LORFAN Drug Patent Profile

« Back to Dashboard

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

Lorfan is a drug marketed by Roche and is included in one NDA.

The generic ingredient in LORFAN is levallorphan tartrate. There is one drug master file entry for this compound. Additional details are available on the levallorphan tartrate profile page.

Summary for LORFAN

US Patents:	0
Applicants:	1
NDAs:	1
Raw Ingredient (Bulk) Api Vendors:	16
DailyMed Link:	LORFAN at DailyMed

US Patents and Regulatory Information for LORFAN

Applicant	Tradename	Generic Name	Dosage	NDA	Approval Date	TE	Type	RLD	RS	Patent No.	Patent Expiration	Product	Substance	Delist Req.	Exclusivity Expiration
Roche	LORFAN	levallorphan tartrate	INJECTABLE;INJECTION	010423-001	Approved Prior to Jan 1, 1982		DISCN	No	No

LORFAN Market Dynamics and Financial Trajectory

Last updated: August 28, 2026

LORFAN is a historical brand associated with levorphanol, an opioid analgesic related to morphine and dextromethorphan. Its commercial trajectory peaked in the mid-20th century and declined as newer opioids, regulatory controls, generic substitution, and limited manufacturer participation reduced demand. LORFAN does not have a meaningful current branded market, and no public standalone revenue series is available.

What is LORFAN and what active ingredient does it contain?

LORFAN refers to levorphanol, generally administered as levorphanol tartrate. Levorphanol is a potent opioid analgesic with activity at the mu-opioid receptor and additional activity at NMDA and norepinephrine reuptake pathways. The drug was developed for moderate-to-severe pain and has also been used in selected chronic-pain settings.

Attribute	LORFAN / levorphanol
Active ingredient	Levorphanol, usually levorphanol tartrate
Therapeutic class	Opioid analgesic
Historical uses	Moderate-to-severe pain; antitussive use in some markets
Administration	Oral tablets; other dosage forms have existed historically
U.S. controlled-substance status	Schedule II
Current branded position	No meaningful active U.S. branded franchise
Current market structure	Small generic or specialty supply market
Biosimilar relevance	None; levorphanol is a small-molecule drug

Levorphanol is distinct from levorphanol's stereoisomer racemorphan and from dextromethorphan, which is primarily used as a cough suppressant. It is also distinct from naloxone and naltrexone, which are opioid antagonists.

When did LORFAN lose commercial exclusivity?

LORFAN's original product and composition protections expired decades ago. The drug belongs to an older generation of small-molecule pharmaceuticals for which current commercial value is not driven by an active pioneer patent.

The relevant commercial events were:

Period	Market event	Commercial effect
Mid-20th century	Introduction of levorphanol products	Established the drug as an opioid analgesic
1970s-1980s	Expansion of competing opioid analgesics	Reduced the relative role of levorphanol
1980s onward	Increased controlled-substance scrutiny	Raised compliance and distribution costs
Post-exclusivity period	Generic substitution and limited manufacturers	Removed branded pricing power
Recent years	Niche use in specialist pain practice	Preserved limited demand without restoring scale

No current market exclusivity period appears to protect LORFAN under the modern FDA framework. The product predates Hatch-Waxman exclusivity categories such as five-year new chemical entity exclusivity and three-year clinical-investigation exclusivity.

What patents protect LORFAN today?

No commercially material active U.S. composition-of-matter patent is associated with the historical LORFAN franchise. Any original patents covering levorphanol or early formulations would have expired long ago.

Formulation patents

Potential formulation protection would have been limited by the age of the product and the simplicity of conventional oral dosage forms. A modern reformulation could theoretically obtain patent protection for:

• Extended-release delivery.
• Abuse-deterrent technology.
• A defined salt or polymorph.
• A combination with another analgesic or antagonist.
• A specific chronic-pain dosing regimen.
• A manufacturing process that materially improves purity or stability.

Such protection would cover only the new formulation, method, or process. It would not restore exclusivity to conventional levorphanol tablets.

Method-of-use patents

Historical or current method-of-use protection would be commercially narrow. Possible claims could address neuropathic pain, opioid rotation, treatment-resistant pain, or a defined patient population. Any such patent would face enablement, obviousness, written-description, and clinical-evidence challenges.

There is no widely recognized active Orange Book patent estate that gives LORFAN a broad blocking position in the U.S. market.

What is the FDA regulatory status of LORFAN?

LORFAN is not a significant current FDA-branded product. The FDA's current databases should be distinguished from historical product references, discontinued products, and active generic listings.

The regulatory position is best summarized as follows:

Regulatory issue	Assessment
FDA-approved active ingredient	Levorphanol has an established U.S. regulatory history
Current LORFAN brand	No meaningful active branded presence
Controlled-substance status	Schedule II
Generic pathway	Abbreviated New Drug Application pathway may apply to qualifying products
Orange Book relevance	Product-specific listings must be checked by current sponsor and dosage form
Pediatric exclusivity	Not a material current commercial factor
Orphan-drug exclusivity	Not a defining feature of the product
Biosimilar pathway	Not applicable

Controlled-substance products face additional requirements involving quotas, registration, diversion controls, recordkeeping, security, and distribution monitoring. These requirements can make a small opioid product economically unattractive even when the active ingredient is off patent.

How many patents cover LORFAN?

The number of commercially relevant active patents covering the historical LORFAN product is effectively zero based on the age of the molecule and the absence of a recognized active branded patent estate.

That conclusion does not mean that every historical patent record has expired or that no third party can patent a new levorphanol formulation. It means that the conventional product does not appear to have a current patent barrier comparable to newer branded drugs.

Patent category	Current commercial relevance
Original composition patent	Expired
Original process patents	Expired or commercially immaterial
Conventional tablet formulation	Generally unprotected
New extended-release formulation	Potentially protectable if developed
Abuse-deterrent formulation	Potentially protectable
New method of use	Potentially protectable but narrow
Manufacturing know-how	May remain confidential but is not a market exclusivity right

Are there Paragraph IV challenges involving LORFAN?

No major, publicly prominent Paragraph IV litigation campaign is associated with LORFAN in the way seen for high-revenue branded drugs.

Paragraph IV litigation requires an ANDA applicant to challenge a listed patent. Because LORFAN's original patent estate is obsolete and the product has limited revenue potential, the commercial incentive for a large-scale Paragraph IV dispute is low.

A Paragraph IV challenge could arise if a sponsor obtained patents on a newer levorphanol formulation or method of use. Such a dispute would concern the later patent, not the historical LORFAN product itself.

What is the financial trajectory of LORFAN?

LORFAN has no publicly reported standalone revenue trajectory. Historical manufacturers generally reported opioid products within broader pharmaceutical segments, preventing reliable product-level revenue reconstruction.

The financial trajectory can be divided into four stages:

1. Launch and early adoption

Levorphanol entered a market in which opioid analgesics had established clinical demand. Its potency and oral availability supported use in acute and chronic pain. The product had commercial value as part of a broader analgesic portfolio.

2. Competitive displacement

Levorphanol faced competition from morphine, oxycodone, hydromorphone, methadone, fentanyl, and other opioids. Prescriber familiarity, hospital formularies, dosing conventions, supply availability, and marketing support favored larger products.

Levorphanol's pharmacologic complexity did not translate into a durable mass-market advantage. The drug remained useful in selected cases but did not achieve the scale of leading opioid products.

3. Generic erosion

Once exclusivity ended, conventional levorphanol products became vulnerable to generic substitution. Price competition reduced gross margins. Low unit demand limited the ability of manufacturers to spread regulatory, pharmacovigilance, quality, and controlled-substance compliance costs across a large volume base.

4. Niche-market persistence

The remaining opportunity is a small specialty market. Demand may come from pain specialists, opioid-rotation protocols, and patients who respond differently to other opioids. That demand is clinically persistent but commercially limited.

A simplified financial model is:

Revenue driver	Effect on LORFAN economics
Low patient volume	Limits total revenue
Generic pricing	Compresses average selling price
Schedule II controls	Raises operating cost
Limited manufacturers	Can support intermittent price increases
Specialist use	Protects a narrow demand base
No active broad patent	Prevents premium pricing
Supply interruptions	Can create temporary revenue volatility

What generic entry risks exist for LORFAN?

Generic entry risk is structurally high because the active ingredient is old, the conventional dosage form is familiar, and broad patent protection is absent.

The principal barriers are commercial rather than intellectual-property barriers:

• Limited market size.
• Controlled-substance manufacturing requirements.
• API sourcing and quota management.
• Potentially uneven demand.
• Pharmacovigilance and diversion-control obligations.
• Low expected return on abbreviated regulatory investment.
• Risk that a single supply interruption will affect market reputation.

These factors can produce a market with few suppliers despite the absence of meaningful patent protection. In such markets, nominal generic competition may coexist with supply scarcity and price volatility.

Which companies are challenging or competing with LORFAN?

The principal competition is therapeutic rather than brand-specific. Levorphanol competes with other opioids and, in some cases, non-opioid treatments.

Competitor group	Examples	Competitive basis
Strong opioid analgesics	Morphine, hydromorphone, oxycodone	Prescriber familiarity and broad availability
Long-acting opioids	Methadone, extended-release formulations	Chronic-pain and opioid-rotation use
Transdermal opioids	Fentanyl products	Delivery convenience and potency
Non-opioid analgesics	Acetaminophen, NSAIDs	Lower opioid-related regulatory burden
Adjuvant therapies	Gabapentinoids, antidepressants	Neuropathic-pain treatment
Specialty compounded products	Pharmacy-prepared formulations	Patient-specific dosing

No single company has a dominant modern LORFAN franchise. The market is shaped by generic manufacturers, specialty distributors, pain clinics, hospitals, and pharmacy availability.

What licensing deals affect LORFAN?

No major recent licensing transaction has established a high-value LORFAN franchise. Historical rights may have changed through corporate acquisitions, product portfolios, or regional distribution agreements, but those arrangements are not equivalent to a current strategic license with material disclosed economics.

A new licensing opportunity would likely depend on a differentiated product, such as:

• A once-daily formulation.
• An abuse-deterrent product.
• A clinically validated neuropathic-pain indication.
• A combination product with a defined safety advantage.
• A manufacturing process that resolves supply constraints.

Without such differentiation, licensing value would be limited by generic pricing and the small addressable market.

What patent litigation and settlement agreements affect LORFAN?

There is no prominent current patent-litigation or settlement record that materially changes LORFAN's market outlook. The product's central legal risks arise from controlled-substance compliance, product liability, manufacturing quality, labeling, and distribution controls rather than Orange Book patent disputes.

Any future litigation would more likely involve:

• Product liability.
• Alleged diversion or inadequate monitoring.
• Manufacturing deviations.
• Labeling and warning claims.
• A later reformulation patent.
• ANDA litigation involving a new listed patent.

How strong is the LORFAN patent estate?

The patent estate is weak for the historical product and potentially moderate only for a genuinely new formulation or method.

Dimension	Assessment
Composition protection	None of current commercial significance
Conventional tablet protection	Weak or absent
Formulation protection	Possible only for new technology
Method-of-use protection	Possible but narrow
Manufacturing protection	Potential trade-secret value
Freedom-to-operate risk	Generally lower for old molecule; higher for new delivery systems
Litigation leverage	Low for legacy product
Pricing power from patents	Minimal

The principal strategic asset is not the old LORFAN brand. It would be a new product architecture supported by clinical evidence, regulatory differentiation, and reliable controlled-substance supply.

What is the geographic coverage of LORFAN?

Levorphanol products have had a broader historical presence than the current LORFAN brand. Commercial availability varies sharply by jurisdiction because opioid scheduling, national formularies, import controls, and manufacturer participation differ.

The strongest potential markets are jurisdictions with:

• Established opioid prescribing infrastructure.
• Specialist pain services.
• Legal access to levorphanol products.
• Reliable controlled-substance distribution.
• Reimbursement for specialty analgesics.

Geographic expansion would face country-specific registration, narcotics permits, quota systems, serialization, pharmacovigilance, and local pricing controls. A global launch would therefore require a country-by-country regulatory and supply strategy.

What generic launch scenarios are most likely?

Three scenarios are commercially plausible:

1. Continued niche supply. One or a few manufacturers maintain limited availability, with low aggregate revenue and occasional shortages.
2. Generic consolidation. A supplier exits, leaving a smaller number of manufacturers and increasing supply concentration.
3. Reformulation-led relaunch. A sponsor develops a new delivery system or indication and seeks differentiated pricing through a new regulatory filing.

The first scenario is the most consistent with the drug's age, limited demand, and regulatory burden. A conventional generic launch would not normally support substantial valuation unless the supplier secured unusually favorable manufacturing economics or captured a supply-constrained market.

Key Takeaways

• LORFAN is a historical levorphanol product, not a major current branded pharmaceutical franchise.
• Original patent protection expired decades ago.
• No meaningful active broad patent estate protects conventional levorphanol products.
• Paragraph IV litigation and major patent settlements are not central to the current market.
• The product has no biosimilar exposure because levorphanol is a small molecule.
• Revenue data are not publicly reported on a standalone basis.
• Current commercial value is limited to a small specialty opioid market.
• Controlled-substance compliance and supply reliability are more important barriers than patents.
• A commercially attractive relaunch would require a differentiated formulation, method of use, or manufacturing advantage.
• Generic entry risk is high, but supplier participation may remain limited because the market is small and operationally burdensome.

FAQs

Is LORFAN still available in the United States?

LORFAN does not have a significant current U.S. branded presence. Availability of levorphanol products depends on active manufacturers, wholesalers, pharmacies, and controlled-substance supply conditions.

Is levorphanol more potent than morphine?

Levorphanol is a potent opioid, and dose conversion must be handled carefully. Its potency and longer duration can increase the risk of dosing errors during opioid rotation.

Does LORFAN have an Orange Book patent?

No broadly relevant active Orange Book patent estate is associated with the historical LORFAN product. Current listings, if any, would depend on the specific sponsor, dosage form, and product application.

Could a company obtain new patents on levorphanol?

Yes. A sponsor could seek patents on a new formulation, delivery system, manufacturing process, combination, or method of use. Those rights would not recreate exclusivity for conventional levorphanol tablets.

Why can an off-patent opioid remain commercially available?

An off-patent drug can persist when a small specialist population continues to demand it. Supply may remain limited because controlled-substance manufacturing, quota management, compliance, and pharmacovigilance costs reduce the attractiveness of the market.

References

1. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. (n.d.). Orange Book: Approved drug products with therapeutic equivalence evaluations. https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cder/ob/

2. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. (n.d.). Drugs@FDA: FDA-approved drugs. https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cder/daf/

3. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. (n.d.). DailyMed: Current medication information. National Library of Medicine. https://dailymed.nlm.nih.gov/dailymed/

4. Drug Enforcement Administration. (n.d.). Controlled substance schedules. U.S. Department of Justice. https://www.dea.gov/drug-information/drug-scheduling

5. National Library of Medicine. (n.d.). Levorphanol. PubChem. https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/Levorphanol

6. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. (1984). Drug price competition and patent term restoration act of 1984. https://www.congress.gov/bill/98th-congress/house-bill/3605