• Generic market entry occurs
• Penetration accelerates after formulary adoption

A durable estimate needs exact expiration and settlement dates. Absent those verified date-specific inputs here, the investment conclusion stays categorical:

• Lenvima’s cash-flow protection is most sensitive to the latest-expiring blocking Orange Book patents and any ongoing litigation settlements that establish a launch delay.

---

Key competitor and substitution risks: what happens if generics launch?

Market share erosion mechanics

If generics launch for lenvatinib:

• price competition compresses brand net pricing quickly in commercial lines,
• government reimbursement follows with a lag based on procurement processes,
• high-cost combination regimens can reduce the relative share of the drug cost but do not stop switching.

What may preserve some branded premium

Even with generics:

• combination regimen procurement can preserve brand usage if payer incentives differ,
• toxicity management and real-world practice can delay conversion in certain subpopulations.

These are timing factors, not permanent barriers.

---

Key Takeaways

• Lenvima’s investment case is driven by US Orange Book patent status and the latest expiration dates of blocking patents tied to marketed strengths and indications.
• Generic-entry risk is dominated by Paragraph IV pathways and the outcome of patent litigation or settlements that set the earliest launch date.
• Method-of-use patents are the principal label-defense lever across RCC, endometrial cancer, and HCC, potentially limiting “label-matching” for generic competitors.
• Even if drug product competition arrives, clinical positioning and payer dynamics influence the speed of substitution, but patent status determines when the displacement becomes feasible.

---

FAQs

1. How does an Orange Book listing on a specific lenvatinib strength affect ANDA approval timing?
2. Do method-of-use patents for combination regimens typically restrict generic labeling even if the drug product is generic?
3. What patent claim categories most often survive longest for small-molecule oncology drugs like lenvatinib?
4. How do litigation settlements typically translate into delayed generic launch dates for Paragraph IV challengers?
5. What competitive factors matter more for Lenvima after generic entry: clinical efficacy positioning or formulary/reimbursement adoption speed?

---

References

1. FDA. Orange Book: Approved Drug Products with Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluations. (U.S. FDA database).
2. FDA. Labeling for LENVIMA (lenvatinib) and related supplements. (U.S. FDA drug labeling).
3. FDA. Drugs@FDA: LENVIMA (lenvatinib) approval history. (U.S. FDA database).