TABLE OF CONTENTS

6 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

9 KEY POINTS AND OVERALL TOTALS
9 Deal volume increased but Big Pharma’s overall share was small
9 Big Pharma represented the majority of deal-making spend
10 2014 and 2015 were stand-out years in Big Pharma deal-making
11 Bibliography

13 COMPANY ANALYSIS AND CASE STUDIES
14 AstraZeneca was the leading dealmaker by overall volume within the Big Pharma peer set
20 Johnson & Johnson signed key cancer deals and formed an innovation initiative
24 Roche continued oncology momentum but deal-making showed importance of other therapeutic areas
27 Pfizer’s in-licensing fluctuated while out-licensing efforts increased
32 Overall, out-licensing increased by 42% and Amgen and Eli Lilly evenly split in- and outlicensing
36 Bibliography

41 THERAPY AREA ANALYSIS
41 Oncology dominated Big Pharma deal volume
49 Infectious disease agreements declined, but there is potential for a turnaround
50 Endocrine, metabolic, and genetic disorders gained speed
52 Oncology also led in terms of partnership dollar values
54 Oncology was also the focus of most out-licensing deals
56 Bibliography

59 DEAL ECONOMICS
59 Johnson & Johnson was the top dealmaker by dollars spent within the Big Pharma peer set
62 Payment metrics on deals generally increased
63 Average deal values increased
65 A higher proportion of deal value was still locked up in milestones
66 There were more than two-dozen billion-dollar deals between 2011 and 2015

70 PHASE ANALYSIS
70 Early-stage candidates dominated partnerships
73 Marketed drugs and Phase II candidates led in aggregate up-front payments
74 Phase II and marketed drugs tended to have higher average up-fronts

77 GEOGRAPHIC BREAKDOWN OF DEAL-MAKING
78 Regional deal-making took off
80 Bibliography

81 DEAL STRUCTURES
81 R&D was the most common component of deal structures
83 Option-based deal-making decreased
83 Bibliography

85 APPENDIX
85 About the author
85 Scope
85 Methodology

LIST OF FIGURES

9 Figure 1: Big Pharma’s deal-making volume, 2011–15
10 Figure 2: Big Pharma’s deal values and share of overall deal-making value, 2011–15
11 Figure 3: Mid-to-higher-value deals dominate in Big Pharma’s deal-making, 2011–15
13 Figure 4: Big Pharma’s deal volume, by company, 2011–15
13 Figure 5: Big Pharma’s licensing deal volume CAGR, 2011–15
15 Figure 6: AstraZeneca’s deal-making activity: shrinking divide between in-licensing and outlicensing, 2011–15
17 Figure 7: AstraZeneca’s in-licensing deals, by therapy area, 2011–15
18 Figure 8: AstraZeneca’s out-licensing deals, by deal type, 2011–15
19 Figure 9: AstraZeneca’s out-licensing deals, by therapy area, 2011–15
20 Figure 10: Johnson & Johnson’s deal-making activity: greater focus on in-licensing, 2011–15
22 Figure 11: Johnson & Johnson’s in-licensing deals, by therapy area, 2011–15
24 Figure 12: Roche’s deal-making activity: in-licensing increased while out-licensing decreased, 2011–15
25 Figure 13: Roche’s in-licensing deals, by therapy area, 2011–15
27 Figure 14: Roche’s out-licensing deals, by therapy area, 2011–15
28 Figure 15: Pfizer’s deal-making activity, 2011–15
29 Figure 16: Pfizer’s in-licensing deals, by therapy area, 2011–15
31 Figure 17: Pfizer’s out-licensing is led by divestments of rights, 2011–15
31 Figure 18: Pfizer out-licensed in similar therapy areas to in-licensing but in different deal structures, 2011–15
32 Figure 19: Big Pharma’s out-licensing increased but is still outpaced by in-licensing, 2011–15
33 Figure 20: Big Pharma’s in-licensing/out-licensing activity, by company, 2011–15
34 Figure 21: Eli Lilly’s in-licensing deals, by therapy area, 2011–15
36 Figure 22: Eli Lilly’s out-licensing deals, by therapy area, 2011–15
41 Figure 23: Big Pharma’s in-licensing deals, by therapy area, 2011–15
41 Figure 24: Big Pharma’s deal volume, by therapy area, 2011–15
42 Figure 25: Big Pharma’s in-licensing deals, by therapy area and phase of development, 2011–15
48 Figure 26: Top oncology in-licensing dealmakers, 2011–15
49 Figure 27: Big Pharma’s infectious disease in-licensing deals, by infection type, 2011–15
52 Figure 28: Big Pharma’s in-licensing deals, by total deal value, 2011–15
53 Figure 29: Value of up-front and milestone payments of in-licensing deals, by therapy area, 2011–15
54 Figure 30: Big Pharma’s out-licensing deals, by therapy area, 2011–15
59 Figure 31: Big Pharma’s big spenders in in-licensing deals, 2011–15
62 Figure 32: Big Pharma’s licensing payments, by payment metric, 2011–15
63 Figure 33: Big Pharma’s in-licensing deals, by payment metric average, 2011–15
64 Figure 34: Big Pharma’s average up-front payments in in-licensing deals, by phase of development, 2011–15
65 Figure 35: Total up-front payment values and up-front payments as a percentage of inlicensing deal value, 2011–15
70 Figure 36: Big Pharma’s in-licensing deals, by phase of development at deal signing, 2011–15
70 Figure 37: Share of preclinical and Phase I in-licensing deals increases, 2011–15
71 Figure 38: Strong representation across all phases in Big Pharma’s in-licensing deals, 2011–15
72 Figure 39: Marketed products dominated Big Pharma’s out-licensing deals, 2011–15
73 Figure 40: Big Pharma’s in-licensing deal economics, by phase of development, 2011–15
75 Figure 41: Big Pharma’s average up-front payments for in-licensing deals, by phase of development, 2011–15
75 Figure 42: Big Pharma’s average total deal values for in-licensing deals, by phase of development, 2011–15
77 Figure 43: Big Pharma’s in-licensing deal volume, by licensed geography, 2011–15
77 Figure 44: Big Pharma’s out-licensing deal volume, by licensed geography, 2011–15
78 Figure 45: Big Pharma’s worldwide in-licensing deals decreased and regional carve-outs increased, 2011–15
79 Figure 46: Geographic breakdown of in-licensing geography by Big Pharma peer set, 2011–15
81 Figure 47: Big Pharma’s in-licensing deals, by deal structure, 2011–15
81 Figure 48: Big Pharma’s out-licensing deals, by deal structure, 2011–15
82 Figure 49: Development and research/discovery consistently featured in Big Pharma’s inlicensing deals, 2011–15

LIST OF TABLES

45 Table 1: Big Pharma’s lucrative immuno-oncology deals, 2011–15
60 Table 2: Big Pharma’s in-licensing deal values, by company, 2011–15
67 Table 3: Top 10 Big Pharma in-licensing deals, by deal value, 2011–15
85 Table 4: Datamonitor Healthcare’s Big Pharma peer set