ASCLERA Drug Patent Profile

« Back to Dashboard

Which patents cover Asclera, and what generic alternatives are available?

Asclera is a drug marketed by Chemisch Fbrk Krsslr and is included in one NDA.

The generic ingredient in ASCLERA is polidocanol. There is one drug master file entry for this compound. Two suppliers are listed for this compound. Additional details are available on the polidocanol profile page.

Summary for ASCLERA

US Patents:	0
Applicants:	1
NDAs:	1
Finished Product Suppliers / Packagers:	1
Raw Ingredient (Bulk) Api Vendors:	93
Clinical Trials:	3
Patent Applications:	5,636
What excipients (inactive ingredients) are in ASCLERA?	ASCLERA excipients list
DailyMed Link:	ASCLERA at DailyMed

Recent Clinical Trials for ASCLERA

Identify potential brand extensions & 505(b)(2) entrants

Sponsor	Phase
Massachusetts General Hospital	Phase 1
Johns Hopkins University	Phase 1
UPECLIN HC FM Botucatu Unesp	Phase 4

See all ASCLERA clinical trials

Pharmacology for ASCLERA

Drug Class	Sclerosing Agent
Mechanism of Action	Sclerosing Activity
Physiological Effect	Vascular Sclerosing Activity

US Patents and Regulatory Information for ASCLERA

Applicant	Tradename	Generic Name	Dosage	NDA	Approval Date	TE	Type	RLD	RS	Patent No.	Patent Expiration	Product	Substance	Delist Req.	Exclusivity Expiration
Chemisch Fbrk Krsslr	ASCLERA	polidocanol	SOLUTION;INTRAVENOUS	021201-001	Mar 30, 2010		RX	Yes	No
Chemisch Fbrk Krsslr	ASCLERA	polidocanol	SOLUTION;INTRAVENOUS	021201-002	Mar 30, 2010		RX	Yes	Yes

Asclera Market Dynamics, Patent Position, Competitive Landscape, and Financial Trajectory

Last updated: October 23, 2026

Asclera, the U.S. brand for polidocanol injection, is a mature prescription sclerotherapy product used to treat spider veins and small reticular veins. Its commercial position rests on an established active ingredient, a simple office-based administration model, and Merz's physician and aesthetic-clinic distribution network. Its principal weaknesses are limited differentiation, competition from other sclerosants and vein procedures, and the absence of publicly reported brand-level revenue.

Asclera has no material biologic or biosimilar exposure. Its main future risks are generic sterile-injectable competition, substitution by Varithena polidocanol foam, sodium tetradecyl sulfate products, laser treatment, and minimally invasive venous procedures.

What is Asclera and how is it used?

Asclera contains polidocanol, a nonionic detergent sclerosant. The FDA approved it in March 2010 under NDA 022580 for sclerotherapy of uncomplicated spider veins and uncomplicated reticular veins in the lower extremities [1].

Product attribute	Asclera data
Active ingredient	Polidocanol
Dosage form	Sterile injection
Strengths	0.5% and 1%
FDA approval	March 30, 2010
U.S. NDA	022580
Approved use	Spider veins up to 1 mm and reticular veins 1-3 mm
Administration	Intravenous injection into targeted superficial veins
Primary setting	Physician office, vein clinic, and aesthetic practice
Marketing company	Merz North America
Regulatory pathway	New drug application
Biosimilar pathway	Not applicable

The 0.5% concentration is generally used for spider veins, while the 1% concentration is used for reticular veins. The product is supplied in single-use vials and does not require a console, catheter-based delivery platform, or specialized energy device [1].

When did Asclera receive FDA approval and lose exclusivity?

Asclera received FDA approval in 2010. Any potential five-year new chemical entity exclusivity would have ended no later than 2015. The product's regulatory protection is therefore no longer driven by FDA marketing exclusivity.

The current commercial question is whether active Orange Book patents or other enforceable rights materially delay an abbreviated new drug application, or ANDA, entrant. The FDA Orange Book identifies NDA 022580 as the reference product, but publicly available Orange Book information does not indicate a meaningful active patent barrier for Asclera comparable to the estates surrounding newer branded specialty products [2].

Milestone	Date or status
FDA approval	March 30, 2010
Five-year NCE exclusivity, if applicable	Expired by 2015
Current FDA exclusivity	No meaningful current exclusivity identified
Listed patent barrier	No material active Orange Book patent barrier identified
Reference product status	FDA-approved NDA product
Expected legal entry exposure	Primarily regulatory and commercial, rather than patent-driven

The absence of a current listed patent does not guarantee immediate generic entry. A prospective manufacturer still must establish injectable quality, sterility, stability, container-closure compatibility, and bioequivalence or another FDA-accepted approval basis.

What patents protect Asclera?

Asclera's current U.S. protection is weak relative to recently launched specialty drugs. The active ingredient, polidocanol, is an older pharmaceutical compound with extensive historical use outside the United States. Any early composition or use patents associated with polidocanol are well beyond ordinary patent terms.

The relevant U.S. patent questions are:

1. Whether the Orange Book lists any unexpired patent for NDA 022580.
2. Whether Merz owns non-Orange-Book formulation, manufacturing, or process patents.
3. Whether trade secrets protect the sterile injectable manufacturing process.
4. Whether supplier contracts or regulatory documentation create practical barriers for competitors.

Publicly available FDA information does not identify a significant active Orange Book estate for Asclera [2]. That distinction matters. A product can have manufacturing know-how or private contractual protections without having a patent that blocks an ANDA applicant.

How strong is the Asclera patent estate?

Patent category	Assessment
Active ingredient patents	Effectively expired or commercially irrelevant
Method-of-use patents	No material active FDA-listed barrier identified
Formulation patents	No material active FDA-listed barrier identified
Manufacturing patents	Potentially relevant as trade secrets or non-listed rights
Device patents	Not central to liquid Asclera
Orange Book protection	Limited
Overall patent strength	Low

Asclera's protection is therefore based more on brand familiarity, supply reliability, physician adoption, and market access than on exclusionary patent rights.

What formulation patents protect Asclera?

Asclera is a liquid polidocanol formulation, not a foam product. The commercial formulation is simpler than a mechanically generated or proprietary microfoam system. That reduces technical complexity but also limits formulation-based differentiation.

The key manufacturing barriers are likely to include:

• Sterile compounding and aseptic filling.
• Control of polidocanol concentration.
• Stability through the labeled shelf life.
• Particulate and endotoxin control.
• Vial compatibility and extractables testing.
• Consistent product quality at commercial scale.

These requirements can slow generic development, but they are not equivalent to patent exclusivity. A competitor with an established sterile-injectable platform may be able to overcome them without infringing a meaningful Asclera patent.

Is Asclera exposed to Paragraph IV challenges?

Asclera is legally exposed to a Paragraph IV challenge if a competitor files an ANDA containing a certification that a listed patent is invalid, unenforceable, or not infringed. The commercial significance of that mechanism appears limited because no material active Orange Book patent barrier is publicly evident for NDA 022580 [2].

A generic applicant could pursue one of several routes:

Entry route	Relevance to Asclera
ANDA with Paragraph IV certification	Possible if a listed patent exists
ANDA with Paragraph III certification	Unlikely to be needed if no blocking patent remains
ANDA with Section viii carve-out	Possible for non-targeted uses if labeled uses differ
505(b)(2) application	Possible for a reformulated or modified polidocanol product
Full NDA	Possible but commercially inefficient for an equivalent product

No prominent public Paragraph IV litigation involving Asclera NDA 022580 has been identified in the major federal patent litigation record through the latest broadly available information. The absence of litigation is consistent with the product's mature age and limited patent protection.

What is the Orange Book status of Asclera?

The FDA Orange Book lists Asclera as an approved prescription product under NDA 022580. Its Orange Book position is strategically weaker than that of products with multiple formulation, device, or method-of-use patents.

The practical implications are:

• FDA approval remains the basis for the branded product's market presence.
• Patent-linked automatic stay litigation does not appear to be the central commercial risk.
• Generic applicants can focus on product development rather than designing around a dense patent estate.
• Merz's principal defenses are likely manufacturing quality, commercial execution, and physician relationships.

Orange Book status should be monitored for any future patent listing, delisting, or appearance of an approved ANDA. FDA databases can change as sponsors submit supplements and applicants receive approval [2].

How does Asclera compare with Varithena and Sotradecol?

Asclera competes in a broader sclerotherapy market rather than in a single-product category. The closest branded comparison is Varithena, another polidocanol product. The main difference is formulation and clinical positioning.

Product	Active ingredient	Form	Primary positioning	Competitive effect
Asclera	Polidocanol	Liquid injection	Spider and reticular veins	Office-based liquid sclerotherapy
Varithena	Polidocanol	Proprietary injectable foam	Larger lower-extremity varicosities	Higher-value foam treatment
Sotradecol	Sodium tetradecyl sulfate	Liquid injection	Sclerotherapy across vein sizes	Alternative sclerosant
Laser therapy	Energy-based	Device procedure	Small superficial vessels	Non-drug substitution
Thermal ablation	Energy-based catheter procedure	Procedure	Larger venous disease	Substitution for selected patients

Varithena was approved by the FDA in 2013 under NDA 205098 for treatment of incompetent veins and varicose veins [3]. Its foam delivery system gives it a different clinical target and a more differentiated regulatory and commercial position. Asclera remains more closely tied to cosmetic and small-vein treatment.

Sotradecol creates price and formulary pressure because sodium tetradecyl sulfate is an established alternative sclerosant. Its use can vary by physician preference, vein size, reimbursement, supply, and local practice standards.

What is the market size and financial trajectory for Asclera?

Merz does not publicly report Asclera revenue as a separate product line. The company reports at broader business-segment levels, particularly Merz Aesthetics, rather than disclosing product-level sales, gross margin, unit volume, or operating profit for Asclera [4].

This prevents a defensible public estimate of:

• Annual Asclera net sales.
• U.S. prescription volume.
• Net price per vial.
• Contribution margin.
• Merz's brand-specific market share.
• Revenue growth or decline by year.

The financial trajectory can still be characterized from the product's lifecycle and market structure.

2010-2015: Launch and market establishment

Asclera entered the U.S. market as an FDA-approved polidocanol injection for spider and reticular veins. The launch benefited from an established procedure category and a relatively simple clinical workflow.

Revenue during this period would have been driven primarily by:

• Physician adoption.
• Expansion of aesthetic and vein-clinic networks.
• Product availability versus compounded alternatives.
• Patient self-pay demand.
• Merz commercial execution following its acquisition of BioForm Medical.

2016-2020: Mature branded product

By this period, the product had passed its principal FDA exclusivity window. Demand likely became more dependent on repeat office procedures, brand retention, and supply reliability. Competition from alternative sclerosants and non-drug procedures limited pricing power.

The product's mature profile likely produced lower research and development requirements than a newly launched specialty medicine. Its economic value would depend on continuing volume rather than significant price expansion.

2021 onward: Stable or pressured niche economics

Asclera's current financial profile is best characterized as a mature niche asset:

• Demand is procedure-linked and discretionary.
• The product has limited patent-based pricing protection.
• Its use does not require a capital-intensive device.
• Generic entry remains a latent risk.
• Merz's broader aesthetic infrastructure supports distribution.
• Brand-level revenue is not disclosed.

The most likely pressure points are price competition, changes in aesthetic procedure volumes, clinic purchasing behavior, and substitution by foam sclerotherapy or laser treatment.

What revenue exposure does Merz have to Asclera?

Asclera is part of Merz Aesthetics' portfolio, but Merz does not identify its share of segment revenue. Merz is privately held and does not provide the same level of product-specific financial disclosure as a public pharmaceutical company.

Asclera is unlikely to be a major driver of Merz's consolidated financial performance compared with higher-revenue aesthetic products such as Belotero, Radiesse, Xeomin, and other injectable or device-related offerings. Its strategic value is more likely to come from portfolio breadth and physician-channel access than from large absolute revenue.

For transaction or valuation analysis, Asclera should be treated as:

• A mature revenue contributor.
• A low-R&D-burden product.
• A product with limited patent optionality.
• An asset vulnerable to generic and procedural substitution.
• A product whose value depends on brand and distribution rather than exclusivity.

What generic launch scenarios exist for Asclera?

Scenario 1: No near-term generic approval

A generic manufacturer may avoid the product because the addressable market is modest, physician preference is fragmented, and sterile injectable development costs may not justify expected returns.

Scenario 2: One approved generic with gradual uptake

A first ANDA entrant could offer lower pricing while gaining share through vein clinics, hospitals, and purchasing organizations. Uptake could be gradual because physicians may continue using a known brand and because cosmetic patients are often self-pay.

Scenario 3: Multiple generic entrants

If the market supports more than one ANDA, price erosion could accelerate. The effect would be greater in institutional accounts than in physician offices where product familiarity and availability influence purchasing.

Scenario 4: 505(b)(2) reformulation

A sponsor could pursue a modified polidocanol formulation, prefilled delivery system, or foam-like product through a 505(b)(2) pathway. Such a product would compete through convenience or clinical differentiation rather than direct generic substitution.

What litigation and settlement agreements affect Asclera?

No significant publicly reported patent litigation or settlement agreement appears to control U.S. generic entry for Asclera. The absence of a known litigation framework means there is no established delayed-entry date comparable to settlements involving heavily patented blockbuster products.

The main legal issues remain ordinary FDA and commercial matters:

• Product approval and labeling.
• Manufacturing compliance.
• Trademark and trade dress.
• Distribution agreements.
• Product liability.
• Potential future ANDA litigation if a patent is listed.

What geographic coverage does Asclera have?

Asclera's strongest documented regulatory position is in the United States. Polidocanol is widely used internationally, but commercial rights, brand names, formulations, and regulatory approvals vary by country.

International markets may use:

• Polidocanol under other trademarks.
• Hospital or clinic supply arrangements.
• Nationally approved generic products.
• Different concentrations and packaging.
• Local reimbursement and aesthetic-practice rules.

The U.S. asset should therefore not be valued as a globally protected brand without country-level review of registrations, trademarks, patents, and distribution rights.

Key Takeaways

• Asclera is a mature polidocanol liquid injection approved by the FDA in 2010.
• Its labeled uses are spider veins and reticular veins in the lower extremities.
• Current commercial protection is limited; no material active Orange Book patent barrier is publicly evident.
• Five-year FDA exclusivity, if applicable, ended no later than 2015.
• The product has no biosimilar risk because it is a small-molecule drug.
• Generic risk is real but depends on the economics of sterile injectable development and the size of the market.
• Varithena is the closest branded polidocanol comparator but targets a different vein-treatment segment through foam delivery.
• Sotradecol, laser therapy, and thermal venous procedures create direct or indirect competitive pressure.
• Merz does not disclose Asclera-specific revenue, volume, price, or profit.
• Asclera's financial trajectory is best characterized as mature, niche, and distribution-driven rather than patent-driven.
• Manufacturing quality, supply reliability, and physician-channel access are more important than patent exclusivity to the product's residual value.

FAQs

Is Asclera still FDA approved?

Yes. Asclera remains associated with FDA NDA 022580 for polidocanol injection for sclerotherapy of spider and reticular veins [1].

Can a generic manufacturer copy Asclera?

A manufacturer may pursue an ANDA or another FDA pathway, but it must demonstrate that its product meets applicable requirements for identity, strength, quality, sterility, stability, and bioequivalence or therapeutic equivalence.

Is Asclera the same as Varithena?

No. Both contain polidocanol, but Asclera is a liquid injection for smaller superficial veins, while Varithena is an injectable foam product used for a different venous disease population [1, 3].

Does Asclera have biologic exclusivity?

No. Asclera is a small-molecule drug and is not subject to the biologic reference-product and biosimilar exclusivity framework under the Public Health Service Act.

Is Asclera revenue disclosed by Merz?

No. Merz does not publicly report separate Asclera revenue, product volume, pricing, or profit figures in its broad corporate financial disclosures [4].

References

1. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. (2010). Asclera (polidocanol) injection prescribing information.
2. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. (2024). Approved drug products with therapeutic equivalence evaluations: Orange Book.
3. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. (2013). Varithena (polidocanol) injectable foam prescribing information.
4. Merz Pharma GmbH & Co. KGaA. (2023). Corporate and business information.