Headline Vantage Point – Big pharma increasingly circumspect on licensing front
Source EP Vantage
Company Sanofi-Aventis 
Related: Abbott LaboratoriesAmgenAstraZenecaBayerBristol-Myers SquibbEli LillyGlaxoSmithKlineJohnson & JohnsonMerck & CoNovartisPfizerRocheSchering-PloughWyeth 
Date October 09, 2009
 

Last week EP Vantage revealed which big pharma companies are spending the most on M&A this year, with the likes of Abbott LaboratoriesSanofi-Aventis and  GlaxoSmithKline clearly placing the most faith in a “bolt-on” acquisition strategy to bolster pipelines and diversify their business (Vantage Point - Is big pharma spending its way out of trouble?, October 2, 2009).

Today we assess the trends and approaches to product licensing within the same big pharma group, revealing some interesting insights. Once again Sanofi and Glaxo appear at the top of the table so far this year with the most deals and highest amounts paid out in upfront fees, whereas  Abbott’s track record of licensing pharmaceutical products is virtually negligible. Meanwhile the mega-mergers of Wye-Pfi and SchMerck appear to have had contrasting effects on the licensing behaviour of the acquiring parties – whereas Pfizer has taken its foot off the deals pedal, Merck is pushing it to the metal.

The following analysis draws on product licensing data from EvaluatePharma, highlighting the total number of deals, and where disclosed by the companies the aggregated upfront fees paid as well as total deal values. 

Product Licensing Activity: 2007 to 2009 latest  
  2009 (YTD)    2008    2007 
  Deal Count  Upfront Fee ($m)  Deal Value ($m)     Deal Count  Upfront Fee ($m)  Deal Value ($m)     Deal Count  Upfront Fee ($m)  Deal Value ($m)  
Johnson & Johnson  5   507   826     8   78   931     9   194   1,693  
Sanofi-Aventis  14   266   1,972     6   14   105     5   122   1,373  
GlaxoSmithKline  12   200   1,300     23   560   6,880     28   182   5,607  
Merck & Co  11   172   1,397     6   22   577     11   150   1,665  
Bristol-Myers Squibb  2   145   1,492     5   250   1,747     9   65   233  
Bayer AG    10   138   1,682     5   79   106     3   82   431  
AstraZeneca  7   125   1500     4   40   40     15   189   2,034  
Roche  6   116   1,181     2   78   779     9   342   1,590  
Novartis  5   83   687     7   20   20     14   105   1,938  
Eli Lilly  2   5   642     14   49   829     5   205   2,061  
Pfizer  5   -   -     11   340   1,900     17   334   1,891  
Schering-Plough  1   2   2     -   -   -     10   108   1,545  
Amgen  -   -   -     1   100   520     2   42   725  
Wyeth  2   21   21     3   -   -     9   5   189  
Abbott Laboratories  1   10   18     1   -   -     1   -   -  
                       
Annual Totals  83  1,790  12,719    96  1,630  14,433    147  2,123  22,975 
                       
Annnual Averages  6  138  978    7  136  1,203    10  152  1,641 

Big pharma more selective

Whilst the picture for 2009 is obviously yet to be completed, in terms of year-on-year trends it would seem that big pharma is striking fewer deals than in the past and the total and average value of these deals is also in decline.

In 2007 big pharma signed 147 product deals with $2.1bn paid out in upfront fees; in 2008 these figures dropped to 96 and $1.6bn respectively and so far this year 83 deals have been struck for a total upfront commitment of $1.8bn. The figures for 2009 may be skewed slightly by the recording of Johnson & Johnson's recent $500m deal with Elan for the Irish group's Alzheimer's franchise including  bapineuzumab; technically the $500m, used to establish a joint venture to develop bapineuzumab, is an upfront fee but not in the conventional sense.

The overall picture of a decline, or at best a flat level of deals, is surprising given that one of the assumed impacts of the credit crisis was that big pharma would be flooded with licensing opportunities and could take up more of these offers in an attempt to bolster their ailing pipelines.

Although big pharma is no doubt awash with partnering offers, it would seem they have become much more circumspect in their licensing behaviour and perhaps have also been able to use their greater bargaining power to drive down the cost of these deals.

Not good news in general therefore for companies seeking a lucrative deal for their pipeline assets. Not only is competition for the attention of big pharma much tougher, it seems the size of any deal is also likely to be lower than in previous years.

Mega-merger impact

Another natural force potentially driving down deal numbers and values is the recent spat of mega-mergers which has already removed Genentech from the partnering field and will soon see the removal of  Wyeth and  Schering-Plough as potential partners. Interestingly however, neither  Wyeth nor Schering have been particularly prolific on the licensing front in recent years so it may not be such a major loss in this respect.

Pfizer, until this year and their move on Wyeth, had been very active in licensing new products, but it seems they are now pre-occupied with the merger and may remain fairly dormant after the deal is completed as they reassess their pipeline opportunities. 

Conversely, Merck does not appear to be as constrained by its pending acquisition of Schering and in fact this year looks like being its busiest licensing period in recent times. Companies seeking a partner may therefore have more luck at Merck’s door than Pfizer's.

Big deals still out there

Nevertheless, a review of the top ten biggest deals so far this year reveals that the billion dollar licensing deals can still be struck, even if the upfront fees are not quite as high as in the past.

AstraZeneca, previously conspicuous by being quite so quiet on the both the M&A and licensing front, recently signed the biggest deal to date when signing a broad deal with Nektar Therapeutics for up to $1.5bn.  Astra also signed a potentially significant deal with  Forest Laboratories for  ceftaroline although financial terms were not disclosed.

The league table also highlights that big pharma remains the place to be in terms of securing the biggest deals; outside of these companies only Celgene and  Biogen Idec have struck deals that feature in the top ten.  

Top 10 licensing product deals in 2009 (YTD) 
Rank  Product  Pharmacological Class  Therapeutic Category  Company  Product Source  Status  Deal Value ($m)   Upfront Fee ($m) 
NKTR-118 +  NKTR-119  Opioid antagonist  Other gastro-intestinal agents  AstraZeneca  Nektar Therapeutics  Phase II  1,500   125  
XL147  PI3K inhibitor   Cytostatics  Sanofi-Aventis  Exelixis  Phase II  1,217   140  
PEG-IFN-lambda  Interferon  Anti-virals  Bristol-Myers Squibb  ZymoGenetics  Phase I  1,107   105  
Alpharadin  Radiotherapy agent  Radiopharmaceuticals  Bayer AG   Algeta  Phase III  789   60  
Kynapid  Anti-arrhythmic  Cardiac therapy  Merck & Co  Cardiome  Filed  700   60  
PRT128  Platelet ADP antagonist  Platelet aggregation inhibitors  Novartis  Portola Pharmaceuticals  Phase II  575   75  
GI-4000  Ras vaccine  Immunostimulants  Celgene  GlobeImmune  Phase II  540   40  
MM-121  Anti-cancer MAb  Anti-neoplastic MAbs  Sanofi-Aventis  Merrimack Pharmaceuticals  Phase I  530   60  
Fampridine SR  Potassium channel antagonist  MS Therapies  Biogen Idec   Acorda  Phase III  510   110  
10  Bapineuzumab  Anti-beta amyloid MAb  Nootropics  Johnson & Johnson  Elan  Phase III  500   500  
 

This content is written, edited and published by EP Vantage and is distributed by EvaluatePharma Ltd. All queries regarding the content should be directed to: news@epvantage.com

EP Vantage is a unique, forward-looking, news analysis service tailored to the needs of pharma and finance professionals. EP Vantage focuses on the events that will define the future of companies, products and therapy areas, with detailed financial analysis of events in real-time, including regulatory decisions, product approvals, licensing deals, patent decisions, M&A.

Drawing on EvaluatePharma, an industry-leading database of actual and forecast product sales and financials, EP Vantage gives readers the insight to make value-enhancing decisions.

EP Vantage SM ©2010 EP Vantage Ltd