Global Co-development Partnering deals Organized By Companies, deal terms, value

Posted by Deeksha on April 3rd, 2019

The following research report is a compilation of high-end data that has been researched thoroughly to highlight the various trends prevailing across the Co-development Partnering Terms and Agreements. This study is titled “Global Co-development Partnering Terms and Agreements” in Pharma, Biotech and Diagnostics 2014 to 2019, which carefully examines several vital factors such as Deal Making by Companies, Industry Sector, by stage of development, market dynamics and competitive scenario with numerous real life case studies 2014 to 2019.

Get Sample Copy of this Report@

The Global Co-development Partnering Terms and Agreements in Pharma, Biotech and Diagnostics 2014-2019 report provides comprehensive understanding and unprecedented access to the co-development deals and agreements entered into by the world’s leading life science companies.

This report provides details of the latest Co-development agreements announced in the pharmaceutical, biotechnology and diagnostic sectors. Fully revised and updated, the report provides details of Co-development agreements from 2014 to 2019.

There is an increasing willingness for parties to enter co-development deals; such deals enable both parties to benefit from the upside of a big product win, whereas traditional licensing deals forfeit upside for near term upfront, milestone and royalty payments.

Co-development partnering allow the parties to securitize value and reduce risk, but keep a part of the potential upside should the product reach the market. Even if the licensor does not commercialize the project they can either sell those rights to the licensee partner or another partner for an amount higher than would have been achieved at an earlier stage licensing deal.

There are mainly two forms of co-development deals; Either the parties agree on a certain division of ownership, or decide that one party gets the rights to commercialize the drug in a certain geographical area, and the other side gets the other geographical area rights. Typically, the ownership division applies when it is likely that the project will be licensed at a later point in time. The geographical split usually applies when the two companies are determined to commercialise the drug themselves.

Another reason for co-development deals is the joint origin of a project. Drug development projects often require various scientific and technological novelties that stem from different companies. If both companies contributed to the origination of the project, then both have from the beginning a stake in the project.

Understanding the flexibility of a prospective partners negotiated deals terms provides critical insight into the negotiation process in terms of what you can expect to achieve during the negotiation of terms. Whilst many smaller companies will be seeking details of the payments clauses, the devil is in the detail in terms of how payments are triggered contract documents provide this insight where press releases and databases do not.

This report contains a comprehensive listing of Co-development deals announced since 2014 as recorded in the Current Agreements deals and alliances database, including financial terms were available, plus links to online copies of actual Co-development contract documents as submitted to the Securities Exchange Commission by companies and their partners.

Contract documents provide the answers to numerous questions about a prospective partner’s flexibility on a wide range of important issues, many of which will have a significant impact on each party’s ability to derive value from the deal.

The initial chapters of this report provide an orientation of Co-development deal making and business activities. Chapter 1 provides an introduction to the report, whilst chapter 2 provides an overview and analysis of the trends in Co-development as well as a discussion on the merits of the type of deal.

Chapter 3 provides an overview of the structure of Co-development deals. The chapter includes numerous case studies to enable understanding of both pure Co-development deals and multicomponent deals where Co-development forms a part.

Chapter 4 provides a review of the leading Co-development deals since 2014. Deals are listed by headline value. Where the deal has an agreement contract published at the SEC a link provides online access to the contract via the Current Agreements deals and alliances database.

Chapter 5 provides a comprehensive listing of the top 50 most active Co-development dealmaker companies. Each deal title links via Current Agreements deals and alliances database to an online version of the full deal record, and where available, the actual contract document, providing easy access to each deal record on demand.

Chapter 6 provides a comprehensive review of co-development financials for deals announced since 2014, including headline value, upfront, milestone payments and royalty rates, providing both benchmark data and access to individual deal financials.

Chapter 7 provides a comprehensive and detailed review of Co-development deals organized by company A-Z, therapy, technology and industry type signed and announced since 2014 where a contract document is available. Contract documents provide an in depth insight into the actual deal terms agreed between the parties with respect to the Co-development deal.

The appendices to the report includes a comprehensive listing of all Co-development deals announced since 2014. Each listing is organized as an appendix by company A-Z, stage of development at signing, therapeutic area and industry type. Each deal title links via hyperlink to an online version of the deal record including, where available, the actual contract document.

The report includes deals announced by hundreds of life science companies including big pharma such as Abbott, Abbvie, Actavis, Amgen, Astellas, AstraZeneca, Baxter, Bayer, Biogen Idec, BMS, Celgene, Eisai, Eli Lilly, Gilead, GSK, J&J, Kyowa Hakko, Merck, Mitsubishi, Mylan, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, Shire, Takeda, Teva, and Valeant, amongst many others.

Request Report TOC @

Executive Summary

Chapter 1 Introduction

Chapter 2 Trends in Co-development deal making
2.1. Introduction

2.2. Definition of co-development deals

2.3. Success factors for co-development deals

2.4. When co-development can be useful

2.5. Attributes of co-development deals

2.6. Aligning partners to make the co-development work

2.7. Trends in Co-development deals since 2014

2.7.1. Co-development dealmaking by year, 2014 to 2019

2.7.2. Co-development dealmaking by phase of development, 2014 to 2019

2.7.3. Co-development dealmaking by industry sector, 2014 to 2019

2.7.4. Co-development dealmaking by therapy area, 2014 to 2019

2.7.5. Co-development dealmaking by technology type, 2014 to 2019

2.7.6. Co-development dealmaking by most active company, 2014 to 2019

2.8. Option to co-develop

2.9. The future of co-development deals

Chapter 3 Overview of Co-development deal structure
3.1. Introduction

3.2. Pure versus multi-component co-development deals

3.3. Pure co-development agreement structure

3.3.1. Example co-development agreements

3.3.1.a. Case study 1: Ambrx Zhejiang Medicine

3.3.1.b. Case study 2: UniQure - Chiesi

Chapter 4 Leading Co-development deals
4.1. Introduction

4.2. Top Co-development deals by value



Like it? Share it!


About the Author

Joined: January 3rd, 2019
Articles Posted: 12,334

More by this author