List of Excipients in Branded Drug PATANOL

« Back to Dashboard

Company	Tradename	Ingredient	NDC	Excipient	Potential Generic Entry
Alcon Laboratories Inc	PATANOL	olopatadine hydrochloride	0065-0271	BENZALKONIUM CHLORIDE
Alcon Laboratories Inc	PATANOL	olopatadine hydrochloride	0065-0271	HYDROCHLORIC ACID
Alcon Laboratories Inc	PATANOL	olopatadine hydrochloride	0065-0271	SODIUM CHLORIDE
Alcon Laboratories Inc	PATANOL	olopatadine hydrochloride	0065-0271	SODIUM HYDROXIDE
Alcon Laboratories Inc	PATANOL	olopatadine hydrochloride	0065-0271	SODIUM PHOSPHATE, DIBASIC

Patanol Excipient Strategy and Commercial Opportunities

Last updated: August 28, 2026

Patanol is the ophthalmic allergy brand for olopatadine hydrochloride ophthalmic solution 0.1%. Its commercial opportunity is no longer based on primary-compound exclusivity. The strongest opportunities are preservative-free delivery, multidose container systems, improved comfort, differentiated dosing, private-label commercialization, and lifecycle products that compete with generic olopatadine and higher-strength olopatadine products.

What is Patanol and which excipients does it contain?

Patanol contains olopatadine hydrochloride at 1.11 mg/mL, equivalent to 1 mg/mL of olopatadine, in a sterile topical ophthalmic solution. The product is indicated for the treatment of ocular itching associated with allergic conjunctivitis. The labeled dosing regimen is one drop in each affected eye twice daily, with an interval of 6 to 8 hours between doses. [1]

The labeled inactive ingredients are:

Component	Function in Patanol
Benzalkonium chloride 0.01%	Preservative and antimicrobial protection
Dibasic sodium phosphate	Buffering agent
Sodium chloride	Tonicity adjustment
Hydrochloric acid and/or sodium hydroxide	pH adjustment
Purified water	Vehicle

Patanol is a conventional aqueous ophthalmic solution. It does not rely on a suspension, emulsion, liposome, nanoparticle, in situ gel, or drug-device combination to achieve delivery.

What is the formulation profile of Patanol?

The formulation strategy is technically simple:

• Water-based vehicle
• Preserved multidose bottle
• Phosphate-buffered system
• Sodium chloride for osmolarity control
• pH adjustment with hydrochloric acid or sodium hydroxide
• No viscosity-enhancing polymer identified in the cited product labeling

The simplicity supports low-cost manufacturing and generic replication. It also limits differentiation. Products using the same active ingredient can compete through preservative status, bottle design, concentration, dosing frequency, comfort, and consumer positioning rather than through a difficult-to-reproduce formulation platform.

What is the FDA regulatory status of Patanol?

Patanol was approved in the United States under NDA 020596 for olopatadine hydrochloride ophthalmic solution 0.1%. The product is regulated as a prescription ophthalmic drug under its original approval. FDA labeling identifies olopatadine as a topical antihistamine and mast-cell stabilizer for allergic conjunctivitis. [1,2]

The relevant regulatory structure is:

Regulatory issue	Patanol status
Active ingredient	Olopatadine hydrochloride
Dosage form	Ophthalmic solution
Strength	0.1% olopatadine equivalent
Original NDA	020596
FDA pathway for competitors	ANDA for therapeutically equivalent generic solution
Reference listed drug	Patanol 0.1% ophthalmic solution
Biosimilar pathway	Not applicable
OTC relevance	Olopatadine products also exist in nonprescription strengths and brands, but the regulatory pathway depends on the specific product and strength

Patanol’s commercial position should be separated from Pataday. Pataday products use olopatadine at higher concentrations, including 0.2% and 0.7% products, and have different dosing and commercialization histories. A formulation strategy for Patanol must therefore compete against both generic 0.1% products and branded higher-strength olopatadine products. [3]

When did Patanol lose exclusivity?

Patanol’s original small-molecule and product exclusivity periods expired many years ago. The product is now exposed to generic competition, and olopatadine 0.1% ophthalmic solution is available through abbreviated approval pathways.

The principal commercial consequence is that a new Patanol formulation generally cannot depend on exclusivity for the existing 0.1% preserved solution. A new product would need a separate patentable feature, regulatory distinction, or commercial advantage.

What is the Orange Book status of Patanol?

The FDA Orange Book remains the primary source for current reference listed drug status, therapeutic equivalence codes, and patent or exclusivity information. [2] For an old ophthalmic product such as Patanol, the economic value of any historical Orange Book listings is limited unless a currently enforceable patent remains listed against the relevant NDA.

The likely competitive position is:

1. Generic manufacturers can target the established 0.1% solution through ANDA filings.
2. Formulation patents covering a genuinely new preservative-free system, container, or delivery technology could create separate protection.
3. A patent that merely claims standard concentrations of sodium chloride, phosphate buffer, or benzalkonium chloride would face substantial validity and obviousness risk.
4. Method-of-use claims are less attractive where the indication, dosing, and active ingredient are already well established.

A current Orange Book review should be performed before valuation, but the core conclusion is clear: legacy Patanol exclusivity is not a meaningful barrier to generic entry.

What excipient strategy best differentiates a new olopatadine product?

The highest-value excipient strategy is a preservative-free formulation with a stable multidose delivery system.

Preservative-free olopatadine

Benzalkonium chloride is effective and inexpensive, but repeated exposure can damage the ocular surface in some patients, particularly those with dry eye, frequent dosing, contact-lens use, or chronic ophthalmic treatment. Preservative-free positioning can support premium pricing and physician switching.

Potential formulation approaches include:

• Unit-dose preservative-free vials
• Multidose bottles with a sterilizing valve
• Airless or one-way dispensing systems
• Preservative-free pumps using microbial barrier technology
• Low-residue packaging that reduces ocular surface exposure

The commercial tradeoff is cost. Unit-dose packaging increases material, filling, logistics, and waste costs. Multidose preservative-free systems reduce waste but require a more complex container-closure system and stronger microbial-contamination controls.

Low-irritation formulation

A second strategy is to optimize pH, osmolarity, buffer capacity, and excipient concentration for comfort. Candidate excipient classes include:

• Tonicity agents such as sodium chloride, glycerol, or mannitol
• Mild buffering systems such as phosphate, citrate, or borate
• Low concentrations of viscosity modifiers
• Chelating agents that support preservative or stability performance
• Surfactants or solubilizers, if required for stability or wetting

A low-irritation claim requires controlled clinical evidence. Changes in buffer type or osmolarity can affect comfort but may also alter stability, preservative performance, container compatibility, and ocular tolerability.

Viscosity-enhanced solution

A modest increase in viscosity can extend ocular residence time and potentially reduce drainage through the nasolacrimal duct. Candidate polymers include hydroxypropyl methylcellulose, hydroxypropyl cellulose, carboxymethylcellulose, and povidone.

The formulation risk is patient experience. Excessive viscosity can cause blurred vision, sticky sensation, slower drop formation, and dosing inconsistency. A viscosity-enhanced product is more commercially credible when it supports once-daily administration, improved comfort, or reduced systemic exposure.

What formulations are protected or protectable around Patanol?

The established Patanol composition has limited differentiation value because its excipients are conventional. New protection would be more credible around a defined combination of formulation and delivery attributes.

Potential composition-of-matter and formulation claims

A new olopatadine product could seek claims covering:

• A preservative-free aqueous solution with defined pH and osmolarity ranges
• A specific buffer and tonicity system that improves stability or comfort
• A viscosity-enhanced formulation with a defined residence-time profile
• A low-concentration or no-phosphate system for patients with ocular-surface sensitivity
• A formulation with reduced degradation products
• A stable solution in a specified container-closure system
• A formulation compatible with a multidose preservative-free dispenser

The strongest patent position would require comparative data showing an unexpected result, such as improved stability, lower irritation, superior dosing accuracy, reduced contamination risk, or clinically meaningful persistence.

Container and device patents

Device protection may be more valuable than excipient protection. Relevant claim areas include:

• One-way valves
• Sterile fluid pathways
• Metered-dose pumps
• Anti-counterfeit closures
• Drop-size control
• Tip designs that reduce ocular contact
• Multidose systems that preserve sterility without benzalkonium chloride

These claims can create a barrier even when the solution chemistry is easy to replicate. They can also support licensing opportunities with ophthalmic packaging companies.

Method-of-use patents

Method-of-use claims could target:

• Once-daily use of a specific olopatadine formulation
• Treatment of allergic conjunctivitis in contact-lens users
• Use in patients with dry eye or ocular-surface disease
• Reduced-preservative exposure
• Treatment with a formulation that improves adherence or comfort

Such patents are commercially weaker if they rest only on the known pharmacology of olopatadine. Claims tied to a specific formulation, delivery device, or clinical outcome are more defensible.

How many patents cover Patanol and olopatadine?

The relevant patent estate has three layers:

Layer	Commercial relevance
Original olopatadine compound patents	Historical protection; expired or commercially exhausted
Patanol formulation and use patents	Limited value unless a current, enforceable claim remains
New formulation and device patents	Main opportunity for future exclusivity

A precise count of live claims requires a current patent-family and jurisdictional review. Patent counts based only on publication numbers can overstate protection because they include abandoned applications, continuations with different claim scope, foreign counterparts, and expired rights.

For investment purposes, patent strength should be assessed by claim type:

• Broad composition claims: generally unavailable for a legacy active ingredient
• Narrow formulation claims: possible but vulnerable if excipients are conventional
• Device claims: potentially strong if the device is difficult to design around
• Process claims: useful only where the process creates a measurable product advantage
• Method-of-use claims: dependent on clinical differentiation and enforceability

What generic entry risks exist for Patanol?

Generic entry risk is high for the existing 0.1% preserved solution.

Generic substitution

An ANDA applicant can seek approval by demonstrating pharmaceutical equivalence and bioequivalence or other applicable requirements for the ophthalmic product. Generic competition typically focuses on matching:

• Active ingredient and strength
• Dosage form
• Route of administration
• Quality attributes
• Sterility
• Container-closure performance
• Labeling requirements

The simplicity of Patanol’s aqueous formulation reduces technical barriers. Generic manufacturers can also compete on contract manufacturing cost, pharmacy access, and payer formulary placement.

Paragraph IV challenges

Paragraph IV risk is most relevant only if a new formulation or method patent is listed in the Orange Book. For the legacy Patanol formulation, any historical Paragraph IV disputes would not materially protect the current market absent an active patent with meaningful remaining term.

A new branded olopatadine product could face Paragraph IV filings if:

• It has a listed formulation patent
• The product becomes a reference listed drug
• The patent claims are central to the approved product
• The market is large enough to justify litigation

The litigation risk is highest for simple formulation patents with broad functional language and weak examples. Narrow device patents may produce stronger positions but can still be designed around.

What commercial opportunities exist for Patanol excipients?

The most attractive opportunities are products that convert a commodity generic into a differentiated ophthalmic platform.

Opportunity ranking

Opportunity	Technical difficulty	Commercial potential	Main risk
Preservative-free unit-dose olopatadine	Low to moderate	Moderate	Higher cost and waste
Preservative-free multidose olopatadine	High	High	Device validation and sterility
Once-daily viscosity-enhanced product	Moderate to high	High	Blurred vision and clinical proof
Low-irritation formulation for dry-eye patients	Moderate	Moderate to high	Requires substantiated tolerability
Private-label generic olopatadine	Low	Low to moderate	Price compression
Contact-lens-focused product	Moderate	Moderate	Labeling and compatibility evidence
Novel device with drop-size control	High	High	Manufacturing and licensing cost
Combination allergy formulation	High	High	Regulatory and formulation complexity

Private-label and contract manufacturing

A manufacturer could commercialize olopatadine 0.1% through:

• Retail pharmacy private labels
• E-commerce ophthalmic brands
• Regional distributors
• Veterinary ophthalmic channels, subject to separate regulatory requirements
• Contract development and manufacturing partnerships

This strategy is volume-driven and offers limited patent value. The principal advantages are supply reliability, cost control, packaging flexibility, and retailer access.

Premium preservative-free brand

A premium product could target patients who use allergy drops repeatedly during pollen seasons or who have ocular-surface sensitivity. The value proposition would rely on:

• Preservative-free delivery
• Better comfort
• A multidose system
• Reduced waste compared with unit-dose packaging
• Modern packaging and adherence support
• Possible once-daily dosing, if supported by clinical evidence

This product could command a higher price than generic Patanol, but payer coverage and consumer willingness to pay would determine uptake.

How does Patanol compare with competing olopatadine products?

Product category	Typical strength	Dosing positioning	Preservative strategy	Commercial effect
Patanol and generic equivalents	0.1%	Twice daily	Commonly preserved	Low-cost prescription competition
Pataday-type products	0.2%	Often once daily	Product-specific	Stronger convenience positioning
Higher-strength olopatadine products	0.7%	Once daily	Product-specific	Premium branded differentiation
Ketotifen products	0.025%	Often twice daily	Product-specific	OTC price competition
Cromolyn products	Variable	Multiple daily doses	Product-specific	Older mast-cell stabilizer segment
Prescription antihistamine/mast-cell stabilizer combinations	Variable	Product-specific	Product-specific	Differentiation through broader pharmacology

The main competitive threat is not only generic Patanol. Higher-strength olopatadine products compete through fewer daily doses, while ketotifen competes through OTC accessibility and lower consumer cost.

What manufacturing and intellectual-property barriers matter?

Manufacturing barriers are modest for the solution itself but higher for sterile multidose packaging.

Key technical controls include:

• Sterile filtration or aseptic processing
• Bioburden control
• Container-closure integrity
• Extractables and leachables
• Drop-size consistency
• Preservative effectiveness testing
• Stability under temperature and light stress
• Compatibility between formulation and dispenser
• Microbial contamination resistance during in-use storage

A preservative-free multidose system can create a defensible commercial position if the device reliably maintains sterility after repeated opening. The barrier is operational as much as legal: qualification, filling equipment, quality systems, and regulatory documentation can slow competitors.

What revenue exposure and launch scenarios apply?

Patanol itself is an established mature product. Revenue exposure is therefore concentrated in the broader olopatadine market rather than in legacy Patanol exclusivity.

Three launch scenarios are commercially plausible:

Low-cost generic scenario

A manufacturer launches a standard 0.1% preserved solution. Success depends on:

• ANDA approval
• Therapeutic-equivalence designation
• Wholesale acquisition cost
• Pharmacy and payer contracts
• Reliable sterile supply

This scenario has low development cost but high price competition.

Premium preservative-free scenario

A manufacturer launches a preservative-free product with a differentiated bottle or unit-dose format. The product can target ocular-surface-sensitive patients and specialists. The required investment is higher, but the product has greater pricing and licensing potential.

Lifecycle convenience scenario

A company develops a once-daily or longer-residence olopatadine formulation. This product must establish a clinically meaningful advantage over existing once-daily olopatadine products. Without a clear adherence, comfort, or efficacy benefit, it will face a difficult switching environment.

What geographic coverage matters for olopatadine?

The United States is the most important market for Orange Book strategy, ANDA competition, and branded OTC conversion. Europe, Japan, Canada, and emerging markets may use different brand names, strengths, preservative standards, and regulatory classifications.

Geographic patent strategy should prioritize:

• United States
• European Patent Convention jurisdictions
• Japan
• Canada
• Australia
• China
• South Korea
• Brazil and Mexico where commercial scale supports protection

Device patents may have longer practical value across jurisdictions than formulation claims, particularly where the same dispenser can be used globally. Regulatory requirements for preservatives, multidose sterility, and ophthalmic excipients differ by market and can affect launch sequencing.

Key Takeaways

• Patanol is olopatadine hydrochloride ophthalmic solution 0.1%, historically formulated with benzalkonium chloride, phosphate buffer, sodium chloride, pH adjusters, and purified water.
• The original Patanol exclusivity position is commercially exhausted, and generic entry risk is high.
• The existing formulation offers limited patent differentiation because its excipients are conventional.
• The strongest new opportunity is a preservative-free multidose product with a sterile, contamination-resistant delivery system.
• Device patents may provide more defensible protection than broad excipient claims.
• A once-daily or viscosity-enhanced product requires clinical evidence for comfort, residence time, adherence, or dosing benefit.
• Biosimilar risk is not relevant because olopatadine is a small molecule.
• Private-label generic opportunities are available but exposed to price compression.
• Premium opportunities depend on preservative-free positioning, ocular-surface tolerability, packaging performance, and consumer willingness to pay.
• Any commercial valuation should distinguish historical Patanol patents from live formulation, device, and method-of-use rights.

FAQs

Can benzalkonium chloride be removed from Patanol without changing the active ingredient?

Yes. A preservative-free olopatadine solution can use unit-dose packaging or a validated multidose container-closure system. Removing benzalkonium chloride requires new stability, sterility, in-use, packaging, and regulatory data.

Is a phosphate-free olopatadine formulation commercially attractive?

Potentially. A phosphate-free product may appeal to patients with ocular-surface concerns, but the formulation must maintain pH, stability, tonicity, comfort, and compatibility with the dispensing device.

Can olopatadine eye drops be protected with an excipient patent?

Yes, but a patent generally needs a defined formulation combination and evidence of an unexpected technical result. Claims covering routine buffers, tonicity agents, or preservatives alone are likely to face prior-art and obviousness challenges.

Does a preservative-free Patanol product qualify for automatic generic substitution?

Not necessarily. Substitution depends on the approved product, regulatory classification, therapeutic-equivalence determination, dosage form, labeling, and applicable state pharmacy rules.

Which delivery system offers the best licensing opportunity for olopatadine?

A validated preservative-free multidose dispenser has the strongest licensing potential because it combines a clear patient benefit with device, manufacturing, and regulatory barriers that are harder to replicate than a conventional aqueous formulation.

References

1. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. (n.d.). Patanol (olopatadine hydrochloride ophthalmic solution) prescribing information. Drugs@FDA.

2. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. (n.d.). Approved drug products with therapeutic equivalence evaluations: Orange Book. FDA.

3. U.S. National Library of Medicine. (n.d.). DailyMed: Olopatadine hydrochloride ophthalmic solution labeling. DailyMed.

4. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. (2013). Draft guidance for industry: Bioequivalence recommendations for olopatadine hydrochloride ophthalmic solution. FDA.

5. United States Pharmacopeia. (2024). United States Pharmacopeia and National Formulary. U.S. Pharmacopeial Convention.