Tech Review

Licensing from a legal perspective

01.10.2011

In the last few years, major pharmaceutical companies have been keeping a sharp lookout for new technologies and developments that could help them strengthen research project pipelines, and developments at biotech companies have been of particular interest. Early recognition of such developments can allow a company both to secure new technologies and help compensate for often insufficiently stoked R&D pipelines and expiring patent protection for blockbuster products. The current trend in the industry is to enter into license agreements at an early stage – during clinical Phase I or even in the pre­clinical phase. To a great extent, complex agreements have now replaced inflexible M&A transactions.
The currently preferred “in-licensing” model has the advantage of greater flexibility and lower cost compared to the acquisition of a biotech company in the context of an M&A transaction. Thus no cost-consuming due diligence for the entire company is necessary, since only the technology for which a license is to be acquired needs to be evaluated. Terminating a license agreement with a bio­tech company if a project fails is also easier and more flexible in the context of a license transaction than the disinvestment of the equity interest in a company. What is remarkable against this backdrop is the relatively recent trend for license transactions to take place at a very early stage. Not long ago, licensing projects for drug candidates mainly involved compounds that were at least in Phase II of a clinical trial. The norm now is to strike much earlier – often in the preclinical phase. In­-licensing projects at an early stage makes sense for Big Pharma companies , because it allows them to take advantage of scientific expertise in out-of-house biotech firms in the context of developing the technology for which a license has been acquired – for example, through a greater integration of the license-granting biotech companies as R&D service providers.

The essentials

In the early project phase, tailored confidentiality agreements and term sheets that cover all key issues are absolutely essential. Signing a confidentiality agreement early on should already be a consideration in the start-up phase of a license transaction, as it helps ensure the best possible protection for the information and development results that will be disclosed by the biotech company in the context of due diligence. This includes signing a tailored confidentiality agreement and securing complete and reliable documentation regarding the documents provided. It is also important to establish good standard operating procedures (SOPs) in the companies involved. To make it easier to provide proof, if necessary, the confidentiality agreement should also stipulate that information which is to be kept confidential is clearly marked as such before disclosing it to the contracting party. In order to make the negotiations during the license transaction as efficient as possible, the preparation of a term sheet should also be considered. A term sheet ensures that the contracting parties are already fully aware of the key issues in the early stages of the negotiations, thereby preventing “deal-breakers” from popping up during late-stage contract negotiations that could easily have been identified earlier. What matters from a legal standpoint when it comes to the negotiation of a term sheet is whether – and if so, which – stipulations in the term sheet should be binding for the parties. The binding definition of the basic commercial conditions in a term sheet can lead to a substantially faster execution of a license agreement following the signing of the term sheet.

Negotiations on the

consideration

Frequently the parties’ diverging ideas about the consideration represent the first obstacle during contract negotiations. In this context, Big Pharma companies are usually interested in paying the consideration for the granted license – for instance, in the form of one-time milestone payments or recurring royalty payments – only once the drug is marketed. The bio­technology company, on the other hand, is interested in an almost immediate payment stream in order to cover at least part of its financing needs with income from the licensing project. This can be a major stumbling block with projects that are still in the pre-clinical phase or in Phase I of a clinical trial.

Minimising the risk of insolvency

In looking at this issue, one should not forget that the flow of sufficient financial resources to the biotechnology company is also essential for the Big Pharma partner, because insolvency on the part of the biotech company as licensor could have serious consequences under the current legal situation. It could even result in a situation where the pharmaceutical company loses its further right to use the license. Various contractual stipulations are possible that can help minimise the risks for the pharmaceutical company as licensee. For example, if the biotech company is forced into insolvency, the device of usufruct in favour of the licensee is often employed. Another option is a contractual stipulation that the originally licensed patent is assigned by the licensor to the licensee only after the product has reached a pre-determined development goal. From the viewpoint of company law, the establishment of a separate company (either as a wholly-owned subsidiary of the licensor or as a company in which both the licensor and the licensee have an equity interest), with the simultaneous transfer of the technology and of any associated intellectual property rights as a contribution in kind into said company, is often discussed.

Termination options

Large pharmaceutical companies in particular expect to be granted wide-ranging rights of termination in the license agreement if the project does not turn out as hoped. Biotech companies prefer long-term partners that will stay the course, and can work toward that goal – for example, by including so-called “best effort” clauses in the agreement, in which certain obligations to cooperate are imposed on the pharmaceutical company. There is also the option of assigning the research results compiled during the license agreement to the biotech company in cases where the pharmaceutical company terminates. This at least gives the biotech company the option of continuing the project with another partner, even if it causes an unwelcome delay.

To sum it up

Work on the practical and legal design of a licensing project should begin at an early stage. The peculiarities of each individual case should be considered when negotiating confidentiality agreements and term sheets. Possible deal-breakers should be identified as quickly as possible and turned into a reasonable contractual solution that is acceptable to both contracting parties. If all those bases are covered, then nothing stands in the way of a successful license transaction.D


Contact
Peter Homberg
Dr. Stefanie Greifeneder
Raupach & Wollert-Elmendorff
Rechtsanwaltsgesellschaft mbH
Franklinstrasse 48
60486 Frankfurt am Main, Germany
Tel: +49 (0)69 7191884 0
Fax: +49 (0)69 7191884 4
frankfurt@raupach.de
www.raupach.de

Politics / Law

23.03.2012

Brussels/Strasbourg – Health claims are set to be drastically limited in the EU. On Wednesday 21 March the Environment Committee of the European Parliament confirmed a proposal of the European Commission to prohibit 1,600 health...

Politics / Law

15.03.2012

Parma/Stockholm – Foodborne bacteria such as Salmonella and Campylobacter are becoming more and more resistant to antimicrobial drugs, according to a joint report published by the European food watchdog EFSA and the European...

BioFunding

09.03.2012

In mid-February, scientists and entrepreneurs from nine EU countries met at the Center for Genomic Regulation (CRG) in Barcelona to launch the 4DCellFate project. Positioned within the FP7 Programme, the consortium will receive...

BioFunding

09.03.2012

Brussels – The EU’s Innovative Medicines Initiative (IMI) will establish the European Lead Factory, an EU-wide public-private partnership aiming to facilitate drug discovery efforts. The Lead Factory will comprise a...

Editorial

07.03.2012

T    he societal and economic challenges facing Europe and the world are complex and interconnected. The Bioeconomy Strategy and Action Plan “Innovating for Sustainable Growth: a Bioeconomy for Europe”, which was adopted by the...

Tech Review

07.03.2012

Intellectual Property (IP) is without question one of the most vital aspects of any bio­tech venture, a key and undisputed factor for success. However, most bio­tech companies are still incapable of unlocking the value of their...

Clinical Trial

07.03.2012

Schlieren – Swiss Cytos Biotechnology Ltd. has been authorised to restructure a convertible bond by Canton of Zurich authorities. The company does not have enough cash to pay it back. Negotiations with bond holders failed in a...

Clinical Trial

06.03.2012

Munich – German 4SC AG jumped 39% to €2.05/share after oncology drug candidate resminostat met the primary endpoint of at least a 20% progression-free survival rate in a Phase II trial to treat patients with hepatocellular...

Editorial

06.03.2012

The start of 2012 witnessed the tides turning in favour of small and mid-cap names in the European Life Sciences sector. Major global biotechnology indices like the NBI, BTK, and BIOTK are up over 15% year to date. The pace of...

Displaying results 1 to 10 out of 1982

1-10 Next >

© 2007-2014 BIOCOM

http://www.european-biotechnology-news.com/news/messages-archive/archive/article/licensing-from-a-legal-perspective.html

Events

All Events

Stock list

All quotes

TOP

  • EVOTEC3.94 EUR8.54%
  • VITA 343.90 EUR4.00%
  • SANTHERA86.50 CHF3.59%

FLOP

  • WILEX2.30 EUR-2.54%
  • 4SC1.22 EUR-2.40%
  • ADDEX3.99 CHF-1.97%

TOP

  • SANTHERA86.50 CHF32.1%
  • BB BIOTECH144.50 EUR9.3%
  • BASILEA103.90 CHF4.4%

FLOP

  • WILEX2.30 EUR-17.9%
  • MOLOGEN7.84 EUR-17.5%
  • 4SC1.22 EUR-14.1%

TOP

  • SANTHERA86.50 CHF3831.8%
  • CO.DON2.57 EUR221.2%
  • PAION2.46 EUR182.8%

FLOP

  • CYTOS0.26 CHF-93.5%
  • MEDIGENE4.55 EUR-66.9%
  • THERAMETRICS0.08 CHF-42.9%

No liability assumed, Date: 27.08.2014


Current issue

All issues

Product of the week

Products