$3,000.00
This strategy report focuses on Big Pharma Licensing Trends with company analyses, case studies, therapy area analysis, and deal economics.
Datamonitor’s independent research and analysis provides extensive coverage of major disease areas, companies and strategic issues, giving you the perspective to identify opportunities and threats arising from shifting market dynamics and the insights to respond with faster, more effective decision-making. This strategy report focuses on Big Pharma Licensing Trends with company analyses, case studies, therapy area analysis, and deal economics.
Highlights
Disease Group Covered: | Endocrine Infectious disease Metabolic Oncology |
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
Figure 1: Big Pharma’s deal-making volume, 2011–15
© Pharma Intelligence UK Ltd. This document is a licensed product and is not to be reproduced or redistributed
Do you have a subscription to Datamonitor Healthcare, Biomedtracker or Meddevicetracker? You may already have access to these reports, contact your account manager or email pharma@informabi.com for further help or assistance.
Sign up to the Pharma Intelligence Report Store Newsletter to get the latest blogs, news, reports and discounts!