生物制药的许可合规问题:公司和非营利性研究机构之间谈判的特殊挑战。

Todd A Ponzio, Hans Feindt, Steven Ferguson
{"title":"生物制药的许可合规问题:公司和非营利性研究机构之间谈判的特殊挑战。","authors":"Todd A Ponzio,&nbsp;Hans Feindt,&nbsp;Steven Ferguson","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Biopharmaceuticals are therapeutic products based on biotechnology. They are manufactured by or from living organisms and are the most complex of all commercial medicines to develop, manufacture and qualify for regulatory approval. In recent years biopharmaceuticals have rapidly increased in number and importance with over 400() already marketed in the U.S. and European markets alone. Many companies throughout the world are now ramping up investments in biopharmaceutical R&D and expanding their portfolios through licensing of early-stage biotechnologies from universities and other non-profit research institutions, and there is an increasing number of license agreements for biopharmaceutical product development relative to traditional small molecule drug compounds. This trend will only continue as large numbers of biosimilars and biogenerics enter the market.A primary goal of technology transfer offices associated with publicly-funded, non-profit research institutions is to establish patent protection for inventions deemed to have commercial potential and license them for product development. Such licenses help stimulate economic development and job creation, bring a stream of royalty revenue to the institution and, hopefully, advance the public good or public health by bringing new and useful products to market. In the course of applying for such licenses, a commercial development plan is usually put forth by the license applicant. This plan indicates the path the applicant expects to follow to bring the licensed invention to market. In the case of small molecule drug compounds, there exists a widely-recognized series of clinical development steps, dictated by regulatory requirements, that must be met to bring a new drug to market, such as completion of preclinical toxicology, Phase 1, 2 and 3 testing and product approvals. These steps often become the milestone/benchmark schedule incorporated into license agreements which technology transfer offices use to monitor the licensee's diligence and progress; most exclusive licenses include a commercial development plan, with penalties, financial or even revocation of the license, if the plan is not followed, e.g., the license falls too far behind.This study examines whether developmental milestone schedules based on a small molecule drug development model are useful and realistic in setting expectations for biopharmaceutical product development. We reviewed the monitoring records of all exclusive Public Health Service (PHS) commercial development license agreements for small molecule drugs or therapeutics based on biotechnology (biopharmaceuticals) executed by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Office of Technology Transfer (OTT) between 2003 and 2009. We found that most biopharmaceutical development license agreements required amending because developmental milestones in the negotiated schedule could not be met by the licensee. This was in stark contrast with license agreements for small molecule chemical compounds which rarely needed changes to their developmental milestone schedules. As commercial development licenses for biopharmaceuticals make up the vast majority of NIH's exclusive license agreements, there is clearly a need to: 1) more closely examine how these benchmark schedules are formed, 2) try to understand the particular risk factors contributing to benchmark schedule non-compliance, and 3) devise alternatives to the current license benchmark schedule structural model. Schedules that properly weigh the most relevant risk factors such as technology classification (e.g., vaccine vs recombinant antibody vs gene therapy), likelihood of unforeseen regulatory issues, and company size/structure may help assure compliance with original license benchmark schedules. This understanding, coupled with a modified approach to the license negotiation process that makes use of a clear and comprehensive term sheet to minimize ambiguities should result in a more realistic benchmark schedule.</p>","PeriodicalId":74071,"journal":{"name":"LES nouvelles. Licensing Executives Society (U.S.A.)","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2011-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3234133/pdf/nihms334700.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"License Compliance Issues For Biopharmaceuticals: Special Challenges For Negotiations Between Companies And Non-Profit Research Institutions.\",\"authors\":\"Todd A Ponzio,&nbsp;Hans Feindt,&nbsp;Steven Ferguson\",\"doi\":\"\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Biopharmaceuticals are therapeutic products based on biotechnology. They are manufactured by or from living organisms and are the most complex of all commercial medicines to develop, manufacture and qualify for regulatory approval. In recent years biopharmaceuticals have rapidly increased in number and importance with over 400() already marketed in the U.S. and European markets alone. Many companies throughout the world are now ramping up investments in biopharmaceutical R&D and expanding their portfolios through licensing of early-stage biotechnologies from universities and other non-profit research institutions, and there is an increasing number of license agreements for biopharmaceutical product development relative to traditional small molecule drug compounds. This trend will only continue as large numbers of biosimilars and biogenerics enter the market.A primary goal of technology transfer offices associated with publicly-funded, non-profit research institutions is to establish patent protection for inventions deemed to have commercial potential and license them for product development. Such licenses help stimulate economic development and job creation, bring a stream of royalty revenue to the institution and, hopefully, advance the public good or public health by bringing new and useful products to market. In the course of applying for such licenses, a commercial development plan is usually put forth by the license applicant. This plan indicates the path the applicant expects to follow to bring the licensed invention to market. In the case of small molecule drug compounds, there exists a widely-recognized series of clinical development steps, dictated by regulatory requirements, that must be met to bring a new drug to market, such as completion of preclinical toxicology, Phase 1, 2 and 3 testing and product approvals. These steps often become the milestone/benchmark schedule incorporated into license agreements which technology transfer offices use to monitor the licensee's diligence and progress; most exclusive licenses include a commercial development plan, with penalties, financial or even revocation of the license, if the plan is not followed, e.g., the license falls too far behind.This study examines whether developmental milestone schedules based on a small molecule drug development model are useful and realistic in setting expectations for biopharmaceutical product development. We reviewed the monitoring records of all exclusive Public Health Service (PHS) commercial development license agreements for small molecule drugs or therapeutics based on biotechnology (biopharmaceuticals) executed by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Office of Technology Transfer (OTT) between 2003 and 2009. We found that most biopharmaceutical development license agreements required amending because developmental milestones in the negotiated schedule could not be met by the licensee. This was in stark contrast with license agreements for small molecule chemical compounds which rarely needed changes to their developmental milestone schedules. As commercial development licenses for biopharmaceuticals make up the vast majority of NIH's exclusive license agreements, there is clearly a need to: 1) more closely examine how these benchmark schedules are formed, 2) try to understand the particular risk factors contributing to benchmark schedule non-compliance, and 3) devise alternatives to the current license benchmark schedule structural model. Schedules that properly weigh the most relevant risk factors such as technology classification (e.g., vaccine vs recombinant antibody vs gene therapy), likelihood of unforeseen regulatory issues, and company size/structure may help assure compliance with original license benchmark schedules. This understanding, coupled with a modified approach to the license negotiation process that makes use of a clear and comprehensive term sheet to minimize ambiguities should result in a more realistic benchmark schedule.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":74071,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"LES nouvelles. Licensing Executives Society (U.S.A.)\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2011-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3234133/pdf/nihms334700.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"LES nouvelles. Licensing Executives Society (U.S.A.)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"LES nouvelles. Licensing Executives Society (U.S.A.)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

生物制药是基于生物技术的治疗产品。它们由活生物体制造或由活生物体制造,是所有商业药物中开发、制造和获得监管批准最复杂的。近年来,生物制药的数量和重要性迅速增加,仅在美国和欧洲市场就有400多种生物制药产品上市。世界各地的许多公司现在正在加大对生物制药研发的投资,并通过从大学和其他非营利性研究机构获得早期生物技术的许可来扩大其投资组合,与传统的小分子药物化合物相比,生物制药产品开发的许可协议越来越多。随着大量生物仿制药和生物仿制药进入市场,这一趋势只会持续下去。与公共资助的非营利性研究机构有关的技术转让办公室的一个主要目标是为被认为具有商业潜力的发明建立专利保护,并许可它们用于产品开发。这种许可有助于刺激经济发展和创造就业机会,为机构带来一系列特许权使用费收入,并有望通过将新的有用产品推向市场来促进公共利益或公共健康。在申请此类许可证的过程中,许可证申请人通常会提出商业开发计划。该计划表明申请人希望遵循的将许可发明推向市场的路径。就小分子药物化合物而言,根据监管要求,有一系列广泛认可的临床开发步骤,必须满足这些步骤才能将新药推向市场,例如完成临床前毒理学,1、2和3期测试以及产品批准。这些步骤通常成为纳入许可协议的里程碑/基准时间表,技术转让办公室使用这些时间表来监督被许可人的勤奋和进展;大多数独家许可包括商业开发计划,如果不遵守计划,例如,许可证落后太多,则会受到处罚,财务甚至吊销许可证。本研究考察了基于小分子药物开发模型的开发里程碑时间表在设定生物制药产品开发期望方面是否有用和现实。我们回顾了2003年至2009年间由美国国立卫生研究院(NIH)技术转移办公室(OTT)执行的所有公共卫生服务(PHS)基于生物技术的小分子药物或疗法(生物制药)独家商业开发许可协议的监测记录。我们发现,大多数生物制药开发许可协议都需要修改,因为被许可方无法满足谈判时间表中的开发里程碑。这与小分子化合物的许可协议形成鲜明对比,后者很少需要改变其开发里程碑时间表。由于生物制药的商业开发许可证构成了NIH的绝大多数独家许可协议,因此显然需要:1)更仔细地检查这些基准时间表是如何形成的,2)试图了解导致基准时间表不合规的特定风险因素,以及3)设计替代当前许可基准时间表结构模型。适当权衡最相关风险因素的时间表,如技术分类(例如,疫苗、重组抗体、基因治疗)、不可预见的监管问题的可能性以及公司规模/结构,可能有助于确保遵守原始许可基准时间表。这种理解,再加上许可协商过程的改进方法(利用清晰而全面的条款表来最大限度地减少歧义),应该会产生更现实的基准时间表。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
License Compliance Issues For Biopharmaceuticals: Special Challenges For Negotiations Between Companies And Non-Profit Research Institutions.

Biopharmaceuticals are therapeutic products based on biotechnology. They are manufactured by or from living organisms and are the most complex of all commercial medicines to develop, manufacture and qualify for regulatory approval. In recent years biopharmaceuticals have rapidly increased in number and importance with over 400() already marketed in the U.S. and European markets alone. Many companies throughout the world are now ramping up investments in biopharmaceutical R&D and expanding their portfolios through licensing of early-stage biotechnologies from universities and other non-profit research institutions, and there is an increasing number of license agreements for biopharmaceutical product development relative to traditional small molecule drug compounds. This trend will only continue as large numbers of biosimilars and biogenerics enter the market.A primary goal of technology transfer offices associated with publicly-funded, non-profit research institutions is to establish patent protection for inventions deemed to have commercial potential and license them for product development. Such licenses help stimulate economic development and job creation, bring a stream of royalty revenue to the institution and, hopefully, advance the public good or public health by bringing new and useful products to market. In the course of applying for such licenses, a commercial development plan is usually put forth by the license applicant. This plan indicates the path the applicant expects to follow to bring the licensed invention to market. In the case of small molecule drug compounds, there exists a widely-recognized series of clinical development steps, dictated by regulatory requirements, that must be met to bring a new drug to market, such as completion of preclinical toxicology, Phase 1, 2 and 3 testing and product approvals. These steps often become the milestone/benchmark schedule incorporated into license agreements which technology transfer offices use to monitor the licensee's diligence and progress; most exclusive licenses include a commercial development plan, with penalties, financial or even revocation of the license, if the plan is not followed, e.g., the license falls too far behind.This study examines whether developmental milestone schedules based on a small molecule drug development model are useful and realistic in setting expectations for biopharmaceutical product development. We reviewed the monitoring records of all exclusive Public Health Service (PHS) commercial development license agreements for small molecule drugs or therapeutics based on biotechnology (biopharmaceuticals) executed by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Office of Technology Transfer (OTT) between 2003 and 2009. We found that most biopharmaceutical development license agreements required amending because developmental milestones in the negotiated schedule could not be met by the licensee. This was in stark contrast with license agreements for small molecule chemical compounds which rarely needed changes to their developmental milestone schedules. As commercial development licenses for biopharmaceuticals make up the vast majority of NIH's exclusive license agreements, there is clearly a need to: 1) more closely examine how these benchmark schedules are formed, 2) try to understand the particular risk factors contributing to benchmark schedule non-compliance, and 3) devise alternatives to the current license benchmark schedule structural model. Schedules that properly weigh the most relevant risk factors such as technology classification (e.g., vaccine vs recombinant antibody vs gene therapy), likelihood of unforeseen regulatory issues, and company size/structure may help assure compliance with original license benchmark schedules. This understanding, coupled with a modified approach to the license negotiation process that makes use of a clear and comprehensive term sheet to minimize ambiguities should result in a more realistic benchmark schedule.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Will Artificial Intelligence Shape The Future Of Technology Transfer? A Guide For Licensing Professionals. An Early TTO For U.S. Federal Labs-The National Technical Information Service. Beyond Hybrid Licenses-Strategies for Post Patent Expiration Payments in the United States1. Cystic Fibrosis Patents: A Case Study of Successful Licensing. If The Sky Were The Limit, What Would You Do In Technology Transfer?
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1