6.2.4.2. Networking for early biopharmaceutical executives
6.2.5. Becoming partner of choice
6.3. Deal timeframes
6.4. Deal valuation
6.4.1. Factors contributing to the deal valuation
6.4.1.1. Intellectual property
6.4.1.2. Development phase
6.4.1.3. Cost of clinical trials
6.4.1.4. Risks associated with commercializing too late
6.4.1.5. Benchmark values
6.4.1.6. Preclinical/clinical data
6.4.1.7. Risk of failure
6.4.1.8. Size and value of therapeutic market
6.4.1.9. Competition for licensing rights
6.4.1.10. Partner' s expertise/reputation in given field
6.4.1.11. Impact on internal R&D programs
6.4.2. Due diligence as a valuation tool
6.5. Keeping a deal successful
6.5.1. Commitment to the deal
6.5.2. Know your partner
6.5.3. Thorough due diligence
6.5.4. Patent and IP management
6.5.5. Comprehensive deal agreement
6.5.6. Feasible and achievable milestones
6.5.7. Proactive management of issues
6.5.8. Regular communication
6.5.9. Tracking of payments and royalties
6.6. When to negotiate termination
6.7. What makes a deal ' newsworthy' ?
7. Deal terms and trends - An analysis of early stage deals
7.1. Why are deal-terms put in the public domain?
7.2. Does survey data reflect the real deal?
7.3. Headline valuations
7.5. Components of the deal
Appendix 1 - Glossary of terms
Appendix 2 - Resources
Appendix 3 - Complex deal terms: an outline
Appendix 4 - Press releases
Case Study 4.1
Case study 4.2
Case study 4.3
Case study 4.4
Case study 4.5
Case study 4.6
Case study 4.7
Case study 4.8
Case study 4.9
Case study 4.10
Case study 4.11
Case study 4.12
Case study 4.13
Case study 4.15
Case study 4.16
Case study 4.17
Case study 4.18
Case study 5.1
Appendix 5 - References
Appendix 6 - Biographies
Acknowledgements
Pharmalicensing
Pharmalicensing Order Form
List of Tables
Table 1. GSK' s - Centers of Excellence for Drug Discovery consists of 7
individual centres. 13Table 2. R&D project mathematical valuation models
need to be more complex in order to reflect reality.
Table 3. Big pharmas dealmaking trends show that they prefer to invest in
similar development stages.
Table 5. The top 5 deal values in Jan 2006 - Oct 2006 combined reached a
total of more than $US 1.6 billion.
Table 6. Top 5 upfront payments between Jan-2006 and Oct-2006.
Table 7. The top 5 valued University deals, Jan-2006 to Oct-2006.
Table 8. A summary of different deal types.
Table 8. Payment strategies - components of the deal
Table 9. Variants affecting royalty payments
Table 11. Attributes that attract partners
Table 11. Major early-stage partnering events
Table 12. A selection of networking clubs worldwide
Table 14. Early stage deals deal frames - from contact to signature
Table 15. Factors contributing to deal valuation
Table 16. Ongoing due diligence to keep a deal successful
Table 17. A preclinical project is worth significantly less than a phase I
or phase II project.
List of Figures
Figure 1. Amount raised from partnering 1980-2005. 7
Figure 2. Between Jan 2006 - Oct 2006, 6 early stage deals were valued at
over $US 100 million.
Figure 3. Deals disclosing upfront payments between Jan 2006-Oct 2006.
Figure 4. The values of University deals are significantly lower than
biotech deals between Jan 2006 and Oct 2006.
Figure 6. Key information sources for partnering executives
Figure 7. Lead Molecule R&D projects have increased most in value Jan.
2003 to Oct. 2006.
Figure 8. Breakdown of discovery deals from 2003 to October 2006*
Figure 9. Breakdown of lead discovery deals from 2003 to October 2006*
Figure 10. Preclinical deals from 2003 to October 2006*
Figure 11. Average total upfront payments by stage of development at deal
closing ($ million)
Figure 13. Average royalty rates by stage of development at deal closing
(%)
View Cart
