Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • From the Analyst's Couch
  • Published:

The licensing gamble: raising the stakes

Nature Reviews Drug Discovery volume 3, pages 107–108 (2004)Cite this article

Licensing activity for the top 20 pharmaceutical companies steadily increased during the decade 1988–1998, but has since slowed due to a change in licensing strategies. The increasing cost of securing access to late-stage development candidates has meant that companies are shifting their focus to earlier-stage opportunities. Furthermore, companies are increasingly looking to secure alliance deals that effectively give the licensor options on a multitude of opportunities from a discovery pipeline. An example of such an alliance is the recent deal between Hoffmann-La Roche and Antisoma, in which Antisoma licensed almost its entire pipeline, including the lead anticancer product pemtumomab (Phase III), to Roche in return for US $43 million in up-front payments and a promise of 10–20% royalties on any products Roche brings to market. In theory, payments to Antisoma could exceed US $500 million if all existing products were successfully launched, and the deal also allows Antisoma the freedom to remain independent and retain its own identity.

Big pharma revenues

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Figure 1: In-licensing therapy area priorities for the 2002 top 20 big pharma companies.
Figure 2: Licensing activity for the top 20 pharma companies steadily increased in the decade 1988–1998 before beginning to flatten off as companies have begun to revise their licensing strategies.
Figure 3
Figure 4: Revenues of the top 20 pharma companies derived from in-licensed products and in-house developed products.

References

  1. Kalamas, J. & Pinkus, G. From the analyst's couch: the optimum time for drug licensing. Nature Rev. Drug Discov. 2, 691–692 (2003).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Wood Mackenzie Limited, 5th Floor, Tower 42, 25 Old Broad Street, London, EC2N 1HN, UK

    James Featherstone & Siân Renfrey

Authors
  1. James Featherstone
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Siân Renfrey
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Featherstone, J., Renfrey, S. The licensing gamble: raising the stakes. Nat Rev Drug Discov 3, 107–108 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1038/nrd1310

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nrd1310

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing