DERMOTIC Drug Patent Profile

« Back to Dashboard

When do Dermotic patents expire, and when can generic versions of Dermotic launch?

Dermotic is a drug marketed by Hill Dermac and is included in one NDA.

The generic ingredient in DERMOTIC is fluocinolone acetonide. There is one drug master file entry for this compound. Eighteen suppliers are listed for this compound. Additional details are available on the fluocinolone acetonide profile page.

DrugPatentWatch^® Litigation and Generic Entry Outlook for Dermotic

A generic version of DERMOTIC was approved as fluocinolone acetonide by FOUGERA PHARMS INC on December 16^th, 1982.

Summary for DERMOTIC

US Patents:	0
Applicants:	1
NDAs:	1
Finished Product Suppliers / Packagers:	2
Raw Ingredient (Bulk) Api Vendors:	71
Patent Applications:	4,843
Drug Prices:	Drug price information for DERMOTIC
What excipients (inactive ingredients) are in DERMOTIC?	DERMOTIC excipients list
DailyMed Link:	DERMOTIC at DailyMed

See drug prices for DERMOTIC

Pharmacology for DERMOTIC

Drug Class	Corticosteroid
Mechanism of Action	Corticosteroid Hormone Receptor Agonists

US Patents and Regulatory Information for DERMOTIC

Applicant	Tradename	Generic Name	Dosage	NDA	Approval Date	TE	Type	RLD	RS	Patent No.	Patent Expiration	Product	Substance	Delist Req.	Exclusivity Expiration
Hill Dermac	DERMOTIC	fluocinolone acetonide	OIL/DROPS;OTIC	019452-003	Nov 9, 2005	AT	RX	Yes	Yes

DERMOTIC Market Dynamics and Financial Trajectory

Last updated: November 3, 2026

DermOtic is a niche prescription otic corticosteroid containing fluocinolone acetonide 0.01% in an oil vehicle. Its commercial profile is shaped by low disease severity, generic substitution, limited differentiation, and the absence of publicly reported product-level revenue. The product has durable clinical demand for chronic eczematous otitis externa, but its financial trajectory is more consistent with a mature specialty generic market than with an expanding branded-drug franchise.

What is DermOtic and who markets it?

DermOtic Oil is an otic oil formulation of fluocinolone acetonide, a synthetic corticosteroid. The FDA-approved indication is chronic eczematous external otitis in adults and pediatric patients aged two years and older.[1]

Attribute	DermOtic data
Brand name	DermOtic Oil
Active ingredient	Fluocinolone acetonide
Strength	0.01%
Dosage form	Otic oil
Route	Ear canal administration
NDA	21-282
Initial FDA approval	2000
Current listed manufacturer	Hill Dermaceuticals, LLC
Prescription status	Prescription-only
Primary indication	Chronic eczematous external otitis
Drug class	Topical corticosteroid
Biosimilar relevance	None

DermOtic is not a biologic, vaccine, controlled substance, or hospital-administered product. It is dispensed through retail and specialty pharmacy channels and is generally prescribed by dermatologists, otolaryngologists, primary-care physicians, and pediatric clinicians.

What is the FDA regulatory status of DermOtic?

DermOtic remains an FDA-approved prescription product under NDA 21-282. The product is a legacy small-molecule topical drug with a narrow indication and no known regulatory exclusivity comparable to a recently approved new molecular entity.[1]

The commercial regulatory profile has four important characteristics:

1. FDA approval covers the active ingredient, concentration, dosage form, route, and labeled indication.
2. The product does not benefit from orphan-drug exclusivity or biologic reference-product exclusivity.
3. Any generic competitor must demonstrate pharmaceutical equivalence and bioequivalence or otherwise satisfy the applicable abbreviated new drug application pathway.
4. The product’s specialized otic oil vehicle may create modest formulation and manufacturing barriers, but those barriers do not eliminate generic substitution risk.

DermOtic is therefore exposed to the ordinary economics of an older branded prescription product: formulary pressure, generic substitution, contracting, and lower net prices.

When does DermOtic lose exclusivity?

DermOtic’s principal market exclusivity has already expired. Its 2000 approval date places the product well beyond the standard five-year new-chemical-entity exclusivity period and the three-year exclusivity period generally associated with certain supplemental approvals.[2]

A practical exclusivity timeline is:

Event	Timing
FDA approval of NDA 21-282	2000
Five-year NCE exclusivity, if applicable	Expired by approximately 2005
Three-year approval-based exclusivity, if applicable	Expired no later than approximately 2003
Current commercial protection	Brand recognition, prescribing familiarity, formulation execution, and distribution
Current legal risk	Generic and authorized-generic substitution

The absence of active regulatory exclusivity means that DermOtic’s market position depends on commercial execution rather than statutory exclusivity.

What patents protect DermOtic?

Publicly visible product information does not indicate a current, commercially meaningful patent barrier that would preserve exclusivity for DermOtic in the United States. The product’s active ingredient, fluocinolone acetonide, has been used in multiple topical and otic products for decades.

The relevant protection categories are:

Protection category	DermOtic position
Active-ingredient patent	Historical protection is expired
Original product patent	No material current barrier identified
Formulation patent	No publicly established blocking patent identified
Method-of-use patent	No commercially significant current exclusivity identified
Manufacturing know-how	Potentially relevant, but not a substitute for market exclusivity
Trade secret protection	May cover sourcing, blending, filling, or quality-control processes
Trademark	DermOtic brand identity remains commercially relevant

The most defensible competitive barrier is the product’s specific oil-based otic presentation. Oil vehicles can create technical requirements involving uniformity, microbial control, viscosity, container compatibility, fill accuracy, and stability. Those factors can slow development or reduce the number of approved suppliers. They do not provide the same protection as an unexpired patent.

How many patents cover DermOtic?

No reliable public record supports a material portfolio of unexpired U.S. patents covering DermOtic as a commercial product. Patent-count analysis should therefore distinguish between historical patents relating to fluocinolone acetonide or topical corticosteroid formulations and live patents that could block an equivalent generic product.

For investment and licensing purposes, DermOtic should be classified as a low-patent-moat product. The likely sources of competitive advantage are:

• FDA approval history
• Established prescribing patterns
• Brand familiarity
• Retail pharmacy availability
• Product-specific manufacturing experience
• Potentially favorable physician perceptions of the oil vehicle

These factors can support price retention above some generic alternatives, but they do not prevent generic entry.

Are there Paragraph IV challenges to DermOtic?

A Paragraph IV challenge is possible when an ANDA applicant asserts that listed patents are invalid, unenforceable, or not infringed. DermOtic’s exposure to Paragraph IV litigation appears limited because its current commercial profile does not depend on a significant live patent estate.

The principal generic-entry pathways are more likely to involve:

• An ANDA relying on the reference-listed drug
• A product-specific bioequivalence submission
• A competing fluocinolone acetonide otic oil
• A pharmacy-level substitution or formulary preference
• An authorized generic or distributor-led equivalent

No major, publicly prominent Paragraph IV litigation campaign is associated with DermOtic in the available record. That limits litigation cost but also indicates that the brand has little remaining patent leverage against generic entrants.

What generic competition affects DermOtic?

Generic competition is the central market force. Fluocinolone acetonide is an established corticosteroid, and the clinical condition treated by DermOtic can often be managed with alternative topical steroids or other otic therapies.

The competitive set includes:

• Generic fluocinolone acetonide otic oil
• Other fluocinolone acetonide topical products used near the ear, where clinically appropriate
• Hydrocortisone otic products
• Ciprofloxacin and corticosteroid otic combinations when infection or inflammation is present
• Other topical corticosteroids used for external ear dermatitis
• Nonprescription emollient or barrier products in selected mild cases

Substitution is constrained by dosage form and indication. An otic oil is not interchangeable with every topical steroid cream, ointment, solution, or suspension. Still, physicians can move patients to alternative treatments, while pharmacies can substitute an approved generic equivalent where state law and payer rules permit.

How strong is the DermOtic patent estate?

DermOtic’s patent estate is weak relative to recently launched specialty drugs. The product lacks the characteristics that usually create a strong pharmaceutical moat:

• No novel active ingredient
• No long-duration regulatory exclusivity
• No biologic manufacturing complexity
• No known device-dependent delivery system
• No demonstrated blocking patent portfolio
• Several therapeutic substitutes

Its technical position is stronger than its legal position. A manufacturer with reliable control of the oil formulation, packaging, and quality system may preserve supply advantages. Those advantages are operational and can be replicated by capable generic manufacturers.

What is DermOtic’s financial trajectory?

No standalone DermOtic revenue, prescription volume, gross margin, or operating-profit data are publicly reported by Hill Dermaceuticals. The manufacturer is not a large diversified public pharmaceutical company that discloses brand-level results in SEC filings. Any precise revenue estimate would therefore be speculative.

The likely financial trajectory has four stages:

Initial branded growth

After approval, DermOtic could build demand by offering a dedicated otic oil for chronic eczematous otitis. The product’s niche indication and differentiated dosage form supported physician adoption.

Mature branded period

As the product aged, sales likely became dependent on repeat use, physician familiarity, and payer access rather than new patient expansion. Chronic external ear disease provides recurring demand, but the treated population is limited.

Generic erosion

Generic entry typically reduces branded prescription volume and increases payer pressure. The effect is strongest where the generic is therapeutically equivalent and pharmacies can substitute automatically.

Long-tail commercialization

A surviving branded product can retain a smaller revenue base through brand loyalty, supply reliability, physician preference, and patients who respond well to the specific vehicle. The long-tail business can remain profitable if manufacturing costs and promotional spending are low.

DermOtic’s revenue outlook is therefore likely flat to declining in nominal terms unless the product receives stronger distribution, a new indication, pediatric expansion, or a material pricing strategy change. Profitability could remain attractive despite lower revenue because the product is a mature formulation with limited clinical-development expense.

What revenue exposure exists for the manufacturer?

DermOtic is unlikely to represent a material revenue driver for a large publicly traded pharmaceutical company. For Hill Dermaceuticals, however, the product may have strategic value disproportionate to its absolute sales because it can provide:

• Recurring prescription demand
• A recognized dermatology and otology brand
• Cross-selling opportunities in topical products
• Manufacturing utilization
• Pharmacy and wholesaler relationships
• A platform for additional corticosteroid formulations

The financial risk is concentration. A small portfolio manufacturer can be materially affected by a single generic competitor, wholesaler delisting, reimbursement changes, supply interruptions, or a manufacturing warning.

What generic launch scenarios exist for DermOtic?

Scenario	Likely market effect
One approved generic	Moderate price pressure; brand may retain some prescriptions
Multiple generics	Rapid price erosion and formulary displacement
Authorized generic	Stronger control of channel pricing but lower branded differentiation
Limited generic supply	Brand retains share if availability is reliable
Formulation or bioequivalence difficulty	Slower generic entry and temporary price support
Payer-mandated substitution	Accelerated volume loss for DermOtic

The most plausible base case is gradual erosion rather than an abrupt commercial collapse. The small market may support only a limited number of suppliers, which can reduce the intensity of price competition. At the same time, low market size can make the product less attractive to generic manufacturers, preserving a niche for the brand.

What licensing deals and transactions involve DermOtic?

No major publicly disclosed licensing transaction specifically involving DermOtic is evident in the available public record. The product is associated with Hill Dermaceuticals rather than a multinational company that routinely publishes detailed licensing terms.

Potential transaction value would likely depend on:

• Current net sales
• Generic availability
• Wholesale acquisition price
• Manufacturing cost
• Contract status with pharmacy benefit managers
• Geographic rights
• Regulatory file completeness
• Stability and supply history
• Product liability and quality records

Because the product has limited patent protection, a transaction would be valued primarily on cash flow, manufacturing capability, distribution access, and portfolio fit.

How does DermOtic compare with competing otic corticosteroids?

Product category	Main advantage	Main limitation
DermOtic fluocinolone acetonide oil	Dedicated otic oil; chronic eczematous otitis indication	Mature product with generic exposure
Hydrocortisone otic products	Familiar corticosteroid; broad clinical use	May have different potency and formulation
Antibiotic-steroid otic combinations	Useful when infection and inflammation coexist	Not appropriate for uncomplicated eczema
Topical dermatologic steroids	Broad availability	Often lack an otic-specific label or formulation
Nonprescription emollients	Low cost and accessibility	Limited evidence for active inflammatory disease

DermOtic’s strongest differentiator is formulation specificity, not pharmacologic novelty. Its commercial performance depends on whether prescribers and payers value the otic oil sufficiently to resist substitution.

What is the geographic coverage of DermOtic?

The principal commercial opportunity is the United States, where DermOtic has FDA approval. International rights and approvals are not sufficiently established in the public record to support a reliable global revenue assessment.

Outside the United States, commercialization would require country-specific approvals, labeling, pricing, distribution, and reimbursement. The product’s low-cost generic profile would make international expansion dependent on efficient registration and local distribution rather than patent exclusivity.

Key Takeaways

• DermOtic is fluocinolone acetonide 0.01% otic oil for chronic eczematous external otitis.
• FDA approval dates to 2000, and meaningful regulatory exclusivity has expired.
• The product has a weak current patent moat and no major identified blocking patent estate.
• Generic substitution is the principal commercial risk.
• The otic oil formulation creates technical manufacturing requirements but not a durable legal barrier.
• No standalone DermOtic revenue or profit figures are publicly disclosed.
• The likely financial profile is mature, niche, and cash-generative if manufacturing costs remain controlled.
• Revenue is more likely to decline gradually than grow materially without new indications, stronger distribution, or limited generic competition.
• DermOtic’s value in a transaction would come from recurring cash flow, brand recognition, and manufacturing capability rather than patent exclusivity.

FAQs

Is DermOtic still protected by patents?

No material current patent protection has been publicly established as a meaningful barrier to generic competition. Its original product and active-ingredient protections are historical and expired.

Is DermOtic a biologic or eligible for biosimilar competition?

No. DermOtic is a small-molecule corticosteroid. Competition would occur through generic-drug pathways, not biosimilar approval.

Can pharmacies substitute a generic for DermOtic?

Substitution depends on the availability of an FDA-approved therapeutically equivalent product and applicable state and payer rules. An equivalent fluocinolone acetonide otic oil would create the greatest substitution risk.

Does DermOtic have strong pricing power?

No. Its pricing power is limited by the age of the product, generic alternatives, therapeutic substitutes, and payer controls. Brand loyalty and formulation preference may support a price premium in a narrow segment.

What is the most important investment risk for DermOtic?

The principal risk is erosion of prescription volume and net price following generic entry. For a small manufacturer, a supply disruption, formulary loss, or single competing generic could have an outsized effect on product economics.

References

1. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. (2019). DermOtic Oil: Fluocinolone acetonide 0.01% prescribing information. Hill Dermaceuticals, LLC.
2. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. (2023). Frequently asked questions on patents and exclusivity. FDA.
3. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. (2024). Orange Book: Approved drug products with therapeutic equivalence evaluations. FDA.