Cover Image
Market Research Report

Big Pharma Licensing Trends, 2012-16

Published by Datamonitor Healthcare Product code 498960
Published Content info 95 Pages
Delivery time: 1-2 business days
Price
Back to Top
Big Pharma Licensing Trends, 2012-16
Published: March 9, 2017 Content info: 95 Pages
Description

Between 2012 and 2016, Big Pharma - a peer set of approximately 16 firms across the world with large R&D and sales organizations, and annual revenues in excess of $10bn - signed over 1,200 drug-focused deals, growing at a compound annual growth rate of 12%. The top five dealmakers in terms of volume were AstraZeneca, Johnson & Johnson, Roche, Pfizer, and Merck & Co. Overall, Big Pharma represented the majority of the monetary value of all biopharma partnerships: the peer group was responsible for $151bn in deal-making during the five-year period out of the $287bn in all comparable biopharma alliances (including the Big Pharma peer set).

As of 2016, Big Pharma companies had approximately 337 candidates in the pipeline for cancer, which is well over two times that of any other therapeutic area. This was reflected in the peer set's deal-making; between 2012 and 2016, about one-third of Big Pharma's in- and out-licensing deals were in oncology, and immuno-oncology was the key driver of oncology in-licensing. Big Pharma companies signed more alliances to bring early-stage candidates in-house than any other phase, and out-licensed more approved or marketed products. One-third of the total in-licensing deal volume involved regional partnering, while out-licensing was led by North American territories - namely the US - where development, commercialization, and research/discovery deal structures were more prominent than flat-out divestments. Both in- and out-licensing by Big Pharma reflected a collaborative nature, as development/co-development and research/discovery were the most commonly used deal structures in alliances.

The source for the deal data used in this report is Informa's Medtrack. In addition, Informa's Strategic Transactions was also referenced for background information on deals.

Table of Contents
Product Code: DMKC0170516

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

KEY POINTS AND OVERALL TOTALS

  • Deal volume increased but Big Pharma's overall share was small
  • Big Pharma represented the majority of deal-making spend
  • 2014 and 2015 were stand-out years in Big Pharma deal-making
  • Bibliography

COMPANY ANALYSIS AND CASE STUDIES

  • AstraZeneca was the leading dealmaker by overall volume within the Big Pharma peer set
  • Johnson & Johnson signed key cancer deals and formed an innovation initiative
  • Roche continued oncology momentum but deal-making showed importance of other therapeutic areas
  • Pfizer's in-licensing fluctuated while out-licensing efforts decreased
  • Merck & Co's in-licensing drives strategy to become oncology leader
  • Overall, out-licensing increased by 47% and Teva had the largest proportion in the peer set
  • Bibliography

THERAPY AREA ANALYSIS

  • Oncology dominated Big Pharma deal volume
  • Endocrine, metabolic, and genetic disorders deal-making gained speed
  • Infectious diseases agreements declined, but there is potential for a turnaround
  • Oncology also led in terms of partnership dollar values
  • Oncology was also the focus of most out-licensing deals
  • Bibliography

DEAL ECONOMICS

  • Sanofi was the top dealmaker by dollars spent within the Big Pharma peer set
  • Johnson & Johnson's billion-dollar deals provided a strong position
  • AstraZeneca spent a large up-front sum
  • Payment metrics on deals generally increased
  • Average deal values increased
  • A higher proportion of deal value was still locked up in milestones
  • There were almost three-dozen billion-dollar deals between 2012 and 2016
  • Bibliography

PHASE ANALYSIS

  • Early-stage candidates dominated partnerships
  • Phase I and II candidates led in aggregate up-front payments
  • Phase I and II drugs tended to have higher average up-front payments
  • Bibliography

GEOGRAPHIC BREAKDOWN OF DEAL-MAKING

  • North American deal-making grew
  • Bibliography

DEAL STRUCTURES

  • R&D was the most common component of deal structures
  • In-licensing deal structure varied across phases
  • Option-based deal-making is possibly making a comeback
  • Bibliography

APPENDIX

  • Scope
  • Methodology

LIST OF FIGURES

  • Figure 1: Big Pharma's deal-making volume, 2012-16
  • Figure 2: Big Pharma's deal values and share of overall deal-making value, 2012-16
  • Figure 3: Big Pharma deal-making value ranges, 2012-16
  • Figure 4: Big Pharma's deal volume, by company, 2012-16
  • Figure 5: Big Pharma's licensing deal volume CAGR, 2012-16
  • Figure 6: AstraZeneca's deal-making activity: shrinking divide between in-licensing and out-licensing, 2012-16
  • Figure 7: AstraZeneca's in-licensing deals by therapy area, 2012-16
  • Figure 8: AstraZeneca's out-licensing deals by deal type, 2012-16
  • Figure 9: AstraZeneca's out-licensing deals by therapy area, 2012-16
  • Figure 10: Johnson & Johnson's deal-making activity: out-licensing picks up, 2012-16
  • Figure 11: Johnson & Johnson Innovation in-licensing deals by volume, 2012-16
  • Figure 12: Johnson & Johnson Innovation in-licensing deals by therapy area, 2012-16
  • Figure 13: Johnson & Johnson's in-licensing deals by therapy area, 2012-16
  • Figure 14: Roche's deal-making activity: in-licensing increased while out-licensing decreased, 2012-16
  • Figure 15: Roche's in-licensing deals by therapy area, 2012-16
  • Figure 16: Roche's out-licensing deals by therapy area, 2012-16
  • Figure 17: Pfizer's deal-making activity, 2012-16
  • Figure 18: Pfizer's in-licensing deals by therapy area, 2012-16
  • Figure 19: Pfizer's out-licensing deals by deal type, 2012-16
  • Figure 20: Pfizer's out-licensing deals by therapy area, 2012-16
  • Figure 21: Merck & Co's deal-making activity, 2012-16
  • Figure 22: Merck & Co's in-licensing deals by therapy area, 2012-16
  • Figure 23: Merck & Co's out-licensing deals by therapy area, 2012-16
  • Figure 24: Big Pharma's out-licensing increased but is still outpaced by in-licensing, 2012-16
  • Figure 25: Big Pharma's in-licensing/out-licensing activity by company, 2012-16
  • Figure 26: Eli Lilly's out-licensing deals by therapy area, 2012-16
  • Figure 27: Big Pharma's in-licensing deals by therapy area, 2012-16
  • Figure 28: Big Pharma's deal volume by therapy area, 2012-16
  • Figure 29: Big Pharma's in-licensing deals, by therapy area and phase of development, 2012-16
  • Figure 30: Top oncology in-licensing dealmakers, 2012-16
  • Figure 31: Big Pharma's infectious diseases in-licensing deals by infection type, 2012-16
  • Figure 32: Big Pharma's in-licensing deals by total deal value, 2012-16
  • Figure 33: Value of up-front and milestone payments of in-licensing deals by therapy area, 2012-16
  • Figure 34: Big Pharma's out-licensing deals by therapy area, 2012-16
  • Figure 35: Big Pharma's big spenders in in-licensing deals, 2012-16
  • Figure 36: Big Pharma's licensing payments by payment metric, 2012-16
  • Figure 37: Big Pharma's in-licensing deals by payment metric average, 2012-16
  • Figure 38: Big Pharma's average up-front payments in in-licensing deals by phase of development, 2012-16
  • Figure 39: Total up-front payment values and up-front payments as a percentage of in-licensing deal value, 2012-16
  • Figure 40: Big Pharma's in-licensing deals by phase of development at deal signing, 2012-16
  • Figure 41: Share of preclinical and Phase I in-licensing deals increases, 2012-16
  • Figure 42: Strong representation across all phases in Big Pharma's in-licensing deals, 2012-16
  • Figure 43: Marketed products dominated Big Pharma's out-licensing deals, 2012-16
  • Figure 44: Big Pharma's in-licensing deal economics by phase of development, 2012-16
  • Figure 45: Big Pharma's average up-front payments for in-licensing deals by phase of development, 2012-16
  • Figure 46: Big Pharma's average total deal values for in-licensing deals by phase of development, 2012-16
  • Figure 47: Big Pharma's in-licensing deal volume proportions by licensed geography, 2012-16
  • Figure 48: Big Pharma's out-licensing deal volume proportions by licensed geography, 2012-16
  • Figure 49: Big Pharma's worldwide in-licensing deals decreased and North American carve-outs increased, 2012-16
  • Figure 50: Geographic breakdown of in-licensing geography by Big Pharma peer set, 2012-16
  • Figure 51: Big Pharma's in-licensing deals by deal structure, 2012-16
  • Figure 52: Big Pharma's out-licensing deals by deal structure, 2012-16
  • Figure 53: Development and research/discovery consistently featured in Big Pharma's in-licensing deals, 2012-16
  • Figure 54: In-licensing deal structure by phase, 2012-16

LIST OF TABLES

  • Table 1: Big Pharma's lucrative immuno-oncology deals, 2012-16
  • Table 2: Big Pharma's in-licensing deal values by company, 2012-16
  • Table 3: Top 10 Big Pharma in-licensing deals, by deal value, 2012-16
  • Table 4: Big Pharma peer set
Back to Top