On the 23rd (local time), the second day of the opening of BioUSA at the San Diego Convention Center in California. On the floor where thousands of partner meetings were happening at once, executives from global pharmaceutical companies and biotechs brought up an unexpected point.
They said what matters more than the technology transfer or the M&A itself is what happens after the contract is signed. Good technology and a good contract alone cannot guarantee success, and the success or failure of a partnership ultimately depends on relationships, execution, and operating systems.
At the session titled Driving Commercial Success in Late-Stage Asset Deal-Making – How to Navigate Risk and Realize Value Post-Deal, panelists emphasized in unison that "a deal is only the starting line."
◇ "Big Pharma looks at relationships before the transaction"
Jon DeYoung, Pfizer's vice president of global business development, picked "accumulating relationships" as the starting point of a partnership.
DeYoung said, "Pfizer holds regular meetings with major biotechs every four to six months," and "we listen to the biotech's story, review the data, and share the insights we can offer. As time builds, the structure of the deal naturally reveals itself."
This process does not involve only the business development (BD) organization. DeYoung said, "Research, clinical, chemistry, manufacturing and controls (CMC), and business development staff work together," adding, "New drug development never proceeds in a straight line. Unexpected results always arise, so the process of understanding each other and building trust is important."
The principle of "relationships first" was no exception for investors.
Maha Radhakrishnan, senior partner at Sofinnova Investments, a biotech-focused investment firm managing more than $8 billion (about 12 trillion won) across Europe and the United States, said, "We advise portfolio corporations to build relationships with Big Pharma as early as possible," adding, "not to do a transaction right away, but to build trust and check cultural fit."
She added, "The very process of judging whether someone is a counterpart you can work with in the future is an important asset."
◇ "What matters more than the contract is the operating plan"
What happens after a deal is struck was even more grounded.
Gregg Chow, chief financial officer (CFO) of Sutro Biopharma, a Nasdaq-listed biotech developing a next-generation ADC platform, said, "Many people think the work is done once a partnership agreement is signed, but in reality that's when the real work begins."
He said, "Collaboration with a large pharmaceutical company can sometimes feel like running two programs at once, requiring a great deal of time and resources," adding, "We can tolerate delays in our own programs, but delays with a partner are different."
Chow said that when issues arose in the actual collaboration with Astellas, they maintained trust by proposing multiple solutions together.
DeYoung stressed that the operating system should be designed even before the contract is signed.
He said, "A partnership agreement must include a plan for how the program will be run," adding, "It must be clear who takes which roles, which clinical trials will be conducted, and how decisions will be made."
He went on, "You can't capture every situation in the contract," adding, "What ultimately matters is how you solve problems and the culture of collaboration."
◇ "Handing over an asset is different from handing over value"
There was also a point that the purpose of a partnership should not stop at technology export.
Marianne De Backer, chief executive officer (CEO) of Vir Biotechnology, said, "Not all deal structures are the same," adding, "Some assets should be held directly, while others can create greater value when developed with a partner."
Vir is a U.S. biotech that drew global attention during the COVID-19 pandemic with a COVID-19 antibody therapy co-developed with GSK. Recently, it has been shifting from an infectious-disease-centered corporations to an immunology and oncology corporations, signing a string of major partnerships. Each transaction was structured with different objectives: technology in-licensing, commercialization, and co-development.
In 2024, it in-licensed a T-cell engager (TCE) asset and platform from France's Sanofi, and last year it signed a commercialization agreement with Dutch drugmaker Nordjin for a chronic delta hepatitis therapy. In Apr., it entered into a strategic alliance worth up to $1.7 billion with Japan's Astellas Pharma for the co-development and commercialization of the prostate cancer candidate "VIR-5500."
De Backer said, "In the prostate cancer partnership with Astellas, we chose a structure that shares U.S. market revenue and secures co-promotion rights because we decided to participate in long-term value creation."
This carries major implications for Korea's biotech sector, which has focused on the size of technology exports and upfront payments. The point is that what rights you retain and how much you can participate in future value appreciation may matter more than the price you signed for.
A Korea biotech industry official at the scene said, "In Korea, there are still many who see technology export itself as the end point of success," adding, "It's time for Korea's biotech to learn that kind of long-game approach."