Cover Image
Market Research Report

Post-Patent Generic and Biosimilar Defense Strategies: Harnessing Competitive Tactics to Mitigate Revenue Erosion

Published by Cutting Edge Information Product code 121988
Published Content info 233 Pages
Delivery time: 1-2 business days
Price
Back to Top
Post-Patent Generic and Biosimilar Defense Strategies: Harnessing Competitive Tactics to Mitigate Revenue Erosion
Published: May 13, 2013 Content info: 233 Pages
Description

Fresh off of 2012's patent cliff, the life sciences industry is bracing for a second cliff in 2015 - with sales losses that may total some $33.5 billion. For any company looking toward the later stages of brand life, now is the time to plan a counter-generics strategy.

To prolong brand sales and mitigate revenue erosion, key initiatives - including exclusivity extensions, line extensions and competitive tactics - require ample time to yield lucrative results.

This report examines counter-generics and biosimilar strategies for Top 10, Top 50 and small pharmas. Data show counter-generics strategy, team structures and staffing, and 39 new case studies explore companies' experiences deploying 13 different counter-generics tactics. At the deepest level of detail, profiles depict 10 counter-generics team structures, strategy mixes and planning timelines.

Plan for and implement a diverse and robust set of strategies

Compare your team's action plan against the ideal timeline for counter-generics strategy development to learn when to use the right tactic at the right time. Then combine strategies to maximize a brand's revenue potential.

Build a strong counter-generics task force

Determine whether generics defense efforts require a dedicated structure or an ad hoc team, and position key functions - including product and brand management and business development - to drive strategy planning.

Prepare for coming biosimilar competition and changing approval pathways

The biologics landscape is changing as more biosimilar products seek approval. Compare biosimilar pathways in the US and EU markets, and ready counterbiosimilar tactics to supplement the inherent barriers to developing and manufacturing biosimilar products.

KEY METRICS

Chapter 1: Shaping an Effective Counter-Generics Strategy Through Team Structure and Generic Partnerships

Chapter Benefits

  • Maximize revenue potential by planning counter-generics strategies earlier in the product lifecycle.
  • Determine whether counter-generics strategy creation requires a dedicated structure or an ad hoc team.
  • Build dedicated counter-generics teams or non-dedicated task forces using the best-fit FTEs.
  • Decide each function's involvement - whether FTEs are formally on teams versus contributing to them - plus the number of FTEs from each function.
  • Learn from other companies' experiences partnering with generics manufacturers to further product revenue.

Key Metrics

52 charts detail the prevalence of dedicated counter-generics teams, group structures, team staffing and number of generic manufacturer partnerships.

  • 2 real-world examples of dedicated counter-generics team structures
  • Number of years prior to patent expiry team begins developing counter-generics strategy (Top 10, Top 50 and small pharma)
  • Percentage of companies with dedicated counter-generics management structures (Top 10, Top 50 and small pharma)
  • Departments/functions represented on or contributing to dedicated counter-generics teams (Top 10, Top 50 and small pharma)
  • Department/function leading dedicated counter-generics teams (Top 10, Top 50 and small pharma)
  • Number of FTEs representing specific departments on dedicated counter-generics teams, by company
  • Departments/functions contributing to counter-generics strategies at companies with no dedicated team for all company types (Top 10, Top 50 and small pharma)
  • Percentage of companies that have partnered with a generics manufacturer (Top 10, Top 50 and small pharma)
  • Companies' perception of experience with generics manufacturer partnerships for all companies and by company type (Top 10, Top 50 and small pharma)
  • Prevalence of party initiating generics licensing process (branded company, generics company or third party)

Chapter 2: Exclusivity Extension Tactics: Maximizing Patent Potential

Chapter Benefits

  • Implement exclusivity tactics to extend patent protection and maximize product revenue.
  • Weigh the benefits and risks of four (4) exclusivity extension tactics:
    • Litigation
    • Pediatric exclusivity
    • Citizen petitions
    • Pay for delay deals
  • Compare best-fit counter-generics tactics based on company type, planning time and available resources.
  • Explore 3 product case studies and 1 brand profile for each exclusivity extension tactic (with the exception of citizen petitions).

Key Metrics

14 charts detail the prevalence of exclusivity extension tactics within surveyed companies' overall counter-generics strategies - as well as real-world brands' experiences using these tactics.

  • Average percentage of exclusivity extension tactic usage for all companies
  • Percentage of all companies using specific exclusivity extension strategies:
    • Litigation
    • Citizen petition
    • Pediatric exclusivity
    • Pay for delay
  • Brand profile highlighting use of each exclusivity extension strategy (litigation, citizen petition, pediatric exclusivity and pay for delay)
  • Change in global sales beyond patent protection (historic sales and projected sales) for specific branded drugs:
    • Abilify
    • Cymbalta
  • Number of potential pay for delay settlements by fiscal year (2004-2012)

Chapter 3: Competitive Tactics: Proven Strategies for Combating Generic Erosion

Chapter Benefits

  • Leverage competitive tactics to prepare for generic competition during late-stage planning efforts.
  • Drive brand loyalty and patient adherence through patient-facing pricing counter-promotion strategies.
  • Weigh the benefits and risks of four (4) competitive tactics:
    • Pricing
    • Authorized generics
    • Generics subsidiaries
    • Counter-promotion
  • Compare best-fit counter-generics tactics based on company type, planning time and available resources.
  • Explore three (3) product case studies and one (1) brand profile for each competitive tactic.

Key Metrics

19 charts show the prevalence of competitive extension tactics among both surveyed companies' counter-generics strategies and real-world brand implementations.

  • Average percentage of competitive tactic usage for all companies
  • Percentage of all companies that use specific competitive strategies:
    • Pricing
    • Authorized generic
    • Generic subsidiary
    • Counter-promotion
  • Brand profile showing overview and counter-generics tactics for each exclusivity extension strategy (pricing, authorized generics, generic subsidiary, counter-promotion)
  • Change in global sales (historic sales and projected sales) beyond patent protection for specific branded drugs:
    • Lipitor
    • Fosamax
    • Lotrel
    • Zoloft
    • Geodon
    • Epivir

Chapter 4: Line Extension Tactics: Driving Revenue Growth through Clinical Development

Chapter Benefits

  • Plan early to implement line extension tactics that hold market share through brand loyalty, improved patient adherence and potential patent protection.
  • Weigh the benefits and risks of five (5) line extension tactics:
    • New formulations
    • New indications
    • Next-generation drugs
    • Combination drugs
    • Over-the-counter (OTC) switch
  • Compare best-fit counter-generics tactics based on company type, planning time and available resources.
  • Explore 3 product case studies and 1 brand profile for each line extension tactic.

Key Metrics

18 charts show the prevalence of line extension tactics within surveyed companies' counter-generics strategies and real-world brands using these tactics.

  • Average percentage of line extension tactic usage for all companies
  • Percentage of all companies that use specific line extension strategies:
    • New formulations
    • New indications
    • Next-generation drugs
    • Combination drug
    • OTC switch
  • Brand profile showing overview and counter-generics tactics for each exclusivity extension strategy (new formulations, new indications, next-generation drugs, combination drugs and OTC)
  • Change in global sales (historic sales and projected sales) beyond patent protection for specific branded drugs:
    • Propecia and Proscar
    • Diovan

Chapter 5: Optimizing Companywide Counter-Generics Strategy and Navigating Biosimilar Competition

Chapter Benefits

  • Allow adequate planning time, pending the clinical or partnership needs for each counter-generics tactic.
  • Diversify counter-generic tactics to best drive a product's sales and prolong its place in the market.
  • Understand and prepare for new biosimilar approval pathways in the US market, and compare US and EU regulations.
  • Plan biosimilar protection strategies to supplement biologics' inherent protections.
  • Prepare for a growing biosimilar market and the increasing role of litigation in protecting biologic companies' intellectual property.

Key Metrics

20 charts detailing the prevalence of each of 13 counter-generics strategies among surveyed companies - and insight into the emerging threat of biosimilar drugs.

  • Benefits of brand building versus price competition in counter-generics strategies
  • Percentage of all companies using specific counter-generic tactics
  • Ideal counter-generics strategy development timeline
  • Prevalence of all counter-generics tactics for all companies
  • Prevalence of counter-generics strategy type (exclusivity extension, competitive or line extension) by company type (Top 10, Top 50 and small companies)
  • Biologics and biosimilars regulatory timeline
  • Comparison of biosimilar regulations in the US and EU
  • Percentage of biologics and small-molecule drug companies using each counter-generics tactic

Chapter 6: Company-Specific Counter-Generics Strategy Profiles

Chapter Benefits

  • Benchmark counter-generics teams against departments with similar structures and size.
  • Compare counter-generics strategy timelines against companies using similar tactics.
  • Review profiles across company sizes:
    • Five (5) Top 10 pharma
    • Two (2) Top 50 pharma
    • Three (3) Small pharma

Key Metrics

10 profiles detailing real-world counter-generics teams:

  • Company background
  • Team structure and staffing
  • Companywide counter-generics strategy
  • Counter-generics strategy timeline
Table of Contents
Product Code: PH181

Table of Contents

Executive Summary

  • Study Methodology
  • Study Definitions
  • Counter-Generics Strategies: Five Principles for Success

Shaping an Effective Counter-Generics Strategy through Team Structure and Generic Partnerships

  • Ideal Strategy Timing Relative to Patent Expiry
  • Counter-Generics Team Structure
  • Partnering with Generics Manufacturers

Exclusivity Extension Tactics: Maximizing Patent Potential

  • Protect Exclusivity through Patent Litigation
  • Ensure Generic Bioequivalence through Citizen Petitions
  • Build Clinical Knowledge with Pediatric Trials
  • Maximize Market Share through Pay for Delay Deals

Competitive Tactics: Proven Strategies for Combatting Generic Erosion

  • Compete with Generics through Pricing Strategies
  • Build Alliances to Distribute Authorized Generics
  • Releasing Authorized Generics through a Subsidiary
  • Counter-Promotion to Drive Brand Sales

Line Extension Tactics: Driving Revenue Growth through Clinical Development

  • New Formulations of an Expiring Product
  • New Indications Improve Brand Lifecycle Longevity
  • Next-Generation Drugs Push for Improvements in Standard of Care
  • Drug Combinations Improve Convenience and Patient Adherence
  • Over-the-Counter Switch Increases Accessibility of Brand

Optimizing Companywide Counter-Generics Strategy and Navigating Biosimilar Competition

  • Companywide Counter-Generics Tactics
  • Biosimilars Threaten Biologic Market Share

Company-Specific Counter-Generics Strategy Profiles

CHARTS AND GRAPHICS

Executive Summary

Counter-Generics Strategies: Five Principles for Success

  • Figure E.1: Ideal Counter-Generic Strategy Development Timeline
  • Figure E.2: Number of Years Prior to Patent Expiry Team Begins Developing Counter-Generics Strategy: All Companies
  • Figure E.3: Percentage of Companies with Dedicated Counter-Generics Team Structure: All Companies
  • Figure E.4: Departments/Functions Contributing to Counter-Generics Strategies at Companies with No Team or Ad Hoc Teams: All Companies
  • Figure E.5: Companies' Impressions of Experiences with Generics Manufacturer Partnerships: All Companies
  • Figure E.6: Companies' Impressions of Experiences with Generics Manufacturer Partnerships, by Company Type
  • Figure E.7: Prevalence of Counter-Generics Tactics: All Companies
  • Figure E.8: Prevalence of Counter-Generics Tactics Used by Biologics and Small-Molecule Brands: All Companies

Shaping an Effective Counter-Generics Strategy through Team Structure and Generic Partnerships

Ideal Strategy Timing Relative to Patent Expiry

  • Figure 1.1: Number of Years Prior to Patent Expiry That Team Begins Developing Counter-Generics Strategy: All Companies
  • Figure 1.2: Number of Years Prior to Patent Expiry That Team Begins Developing Counter-Generics Strategy: Top 10 Companies
  • Figure 1.3: Number of Years Prior to Patent Expiry That Team Begins Developing Counter-Generics Strategy: Top 50 Companies
  • Figure 1.4: Number of Years Prior to Patent Expiry That Team Begins Developing Counter-Generic Strategy: Small Companies

Counter-Generics Team Structure

  • Figure 1.5: Percentage of Companies with Dedicated Counter-Generics Team Structure: All Companies
  • Figure 1.6: Percentage of Companies with Dedicated Counter-Generics Team Structure: Top 10 Companies
  • Figure 1.7: Percentage of Companies with Dedicated Counter-Generics Team Structure: Top 50 Companies
  • Figure 1.8: Percentage of Companies with Dedicated Counter-Generics Team Structure: Small Companies
  • Figure 1.9: Departments/Functions Represented on or Contributing to Dedicated Counter-Generics Teams: All Companies
  • Figure 1.10: Departments/Functions Represented on or Contributing to Dedicated Counter-Generics Teams: Top 10 Companies
  • Figure 1.11: Departments/Functions Represented on or Contributing to Dedicated Counter-Generics Teams: Top 50 Companies
  • Figure 1.12: Departments/Functions Represented on or Contributing to Dedicated Counter-Generics Teams: Small Companies
  • Figure 1.13: Departments/Functions Represented on Dedicated Counter-Generics Teams: All Companies
  • Figure 1.14: Departments/Functions Represented on Dedicated Counter-Generics Teams: Top 10 Companies
  • Figure 1.15: Departments/Functions Represented on Dedicated Counter-Generics Teams: Top 50 Companies
  • Figure 1.16: Departments/Functions Represented on Dedicated Counter-Generics Teams: Small Companies
  • Figure 1.17: External Departments/Functions Contributing to Dedicated Counter-Generics Strategy: All Companies
  • Figure 1.18: External Departments/Functions Contributing to Dedicated Counter-Generics Strategy: Top 10 Companies
  • Figure 1.19: External Departments/Functions Contributing to Dedicated Counter-Generics Strategy: Top 50 Companies
  • Figure 1.20: External Departments/Functions Contributing to Dedicated Counter-Generics Strategy: Small Companies
  • Figure 1.21: Department/Function in Charge of Dedicated Counter-Generics Teams: All Companies
  • Figure 1.22: Department/Function in Charge of Dedicated Counter-Generics Teams: Top 10 Companies
  • Figure 1.23: Department/Function in Charge of Dedicated Counter-Generics Teams: Top 50 Companies
  • Figure 1.24: Department/Function in Charge of Dedicated Counter-Generics Teams: Small Companies
  • Figure 1.25: Dedicated Counter-Generics Team Structure: Company 44
  • Figure 1.26: Dedicated Counter-Generics Team Structure: Company 23
  • Figure 1.27: Number of Business Development FTEs on Dedicated Counter-Generics Team, by Company
  • Figure 1.28: Number of Clinical Development FTEs on Dedicated Counter-Generics Team, by Company
  • Figure 1.29: Number of Discovery FTEs on Dedicated Counter-Generics Team, by Company
  • Figure 1.30: Number of Government/Public Affairs FTEs on Dedicated Counter-Generics Team, by Company
  • Figure 1.31: Number of Legal/Patents FTEs on Dedicated Counter-Generics Team, by Company
  • Figure 1.32: Number of Lifecycle Management FTEs on Dedicated Counter-Generics Team, by Company
  • Figure 1.33: Number of Market Research/Competitive Intelligence FTEs on Dedicated Counter- Generics Team, by Company
  • Figure 1.34: Number of Medical Affairs FTEs on Dedicated Counter-Generics Team, by Company
  • Figure 1.35: Number of Pharmacoeconomics FTEs on Dedicated Counter-Generics Team, by Company
  • Figure 1.36: Number of Portfolio Management FTEs on Dedicated Counter-Generics Team, by Company
  • Figure 1.37: Number of Pricing FTEs on Dedicated Counter-Generics Team, by Company
  • Figure 1.38: Number of Product/Brand Management FTEs on Dedicated Counter-Generics Team, by Company
  • Figure 1.39: Number of Quality Assurance/Quality Control FTEs on Dedicated Counter-Generics Team, by Company
  • Figure 1.40: Number of Regulatory Affairs FTEs on Dedicated Counter-Generics Team, by Company
  • Figure 1.41: Number of Sales FTEs on Dedicated Counter-Generics Team, by Company
  • Figure 1.42: Departments/Functions Contributing to Counter-Generics Strategies at Companies with No Team or Ad Hoc Teams: All Companies
  • Figure 1.43: Departments/Functions Contributing to Counter-Generics Strategies at Companies with No Team or Ad Hoc Teams: Top 10 Companies
  • Figure 1.44: Departments/Functions Contributing to Counter-Generics Strategies at Companies with No Team or Ad Hoc Teams: Top 50 Companies
  • Figure 1.45: Departments/Functions Contributing to Counter-Generics Strategies at Companies with No Team or Ad Hoc Teams: Small Companies

Partnering with Generics Manufacturers

  • Figure 1.46: Percentage of Companies That Have Partnered With a Generics Manufacturer: All Companies
  • Figure 1.47: Percentage of Companies That Have Partnered With a Generics Manufacturer: Top 10 Companies
  • Figure 1.48: Percentage of Companies That Have Partnered With a Generics Manufacturer: Top 50 Companies
  • Figure 1.49: Percentage of Companies That Have Partnered With a Generics Manufacturer: Small Companies
  • Figure 1.50: Companies' Impressions of Generics Manufacturer Partnership Experiences: All Companies
  • Figure 1.51: Companies' Impressions of Generics Manufacturer Partnership Experiences, by Company Type
  • Figure 1.52: Party Initiating Generics Licensing Process

Exclusivity Extension Tactics: Maximizing Patent Potential

  • Figure 2.1: Average Percentage of Exclusivity Extension Tactic Usage: All Companies

Protect Exclusivity through Patent Litigation

  • Figure 2.2: Percentage of All Companies That Use Counter-Generic Strategy: Litigation
  • Figure 2.3: Litigation Brand Profile Overview
  • Figure 2.4: Litigation Brand Profile Tactics

Ensure Generic Bioequivalence through Citizen Petitions

  • Figure 2.5: Percentage of All Companies That Use Counter-Generic Strategy: Citizen Petition

Build Clinical Knowledge with Pediatric Trials

  • Figure 2.6: Percentage of All Companies That Use Counter-Generic Strategy: Pediatric Exclusivity
  • Figure 2.7 Change in Abilify Global Sales Beyond Patent Protection
  • Figure 2.8 Change in Cymbalta Global Sales Beyond Patent Protection
  • Figure 2.9: Pediatric Exclusivity Brand Profile Overview
  • Figure 2.10: Pediatric Exclusivity Brand Profile Tactics

Maximize Market Share through Pay for Delay Deals

  • Figure 2.11: Number of Potential Pay for Delay Settlements Annually
  • Figure 2.12: Percentage of All Companies That Use Counter-Generic Strategy: Pay for Delay
  • Figure 2.13: Pay for Delay Brand Profile Overview
  • Figure 2.14: Pay for Delay Brand Profile Tactics

Competitive Tactics: Proven Strategies for Combating Generic Erosion

  • Figure 3.1: Average Percentage of Competitive Tactic Usage: All Companies

Compete with Generics through Pricing Strategies

  • Figure 3.2: Percentage of All Companies That Use Counter-Generic Strategy: Pricing
  • Figure 3.3 Change in Lipitor Global Sales Beyond Patent Protection
  • Figure 3.4: Pricing Brand Profile Overview
  • Figure 3.5: Pricing Brand Profile Tactics

Build Alliances to Distribute Authorized Generics

  • Figure 3.6: Percentage of All Companies That Use Counter-Generic Strategy: Authorized Generic
  • Figure 3.7: Change in Fosamax Global Sales Beyond Patent Protection
  • Figure 3.8: Authorized Generic Brand Profile Overview
  • Figure 3.9: Authorized Generic Brand Profile Tactics

Releasing Authorized Generics through a Subsidiary

  • Figure 3.10: Percentage of All Companies That Use Counter-Generic Strategy: Generics Subsidiary
  • Figure 3.11: Change in Lotrel Global Sales Beyond Patent Protection
  • Figure 3.12: Change in Zoloft Global Sales Beyond Patent Protection
  • Figure 3.13: Generic Subsidiary Brand Profile Overview
  • Figure 3.14: Generic Subsidiary Brand Profile Tactics

Counter-Promotion to Drive Brand Sales

  • Figure 3.15: Percentage of All Companies That Use Counter-Generic Strategy: Counter Promotion
  • Figure 3.16: Change in Geodon Global Sales Beyond Patent Protection
  • Figure 3.17: Change in Epivir Global Sales Beyond Patent Protection
  • Figure 3.18: Counter Promotion Brand Profile Overview
  • Figure 3.19: Counter Promotion Brand Profile Tactics

Line Extension Tactics: Driving Revenue Growth through Clinical Development

  • Figure 4.1: Average Percentage of Line Extension Tactic Usage: All Companies

New Formulations of an Expiring Product

  • Figure 4.2: Percentage of All Companies That Use Counter-Generic Strategy: Formulations
  • Figure 4.3: Formulation Brand Profile Overview
  • Figure 4.4: Formulation Brand Profile Tactics

New Indications Improve Brand Lifecycle Longevity

  • Figure 4.5: Percentage of All Companies That Use Counter-Generic Strategy: Indications
  • Figure 4.6: Change in Proscar and Propecia Global Sales Beyond Patent Protection
  • Figure 4.7: Indication Brand Profile Overview
  • Figure 4.8: Indication Brand Profile Tactics
  • Figure 4.9: Percentage of All Companies That Use Counter-Generic Strategy: Next-Generation Drugs

Next-Generation Drugs Push for Improvements in Standard of Care

  • Figure 4.10: Next-Generation Drugs Brand Profile Overview
  • Figure 4.11: Next-Generation Drugs Brand Profile Tactics

Drug Combinations Improve Convenience and Patient Adherence

  • Figure 4.12: Percentage of All Companies That Use Counter-Generic Strategy: Combination Drug
  • Figure 4.13: Diovan Projected US and Global Sales
  • Figure 4.14: Combination Brand Profile Overview
  • Figure 4.15: Combination Brand Profile Tactics

Over-the-Counter Switch Increases Accessibility of Brand

  • Figure 4.16: Percentage of All Companies That Use Counter-Generic Strategy: OTC
  • Figure 4.17: OTC Brand Profile Overview
  • Figure 4.18: OTC Brand Profile Tactics

Optimizing Companywide Counter-Generics Strategy and Navigating Biosimilar Competition

  • Figure 5.1: Counter-Generics Strategies: Brand-Building vs. Price Competition
  • Figure 5.2: Percentage of All Companies Using Counter-Generic Tactics
  • Figure 5.3: Ideal Counter-Generics Strategy Development Timeline
  • Figure 5.4: Prevalence of Counter-Generics Tactics: All Companies

Companywide Counter-Generics Tactics

  • Figure 5.5: Prevalence of Exclusivity Extension Tactics: All Companies
  • Figure 5.6: Prevalence of Exclusivity Extension Tactics: Top 10 Companies
  • Figure 5.7: Prevalence of Exclusivity Extension Tactics: Top 50 Companies
  • Figure 5.8: Prevalence of Exclusivity Extension Tactics: Small Companies
  • Figure 5.9: Prevalence of Competitive Tactics: All Companies
  • Figure 5.10: Prevalence of Competitive Tactics: Top 10 Companies
  • Figure 5.11: Prevalence of Competitive Tactics: Top 50 Companies
  • Figure 5.12: Prevalence of Competitive Tactics: Small Companies
  • Figure 5.13: Prevalence of Line Extension Tactics: All Companies
  • Figure 5.14: Prevalence of Line Extension Tactics: Top 10 Companies
  • Figure 5.15: Prevalence of Line Extension Tactics: Top 50 Companies
  • Figure 5.16: Prevalence of Line Extension Tactics: Small Companies

Biosimilars Threaten Biologic Market Share

  • Figure 5.17: Biologics and Biosimilars Regulatory Timeline
  • Figure 5.18: Biosimilar Regulations in the US and EU
  • Figure 5.19: Biosimilar Regulations in the US and EU
  • Figure 5.20: Prevalence of Counter-Generics Tactics Used by Biologics and Small-Molecule Brands: All Companies

Company-Specific Counter-Generics Strategy Profiles

  • Figure 6.1: Company 4 Counter-Generics Team
  • Figure 6.2: Company 4 Counter-Generics Strategy
  • Figure 6.3: Company 7 Counter-Generics Team
  • Figure 6.4: Company 7 Counter-Generics Strategy
  • Figure 6.5: Company 3 Counter-Generics Team
  • Figure 6.6: Company 3 Counter-Generics Strategy
  • Figure 6.7: Company 25 Counter-Generics Team
  • Figure 6.8: Company 25 Counter-Generics Strategy
  • Figure 6.9: Company 27 Counter-Generics Team
  • Figure 6.10: Company 27 Counter-Generics Strategy
  • Figure 6.11: Company 26 Counter-Generics Team
  • Figure 6.12: Company 26 Counter-Generics Strategy
  • Figure 6.13: Company 26 Counter-Generics Generic Partnerships
  • Figure 6.14: Company 41 Counter-Generics Team
  • Figure 6.15: Company 41 Counter-Generics Strategy
  • Figure 6.16: Company 36 Counter-Generics Team
  • Figure 6.17: Company 36 Counter-Generics Strategy
  • Figure 6.18: Company 34 Counter-Generics Team
  • Figure 6.19: Company 34 Counter-Generics Strategy
  • Figure 6.20: Company 1 Counter-Generics Team
  • Figure 6.21: Company 1 Counter-Generics Strategy
Back to Top