When do the patents on TESTOSTERONE CYPIONATE-ESTRADIOL CYPIONATE expire, and when will generic TESTOSTERONE CYPIONATE-ESTRADIOL CYPIONATE be available?

Sponsor	Phase
Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center	Phase 2
Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center at Johns Hopkins	Phase 2
Baylor College of Medicine	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
Watson Labs	TESTOSTERONE CYPIONATE-ESTRADIOL CYPIONATE	estradiol cypionate; testosterone cypionate	INJECTABLE;INJECTION	085603-001	Mar 13, 1986		DISCN	No	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 27, 2026

Testosterone cypionate-estradiol cypionate is a legacy injectable hormone combination with no meaningful current U.S. branded market. The product was historically marketed as Depo-Testadiol, an intramuscular formulation containing testosterone cypionate and estradiol cypionate. Its commercial decline reflects product discontinuation, the availability of separate hormone therapies, changing menopausal-treatment practices, controlled-substance compliance costs, and the absence of a current branded investment strategy.

Public sources do not report recent product-level revenue for testosterone cypionate-estradiol cypionate. The current market is best characterized as commercially inactive or highly limited, with demand transferred to separate testosterone and estradiol products rather than to a direct generic substitute.

What is testosterone cypionate-estradiol cypionate?

Testosterone cypionate-estradiol cypionate is an oil-based injectable combination of an androgen ester and an estrogen ester. The historical product Depo-Testadiol was administered intramuscularly and was associated with hormone replacement use, particularly in patients requiring combined androgen and estrogen therapy.

Historical labeling identified a formulation containing approximately 50 mg of testosterone cypionate and 2 mg of estradiol cypionate per mL. Product strengths, labeling, and packaging should be verified against the applicable historical FDA label because the product is no longer a significant active commercial product in the U.S. market.

How do the two active ingredients work?

Testosterone cypionate is a long-acting testosterone ester. It is hydrolyzed to testosterone after intramuscular administration and produces androgenic and anabolic effects.

Estradiol cypionate is a long-acting estrogen ester. It is hydrolyzed to estradiol and provides estrogenic activity.

The combination was designed to deliver both hormonal components through a single depot injection. Current clinical practice more often uses separately titratable products, allowing clinicians to adjust estrogen and testosterone exposure independently.

What is the FDA status of testosterone cypionate-estradiol cypionate?

The historical combination product is not a material current U.S. commercial product. FDA databases identify legacy combination products separately from active marketed products, and a discontinued listing does not necessarily mean that FDA withdrew the product for safety or efficacy reasons.[1]

The key regulatory distinction is between:

Regulatory status	Relevance to this product
Historical FDA-approved product	Depo-Testadiol was marketed as a prescription injectable hormone product
Currently marketed branded product	No meaningful current U.S. commercial presence is evident
Active generic competition	No widely marketed FDA-approved generic combination is evident
Biosimilar pathway	Not applicable because the product is a chemically synthesized small-molecule combination
Controlled-substance status	Testosterone products are subject to controlled-substance requirements
Current clinical substitution	Separate testosterone and estradiol products are the principal alternatives

Testosterone cypionate remains an active prescription product in the United States, generally under Schedule III controls. Estradiol products remain broadly available in oral, transdermal, topical, vaginal, and injectable forms. The combination product does not benefit from the commercial scale of either active ingredient as a standalone therapy.[2][3]

When did testosterone cypionate-estradiol cypionate lose exclusivity?

The product’s original exclusivity and patent protection would have expired decades ago. The combination dates from an earlier generation of hormone replacement products, and no current market exclusivity is associated with the historical brand.

No active Orange Book patent estate appears to protect the legacy combination as a current branded product. The practical barriers to competition are therefore not patent-based. They are regulatory, manufacturing, commercial, and clinical:

FDA approval of the specific fixed-dose combination
Sterile injectable manufacturing capacity
Controlled-substance handling requirements for testosterone
Limited prescriber demand for a fixed estrogen-androgen ratio
Competition from separately dosed products
Small market size relative to development and compliance costs

Are there active Orange Book patents?

No commercially relevant active Orange Book patent protection is associated with the legacy combination based on publicly available FDA drug-listing information.[1] The product’s patent position is therefore weak from an exclusivity perspective.

Historical patents may have covered steroid synthesis, esterification, injectable formulations, or related hormone compositions. Those patents would have expired long before the current period and would not create a practical barrier to a new entrant.

How many patents cover the product?

The commercially relevant number is effectively zero for active U.S. product protection. Any historical patent documents would have expired and would not support current market exclusivity.

A new applicant could potentially pursue patents on:

A novel fixed-dose ratio
A sustained-release injectable vehicle
A prefilled syringe or autoinjector
A manufacturing process that improves purity or stability
A new method of use
A dosing regimen that produces a clinically differentiated outcome

Such patents would protect only the claimed innovation. They would not restore exclusivity to the historical Depo-Testadiol formulation.

What formulations are protected by testosterone cypionate or estradiol cypionate patents?

The historic combination’s injectable formulation was an oil-based depot product. The principal technical issues for a modern version would include:

Steroid solubility in the vehicle
Crystallization during storage
Injection-site tolerability
Sterility and particulate control
Dose uniformity
Container closure integrity
Stability under temperature variation
Compatibility with prefilled delivery systems

Separate testosterone cypionate products are generally available in injectable oil formulations. Estradiol is more commonly commercialized through transdermal patches, gels, creams, oral tablets, vaginal products, and selected injectable products.

A fixed-dose combination faces a formulation constraint that separate products avoid: the androgen and estrogen must remain chemically and physically stable in the same vehicle while preserving a clinically acceptable dose ratio.

What is the market size and financial trajectory?

No reliable public source reports current revenue for testosterone cypionate-estradiol cypionate as a standalone product. The product appears to have no material current branded revenue and no identifiable large-scale direct generic market.

Its financial trajectory can be divided into four stages:

Period	Market condition	Financial implication
Initial commercialization	Single-injection combined hormone replacement	Revenue generated from a differentiated delivery format
Mature branded period	Established physician familiarity and recurring injectable use	Stable but narrow specialty demand
Post-exclusivity period	Low barriers to formulation copying but limited commercial interest	Price pressure and declining brand economics
Current period	Product discontinuation or negligible active sales	Minimal or unreported product revenue

The economic value migrated to the underlying ingredients. Testosterone cypionate remains commercially relevant because of demand in testosterone replacement therapy. Estradiol remains commercially relevant because of menopausal hormone therapy and other estrogen indications. The fixed-dose combination does not capture the full value of either market because clinicians often require independent dose adjustment.

What revenue exposure exists for manufacturers?

Direct revenue exposure to the combination is likely negligible. The relevant revenue exposure is indirect:

Manufacturers of testosterone cypionate retain access to a larger active market.
Manufacturers of estradiol products compete across multiple dosage forms.
Compounding pharmacies may supply customized combinations where permitted by applicable law.
Sterile injectable manufacturers could face development costs disproportionate to expected demand.

The absence of current product-level sales data indicates that the product is not a meaningful contributor to the revenue of a major pharmaceutical company. Any valuation based on the historical brand should assign little or no current revenue value without evidence of an active license, relaunch, or private-label supply agreement.

Which companies are challenging or replacing the product?

There is no significant current Paragraph IV litigation or branded challenger campaign centered on testosterone cypionate-estradiol cypionate. The competitive pressure comes from therapeutic substitutes rather than direct patent challengers.

Direct pharmaceutical substitutes

For testosterone, the competitive field includes generic testosterone cypionate injections, testosterone enanthate injections, topical gels, patches, nasal products, and long-acting testosterone undecanoate.

For estrogen, alternatives include oral estradiol, transdermal estradiol patches and gels, vaginal estrogen products, and other estrogen formulations.

The most important commercial competitors are therefore suppliers of separate hormone products, not manufacturers of a competing fixed-dose combination.

What generic entry risks exist?

A conventional generic entrant would face low patent risk but substantial market risk. FDA approval of a generic fixed-dose combination would still require pharmaceutical equivalence, bioequivalence or an appropriate clinical bridge, manufacturing controls, and compliance with labeling requirements.

The main entry risks are:

Small addressable patient population
Low anticipated prescription volume
Limited reimbursement advantage over separate generics
Difficulty forecasting demand for a discontinued legacy formulation
Controlled-substance distribution obligations
Sterile manufacturing costs
Potential clinical preference for individualized dosing
Need to establish a reliable supply chain for both active ingredients

A generic launch could be technically feasible, but commercial success would depend on securing low-cost sterile manufacturing and obtaining payer or wholesaler support.

Is there biosimilar risk?

There is no biosimilar risk. Testosterone cypionate and estradiol cypionate are small-molecule drug substances, not biologics. The relevant regulatory pathway is a conventional abbreviated or full new-drug application, depending on the product and reference-drug status.

The absence of biosimilar competition does not improve the product’s commercial position. Generic competition and therapeutic substitution remain the relevant market forces.

What patent litigation affects testosterone cypionate-estradiol cypionate?

No material current patent litigation is associated with the historical combination product. There is no well-established active Paragraph IV dispute comparable to litigation involving newer branded drugs.

Potential disputes involving separately marketed testosterone or estradiol products would not automatically affect the historical fixed-dose combination. Litigation risk would arise only if a new sponsor pursued a protected formulation, delivery device, manufacturing process, or method of use.

What licensing deals involve the product?

No major current licensing transaction involving testosterone cypionate-estradiol cypionate is publicly established. The historical product was associated with legacy pharmaceutical commercialization rather than a current biotechnology licensing program.

A relaunch would likely require one of three structures:

Acquisition or licensing of historical regulatory rights
Contract manufacturing and private-label distribution
A new sponsor-funded reformulation with separate intellectual-property protection

Without evidence of an active transaction, the product should not be assigned licensing value based solely on its historical brand name.

How does the product compare with separate testosterone and estradiol therapies?

Factor	Fixed-dose combination	Separate products
Dose flexibility	Low	High
Injection convenience	Potentially high	Lower if both products are injectable
Patent strength	Weak or expired	Varies by product and formulation
Current availability	Limited or absent	Broad for multiple dosage forms
Regulatory burden	Combination-product approval	Established pathways for individual products
Commercial demand	Narrow	Larger and segmented
Prescriber control	Restricted by fixed ratio	Greater titration flexibility
Manufacturing complexity	Combined sterile formulation	Ingredient-specific manufacturing

The clinical and commercial advantage of one injection is offset by the loss of dosing flexibility. That tradeoff is central to the product’s decline.

What is the likely generic launch scenario?

A direct generic launch would probably follow a low-price, low-volume model rather than a high-growth branded strategy. The likely customer base would include niche prescribers, specialty pharmacies, and patients seeking a historical formulation unavailable through standard products.

A successful entrant would need:

FDA-approved product status
Stable sterile injectable supply
DEA-compliant distribution
A clear reimbursement strategy
Evidence of sustained demand
A formulation with acceptable injection tolerability
A commercial partner with established hormone-therapy distribution

Absent a differentiated delivery system or new indication, a relaunch would face limited pricing power.

What is the geographic coverage?

The principal commercial relevance is historical U.S. coverage. Current availability in other countries may differ because hormone products are regulated through national approval systems, and some jurisdictions permit compounded or locally registered formulations.

No broad multinational market can be assumed. A sponsor would need country-specific approval, controlled-substance compliance where applicable, local pharmacovigilance, and distribution arrangements. The United States remains the most commercially relevant reference market because testosterone cypionate is established and estradiol therapies are widely prescribed.

How strong is the patent estate?

The patent estate is weak for the historical product and does not provide an apparent basis for current exclusivity. The product’s defensibility would have to come from a new formulation, delivery system, manufacturing process, or clinically differentiated indication.

Patent factor	Assessment
Historical composition protection	Expired
Current Orange Book protection	No material active estate identified
Method-of-use protection	No current commercially relevant protection identified
Formulation protection	Historical protection is expired or immaterial
Manufacturing barriers	Moderate because sterile injectable production is complex
Regulatory barrier	Moderate to high for a new fixed-dose combination
Commercial defensibility	Low without new product differentiation

Key Takeaways

Testosterone cypionate-estradiol cypionate is a legacy injectable combination, historically associated with Depo-Testadiol.
The product has no meaningful current U.S. branded revenue based on publicly available market information.
Historical patent and exclusivity rights have expired.
No significant current Orange Book patent estate or Paragraph IV litigation is associated with the combination.
Biosimilar risk is not relevant because both ingredients are small molecules.
The active market value resides in separate testosterone and estradiol products.
A generic relaunch is technically possible but commercially constrained by low demand, sterile manufacturing costs, controlled-substance obligations, and limited dosing flexibility.
A new sponsor would need formulation, device, manufacturing, or clinical differentiation to create defensible value.

FAQs

Is Depo-Testadiol still available in the United States?

Depo-Testadiol is not a material current U.S. commercial product. Availability through individual pharmacies, distributors, or compounding channels should not be treated as evidence of an active FDA-approved branded market.

Is testosterone cypionate-estradiol cypionate the same as testosterone replacement therapy?

No. Testosterone cypionate-estradiol cypionate delivers both an androgen and an estrogen. Testosterone replacement therapy generally uses testosterone alone and is prescribed for diagnosed testosterone deficiency under applicable clinical and regulatory standards.

Can a pharmacy compound testosterone cypionate with estradiol cypionate?

Compounding is subject to federal and state requirements, pharmacy authorization, prescription limitations, quality controls, and restrictions on copying commercially available products. Compounded availability does not establish FDA approval or broad commercial distribution.

Would a new combination product receive orphan-drug protection?

Orphan-drug eligibility would depend on the proposed indication and disease prevalence, not on the historical formulation. A broad hormone-replacement indication would generally not fit the orphan-drug framework.

Could a new prefilled syringe revive the product category?

A prefilled syringe could improve convenience, dose consistency, and administration workflow. It would not by itself create durable market demand. Commercial viability would depend on clinical acceptance, reimbursement, manufacturing economics, and whether the fixed-dose ratio meets current treatment practices.

References

U.S. Food and Drug Administration. (n.d.). Drugs@FDA: FDA-approved drugs. https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cder/daf/
U.S. Food and Drug Administration. (n.d.). Approved drug products with therapeutic equivalence evaluations, commonly known as the Orange Book. https://www.fda.gov/drugs/drug-approvals-and-databases/approved-drug-products-therapeutic-equivalence-evaluations-orange-book
U.S. Food and Drug Administration. (n.d.). DailyMed: Current medication information. National Library of Medicine. https://dailymed.nlm.nih.gov/dailymed/
U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration. (n.d.). Controlled substance schedules. https://www.dea.gov/drug-information/drug-scheduling

US Patents:	0
Applicants:	1
NDAs:	1
Clinical Trials:	2
DailyMed Link:	TESTOSTERONE CYPIONATE-ESTRADIOL CYPIONATE at DailyMed

TESTOSTERONE CYPIONATE-ESTRADIOL CYPIONATE Drug Patent Profile

When do Testosterone Cypionate-estradiol Cypionate patents expire, and when can generic versions of Testosterone Cypionate-estradiol Cypionate launch?

AI Deep Research

Questions you can ask:

Summary for TESTOSTERONE CYPIONATE-ESTRADIOL CYPIONATE

Recent Clinical Trials for TESTOSTERONE CYPIONATE-ESTRADIOL CYPIONATE

US Patents and Regulatory Information for TESTOSTERONE CYPIONATE-ESTRADIOL CYPIONATE

Testosterone Cypionate-Estradiol Cypionate Market Dynamics and Financial Trajectory