For a long time, the cure for diabetes type 1 and type 2 has relied on agonizing insulin shots for patients or insulin infusion via mechanical pumps. Regarding this, experts have been creating artificial pancreatic beta cells with the he…
Global Hematology Partnering 2010 to 2021 provides the full collection of Hematology disease deals signed between the world's pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies since 2010.
Trends in Hematology partnering deals
Financial deal terms for headline, upfront and royalty by stage of development
Hematology partnering agreement structure
Hematology partnering contract documents
Top Hematology deals by value
Most active Hematology dealmakers
Most of the deals included within the report occur when a licensee obtains a right or an option right to license a licensor's product or technology. More often these days these deals tend to be multi-component including both a collaborative R&D and a commercialization of outcomes element.
The report takes readers through the comprehensive Hematology disease deal trends, key players and top deal values allowing the understanding of how, why and under what terms companies are currently entering Hematology deals.
The report presents financial deal terms values for Hematology deals, where available listing by overall headline values, upfront payments, milestones and royalties enabling readers to analyse and benchmark the value of current deals.
The initial chapters of this report provide an orientation of Hematology dealmaking trends.
Chapter 1 provides an introduction to the report.
Chapter 2 provides an overview of the trends in Hematology dealmaking since 2010 covering trends by year, deal type, stage of development, technology type and therapeutic indication.
Chapter 3 includes an analysis of financial deal terms covering headline value, upfront payment, milestone payments and royalty rates.
Chapter 4 provides a review of the leading Hematology deals since 2010. Deals are listed by headline value. The chapter includes the top 25 most active Hematology dealmakers, together with a full listing of deals to which they are a party. Where the deal has an agreement contract published at the SEC a link provides online access to the contract.
Chapter 5 provides comprehensive access to Hematology deals since 2010 where a deal contract is available, providing the user with direct access to contracts as filed with the SEC regulatory authorities. Each deal title links via Weblink to an online version of the deal record contract document, providing easy access to each contract document on demand.
Chapter 6 provides a comprehensive directory of all Hematology partnering deals by specific Hematology target announced since 2010. The chapter is organized by specific Hematology therapeutic target. Each deal title links via Weblink to an online version of the deal record and where available, the contract document, providing easy access to each contract document on demand.
In addition, a comprehensive appendix is provided with each report of all Hematology partnering deals signed and announced since 2010. The appendices are organized by company A-Z, stage of development at signing, deal type (collaborative R&D, co-promotion, licensing etc) and technology type. Each deal title links via Weblink to an online version of the deal record and where available, the contract document, providing easy access to each contract document on demand.
The report also includes numerous tables and figures that illustrate the trends and activities in Hematology partnering and dealmaking since 2010.
In conclusion, this report provides everything a prospective dealmaker needs to know about partnering in the research, development and commercialization of Hematology technologies and products.
Report scope
Global Hematology Partnering 2010 to 2021 is intended to provide the reader with an in-depth understanding and access to Hematology trends and structure of deals entered into by leading companies worldwide.
Global Hematology Partnering 2010 to 2021 includes:
Trends in Hematology dealmaking in the biopharma industry since 2010
Access to headline, upfront, milestone and royalty data
Access to hundreds of Hematology deal contract documents
Comprehensive access to over 550 Hematology deal records
The leading Hematology deals by value since 2010
Most active Hematology dealmakers since 2010
The report includes deals for the following indications: Agranulocytosis, Anemia, Haemolytic, Iron deficiency, Blood substitute, Disseminated intravascular coagulation (DIC), Hemophilia, Immune thrombocytopenic purpura, Neutropenia, Polycythemia, Thalassemia, Thrombocytopenia, Vitamin K Deficiency, Von-Willebrand disease, plus other hematological indications.
In Global Hematology Partnering 2010 to 2021, available deals and contracts are listed by:
Headline value
Upfront payment value
Royalty rate value
Stage of development at signing
Deal component type
Technology type
Specific therapy indication
Each deal title links via Weblink to an online version of the deal record and where available, the contract document, providing easy access to each contract document on demand.
The Global Hematology Partnering 2010-2021 report provides comprehensive access to available deals and contract documents for over 550 hematology deals. Analyzing actual contract agreements allows assessment of the following:
What are the precise rights granted or optioned?
What is actually granted by the agreement to the partner company?
What exclusivity is granted?
What is the payment structure for the deal?
How are the sales and payments audited?
What is the deal term?
How are the key terms of the agreement defined?
How are IPRs handled and owned?
Who is responsible for commercialization?
Who is responsible for development, supply, and manufacture?
How is confidentiality and publication managed?
How are disputes to be resolved?
Under what conditions can the deal be terminated?
What happens when there is a change of ownership?
What sublicensing and subcontracting provisions have been agreed?
Which boilerplate clauses does the company insist upon?
Which boilerplate clauses appear to differ from partner to partner or deal type to deal type?
Which jurisdiction does the company insist upon for agreement law?