When do the LOTRIMIN ULTRA patents expire, and when will LOTRIMIN ULTRA go generic?

Sponsor	Phase
Bayer	Phase 3
Taro Pharmaceuticals USA	Phase 1

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
Bayer Healthcare Llc	LOTRIMIN ULTRA	butenafine hydrochloride	CREAM;TOPICAL	021307-001	Dec 7, 2001		OTC	Yes	Yes	⤷ 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: October 13, 2026

Lotrimin Ultra is an over-the-counter antifungal cream containing butenafine hydrochloride 1%. Its commercial position is based on brand recognition, pharmacy distribution, retail placement, and consumer marketing rather than an active patent or prescription exclusivity period. Bayer Consumer Health owns the Lotrimin brand in the United States, but Bayer does not publicly report Lotrimin Ultra revenue as a separate product line. The brand therefore has limited protection against generic, store-brand, and competing antifungal products.

What is Lotrimin Ultra and who markets it?

Lotrimin Ultra is a topical antifungal product indicated for athlete's foot, jock itch, and ringworm. Its active ingredient is butenafine hydrochloride at a 1% concentration [1].

Product attribute	Lotrimin Ultra
Active ingredient	Butenafine hydrochloride
Strength	1%
Dosage form	Topical cream
Regulatory status	OTC drug
Primary indications	Athlete's foot, jock itch, ringworm
U.S. brand owner	Bayer Consumer Health
Prescription status	None for the marketed Lotrimin Ultra product
Orange Book status	Not listed as a prescription drug product
Primary competitors	Lamisil AT, Tinactin, Lotrimin AF, store-brand antifungals
Principal commercial markets	United States retail pharmacies, mass merchants, grocery, and e-commerce

The product is distinct from Lotrimin AF, which uses an azole antifungal ingredient. Lotrimin Ultra uses butenafine, a benzylamine-related antifungal ingredient with a different chemical class and labeling profile.

What is the FDA regulatory status of Lotrimin Ultra?

Lotrimin Ultra is regulated under the FDA’s over-the-counter topical antifungal framework rather than through a prescription New Drug Application. Butenafine hydrochloride 1% is included among active ingredients permitted for OTC topical antifungal products under the FDA monograph system [2].

The regulatory pathway has several commercial consequences:

A competing manufacturer can formulate an OTC butenafine product under the applicable monograph requirements.
A competitor generally does not need to overcome a Lotrimin Ultra-specific prescription approval barrier.
The product does not receive prescription-drug market exclusivity.
An abbreviated new drug application, or ANDA, is generally not the central pathway for a monograph-compliant OTC product.
FDA approval of the original prescription butenafine products does not create current exclusivity for Lotrimin Ultra.

The product label limits use to external application and directs consumers to seek medical advice for infections involving the scalp or nails, severe irritation, or symptoms that do not improve within the labeled period [1].

When does Lotrimin Ultra lose exclusivity?

Lotrimin Ultra has no current FDA prescription exclusivity period comparable to a new chemical entity, orphan-drug exclusivity, or pediatric exclusivity. Its market protection is already based primarily on branding and distribution.

Patent and exclusivity position

Protection category	Lotrimin Ultra position
New chemical entity exclusivity	None for the current OTC product
Prescription data exclusivity	Not applicable to the marketed OTC product
Orphan exclusivity	None
Pediatric exclusivity	None identified
Orange Book patent listing	None identified for Lotrimin Ultra as an OTC product
OTC monograph protection	No product-specific exclusivity
Trademark protection	Brand name and associated trade dress remain commercially relevant
Formulation protection	No publicly reported active patent is required for the current commercial product

The original development and prescription commercialization of butenafine occurred decades ago. Any early composition, use, or manufacturing patents associated with the active ingredient would not provide a meaningful current barrier to OTC competition. The commercial question is therefore not when a remaining patent expires, but how effectively Bayer can defend the Lotrimin Ultra brand against lower-priced alternatives.

What patents protect Lotrimin Ultra?

No publicly reported active U.S. patent appears to provide the principal commercial protection for the current Lotrimin Ultra cream. The product is sold under an OTC regulatory framework that permits other manufacturers to use butenafine hydrochloride 1% if they meet FDA monograph, labeling, manufacturing, and quality requirements.

Potential intellectual-property rights may still exist around:

The Lotrimin and Lotrimin Ultra trademarks.
Packaging artwork and trade dress.
Advertising claims.
Private-label supply agreements.
Manufacturing know-how.
Specific inactive-ingredient combinations, if separately patented.
Product-line extensions or delivery formats.

These rights do not create the same barrier as an active composition-of-matter patent. A generic or store-brand product can compete without copying Bayer’s trademarks, packaging, or advertising materials.

Are there Paragraph IV challenges to Lotrimin Ultra?

Paragraph IV litigation is not a central risk for Lotrimin Ultra because the product is not marketed as an Orange Book-listed prescription drug. Paragraph IV certifications apply to ANDA applicants challenging patents listed for reference-listed prescription drugs under the Hatch-Waxman framework [3].

For Lotrimin Ultra, the practical competitive mechanisms are different:

OTC monograph-compliant entry.
Store-brand or private-label product launches.
Authorized or contract-manufactured alternatives.
Retailer substitution and shelf-space competition.
Online price comparison and marketplace substitution.
Brand advertising and consumer loyalty.

A competitor would more likely challenge a trademark, labeling claim, advertising representation, or manufacturing issue than file a conventional Paragraph IV case against Lotrimin Ultra.

What formulations are protected by Lotrimin Ultra?

The marketed product is a conventional topical cream containing butenafine hydrochloride 1%. The commercial formulation may create operational advantages through texture, spreadability, packaging, stability, and consumer preference, but those characteristics do not necessarily create enforceable exclusivity.

Formulation-related competitive factors

The relevant formulation variables include:

Cream viscosity and skin feel.
Absorption and residue.
Tube size and package format.
Preservative system.
Stability during retail storage.
Compatibility with the tube and closure.
Consumer tolerance on irritated skin.
Labeling for treatment duration and application frequency.

A competitor can reproduce the therapeutic active ingredient and strength while differentiating through excipients, packaging, price, or retail positioning. Unless a formulation is protected by a live patent or proprietary manufacturing process, it is a competitive feature rather than a legal barrier.

How strong is the Lotrimin Ultra patent estate?

The patent estate is weak as a current market barrier. The brand has stronger trademark and distribution assets than patent protection.

Patent-estate factor	Assessment
Active-ingredient protection	Expired or commercially irrelevant
Product-specific patent blocking OTC entry	Low
Formulation patent barrier	Not publicly established
Manufacturing barrier	Moderate at the quality-system level, low at the market-entry level
Trademark barrier	Meaningful for brand substitution
Retail distribution barrier	Meaningful but vulnerable to private-label pressure
Litigation leverage	Limited against compliant OTC competitors
Generic-entry exposure	High

Manufacturing remains subject to FDA current good manufacturing practice requirements. That creates a compliance burden but does not materially prevent established OTC manufacturers from entering the category.

Which companies compete with Lotrimin Ultra?

Lotrimin Ultra competes in a mature topical antifungal market with branded products, generic products, and retailer-owned products.

Direct ingredient competition

The closest direct competitors are products containing butenafine hydrochloride 1%, including generic and store-brand equivalents where available.

Therapeutic substitutes

Brand or product class	Active ingredient	Competitive relevance
Lamisil AT	Terbinafine hydrochloride	Strong branded alternative for athlete's foot and ringworm
Tinactin	Tolnaftate	Established OTC antifungal brand
Lotrimin AF	Miconazole nitrate	Same master brand, different active ingredient
Generic clotrimazole	Clotrimazole	Low-price azole substitute
Generic miconazole	Miconazole nitrate	Broad pharmacy and private-label availability
Store-brand antifungals	Various	Direct price pressure and retailer substitution

Terbinafine products can compete on perceived treatment speed and brand recognition. Azole products compete on broad availability and low price. Butenafine products occupy a narrower position, with the Lotrimin Ultra name providing the principal consumer-facing differentiation.

How does Lotrimin Ultra compare with Lamisil AT and Lotrimin AF?

Factor	Lotrimin Ultra	Lamisil AT	Lotrimin AF
Active ingredient	Butenafine 1%	Terbinafine 1%	Miconazole 2%
Brand owner	Bayer	Haleon	Bayer
Regulatory category	OTC	OTC	OTC
Patent exclusivity	None currently relevant	None currently relevant	None currently relevant
Brand architecture	Premium sub-brand within Lotrimin	Standalone antifungal brand	Core Lotrimin antifungal brand
Main competitive asset	Butenafine positioning and Lotrimin recognition	Strong athlete's-foot brand equity	Broad Lotrimin recognition and availability
Generic exposure	High	High	High
Cannibalization risk	Moderate from Lotrimin AF	Not applicable	Moderate from Lotrimin Ultra

Bayer’s portfolio structure can reduce the impact of competitor switching because consumers may remain within the Lotrimin franchise while moving between active ingredients. The same structure can also create internal cannibalization if lower-priced Lotrimin products or promotions draw consumers away from Lotrimin Ultra.

What is the financial trajectory of Lotrimin Ultra?

Bayer does not publicly disclose Lotrimin Ultra revenue, gross margin, unit volume, or operating profit as standalone metrics. Bayer reports Consumer Health performance at the segment and category level, which prevents a verified product-specific revenue series [4].

The financial trajectory is therefore best assessed through market structure:

The product is mature rather than patent-protected.
Unit growth is likely constrained by stable underlying demand for topical antifungals.
Revenue depends on price, distribution, promotional spending, and product mix.
Private-label entry limits long-term price increases.
E-commerce increases price transparency.
Retailer negotiations can shift sales toward lower-priced alternatives.
A premium brand can maintain value through packaging, advertising, and consumer trust.

Revenue exposure

Because Lotrimin Ultra is not separately reported, investors cannot directly calculate Bayer’s revenue exposure to the product from public filings. The relevant financial exposure is a small portion of Bayer’s broader Consumer Health business rather than a separately disclosed franchise.

The brand can still matter commercially because OTC products often have:

Low regulatory spending after launch.
Repeat retail distribution.
High gross margins relative to manufacturing cost.
Limited clinical-development requirements.
Efficient cross-selling within a broader consumer-health portfolio.

Margin pressure is the primary long-term risk. A branded topical cream can maintain a premium only if consumers perceive a meaningful difference from store-brand products.

What generic launch scenarios exist for Lotrimin Ultra?

Scenario 1: Gradual private-label substitution

Retailers introduce or expand butenafine 1% alternatives. Lotrimin Ultra retains shelf presence but loses unit share among price-sensitive consumers. This is the most probable long-term scenario for a mature OTC product.

Scenario 2: Branded premium retention

Bayer preserves pricing through national advertising, strong pharmacy placement, and consumer familiarity. Volume may remain stable while the product maintains a premium over generic creams.

Scenario 3: Retailer delisting or shelf compression

Retailers reduce shelf space for Lotrimin Ultra in favor of higher-turning terbinafine, miconazole, or private-label products. This would pressure both volume and promotional economics.

Scenario 4: Product-line repositioning

Bayer could alter packaging, bundle Lotrimin Ultra with other foot-care products, expand e-commerce distribution, or introduce new formats. Such actions would rely on marketing and channel execution rather than patent exclusivity.

What is the geographic coverage of Lotrimin Ultra?

The strongest commercial relevance is in the United States, where the Lotrimin brand has established consumer recognition and pharmacy distribution. International markets may use different brand names, formulations, active ingredients, or local regulatory pathways. The existence of a U.S. OTC monograph position does not automatically establish regulatory authorization in other jurisdictions.

Geographic expansion is constrained by:

Country-specific OTC rules.
Local product registrations.
Different antifungal monographs.
Trademark availability.
Local pricing controls.
Distributor economics.
Competing domestic brands.

The U.S. market remains the principal reference point for the product’s patent, regulatory, and commercial analysis.

What patent litigation or settlement agreements affect Lotrimin Ultra?

No major publicly reported patent litigation or Paragraph IV settlement appears to determine current Lotrimin Ultra market access. The absence of a prescription patent dispute is consistent with the product’s OTC monograph status.

Potential disputes would more likely involve:

Trademark infringement.
False or unsupported advertising claims.
Packaging or trade-dress imitation.
FDA labeling compliance.
Product liability.
Retailer or distributor contracts.
Consumer class actions concerning product performance or labeling.

These risks are operational and commercial rather than patent-driven.

Key Takeaways

Lotrimin Ultra is an OTC butenafine hydrochloride 1% antifungal cream.
Bayer does not publicly report product-level Lotrimin Ultra revenue.
The product has no current prescription exclusivity or meaningful Orange Book patent barrier.
Paragraph IV litigation is not the primary generic-entry mechanism.
The principal competitive threats are store brands, generic butenafine, terbinafine products, azole products, and retailer substitution.
Brand equity, pharmacy distribution, packaging, and consumer marketing are more important than patent protection.
Financial performance is likely mature, with margin and share pressure from private-label products.
Manufacturing requirements create a compliance burden but do not prevent established OTC companies from competing.
The strongest remaining commercial asset is the Lotrimin trademark and its consumer recognition.

FAQs About Lotrimin Ultra Market and Patent Risk

Is Lotrimin Ultra a prescription drug?

No. Lotrimin Ultra is marketed as an over-the-counter topical antifungal product containing butenafine hydrochloride 1%.

Can a generic manufacturer sell butenafine cream?

Yes. A manufacturer may market a compliant OTC butenafine product under the applicable FDA regulatory requirements without challenging a Lotrimin Ultra-specific Orange Book patent.

Does Lotrimin Ultra have a new chemical entity patent?

No current new chemical entity exclusivity protects the marketed OTC product. The active ingredient has been commercially available for decades.

Is Lotrimin Ultra owned by Johnson & Johnson?

No. Lotrimin is associated with Bayer Consumer Health in the United States. Johnson & Johnson’s consumer-health assets were separated into Kenvue, which does not own the Lotrimin brand.

What is the largest financial risk to Lotrimin Ultra?

The principal risk is loss of price premium and retail share to store-brand products and competing antifungal ingredients, rather than patent expiry or Paragraph IV litigation.

References

Bayer Healthcare LLC. (n.d.). Lotrimin Ultra antifungal cream: Drug facts label. DailyMed. https://dailymed.nlm.nih.gov/
U.S. Food and Drug Administration. (2020). Topical antifungal products for over-the-counter human use. 21 C.F.R. Part 333, Subpart D. https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-21/chapter-I/subchapter-D/part-333
U.S. Food and Drug Administration. (2024). Abbreviated new drug application process. https://www.fda.gov/drugs/abbreviated-new-drug-application-anda
Bayer AG. (2024). Annual report 2023: Consumer Health. https://www.bayer.com/en/investors/annual-reports

US Patents:	0
Applicants:	1
NDAs:	1
Finished Product Suppliers / Packagers:	1
Raw Ingredient (Bulk) Api Vendors:	95
Clinical Trials:	4
Patent Applications:	448
What excipients (inactive ingredients) are in LOTRIMIN ULTRA?	LOTRIMIN ULTRA excipients list
DailyMed Link:	LOTRIMIN ULTRA at DailyMed

AI Deep Research

Questions you can ask:

Summary for LOTRIMIN ULTRA

Recent Clinical Trials for LOTRIMIN ULTRA

Pharmacology for LOTRIMIN ULTRA