Licensing Strategies - Examining Todays Pharmaceutical Licensing Trends

Content

• Chapter 1 Executive Summary
  • Scope Of The Report
  • Interviewed Licensing Executives
  • Chapter Summary
  • Definitions
  • Key Findings
• Chapter 2 Drivers And Resistors Of Licensing
  • Both Pharma And Biotech Face The Same Challenges
  • Drivers And Resistors Of Licensing Facing Pharma And Biotechs Today
  • Drivers For The Licensee
  • In-Licensing Compensates For Declining Internal R&D
  • To Maintain And Build Upon A Company's Pipeline And Portfolio, Selective In-Licensing Is Frequently Employed
  • Resistors For The Licensee
  • In-Licensed Products Offer A Lower Roi Than Those Developed In-House
  • Competition For Products Drives Up Costs Of Licensing Deals, So Pharma Turn To Licensing At An Early-Stage Of Development
  • Drivers For The Licensor
  • Generating Cash
  • Sharing The Risk
  • Accessing External Resources And Capabilities
  • Resistors For The Licensor
  • Loss Of Control
• Chapter 3 How To Successfully Navigate The Licensing Process
  • The Key To Successful Licensing
  • The Licensing Strategy
  • Identifying An Opportunity
  • In-Licensing - Evaluating Needs And Identifying Potential Candidates
  • Out-Licensing - Overcoming Limitations
  • Partners Of Choice
  • Licensing Evaluations
  • Signing The Deal And Managing The Alliance
  • Alliance Management Structure
  • Novel Twists On Licensing Strategies - Case Study Analysis
  • Debiopharm - The Consummate Licensor
  • Versant Ventures Joins In With Lilly's Chorus
  • Pharma Looks Outside Its Traditional Portfolios
  • Deal Values
  • Deal Structures
  • Upfront Payments
  • Milestone Payments
  • R&D Costs
  • Royalties
  • Deal Structure For Marketed Products
• Chapter 4 Product Licensing Deals And Trends
  • Introduction
  • Large Pharma Turn To In-Licensing To Compensate For Flagging Internal R&D Pipelines
  • Reliance On Licensing Deals
  • Eisai Forecast To Experience The Largest Increase In Dependency On In-Licensed Products
  • Merck & Co. Set To Shift Its Dependence From In-House To In-Licensed Products By 2012
  • Boehringer Ingelheim Set To Decrease Its Reliance On Externally Sourced Products
  • Sanofi-Aventis Expected To Focus On In-Licensing In The Future
  • In-Licensing Used To Offset Deficiencies In Internal Pipelines And Portfolios
  • Deals Continue To Rise Through 2005-06
  • Deals For Drugs In Clinical Development Predominate
  • In-Licensing Forms The Majority Of Clinical Stage Drug Deals
  • Licensing And Co-Development Deals Are Most Frequently For Compounds In Preclinical And Phase I Development
  • Continued Rise In The Number Of Preclinical And Clinical Out-Licensing Deals By Big Pharma, But Deals For Marketed Drugs Fall Sharply
  • Marketing, Promotion And Distribution Deals Most Commonly Associated With Marketed Products
  • Leading Dealmakers
  • Japanese Companies Raise Their Deal-Making Profile
  • Leading In-Licensor Companies
  • Astrazeneca In-Licenses To Strengthen Its Neuroscience Portfolio
  • Novartis Carried Out The Greatest Number Of Phase I And Equal Highest Number Of Phase Iii Deals
  • Leading Co-Developers
  • Novartis And Bayer-Schering Performed The Largest Number Of Co-Development Deals
  • Roche Continues To Strengthen Key Therapy Areas Through Co-Development
  • Few Companies Entered Into Co-Development Deals For Drugs In Phase Iii Or Above
  • More Co-Development Between Large Pharma And Large Pharma/Biotech Expected In The Future
  • Companies Continue To Enter Deals For Anti-Infective And Oncology Products
  • Resurgence In Deals For Oncology Drug Candidates
  • Continued Rise In Anti-Infective And Cns Drug Deals
  • Small Molecules Remain The Target Of Choice For Licensing Deals, But It Will Be The Biologics Driving Market Growth
  • Leading Out-Licensors
  • Bayer Schering Ag Out-License Products
  • Bms Enters Out-Licensing Agreements To Share Risk And Costs
  • Roche Performed The Highest Number Of Marketed Drug Deals
  • Sanofi-Aventis Transfers Exubera Global Rights To Pfizer
  • Big Pharma Predicted To Increase Out-Licensing Deals In The Future
  • Marketing, Promotion And Distribution Deals
  • Top Companies Predominantly Enter Marketing And Promotion Deals As Partners
  • Abbott Uses Marketing Agreements To Bolster Its Position In The Respiratory Market
  • Chugai Enhances Its Position In The Cardiovascular Market Through Marketing And Promotion Deals
  • Cns And Anti-Infective Therapies Are The Most Popular Targets For Marketing And Promotion Deals
• Chapter 5 Technology Licensing Deals And Trends
  • Introduction
  • The Importance Of Technology Deals
  • Drug Discovery Deals Take A Dive
  • Leading Technology Dealmakers
  • Merck & Co. Remains The Dominant Drug Discovery Dealmaker
  • Biologic Technologies Overtake Small Molecules In Terms Of Drug Discovery Deals
  • Therapeutic Antibodies And Recombinant Proteins Are The Key Biologic Technologies Targeted In Drug Discovery Deals
  • Types Of Drug Discovery Deal
  • Assays And Arrays
  • Bioinformatics
  • Biopharmaceutical Discovery And Development
• Chapter 6 Bibliography
  • Datamonitor Reports
  • Websites
  • Publications And Online Articles
  • Glossary Of Terms
• List Of Tables
  • Table 1: Top 20 Pharmaceutical Companies, 2005-06
  • Table 2: A Complementary Strategy - Strengths That Pharma And Biotechs Bring To A Licensing Deal
  • Table 3: Ophthalmology Licensing Deals, 2005-06
  • Table 4: Current Treatments For Amd, 2006
  • Table 5: Proportion Of Upfront Payment In Terms Of Total Deal Costs Increases With Drug Development, 2005-06
  • Table 6: Upfront And Milestone Payments Made By Gsk, 2005-06
  • Table 7: Royalty Rates For In-Licensed Compounds
  • Table 8: Top 20 Pharmaceutical Companies Forecast To Grow By Only An Average Of 2.6% Cagr, 2006-12
  • Table 9: Product Deals Made By Japanese Headquartered Companies During 2005-06
  • Table 10: Key Anti-Infective Drug In-Licensing And Co-Development Deals, 2005-06
  • Table 11: Small Molecules Remain The Focus Of In-Licensing And Co-Development Deals During 2005-06
  • Table 12: Drug Discovery And Delivery Deals Made By The Top 20 Pharmaceutical Companies, 2000-06
  • Table 13: Leading Companies Licensing Biopharmaceutical Discovery And Development Technologies, 2005-06
• List Of Figures
  • Figure 1: The Key Drivers And Resistors Facing Licensees And Licensors In Today's Pharmaceutical Industry
  • Figure 2: Factors Responsible For Declining Revenues
  • Figure 3: The Number Of In-Licensing Deals Rose Rapidly In 2005-06 Following Gradual Growth Over Previous Years
  • Figure 4: Factors Determining A Licensee's Profits
  • Figure 5: In-Licensed Products Offer A Lower Roi Than Those Developed In-House
  • Figure 6: The Rising Cost Of In-Licensing, 2000-05
  • Figure 7: Resurgence In The In-Licensing Of Preclinical Compounds, 2005-06
  • Figure 8: The Pros And Cons Of In-Licensing At Different Stages Of Drug Development
  • Figure 9: Factors Leading To Partnership Breakdown During Licensing Deals
  • Figure 10: Overview Of The Pharmaceutical Licensing Process
  • Figure 11: Key Elements That Need To Be Considered When Developing A Company's Licensing Strategy
  • Figure 12: Key Factors To Be Evaluated When Identifying A Suitable In-Licensing Opportunity
  • Figure 13: Merck & Co.'S 'Submit Your Discovery' Licensing Opportunity Profile Template
  • Figure 14: Factors Which Can Tip The Balance In Favor Of Initiating Or Delaying The Out-Licensing Decision For A Licensor
  • Figure 15: Partner's Of Choice Must Satisfy Several Hard And Soft Factors
  • Figure 16: Novartis's Strategic Alliance Process
  • Figure 17: Poor Deal Management Can Have Major Detrimental Effects On The Alliance Performance
  • Figure 18: Debiopharm's Business Model
  • Figure 19: Licensing Agreement Between Lilly's Chorus And Versant Ventures
  • Figure 20: Weighing Up Upfront Payments
  • Figure 21: Mean Upfront Payments For Licensing And Co-Development Deals Made By The Top 20 Pharma, 2005-06
  • Figure 22: Total And Mean Upfront Payments By Licensor, 2005-06
  • Figure 23: Mean Milestone Payments For Licensing And Co-Development Deals Made By The Top 20 Pharma, 2005-06
  • Figure 24: Total And Mean Milestone Payments By Licensor, 2005-06
  • Figure 25: Externally Developed Drugs Will Not Be Sufficient To Offset Revenue Losses From In-House Products For Gsk, 2006-12
  • Figure 26: Top 20 Pharmaceutical Companies Forecast To Grow By Only An Average Of 2.6% Cagr, 2006-2012
  • Figure 27: Companies Increasing Their In-Licensing Dependence During 2006-12
  • Figure 28: Companies Decreasing Their In-Licensing Dependence During 2006-12
  • Figure 29: In-Licensed Products Are Not Expected To Offset Revenue Decline From In-House Products For Eisai, 2006-12
  • Figure 30: Externally Sourced Products Help Drive Merck & Co.'S Sales Growth During 2006-12
  • Figure 31: Boehringer Ingelheim Set To Decrease Its Reliance On Externally Sourced Products During 2005-06
  • Figure 32: Summary Of How Product Sourcing Is Forecast To Effect Company Sales By 2012
  • Figure 33: In-Licensing Deals In 2005-06 Versus 2000-04
  • Figure 34: In-Licensing Deals Are The Most Frequent Type Of Deal Carried Out By The Top 20 Pharmaceutical Companies, 2005-06
  • Figure 35: Deals Per Stage Of Drug Development, 2005-06
  • Figure 36: Development Stage Of Product's Licensed, By Type Of Deal, During 2005-06
  • Figure 37: Licensing And Co-Development Deals Are Most Frequently Made For Compounds In Preclinical And Phase I Development, 2005-06
  • Figure 38: Resurgence In The In-Licensing Of Preclinical Compounds, 2005-06
  • Figure 39: Continued Rise In The Number Of Preclinical And Clinical Out-Licensing Deals, But Deals For Marketed Drugs Fall Sharply, 2000-06
  • Figure 40: Definition Of Source And Partner Companies
  • Figure 41: Novartis Was The Leading Dealmaker During 2005-06
  • Figure 42: Novartis And Astrazeneca Were The Top In-Licensors During 2005-06
  • Figure 43: Number Of In-Licensing Deals Versus Sales Growth, 2005-06
  • Figure 44: Novartis And Bayer-Schering Were The Top Co-Developers During 2005-06
  • Figure 45: The Ratio Of Deals Per Therapy Area Has Changed Little Between 2000-04 And 2005-06
  • Figure 46: The Number Of Oncology And Anti-Infective In-Licensing And Co-Development Deals Grew Strongly During 2005-06
  • Figure 47: Novartis Entered Into The Greatest Number Of Small Molecule In-Licensing And Co-Development Deals, 2005-06
  • Figure 48: Significant Increases In Deal Numbers Were Made Across All Biologic Categories During 2005-06
  • Figure 49: Bayer-Schering And Bms Were The Top Out-Licensors During 2005-06
  • Figure 50: Out-Licensing Deal Territories, 2005-06
  • Figure 51: Novartis Was The Leading Company To Enter Marketing, Promotion And Distribution Deals During 2005-06
  • Figure 52: Marketing And Promotion Deals By Therapy Area, 2005-06
  • Figure 53: The Drug Development Process, Including Stages Where Drug Delivery Technologies Can Be Applied
  • Figure 54: Drug Discovery And Technology Deals Made By The Top 20 Pharmaceutical Companies, 2000-06
  • Figure 55: Merck & Co. And Novartis Performed The Most Technology Deals During 2005-06
  • Figure 56: Biologic Technologies Overtake Small Molecules In Terms Of Drug Discovery Deals, 2000-06
  • Figure 57: Therapeutic Antibodies And Recombinant Proteins Were The Key Biologics Targeted In Drug Discovery Deals, 2005-06
  • Figure 58: Drug Discovery Technologies, 2005-06