IP licensing: how to structure a good deal
Purpose of the study: How to best structure an IP licensing agreement taking account of embedded optionalities and other terms negotiated between licensor and licensee via a case study involving a prototypical options-based business model (biotech industry).
Methodology: Binomial lattice simulation.
Findings: It shows how IP management practices would change depending on who pays for the development costs, controls the continuation/development or abandonment option and thereby appropriates most of the embedded options value. It presents alternative (iso-value) menu licensing term choices (different combinations of royalty vs. fixed upfront fee or milestone payments) that are fair and optimal in properly accounting for the optionality embedded in R&D development and related licensing structures.
Research limits: An extension of our study lies in the collection of a dataset of remuneration structures of (market-based) licensing transactions in the biotech-pharmaceutical industry so as to empirically validate our pricing technique.
Practical implications: Real options thinking leads to different perspectives on how patent licensing agreements should be structured properly accounting for which party controls the embedded optionality.
Originality of the paper: It proposes a comprehensive real options approach to:
(a) appraise the IP asset capturing the value of optionality embedded in the underlying drug R&D program;
(b) consider licensor and licensee perspectives in negotiating the terms of the IP licensing agreement, providing guidelines on how to determine its optimal remuneration structure reflecting a fair sharing of project value and embedded optionality among the parties;
(c) offer a tool for IP portfolio management that helps a licensor prioritize internal R&D projects accounting for managerial flexibility and optimal licensing design under uncertainty.
ANANDA BN., KHANNA T. (2000), The structure of licensing contracts, The Journal of Industrial Economics, vol. 48, n. 1, pp. 103-135.
ARORA A., FOSFURI A., GAMBARDELLA A. (2001), Markets for technology and their implications for corporate strategy, Industrial and Corporate Change, vol. 10, n. 2, pp. 419-451.
ARORA A., FOSFURI A. (2003), Licensing the market for technology, Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, vol. 52, n. 2, pp. 277-295.
ARORA A., CECCAGNOLI M. (2006), Patent protection, complementary assets and firms incentives for technology licensing, Management Science, vol. 52, n. 2, pp. 535-554.
BEGGS AW. (1992), The licensing of patents under asymmetric information, International Journal of Industrial Organization, vol. 10, n. 2, pp. 171-194.
BERK JB., GREEN RC., NAIK V. (2004), Valuation and return dynamics of new ventures, Review of Financial Studies, vol. 17, n. 1, pp. 1-35.
BESSY C., BROUSSEAU E., SAUSSIER S. (2004), Payment schemes in technology licensing agreements: a transaction cost approach, Working Paper FORUM, Universit Paris X & ATOM.
BOUSQUET A., CREMER H., IVALDI M., WOLKOWICZ M. (1998), Risk sharing in licensing, International Journal of Industrial Organization, vol. 16, n. 5, pp. 293-308.
CAP GEMINI ERNST & YOUNG. (2001), Perspective on Life Science, 3(Fall).
CAVES E., CROOKELL H., KILLING JP. (1983), The imperfect market for technology licenses, Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, vol. 45, n. 3, pp. 249-267.
CHESBROUGH H. (2003), The logic of open innovation: managing intellectual property, California Management Review, vol. 45, n. 3, pp. 33-58.
CHILDS P., TRIANTIS AJ. (1999), Dynamic R&D investment policies, Management Science, vol. 45, n. 10, pp. 1359-1377.
CRAMA P., DE REYCK B., DEGRAEVE Z., CHONG W. (2007), R&D project valuation and licensing negotiations at Phytopharm plc, Interfaces, vol. 37, n. 5, pp. 472-487.
CRAMA P., DE REYCK B., DEGRAEVE Z. (2008), Milestone payments or royalties? Contract design for R&D licensing, Operations Research, vol. 56, n. 6, pp. 1539-1552.
DIMASI JA. (2001), New drug development in U.S. 1963-1999, Clinical Pharmacology Therapeutics, vol. 69, n. 5, pp. 286-296.
DRUG WEEK. (2003), Study shows pharmaceutical licensing deals stem from existing relationships. http://www.newsrx.com./newletters/Drug-Week/2003-12-26.
ELFENBEIN DW. (2007), Patents, publications, and the market for university inventions, Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, vol. 63, n. 4, pp. 688-715.
ERNST & YOUNG. (2009). Beyond Borders. Global Biotechnology Report.
GALLINI NT., WRIGHT BD. (1990), Technology transfer under asymmetric information, RAND Journal of Economics, vol. 21, n. 1, pp. 147-160.
GRANSTRAND O. (1999), The Economics and Management of Intellectual Property, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham.
HALL C. (1991), Renting ideas, Journal of Business, vol. 64, n. 1, pp. 21-48.
HERATH H.S.B., PARK CS. (1999). Economic analysis of R&D projects : an options approach, The Engineering Economist, vol. 44, n. 1, pp. 1-32.
HERNANDEZ-MURILLO R., LLOBET G. (2006), Patent licensing revisited: heterogeneous firms and product differentiation, International Journal of Industrial Organization, vol. 24, n. 1, pp. 149-175.
JENSEN R., THURSBY M. (2001), Proofs and prototypes for sale: the licensing of university inventions, American Economic Review, vol. 91, n. 1, pp. 240-259.
KAMIEN MI., TAUMAN Y. (1984), The private value of a patent: A game theoretic analysis, Journal of Economics, vol. 4, supplement pp. 93-118.
KAMIEN MI., TAUMAN Y. (1986), Fees versus royalties and the private value of a patent, Quarterly Journal of Economics, vol. 101, n. 3, pp. 471-493.
KAMIEN MI., OREN S., TAUMAN Y. (1992), Optimal licensing of cost-reducing innovation, Journal of Mathematical Economics, vol. 21, n. 5, pp. 483-508.
KATZ ML., SHAPIRO C. (1985), On the licensing of innovations, Rand Journal, vol. 16, n. 4, pp. 504-520.
KATZ ML., SHAPIRO C. (1986), How to license intangible property, Quarterly Journal of Economics, vol. 101, n. 3, pp. 567-590.
LAYNE-FARRAR A., LERNER J. (2006), Valuing patents for licensing: a practical survey of the literature, Working Paper, SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1440292.
LEWIS N., ENKE D., SPURLOCK D. (2004), Valuation for the strategic management of research and development projects: the deferral option, Engineering Management Journal, vol. 16, n. 4, pp. 36-48.
MACHO-STADLER I., MARTINEZ-GIRALT X., PEREZ-CARSTRILLO JD. (1996), The role of information in licensing contract design, Research Policy, vol. 25, n. 1, pp. 43-57. MedAd NEWS. 2000 November.
MILTERSEN KR., SCHWARTZ E. (2004), R&D investments with competitive interactions, Review of Finance, vol. 8, n. 3, pp. 355-401.
PAXSON DA. (2001), Introduction to real R&D options, R&D Management, vol. 31, n. 2, pp. 109-113.
PERLITZ M., PESKE T., SCHRANK R. (1999), Real options valuation: the new frontier in R&D project evaluation?, R&D Management, vol. 29, n. 3, pp. 255-269.
PINDYCK R. (1993), Investments of uncertain cost, Journal of Financial Economics, vol. 34, n. 1, pp. 53-76.
RAZGAITIS R. (2003), Valuation and Pricing of Technology-Based Intellectual Property, John Wiley & Sons, New York.
RUBACK RS., KRIEGER DB. (2000), Merck & Co.: evaluating a drug licensing opportunity. Case 9-201-023, Harvard Business School Publishing, Boston, MA.
SCHWARTZ E., MOON M. (2000), Evaluating research and development investments, in Brennan M., Trigeorgis L. Innovation, Infrastructure and Strategic Options, (eds), Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 85-106.
SCHWARTZ ES. (2004), Patents and R&D as real options, Economic Notes, vol. 33, n. 1, pp. 23-54.
SHAPIRO C. (1985), Patent licensing and R&D rivalry, American Economic Review, vol. 75, n. 2, pp. 25-30.
SMIT TJ., TRIGEORGIS L. (2004), Strategic Investment, Princeton University Press: Princeton, NJ.
TAYLOR C., SILBERTSON Z. (1973), The Economic Impact of the Patent System: A Study of the British Experience, Cambridge University Press, New York.
THURSBY M., THURSBY J., DECHENEAUX E. (2005), Shirking, sharing risk, and shelving: the role of university license contracts, Working Paper 11128, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA.
TRIGEORGIS L. (1996), Real Options. Managerial Flexibility and Strategy in Resource Allocation, The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.