Sponsor	Phase
Novartis	Phase 2
Université de Montréal	Phase 2
National Institutes of Health (NIH)	Phase 4

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
Cadence Health	ALESSE	ethinyl estradiol; levonorgestrel	TABLET;ORAL-21	020683-001	Mar 27, 1997		DISCN	Yes	No	⤷ Start Trial	⤷ Start Trial				⤷ Start Trial
Cadence Health	ALESSE	ethinyl estradiol; levonorgestrel	TABLET;ORAL-28	020683-002	Mar 27, 1997		DISCN	Yes	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: September 9, 2026

Alesse is a mature combined oral contraceptive containing levonorgestrel 0.1 mg and ethinyl estradiol 0.02 mg. Its commercial trajectory is defined by generic substitution, limited brand differentiation, and low public disclosure of product-level revenue. The U.S. Alesse brand has largely exited the commercial market, while equivalent generic products continue to compete on price, formulary access, and pharmacy availability. The active ingredient combination remains commercially relevant, but the original brand has little residual pricing power or patent-based protection.

Alesse Market Dynamics, Patent Status, Generic Competition, and Financial Trajectory

What is Alesse and how does it compete in the oral contraceptive market?

Alesse is a low-dose combined oral contraceptive containing:

Attribute	Alesse
Active ingredients	Levonorgestrel 0.1 mg; ethinyl estradiol 0.02 mg
Dosage form	Oral tablet
Regimen	21 active tablets and 7 inactive tablets in the 28-tablet pack
Therapeutic class	Combined hormonal contraceptive
Primary indication	Prevention of pregnancy
Original commercial sponsor	Wyeth
Current brand ownership context	Pfizer acquired Wyeth in 2009
Current U.S. market position	Brand largely discontinued; generic equivalents remain
Prescription status	Prescription drug

Alesse entered a market with several established oral contraceptive brands, including Nordette, Triphasil, Ortho-Cyclen, Loestrin, and later Yaz and Seasonique. Its main clinical differentiator was the combination of a low ethinyl estradiol dose with levonorgestrel, a progestin with extensive contraceptive use.

The product does not have a novel mechanism, biologic component, device, or complex delivery system. Those characteristics limited its ability to sustain premium pricing after generic approval.

When did Alesse lose market exclusivity?

Alesse’s practical market exclusivity ended after generic versions of levonorgestrel and ethinyl estradiol tablets entered the U.S. market. Public sources do not provide a current standalone revenue series or a single commercially meaningful “Alesse loss-of-exclusivity” date because the product’s brand sales declined through generic competition and later discontinuation rather than through a single high-profile patent expiry event.

For a mature oral contraceptive, market exclusivity generally depends on three elements:

New-drug exclusivity under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.
Listed patents in the FDA Orange Book.
Brand demand after generic approval.

Alesse’s commercial protection was limited because the formulation used well-established active ingredients and a conventional tablet dosage form. Once generic manufacturers obtained approval, pharmacies and payers had strong incentives to substitute lower-cost versions.

Alesse exclusivity timeline

Period	Commercial development	Financial effect
Initial launch period	Wyeth marketed Alesse as a low-dose oral contraceptive	Brand captured prescription demand and physician familiarity
Generic-entry period	FDA-approved equivalent products became available	Price competition increased; substitution reduced branded volume
Pfizer ownership period	Pfizer inherited the Wyeth women’s-health portfolio	Alesse became a non-core mature product
Later commercial period	Brand availability declined and generic products dominated	Product-level brand revenue likely became immaterial
Current position	Generic levonorgestrel/ethinyl estradiol products remain available	Market value resides in the molecule combination, not the Alesse trademark

FDA Orange Book records should be used for transaction-specific confirmation of the historical NDA, patent listings, and marketing status. The Orange Book distinguishes between approved products and discontinued marketing; discontinuation does not by itself establish that every patent associated with a product has expired. (U.S. Food and Drug Administration, n.d.-a)

What patents protect Alesse?

Alesse does not appear to have a commercially meaningful active U.S. patent estate protecting the original product. The principal patent risk has historically been low because:

Levonorgestrel and ethinyl estradiol are established small-molecule ingredients.
The product uses a conventional oral tablet.
No device or proprietary delivery platform creates a separate barrier.
The commercial brand has been exposed to generic substitution for many years.
Any historical formulation or manufacturing patents would not prevent ordinary generic entry after their expiration or loss of practical relevance.

Are there formulation patents for Alesse?

Alesse’s formulation is a conventional combination tablet. A formulation patent could theoretically cover excipient selection, tablet composition, dissolution characteristics, or manufacturing controls. Such protection would matter only if the claims were valid, enforceable, listed where required, and difficult to design around.

No current public evidence indicates that a live formulation patent materially blocks generic levonorgestrel/ethinyl estradiol tablets in the United States. The competitive market confirms that manufacturers have been able to supply equivalent products without paying a brand premium.

Are there method-of-use patents for Alesse?

Alesse’s principal use is contraception. Method-of-use patent protection is weak as a current commercial barrier because:

Pregnancy prevention is the core labeled indication.
The indication is long established.
Generic labels can rely on established safety and efficacy information through the abbreviated new drug application pathway.
Any narrow method claims would not normally protect the full contraceptive market.

Alesse is not known for a later-added indication that could support a separate patent-protected market.

What is the FDA regulatory status of Alesse?

Alesse is a conventional prescription oral contraceptive. Generic versions are approved through abbreviated new drug applications, which require pharmaceutical equivalence and bioequivalence to the reference product rather than the submission of a new full clinical efficacy program.

FDA regulatory considerations include:

Active ingredient strength and dosage form.
Pharmaceutical equivalence.
Bioequivalence.
Labeling consistency.
Manufacturing compliance.
Post-market safety monitoring.

The FDA has approved numerous oral contraceptive products using levonorgestrel and ethinyl estradiol. The key regulatory issue is therefore supply continuity and product approval status, not clinical differentiation from the reference product. (U.S. Food and Drug Administration, n.d.-b)

What is the Orange Book status of Alesse?

The Orange Book is the relevant source for determining:

Whether the reference listed drug remains approved.
Whether the product is listed as marketed or discontinued.
Which patents were historically submitted.
Whether any patent certifications accompanied generic approvals.
Whether exclusivity remains attached to the product.

Alesse should not be treated as a currently protected branded product solely because its historical NDA remains identifiable. A discontinued or unmarketed reference product can retain regulatory records without retaining meaningful commercial exclusivity.

Which companies challenge Alesse through generic competition?

The principal challengers are generic pharmaceutical companies that market or have marketed levonorgestrel and ethinyl estradiol tablets. The competitive group has included large generic manufacturers and specialty manufacturers supplying oral contraceptives to wholesalers, pharmacy benefit managers, health plans, and retail pharmacies.

The competitive model is fragmented:

Competitive factor	Effect on Alesse economics
Multiple approved generics	Reduces manufacturer pricing power
Pharmacy substitution	Moves prescriptions away from the brand
Formulary preference	Favors low-cost generic supply
Retail shortages	Can temporarily shift demand between manufacturers
Contract manufacturing	Allows supply without a consumer brand
Low clinical differentiation	Makes price and availability decisive

The market does not depend on a single generic entrant. Several suppliers can compete for the same prescription demand, making sustained price recovery difficult.

Did Alesse face Paragraph IV challenges?

Paragraph IV litigation is not the main current commercial issue for Alesse. A generic applicant may file a Paragraph IV certification against an Orange Book-listed patent, asserting that the patent is invalid, unenforceable, or not infringed. Such a certification can trigger patent litigation and a potential 30-month stay of FDA approval under the Hatch-Waxman framework.

For Alesse, the relevant risk is historical rather than current. The product’s age, the availability of generic equivalents, and the absence of a visible current brand franchise indicate that any major Paragraph IV dispute would have already been resolved, expired, settled, or become commercially irrelevant.

No major current Alesse-specific Paragraph IV case or settlement is identifiable from the public commercial record. A transaction or litigation diligence review should rely on FDA Orange Book records, FDA approval letters, and PACER case records rather than assuming that an old brand name implies an active patent dispute.

What patent litigation affects Alesse?

Alesse has no widely reported current patent litigation that materially affects the U.S. market. The litigation risk profile is therefore low compared with newer branded contraceptives or complex products involving:

Extended-release delivery systems.
Transdermal patches.
Vaginal rings.
Long-acting implants.
Proprietary combination regimens.
New indications or dosing schedules.

Any historical Alesse litigation would have been more likely to involve generic approval, product labeling, manufacturing, or patent certification than a major dispute over a novel technology platform.

What settlement agreements affect Alesse?

No publicly prominent current settlement agreement appears to control market entry for Alesse. Generic settlements involving mature oral contraceptives are commercially less consequential once multiple generic manufacturers are already supplying the market.

How strong is the Alesse patent estate?

Alesse’s current patent estate is weak from a commercial protection perspective.

Patent-estate factor	Assessment
Composition-of-matter protection	Weak or expired; active ingredients are longstanding
Core formulation protection	Limited
Delivery technology	None of material commercial significance
Method-of-use protection	Narrow and likely expired or difficult to enforce
Manufacturing barriers	Low to moderate
Regulatory complexity	Low relative to biologics and complex dosage forms
Generic substitution risk	High
Brand pricing power	Minimal
Litigation leverage	Low

The most durable barriers relate to manufacturing quality, regulatory compliance, distribution agreements, and reliable supply. These are operational barriers, not strong patent barriers.

What is the financial trajectory of Alesse?

Alesse’s product-level financial trajectory is best described as a progression from branded prescription revenue to generic erosion and eventual commercial marginalization.

Pfizer does not generally report revenue by mature product at the individual Alesse level in its annual filings. Pfizer reports business segments and selected major products, while older products with limited revenue are grouped into broader categories. Therefore, public filings do not support a reliable standalone Alesse revenue estimate. (Pfizer Inc., 2009, 2010, 2023)

Financial trajectory by stage

Launch and growth

During its branded period, Alesse benefited from:

Physician familiarity.
Consumer recognition.
Contraceptive demand across reproductive-age patients.
Established distribution through retail pharmacies.
A low-dose profile that supported positioning within the oral contraceptive category.

Revenue growth depended more on prescription volume and promotional support than on price innovation.

Generic erosion

After generic equivalents entered the market, revenue pressure came from:

Automatic pharmacy substitution.
Lower reimbursement for branded products.
Formulary exclusion or higher patient copayments.
Reduced promotional return on investment.
Multiple generic suppliers competing for contracts.

This pattern usually produces a sharp decline in branded unit volume followed by lower net pricing on the remaining prescriptions.

Mature or discontinued phase

In the mature phase, the commercial value of Alesse shifted from product sales to residual brand recognition, historical regulatory records, and possible use of the trademark in selected markets. The active ingredients continued to generate market demand, but that demand accrued mainly to generic manufacturers.

Alesse is therefore unlikely to represent a material contributor to Pfizer’s current consolidated revenue. Its economic significance is primarily as an example of lifecycle erosion in a conventional small-molecule product.

How does Alesse compare with competing contraceptives?

Product or category	Main differentiator	Patent and market position
Generic levonorgestrel/ethinyl estradiol	Low price and broad availability	High generic competition
Alesse	Historical brand recognition	Limited current commercial protection
Yaz or generic drospirenone/ethinyl estradiol	Different progestin and clinical positioning	Stronger historical brand value, but generic erosion
Loestrin and generic norethindrone/ethinyl estradiol	Different progestin and low-dose positioning	Genericized market
NuvaRing and generic etonogestrel/ethinyl estradiol ring	Vaginal delivery	More complex dosage form
Xulane and generic norelgestromin/ethinyl estradiol patch	Transdermal delivery	Device and formulation considerations
Long-acting reversible contraceptives	Extended duration	Greater device, manufacturing, and clinical barriers

Alesse competes most directly with other generic combined oral contraceptives. It is less exposed to direct substitution from long-acting products because those therapies involve different administration, adherence, prescribing, and reimbursement decisions.

What generic launch scenarios exist for Alesse?

The most likely market scenarios are:

Scenario	Probability profile	Commercial effect
Continued generic supply	Base case	Stable low-price market with limited brand recovery
Temporary manufacturer shortage	Periodic risk	Short-term share shifts among generic suppliers
Brand relaunch	Low	Requires distribution investment and a differentiated reimbursement strategy
New formulation development	Low for the original Alesse brand	Could create a separate product, but would not restore legacy exclusivity
Regulatory withdrawal of a generic supplier	Possible	Limited impact if alternative suppliers remain
Consolidation among manufacturers	Possible	Could improve pricing modestly, but substitution remains strong

A branded relaunch would face high customer-acquisition costs and weak payer incentives. Without a new delivery system, adherence benefit, indication, or distribution model, Alesse would struggle to justify a premium over generic equivalents.

What biosimilar risk applies to Alesse?

Biosimilar risk does not apply to Alesse because Alesse is a chemically synthesized small-molecule drug, not a biologic. The relevant competitive framework is generic substitution under the Hatch-Waxman system, not biosimilar interchangeability under the Public Health Service Act.

The distinction matters for diligence:

Generic competition can rely on pharmaceutical equivalence and bioequivalence.
Biosimilars require a different regulatory pathway.
Alesse has no biologic manufacturing barrier.
Generic entry is structurally easier than biosimilar entry.

What licensing deals affect Alesse?

No major recent licensing transaction appears to drive the current Alesse market. The principal ownership event was Pfizer’s acquisition of Wyeth, which transferred a broad portfolio of pharmaceutical products, including mature women’s-health brands and products, to Pfizer. (Pfizer Inc., 2009)

Alesse’s value in such a portfolio transaction would have been incremental rather than central. Mature contraceptives can contribute cash flow, but they generally do not command the transaction multiples associated with protected specialty drugs, biologics, or platform technologies.

What geographic coverage does Alesse have?

Alesse has had international commercial exposure, but product names, strengths, pack formats, marketing authorization holders, and current availability vary by jurisdiction. In some markets, the same active-ingredient combination may be sold under different brands or generic names.

Geographic diligence should separate:

United States FDA approval and Orange Book status.
Canadian product authorization and market status.
European national or centralized authorization records.
Local trademark ownership.
National reimbursement and substitution rules.
Country-specific discontinuation notices.

U.S. conclusions should not be applied automatically to Canada, Europe, Latin America, or other markets. A brand may be discontinued in one jurisdiction while an equivalent product remains marketed elsewhere.

What manufacturing and intellectual-property barriers remain?

The main barriers are operational:

Consistent supply of both active pharmaceutical ingredients.
Tablet manufacturing capacity.
Quality-control testing.
Stability data.
Packaging and serialization.
Regulatory compliance.
Retail and wholesale distribution.
Contracting with payers and pharmacy benefit managers.

These barriers can affect short-term availability and market share, but they do not create durable exclusivity comparable to a composition-of-matter patent or a proprietary delivery platform.

Key Takeaways

Alesse is a levonorgestrel and ethinyl estradiol combined oral contraceptive.
The U.S. brand has largely been displaced by generic equivalents.
Its active ingredients and conventional tablet formulation provide weak current patent protection.
The commercial market is controlled by generic price competition, payer coverage, and supply reliability.
No material current Alesse-specific Paragraph IV dispute, patent settlement, or litigation appears to drive market access.
Biosimilar risk is not applicable; generic substitution is the relevant competitive mechanism.
Pfizer does not publicly report standalone Alesse revenue, so product-level financial estimates are not supportable from company filings.
Alesse’s financial trajectory is consistent with branded launch, generic erosion, and eventual commercial marginalization.
A relaunch would face high costs and limited differentiation unless supported by a new formulation, delivery system, or reimbursement strategy.

FAQs

Is Alesse still sold in the United States?

The original Alesse brand is largely unavailable as a mainstream U.S. branded product, while generic levonorgestrel/ethinyl estradiol tablets remain available.

What is the generic name for Alesse?

The generic name is levonorgestrel and ethinyl estradiol tablets, commonly supplied at 0.1 mg and 0.02 mg strengths.

Does Alesse have patent protection today?

Alesse does not appear to have active patent protection that materially prevents generic competition in the United States.

Can a company buy the Alesse brand?

A company could potentially acquire trademark or product rights, but commercial value would depend on jurisdiction, regulatory status, manufacturing rights, distribution, and whether the brand has residual consumer demand.

Is Alesse more commercially attractive than a newer contraceptive?

No. Alesse has low development risk but limited pricing power. Newer products with proprietary delivery systems, extended duration, adherence advantages, or differentiated clinical profiles generally offer stronger commercial upside and stronger barriers to entry.

References

Pfizer Inc. (2009). Annual report pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2009. Pfizer.
Pfizer Inc. (2010). Annual report pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010. Pfizer.
Pfizer Inc. (2023). Annual report pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2023. Pfizer.
U.S. Food and Drug Administration. (n.d.-a). Approved drug products with therapeutic equivalence evaluations: Orange Book. https://www.fda.gov
U.S. Food and Drug Administration. (n.d.-b). Drugs@FDA and abbreviated new drug application resources. https://www.fda.gov

US Patents:	0
Applicants:	1
NDAs:	1
Raw Ingredient (Bulk) Api Vendors:	5
Clinical Trials:	3
DailyMed Link:	ALESSE at DailyMed

AI Deep Research

Questions you can ask:

Summary for ALESSE

Recent Clinical Trials for ALESSE