07 February, 2017

James C. Greenwood is President and CEO of the Biotechnology Innovation Organization (BIO) in Washington, D.C., which represents more than 1,200 biotechnology companies, academic institutions, state biotechnology centers and related organizations across the United States and in more than 30 other nations. We recently had the opportunity to sit down with him and get his perspective on the future of biopharma partnering. 


How do you see the biopharma industry’s partnering needs, requirements and activities changing over the next five years? 

Over the last several years we’ve seen a shift in who is having the discussions. It used to be between small and large companies. Now we see partnering among patient groups, investors, academia, regional development groups and even payers. We need to make sure all these players are meeting with the right people. 

Do you see finding a partner becoming easier or harder, and even more essential to a biotech’s success? 

I would say, yes, partnering has become essential and is very common now between the small biotechs and big pharma—both have something to gain. Did you know that 65% of recently approved drugs originated in small companies? Large pharma is increasingly realizing that the in-house R&D model doesn’t necessarily produce enough new products to justify the amount of investment. Combining this trend with older drugs coming off patent makes in-licensing—or partnering—even more attractive.

On the small company side, there are two drivers beyond capital requirements. First, is the lack of expertise in commercialization, manufacturing, or late-stage clinical programs, especially in the tech transfer space. Partnering with large companies can help close that gap. Secondly, small companies are realizing that they must prioritize multiple assets—choosing which to own and which to out-license. This approach to pipeline partnering, vs. go-it-alone portfolio building, has allowed more supply to meet the pharma demand. 

How do you see BIO’s role evolving over time to better support partnering? 

BIO has invested heavily to develop the best technologies for connecting potential partners. We arrange more than 50,000 partnering meetings annually with BIO’s One-On-One PartneringTM system. User feedback helps us continually enhance the user experience. For example, we are now in the process of enhancing our mobile app features to make the user experience even better. We also recognize that confidentiality of intellectual property is paramount to an effective partnering program. BIO’s relationship with ShareVault provides an excellent option to protect the confidentiality of intellectual property that needs to be shared before, during and after the partnering meetings. 

From BIO’s perspective, what are the most important factors in successful biopharma deal making? 

  • At the top of the list would be to make sure the team tasked with running the project has “the right stuff” to take the product to the finish line. This could mean franchise expertise or deep knowledge within a specific pathway or molecular target.
  • Second would be how much value does the team bring to the table. This ebbs and flows with economic conditions, but strong upfront payments and near-term clinical milestones to the licensee and a win/win on the royalty structure tend to create a successful partnership more often than not.
  • Third is how much commitment does the large company have? This might be hard to gauge in the early negotiations, but having the right people to champion the program internally can mean a lot for funding.
  • Fourth is paying attention to the relationships before and after signing. To get the deal done in the first place can require lengthy back and forth discussions, but to make the collaboration a success, productive relationships between the deal teams companies must be developed and nurtured.

What are the most common reasons that partnerships don’t come to fruition?

No-go decisions fall into three buckets. First is that the program simply does not fit into the strategic plans of the large company. Second is that the asset is too early-stage; and third, the asset has not been developed with the quality that the large company expected.

For example, if the small company has run a Phase 2 clinical trial with fewer patients and low bar endpoints than is typical for the large company, then this is an asset that is hard to get behind, even for a great product with high potential. Last but not least, the economics of the deal terms are such that where one party feels they are not getting the perceived or necessary value.

Learn the Nuts & Bolts of Biopharma Partnering

Stay tuned for our next monthly Vault Series featuring another great BioPharma star with insights to make you a better deal maker.

About James C. Greenwood

James C. Greenwood is President and CEO of the Biotechnology Innovation Organization (BIO) in Washington, D.C., which represents more than 1,200 biotechnology companies, academic institutions, state biotechnology centers and related organizations across the United States and in more than 30 other nations. BIO members are involved in the research and development of innovative healthcare, agricultural, industrial and environmental biotechnology products. BIO also produces the annual BIO International Convention, the world's largest gathering of the biotechnology industry, along with industry-leading investor and partnering meetings held around the world. Since his appointment in January of 2005, he has markedly enhanced the trade association’s capacity – increasing both its staff and budget by nearly fifty percent. BIO is now a world class advocacy organization playing a leading role in shaping public policy on a variety of fronts critical to the success of the biotechnology industry at the state and national levels as well as internationally. Mr. Greenwood represented Pennsylvania's Eighth District in the U.S. House of Representatives from January 1993 through January 2005. A senior member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, he was widely viewed as a leader on health care and the environment. From 2001 to 2004, Mr. Greenwood served as Chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigation with oversight authority over issues in the full Committee's vast jurisdiction. He led hard-hitting investigations into corporate governance at Enron, Global Crossing and WorldCom; terrorist threats to our nation's infrastructure; and waste and fraud in federal government agencies. Prior to his election to Congress, Mr. Greenwood served six years in the Pennsylvania General Assembly (1981-86) and six years in the Pennsylvania Senate (1987-1992). Mr. Greenwood graduated from Dickinson College in 1973 with a BA in Sociology. From 1977 until 1980, he worked as a caseworker with abused and neglected children at the Bucks County Children and Youth Social Service Agency. Mr. Greenwood is married with three children and resides in Upper Makefield, Pennsylvania.

Learn the Nuts & Bolts of Biopharma Partnering


Popular Posts

About the Author

We work with a rich ecosystem of industry influencers to take on topics that matter to bring you insight for biopharma partnering, mergers and acquisitions, fundraising and best practices for secure document sharing during due diligence activities.

Stay up to date on the latest industry tips and advice