{"id":32990,"date":"2025-05-13T09:49:00","date_gmt":"2025-05-13T13:49:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.drugpatentwatch.com\/blog\/?p=32990"},"modified":"2026-04-24T22:13:22","modified_gmt":"2026-04-25T02:13:22","slug":"using-drugpatentwatch-to-support-out-licensing-and-partnering-decisions","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.drugpatentwatch.com\/blog\/using-drugpatentwatch-to-support-out-licensing-and-partnering-decisions\/","title":{"rendered":"Drug Patent Intelligence for Out-Licensing: The Definitive Playbook for Pharma BD Teams"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

The difference between a licensing deal that captures peak asset value and one that leaves money on the table often comes down to a single variable: the quality of patent intelligence available to your business development team before and during negotiations. This guide covers how pharma BD teams, portfolio managers, and IP counsel can use structured patent intelligence, specifically through platforms like DrugPatentWatch, to run more precise out-licensing and partnering programs. The focus is operational, not theoretical.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n

Part I: The Patent Intelligence Foundation<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Why Patent Data Is the True Currency of Pharma BD<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Every licensing negotiation in pharmaceuticals rests, at its core, on a question of time. How many years of market exclusivity remain? When will the first Paragraph IV certification land? Which claims in the patent estate are most vulnerable to inter partes review (IPR) at the PTAB? The answers determine the net present value of any asset, the leverage each side holds at the table, and the structure of the deal, including royalty rates, milestone triggers, and sublicensing rights.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Most BD teams understand this conceptually. The operational problem is that the underlying data is scattered across the Orange Book, the Purple Book, PTAB dockets, district court filings, international patent registers, and FDA exclusivity databases. Synthesizing it manually takes weeks. By the time an analyst finishes the work, the competitive window may have closed or a Paragraph IV filer may have already moved.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

DrugPatentWatch aggregates that data into a single queryable platform, covering small molecule and biologic patents, Orange Book listings, PTAB proceedings, litigation records, settlement disclosures, API manufacturer profiles, and drug sales figures. For BD teams, that consolidation changes the tempo of deal sourcing. Opportunities that would previously take a two-week diligence sprint to identify can now be screened in hours.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Anatomy of a Pharmaceutical Patent Estate<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Before applying any intelligence tool, it helps to understand exactly what constitutes a drug patent estate and why each layer matters for out-licensing decisions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The foundation is the composition-of-matter (CoM) patent, which covers the active pharmaceutical ingredient itself. CoM patents are the hardest to design around and the most valuable to license, because they provide the broadest exclusivity. A licensee acquiring rights to a CoM patent holds exclusivity against all formulations and all indications of that molecule, not just the ones the originator has developed. This breadth is why CoM patents command the highest royalty rates, typically 8-15% of net sales in established therapeutic categories, and why they anchor the most lucrative out-licensing deals.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Below the CoM layer sit formulation patents (covering specific delivery mechanisms, salts, polymorphs, or excipient combinations), method-of-use patents (covering specific indications, dosing regimens, or patient populations), and process patents (covering manufacturing routes for the API). Each layer performs a distinct function in lifecycle management. Formulation and method-of-use patents are the primary tools of evergreening, extending effective market exclusivity beyond the expiration of the base CoM patent by creating new Orange Book-listed barriers for generic filers.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

IP due diligence for out-licensing must characterize every layer. A potential licensee paying a premium royalty rate for what appears to be a strong CoM patent needs to know whether that patent is listed in the Orange Book, whether any Paragraph IV certifications have already been filed against it, and whether PTAB has granted institution on any IPR petitions challenging its validity. These facts change the risk-adjusted value of the license materially.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Orange Book Listing as IP Valuation Signal<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Orange Book listing is not just a regulatory formality. It is a valuation signal. A patent listed in the Orange Book for a given NDA triggers the 30-month stay under the Hatch-Waxman Act when a generic filer submits an ANDA with a Paragraph IV certification. That stay is worth months of protected revenue, and its presence or absence directly affects the price any rational licensee will pay.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

DrugPatentWatch maps Orange Book listings against each NDA, showing which patents are listed, their expiration dates including any Hatch-Waxman Patent Term Extension (PTE) or pediatric exclusivity, and whether any Paragraph IV certifications have already been filed. This mapping is the starting point for any IP valuation conversation. An asset with three Orange Book-listed patents, no outstanding Paragraph IV certifications, and 7 years remaining on its strongest claim is priced very differently from one where generic challengers have already achieved a district court finding of invalidity and the 30-month stay has expired.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Key Takeaways: Patent Intelligence Foundations<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Patent intelligence for BD is not a background research function. It is a front-line deal tool. CoM patents set the ceiling on asset value; the stack of formulation, use, and process patents determines how durable that value is. Orange Book status and Paragraph IV certification history are the first two data points any BD team should pull before entering licensing discussions. Synthesis platforms that consolidate patent, litigation, and regulatory exclusivity data reduce the diligence cycle from weeks to days, which in competitive deal situations is often the decisive advantage.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n

Part II: Out-Licensing Strategy Mechanics<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Identifying Out-Licensing Candidates Before They Surface on Everyone’s Radar<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

The highest-value out-licensing deals are signed before the opportunity is widely known. By the time an asset appears on a standard pharma partnership database or gets mentioned in an investor day presentation as a potential out-licensing candidate, multiple bidders have often already engaged, compressing the terms the licensor can extract.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Proactive opportunity identification through patent landscape analysis changes this dynamic. The approach involves monitoring patent expirations across therapeutic areas to spot assets whose commercial life is long enough to attract a committed licensee, but whose development risk profile has been de-risked by Phase 2 or Phase 3 data. Pairing patent expiry data with drug sales figures reveals which assets sit in large enough revenue pools to justify a partner’s development investment, and which are too small to warrant the overhead of a co-development structure.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A practical screening workflow using DrugPatentWatch starts with a therapeutic area filter, then pulls all assets with NDA approvals or late-stage IND activity, maps their Orange Book patent listings and expiration dates, cross-references current drug sales to estimate market size, and flags assets with 5-12 years of remaining exclusivity as the prime out-licensing window. Assets with under 4 years of exclusivity remaining may still be licensable, particularly if the licensee has a geographic expansion strategy in markets with different patent timelines, but they require a different deal structure, usually lower upfront payments offset by supply economics or manufacturing margins.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Timing the Out-Licensing Approach: The Exclusivity Curve<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

There is a predictable relationship between remaining patent exclusivity and deal economics. Assets licensed very early in their commercial life, before significant sales data exists, carry high development risk and typically command lower upfront fees but higher royalty rates if the product succeeds. Assets licensed at peak sales, 5-8 years after launch, attract the most competition and the highest upfront payments, but the licensor surrenders a large share of the remaining revenue pool. Assets licensed with 2-4 years of exclusivity remaining trade primarily on their cash generation capacity during that window, and deal structures often shift toward profit-split or supply agreement formats rather than traditional royalty arrangements.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The inflection point where upfront payment potential peaks, and where a licensor has the most negotiating leverage, typically falls 4-7 years post-launch for small molecules and slightly later for biologics, where biosimilar development timelines are longer and regulatory interchangeability designation adds a meaningful additional barrier to market entry. DrugPatentWatch’s combined patent expiry and drug sales data lets BD teams plot their assets on this curve with precision and identify which products are approaching that optimal window.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

IP Valuation as the Core Asset in Licensing Negotiations<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

IP valuation in pharma out-licensing typically runs through three parallel methodologies: the income approach (discounted cash flow on projected royalty streams), the market approach (comparable transaction multiples from recent deals), and the relief-from-royalty approach (what the asset holder would pay to license the IP if they didn’t own it). Each method produces a range, and the defensible licensing price sits at the intersection of those ranges, adjusted for patent risk.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Patent risk adjustments require detailed data on claim strength. A composition-of-matter patent granted with broad independent claims and no prior art rejections on the record is worth more, risk-adjusted, than one that survived examination only after multiple office actions narrowed the claims. A patent with no PTAB petitions filed against it carries lower invalidity risk than one where an IPR was instituted and settled. A patent with a PTE granted under 35 U.S.C. 156 has a calculable extension to its exclusivity period that goes directly into the DCF model.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

DrugPatentWatch surfaces patent term extension data, PTAB petition history, and litigation records that feed directly into these valuation adjustments. For BD teams presenting valuation arguments to potential licensees, this data is the difference between an unsupported asking price and a defensible position backed by docket-level evidence.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Case Study: Pfizer’s Sildenafil (Viagra) IP Architecture as a Licensing Template<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Pfizer’s management of Viagra’s patent estate from the 1990s through 2017 remains one of the most studied examples of multi-layer IP strategy in pharma, and it offers a direct template for out-licensing teams building their negotiating position.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The original composition-of-matter patent, US 5,250,534, covered sildenafil citrate itself. Pfizer filed a secondary patent, US 6,469,012, covering the use of sildenafil for treating erectile dysfunction, ahead of the drug’s 1998 launch. The CoM patent received a 283-day Hatch-Waxman PTE, extending its protection beyond its statutory expiration. Pfizer then obtained 6 months of pediatric exclusivity by running clinical trials at FDA’s request under the Best Pharmaceuticals for Children Act. That sequential stacking, CoM patent plus method-of-use patent plus PTE plus pediatric exclusivity, pushed effective exclusivity well beyond what the original filing alone would have provided.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

When generic challengers, including Teva, successfully challenged the CoM patent via Paragraph IV, Pfizer entered a settlement with Teva that allowed authorized generic entry in December 2017, ahead of the formal patent expiration, in exchange for royalty payments flowing back to Pfizer during Teva’s 180-day exclusivity window. Simultaneously, Pfizer launched Revatio, a lower-dose sildenafil product for pulmonary arterial hypertension, capturing a separate indication covered by distinct method-of-use patents. The Revatio strategy meant Pfizer held an authorized generic position in the erectile dysfunction market while retaining exclusivity in a separate indication through different IP.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

For an out-licensing BD team, this case illustrates several operational principles. First, the method-of-use patent, often filed later than the CoM patent, can be the more durable asset in the portfolio. Second, settlement agreements that include authorized generic provisions generate royalty income during the 180-day exclusivity window, converting what looks like a loss, generic entry, into a continuing revenue stream. Third, indication expansion via separate method-of-use patents creates distinct licensable assets from a single molecule. A company out-licensing sildenafil after its CoM patent expiration could still negotiate separate licenses for each indication protected by distinct use patents.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Investment Strategy Note: Licensing Optionality as Asset Value Driver<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Portfolio managers evaluating pharma companies for investment should weight the optionality value of out-licensing more heavily than most sell-side models do. A company with three mid-stage assets in crowded indications but strong IP estates has licensing optionality that doesn’t appear in a standard pipeline probability-adjusted NPV model. The ability to convert a failed primary indication program into a licensing fee stream via a method-of-use pivot or geographic out-licensing deal adds real, if hard to model, value. Patent intelligence platforms that map the full IP estate, not just the lead indication, are essential tools for identifying this optionality in target companies.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n

Part III: Partner Evaluation Through Patent Intelligence<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Patent Portfolio Analysis as a Partner Screening Tool<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

The quality of a potential partner’s patent portfolio is one of the most reliable proxies for their R&D capability and their long-term value as a licensee or co-developer. A company that files high-claim-count CoM patents with broad independent claims, maintains strong international PCT coverage, and extends into continuation applications to capture manufacturing process improvements is demonstrably more sophisticated in IP strategy than one that files narrow, single-claim patents with minimal international coverage.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

DrugPatentWatch’s patent family data allows BD teams to run this analysis systematically before engaging potential partners. The review covers portfolio breadth (number of distinct compounds or mechanisms under patent protection), patent quality indicators (claim scope, citation patterns, examination history), patent strategy (use of continuation applications, divisional applications, and method-of-use filings to build layered estates), and innovation trajectory (year-over-year filing trends by therapeutic area, indicating where the company is investing or withdrawing).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A partner with a deepening patent estate in immuno-oncology over the past five years, reflected in increasing filing rates for CoM, formulation, and method-of-use patents in that space, is a credible co-development partner for an oncology asset. A company whose filing rate is flat or declining suggests an R&D program running on fumes, a material risk for any long-term co-development deal.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Litigation History as a Due Diligence Variable<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

How a company behaves when its patents are challenged tells you more about them as a potential partner than any term sheet conversation. A company that consistently pursues patent infringers to judgment, even when settlement would be cheaper, signals strong IP conviction but also unpredictable litigation costs that a licensee may inherit. A company that settles early and consistently may indicate weaker-than-average patent confidence, or it may reflect a rational cost-benefit calculation in cases where the challenged claims are narrow.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Teikoku Pharma’s litigation posture in its patent disputes over transdermal drug delivery technology illustrates this point. The company spent $2.3 million pursuing Watson in a single infringement case before reaching a settlement. That level of commitment to IP enforcement is directly relevant to any potential licensee. A company in-licensing Teikoku technology needs to understand that the licensor will aggressively defend the licensed IP, which reduces the licensee’s risk of competitive erosion but also creates potential liability for litigation costs depending on how the license agreement allocates defense obligations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

DrugPatentWatch’s litigation tracking lets BD teams reconstruct this history for any potential partner. The key variables to pull are: how frequently the company has been a plaintiff versus a defendant in patent cases, the average time from filing to resolution in their district court cases, their success rate in defending challenged patents, and the royalty rates or lump-sum payments visible in disclosed settlement agreements.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Decoding Settlement Agreements for Negotiating Intelligence<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Settlement agreements in Hatch-Waxman litigation are the most underutilized data source in pharma BD. When an ANDA litigation settles, the FTC requires disclosure of the material terms, including whether any ‘reverse payment’ from the branded company to the generic challenger was part of the agreement. DrugPatentWatch compiles this disclosed settlement data, giving BD teams visibility into the actual deal economics of comparable IP disputes.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This information does several things. It establishes a market reference for what generic challengers have accepted as reasonable entry timing in comparable situations. It reveals whether a potential partner or target has previously agreed to terms that suggest their IP position was weaker than publicly represented. It also shows whether companies systematically use authorized generic provisions in their settlements, which is a relevant factor in structuring any licensing deal that includes generic market management provisions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Endo Pharmaceuticals case in the DrugPatentWatch literature adds a useful dimension: a reported pattern in Endo’s settlement behavior suggested the company had agreed to cover litigation expenses for co-defendant partners, a term typically absent from standard settlement agreements. For a generic company evaluating Endo as a potential licensor or litigation co-defendant, knowing this behavioral pattern changes the negotiating position. BD teams that mine settlement records for these patterns extract negotiating intelligence that is genuinely difficult to obtain elsewhere.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Key Takeaways: Partner Evaluation<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Patent portfolio analysis and litigation history are objective, data-driven inputs to partner evaluation, not qualitative impressions from management presentations. A partner with deep CoM coverage, active continuation strategies, and a record of successfully defending challenged patents is demonstrably lower-risk than one without those characteristics. Settlement agreement data converts IP litigation history into comparable deal economics, giving BD teams a reference market for royalties and entry timing terms. All of this data lives in patent and litigation databases that tools like DrugPatentWatch make accessible without weeks of manual research.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n

Part IV: Patent Cliff Management and Revenue Gap Strategy<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

What a Patent Cliff Actually Costs (And How Long You Have to Act)<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

The ‘patent cliff’ is discussed as if it is a single event, but in operational terms it is a multi-year sequence. The sequence typically runs: loss of data exclusivity for NCEs (5 years from approval for most small molecules under Hatch-Waxman, 12 years for biologics under the BPCIA); expiration of Orange Book-listed formulation or method-of-use patents; resolution of outstanding Paragraph IV litigation (by settlement or judgment); end of any pediatric exclusivity period; and finally, authorized generic or biosimilar market entry.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Each step in that sequence affects revenue differently. Data exclusivity expiration alone doesn’t allow generic entry if Orange Book patents remain. Formulation patent expiration matters more if a significant proportion of the product’s sales come from the specific delivery form those patents protect, for example, an extended-release formulation that commands a meaningful price premium. Understanding exactly which step in the sequence will drive the first material revenue impact, and when, is the core output of patent cliff analysis.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

DrugPatentWatch maps this full sequence for any drug, showing all Orange Book-listed patents with their expiration dates, any granted PTEs, any pediatric exclusivity periods, and the status of any outstanding ANDA litigation. For BD teams managing a portfolio approaching exclusivity loss, this sequence map is the foundation for deciding when to accelerate out-licensing activities, when to pursue lifecycle management through new formulation development, and when to allocate capital to in-licensing deals that replace anticipated revenue.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Evergreening Tactics and Their IP Valuation Implications<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Evergreening, the practice of extending effective market exclusivity through sequential patent filings on top of an aging CoM patent, creates licensable IP that has real economic value but also carries specific litigation risk. The relevant tactics and their valuation implications deserve granular treatment.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Polymorph patents protect specific crystal forms of the API. Their commercial value depends on whether the specific polymorph is the one actually used in manufacturing. If the product uses Form I and the patent covers Form I, the patent is directly commercially relevant. If a generic manufacturer can readily access Form II, which falls outside the patent, the polymorph patent provides little barrier. Valuing polymorph patents requires assessing which form is commercially dominant and whether alternative forms are readily accessible.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Extended-release (ER) formulation patents protect the delivery system, not the molecule. Their value correlates with the proportion of product sales in the ER form relative to immediate-release and with the technical difficulty of developing an AB-rated generic ER formulation. Drugs where the ER form dominates unit volume, typically because the dosing convenience justifies the price premium, carry more valuable ER formulation patents. AstraZeneca’s strategy with Nexium (esomeprazole) after omeprazole’s CoM patent expired is the canonical example: the ER formulation and the esomeprazole-specific patents provided years of additional exclusivity even after the base proton pump inhibitor IP fell.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Method-of-use patents covering new indications require that the new indication be listed in the Orange Book to trigger Hatch-Waxman protection. A patent covering a new use that isn’t Orange Book-listed because it was added via a supplemental NDA after the original listing may not block ANDA filers who carve out that indication from their labeling. This ‘skinny label’ strategy, used by generic filers to launch on the original indication while avoiding the new-use patent, is a material valuation risk for method-of-use patent estates. DrugPatentWatch’s Orange Book cross-referencing allows BD teams to identify whether any method-of-use patents in an asset’s estate are vulnerable to skinny-label generic strategies.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Pediatric exclusivity grants 6 months of additional exclusivity on top of any existing patent protection or data exclusivity, provided the manufacturer runs pediatric clinical trials at FDA’s written request under PREA or BPCA. The 6-month extension applies to all Orange Book-listed patents for that NDA, not just the one that might otherwise expire. For drugs with large revenue bases, 6 months of additional exclusivity can be worth hundreds of millions. It is also frequently overlooked in patent expiry models.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Investment Strategy Note: Evergreening Risk Discount<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Analysts modeling revenue streams for assets in a patent portfolio should apply an explicit evergreening risk discount to any formulation, polymorph, or method-of-use patent that a generic or biosimilar manufacturer could plausibly challenge. The current environment at the PTAB, following the IPR institution rate data published post-AIA, shows that petitions challenging drug patents in ANDA-related contexts have a higher-than-average institution rate, particularly for secondary patents with narrow claim scope. An asset whose exclusivity depends primarily on a single polymorph patent with a prior art citation history, rather than a clean CoM patent, should carry a 15-30% probability discount on the years of exclusivity that patent purports to provide.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Biologics Patent Cliffs: A Different Timeline and a Different Strategy<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

The dynamics for biologics patent cliffs differ from small molecules in ways that fundamentally change the out-licensing strategy. Under the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act (BPCIA), reference product sponsors hold 12 years of data exclusivity from the date of first licensure, independent of patent protection. The ‘patent dance’ procedure governs how biosimilar applicants and reference product sponsors exchange patent and manufacturing information and negotiate which patents will be litigated.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The biologic patent estate is typically far larger than for small molecules. A monoclonal antibody product may have dozens of Orange Book-equivalent listings covering the antibody sequence itself, manufacturing cell lines, purification processes, formulation, dosing regimens, and delivery devices. This patent thicket approach, while legally defensible, creates a complex due diligence challenge for any party seeking to license or challenge the IP. AbbVie’s management of the adalimumab (Humira) patent estate is the most studied case: over 100 US patents covering the drug, its manufacturing, and its formulation, many of which were filed years after the original compound patent. This strategy delayed biosimilar entry in the US until 2023, despite biosimilar availability in Europe from 2018 onward, where the patent thicket was thinner.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

For out-licensing, the implication is that biologic assets have a different risk profile than small molecules. The 12-year data exclusivity baseline provides a predictable revenue protection floor that doesn’t exist for small molecules. The patent thicket around manufacturing creates licensing opportunities, because biosimilar developers often need to license specific manufacturing processes or cell line patents to produce their products efficiently. And the delayed biosimilar market penetration, documented across all currently marketed biosimilars, means that the revenue decline after exclusivity loss is gentler and more prolonged than the sharp generic cliff seen with small molecules.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The EY data cited in the source article confirms this shift: biologic deal volume rose from 171 out of 626 licensed assets in 2017 to more than 261 out of 747 by 2022. That growth reflects both the maturing of the biologics pipeline and the increasing recognition among BD teams that biologic assets offer more durable licensing value than equivalent-stage small molecules.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n

Part V: Biosimilar Entry Prediction and Paragraph IV Intelligence<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

How to Read Paragraph IV Certifications as a Deal Signal<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

A Paragraph IV certification, submitted by an ANDA filer asserting that an Orange Book-listed patent is either invalid or will not be infringed by their generic product, is the most actionable early signal in pharmaceutical competitive intelligence. The Hatch-Waxman framework requires the branded company to be notified within 20 days of the certification, which triggers the window in which the branded company can sue to invoke the 30-month stay.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

For out-licensing BD teams, a Paragraph IV certification against an asset they’re considering licensing, or against a competitor’s product in the same market, carries specific information. A certification filed by a well-capitalized generic filer with a strong track record of successful ANDA litigation, such as Teva, Mylan, or Amneal, signals higher-than-average probability that the patent being challenged is vulnerable. A certification filed by a smaller filer with limited litigation resources may be more opportunistic, particularly if the patents listed in the Orange Book have broad, well-supported claims.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

DrugPatentWatch tracks Paragraph IV filers against each NDA, allowing BD teams to identify exactly who has challenged which patents for any product of interest. Cross-referencing the filer against their historical litigation win rate adds a probability dimension to the analysis. The PTAB docket is a parallel monitor: IPR petitions filed by the same entity that submitted the Paragraph IV certification suggest a two-track challenge strategy, attacking the patent both in district court (through the Paragraph IV) and before the PTAB (through IPR), which is a more aggressive and more expensive approach typically reserved for patents the challenger believes are highly vulnerable.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

First-to-File Exclusivity and Its Effect on Deal Timing<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

The generic company that is the first to file a substantially complete ANDA with a Paragraph IV certification against every Orange Book-listed patent for a given NDA is entitled to 180 days of market exclusivity before any other generic can enter. This first-to-file exclusivity is worth enormous sums for high-revenue products. For Lipitor (atorvastatin), Ranbaxy’s first-to-file exclusivity on a product generating over $10 billion annually in US sales represented a multi-billion-dollar entitlement in the 180-day window.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

First-to-file exclusivity affects out-licensing deal timing in a specific way. If a branded company knows a first-to-file filer has already secured their Paragraph IV position and that the 180-day clock will start on a predictable date, the market entry scenario is largely deterministic. That predictability actually helps in structuring licensing deals, because revenue projections can be built around a firm event date rather than a probabilistic range. The licensor can negotiate terms that assume generic entry at a specific time, rather than using wide scenario bands that give the licensee room to argue for lower royalties based on theoretical early-entry risk.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

If no Paragraph IV certification has been filed, the first-to-file window is still open, which means the branded company retains the ability to settle proactively with a potential first filer before the certification is even submitted, sometimes granting an authorized generic license in exchange for the generic company agreeing not to file. This pre-litigation settlement structure, when properly executed, gives the branded company control over the generic entry date and terms, rather than leaving timing to the outcome of litigation it might lose.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

PTAB as a Valuation Stress-Test Mechanism<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Since the America Invents Act made IPR proceedings available in 2012, the PTAB has become a systematic stress-test for pharmaceutical patent validity. The institution rate for IPR petitions challenging drug patents has run consistently above 60% in most calendar years since 2016, meaning the majority of petitions that survive the initial threshold review proceed to a full trial. Of petitioned claims that reach final written decision, a substantial proportion are cancelled or amended.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

For any asset being considered for out-licensing, the PTAB docket is a required diligence input. A patent facing an instituted IPR where the challenged claims closely track the commercial embodiment of the licensed product should carry a significant invalidity risk discount. A patent that has survived a final written decision upholding all claims, by contrast, has been stress-tested and provides stronger IP support for licensing value arguments.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

DrugPatentWatch’s litigation tracking captures PTAB petition data as part of the broader patent dispute record. BD teams should use this data to filter potential licensing assets, screening out those where instituted PTAB proceedings create near-term invalidity risk that would undermine the deal economics before the ink dries.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Key Takeaways: Biosimilar and Generic Entry Intelligence<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Paragraph IV certifications are deal-relevant signals, not just litigation records. The identity of the filer, their historical win rate, and whether they’ve filed a simultaneous PTAB petition tells you how seriously to take the challenge. First-to-file exclusivity positions create deterministic generic entry scenarios that are actually easier to model in deal structures than open-ended litigation timelines. PTAB institutional history is a mandatory diligence input for any patent supporting a licensing deal, and BD teams that skip it are pricing invalidity risk out of their models by default.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n

Part VI: Global Licensing Strategy and Regional Patent Intelligence<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Cross-Regional Licensing: The China Out-Licensing Surge<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Chinese biotechnology’s shift from a net in-licensor to a net out-licensor is one of the most significant structural changes in global pharma BD over the past four years. In 2023, Chinese biotechs executed 63 cross-region out-licensing deals, an 80% increase over 2022, while in-licensing fell 56% over the same period. Companies like BeiGene, Zymeworks (which has structured significant reverse licensing deals with Chinese partners), LegoChem Biosciences, and Agenus have all participated in this flow.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The IP infrastructure supporting these deals has matured substantially. Chinese companies now routinely file PCT applications alongside their CNIPA filings, establishing international priority dates and building global patent estates rather than domestic-only protection. The quality of prosecution, including the specificity of claims and the breadth of experimental data in disclosures, has improved markedly compared to Chinese biotech filings from the early 2010s.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

For Western BD teams, the actionable implication is that Chinese-originating assets need the same patent diligence rigor applied to any other licensing target. Specifically, this means pulling both the Chinese patent records and their PCT international filing counterparts to assess claim scope in each jurisdiction, reviewing whether the technology has been independently validated in US or European clinical trials, and understanding which party holds priority rights in each regional market, because China-to-West deals frequently involve complex territorial carve-outs.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

DrugPatentWatch’s international patent coverage, including PCT application data and international patent family mapping, provides the framework for this diligence. BD teams using the platform can identify Chinese-originating assets with US and European patent coverage, map the territorial scope of protection available for licensing, and assess whether the Chinese company has already granted regional licenses to other parties that would constrain the available territory for a new deal.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

LATAM, APAC, and EMEA: Regional Arbitrage in Patent Timelines<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Patent expiry dates differ across jurisdictions. A compound whose US patent expires in 2027 may hold European patent protection until 2029, or may face earlier expiry in a LATAM market where a shorter national patent term applies or where data exclusivity periods differ from US norms. These jurisdictional differences create geographic out-licensing opportunities that exist independently of the asset’s US patent status.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A company holding rights to a drug that has lost exclusivity in the US can still out-license the same molecule for markets where patent protection remains in force, including EU markets under Supplementary Protection Certificates (SPCs), or emerging markets where regulatory exclusivity periods are longer. This geographic arbitrage is most pronounced for assets in therapeutic areas with high LATAM or APAC demand, oncology, diabetes, and respiratory disease being the clearest examples, where local market sizes justify a partner’s development investment even when the US revenue stream has eroded.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

DrugPatentWatch’s international patent coverage maps these jurisdictional differences explicitly. Users can pull a product’s patent status by country, identifying which markets remain under exclusivity and for how long, which is the foundation for building a geographic out-licensing program that extracts value from an asset long after its US patent cliff.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The EY data confirms this dynamic: Asia-Pacific leads all regions in in-licensing volume, drawing primarily from Americas-originating assets. That flow exists in part because APAC partners see value in assets that US-focused analysts may have written off as past their exclusivity window.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

SPC Strategy and European Licensing Value<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

In Europe, Supplementary Protection Certificates extend patent protection for pharmaceutical products by up to 5 years beyond the base patent expiry, compensating for time lost to the regulatory approval process. SPCs are granted on a country-by-country basis and require a valid base patent in that country plus a current marketing authorization for the product in the EU. The maximum effective SPC protection period is 15 years from first EU marketing authorization.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

SPCs are separately licensable assets. A company licensing rights to a drug in Germany holds rights to both the German patent and any German SPC for that product. For out-licensing negotiations covering European territories, understanding which SPCs are in force, in which countries, and for how long is part of the patent estate valuation. A drug with SPCs in Germany, France, Italy, and Spain providing 3 additional years of exclusivity in those markets is a meaningfully different licensing proposition than one where the base patent has expired and SPC protection was never obtained.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

An additional EU mechanism, the Paediatric Extension to SPCs, grants 6 months of additional protection on top of the SPC term for products where pediatric studies have been completed. This is the European analog to US pediatric exclusivity, and like its US counterpart, it is frequently underweighted in valuation models. BD teams negotiating European licensing deals should confirm whether paediatric extensions have been granted or are pending, because they represent a directly addable increment to the modeled exclusivity period.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Investment Strategy Note: Geographic Patent Arbitrage as a BD Thesis<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Portfolio companies with mature branded products, US exclusivity loss already priced in by the market, but active SPC protection in major EU markets plus emerging market patent positions represent an underappreciated licensing arbitrage opportunity. The market frequently prices these companies as if all their IP value sits in the US, ignoring 2-5 years of European exclusivity and potentially 7-10 years of LATAM and APAC protection. A BD team that systematically maps these geographic residual values using patent intelligence data can identify out-licensing revenue potential that doesn’t appear in consensus street models.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n

Part VII: Building the Intelligence-Driven BD Workflow<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Alert Architecture for Competitive Patent Monitoring<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

A BD team that monitors patent developments reactively, checking databases when a deal is already in progress, will consistently be behind. Competitive advantage in pharma licensing comes from acting on information before it becomes consensus knowledge. That requires a systematic alert architecture.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

DrugPatentWatch’s alert system allows users to configure notifications across multiple data streams. The most commercially valuable alert configurations for BD teams cover Orange Book patent additions and removals for competitor products (which signal evergreening activity or product reformulation efforts), Paragraph IV certifications filed against any asset in the monitored therapeutic area (which signals the start of a competitive timeline), PTAB petition filings and institution decisions for patents in the monitored portfolio (which creates invalidity risk that must be priced into ongoing licensing discussions), and patent expiration dates for competitor products falling within 18-36 months (which identifies market opportunity windows for in-licensing or internal program acceleration).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Each of these alert types represents a trigger for a specific BD action. A Paragraph IV certification against a competitor’s product in your therapeutic area is a signal that the competitive landscape is about to shift. A PTAB institution against a patent in your own estate is a signal to proactively engage licensees with reassurance about the robustness of your IP position, or to adjust royalty rate expectations if the risk is material. A competitor’s patent expiration 24 months out signals that you should be modeling what their loss of exclusivity means for pricing dynamics in your market, which affects the value of any asset you’re licensing into that space.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Custom Dashboard Design for Licensing Program Management<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Generic dashboards that show all activity across all therapeutic areas are high-noise, low-signal environments for BD teams managing specific licensing programs. DrugPatentWatch’s customizable dashboard and reporting features allow teams to build purpose-specific intelligence products.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A therapeutic area landscape dashboard for, say, an out-licensing program in immunology should surface the patent status of all marketed biologics in that space, the Paragraph IV and PTAB docket for each, biosimilar applicant counts and launch timelines, and drug sales data by product. That combination tells the BD team the competitive intensity of the market, the durability of competitor exclusivity positions, and the revenue pool available to any new entrant, all of which feed into the licensing terms a potential partner can afford to pay.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A partner evaluation dashboard focused on a specific potential licensee should pull that company’s full patent portfolio segmented by therapeutic area, their litigation history as plaintiff and defendant, any disclosed settlement terms in ANDA cases, and their pipeline’s Phase progression rate. This dashboard gives the BD team a 360-degree view of the partner’s IP sophistication and commitment before the first meeting.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A portfolio risk dashboard covering an in-house asset base should map every product against its patent expiry sequence, identify which patents are at Paragraph IV risk based on their Orange Book listing age and product revenue size, flag PTAB petitions currently pending, and calculate the revenue-weighted remaining exclusivity for the portfolio as a whole. This is the data structure that should anchor any portfolio-level licensing strategy conversation with senior leadership.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Integrating Patent Intelligence with Deal Structuring<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Patent intelligence does not stop at the point of identifying a licensing opportunity. It remains operationally relevant through every phase of deal structuring. During term sheet development, patent data informs the royalty rate range by providing comparables from disclosed settlement agreements. During due diligence, it identifies patent vulnerabilities that require contractual protection for the licensee, for example, indemnification provisions if a PTAB proceeding invalidates claims the licensee is paying royalties to use. During negotiation, PTAB petition timing can create urgency that serves either party’s interests, depending on the direction of the outcome.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Post-deal, patent intelligence supports monitoring obligations that are often built into license agreements. Many licensing agreements require the licensor to notify the licensee of new patent challenges, to defend challenged licensed patents with specified minimum resource commitments, and to share PTAB and district court developments in real time. Automated DrugPatentWatch alerts can be configured to satisfy these monitoring obligations systematically.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n

Part VIII: Advanced Analytics and the Future of Patent-Driven BD<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Predictive Analytics in Patent Expiry Modeling<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

The next evolution in patent intelligence for BD moves from descriptive, what is the current patent status, to predictive, when will the first generic entry most likely occur and what market share will it capture. Several of the inputs for this predictive model are now available in structured form within platforms like DrugPatentWatch, and the analytical approach, while complex, is replicable.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The predictive generic entry timing model starts with the patent expiry date for each Orange Book-listed patent. It then adds a litigation delay factor based on the historical average time from Paragraph IV filing to district court final judgment in that therapeutic class, typically 18-30 months for standard Hatch-Waxman cases. It applies a settlement probability weight based on the defendant company’s historical settlement rate and the patent’s claim strength indicators. If settlement occurs before judgment, the entry date is the settlement-negotiated date, typically 6-18 months before formal patent expiry. If litigation runs to judgment, the entry date is driven by the judgment plus any appeal timeline.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Market share capture for the first generic entrant runs roughly 70-80% of unit volume within 12 months for most oral solid dosage products, with branded product retaining 20-30% of the volume at a significant price premium. For injectable or complex delivery system products, generic penetration is slower and the branded product retains a higher share for longer. Biologic products, where biosimilar interchangeability designation is required for automatic substitution at the pharmacy level, show an even slower penetration curve, with the reference product typically retaining 50-60% of the market by unit volume 2 years after first biosimilar launch, based on current real-world data from adalimumab and etanercept biosimilar markets.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

These modeled outcomes feed directly into the DCF valuation used in licensing negotiations. A licensor with robust patent data can build a credible best-case and base-case scenario for generic entry timing. A potential licensee that hasn’t run this analysis is negotiating from a position of informational disadvantage.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

AI-Assisted Patent Claim Analysis<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Machine learning models applied to patent claim text can now generate defensibility scores that correlate with PTAB institution and final written decision outcomes. These models, trained on the full text of thousands of IPR petitions and associated claim amendments and PTAB decisions, score independent claims along dimensions including claim breadth relative to prior art, claim differentiation from the most relevant prior art cited in examination, and structural similarity to previously invalidated claims in the same therapeutic class.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

These AI-generated scores are not yet available natively within standard patent databases, but specialty providers are building them as overlays. For BD teams, the practical utility is as a rapid pre-deal screen: assets where the key CoM or formulation patent scores below a threshold defensibility rating should trigger a deeper manual review before licensing discussions progress to term sheet stage. Assets scoring above the threshold can proceed with standard diligence, with the AI score informing but not replacing legal counsel’s patent risk opinion.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The underlying training data for these models lives in exactly the kind of structured litigation and PTAB dockets that DrugPatentWatch compiles. As the platform continues to layer analytical tools on top of its raw data, the capability to generate predictive defensibility scores from integrated AI analysis becomes an increasingly realistic near-term development.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Biologic Technology Roadmap: IP Strategy for ADCs, mRNA, and Cell Therapy<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

The biologics licensing landscape is not monolithic. The IP architecture and licensing dynamics differ substantially across biologic modalities, and each requires a distinct strategic approach.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Antibody-drug conjugates (ADCs) present layered IP estates covering the antibody component, the payload (small molecule cytotoxin), the linker chemistry, and the conjugation process. This layered structure creates multiple licensing entry points. A company with a validated payload but no antibody development capability can out-license the payload on royalty terms to companies with antibody expertise. A company with strong antibody IP but limited manufacturing scale can in-license linker chemistry and conjugation process IP from an ADC-specialist. The Daiichi Sankyo licensing deals with AstraZeneca covering trastuzumab deruxtecan (Enhertu) illustrate the scale of value these structures can generate: the initial deal in 2019 was structured at up to $6.9 billion including milestones.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

mRNA therapeutics carry a distinct IP challenge: the foundational lipid nanoparticle (LNP) delivery IP is heavily contested among a small number of players, particularly Moderna, Acuitas Therapeutics, Genevant Sciences, and Arbutus Biopharma. Any company seeking to develop an mRNA product must resolve its LNP IP position before launching, whether through licensing from the dominant holders or through a design-around strategy using alternative delivery systems. The Moderna-Arbutus LNP patent dispute, in which Arbutus challenged Moderna’s LNP patents and Moderna counter-argued that the challenged patents were invalid or not infringed, illustrates how this contested IP landscape creates licensing leverage for even relatively small IP holders if their claims cover core delivery mechanisms.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Cell and gene therapy IP is currently in a high-fragmentation phase, with foundational IP distributed across academic institutions (Stanford, Broad Institute, UC Berkeley), tool companies (Lonza, Thermo Fisher), and specialist biotech firms. The Broad Institute versus UC Berkeley dispute over CRISPR-Cas9 IP, which ran through multiple PTAB interference and derivation proceedings before the Broad’s claims were upheld for eukaryotic applications, remains a defining example of how foundational platform IP can affect licensing costs for an entire generation of downstream therapeutic developers. Companies building cell or gene therapy programs need to map their freedom-to-operate position against this fragmented IP landscape as a precondition to any licensing or partnership discussion.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Key Takeaways: Advanced Analytics and Emerging Modalities<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Predictive generic entry models built on patent data, litigation history, and market share capture rates are more defensible than scenario ranges alone. AI-assisted claim analysis is an emerging screen for patent defensibility that BD teams should monitor as a diligence supplement. Biologic modalities, particularly ADCs, mRNA, and cell therapy, have IP architectures that differ substantially from small molecules and require modality-specific licensing expertise. Companies that build this expertise in-house, or retain it through specialized counsel, will consistently outperform in deal structuring and valuation for these asset classes.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n

Part IX: Investment Strategy for Institutional Analysts<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

How to Screen Pharma Portfolios Using Patent Intelligence<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Institutional analysts covering pharma and biotech can use patent intelligence as a systematic screening tool to identify portfolio valuation gaps that standard sell-side models miss. The core method involves pulling the full Orange Book listing for each company’s marketed products, calculating the revenue-weighted remaining exclusivity for the portfolio, and comparing that figure against the market’s implied duration assumption embedded in consensus DCF models.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

When the market is discounting a patent cliff at a steeper rate than the actual Orange Book data supports, for example, because analysts have failed to account for pediatric exclusivity extensions or a granted SPC in a major European market, the stock is likely undervalued. When the market has not priced in a credible Paragraph IV challenge or an instituted PTAB proceeding, the stock may be overvalued relative to intrinsic patent-adjusted value.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This analysis works best for mid-cap specialty pharma companies where one or two key products dominate the revenue profile and where analyst coverage is thinner than for large-cap pharma. Patent data provides an objective, auditable foundation for variant positions that can withstand scrutiny in an investment committee.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Licensing Deal Flow as a Leading Indicator of Corporate Strategy<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

The timing and structure of licensing deals tells you more about a company’s internal asset assessment than any management presentation will. A company that aggressively out-licenses assets it previously described as core pipeline candidates has implicitly revealed that those assets failed to meet internal development criteria. A company that in-licenses late-stage assets at high upfront payments in a specific therapeutic area signals that its internal pipeline in that area is thin and that the in-licensing premium reflects an absence of internal alternatives.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Tracking deal flow using patent data adds a layer of precision to this analysis. When a company out-licenses an asset whose remaining patent exclusivity period you can quantify through Orange Book data, the royalty rate and upfront payment in the deal become benchmarks for asset value at that point in the exclusivity curve. When a company fails to out-license an asset despite an apparent market opportunity, it may signal that the internal assessment of patent risk is higher than the external IP analysis would suggest, which is itself a material due diligence signal.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n

Conclusion: Patent Intelligence as Operational Infrastructure<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Out-licensing and partnering in pharmaceuticals is not a relationship business running on lunches and JPMorgan conference conversations. It is an information-processing competition. The company that can answer, faster and more accurately than its counterparts, the questions of which assets are approaching their optimal licensing window, which potential partners have the IP and commercial capability to develop licensed technology, and what terms the market will support, will consistently extract more value from its IP estate.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Patent intelligence platforms, with DrugPatentWatch as the operational center, provide the data infrastructure for that competition. The capabilities span Orange Book patent tracking, Paragraph IV certification monitoring, PTAB and district court litigation data, settlement agreement analysis, API manufacturer profiling, drug sales benchmarking, and international patent coverage. Individually, each data stream is useful. Integrated and queried systematically against a specific licensing strategy, they constitute a genuine competitive advantage in business development.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The trend data is unambiguous: biologic deal volume is growing, Chinese out-licensing is accelerating, and APAC in-licensing demand is rising. BD teams that build the patent intelligence infrastructure to operate across all three of these trends, with real-time monitoring, systematic partner screening, and data-driven valuation arguments, will close more deals at better terms than those relying on periodic manual research and informal market intelligence.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The starting point is the same for every team: know your patent estate with precision, know the patent estates of your potential partners with the same precision, and use that knowledge to enter every conversation from a position of informational advantage.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n

Data references: EY Life Sciences Pharma Licensing Report 2024; FierceBiotech\/YAFO Life Sciences Chinese Biotech Licensing Data 2023; DrugPatentWatch platform documentation and G2 user review data. Patent examples drawn from public USPTO, Orange Book, and PTAB records.<\/em><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The difference between a licensing deal that captures peak asset value and one that leaves money on the table often […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":34213,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","site-sidebar-layout":"default","site-content-layout":"","ast-site-content-layout":"default","site-content-style":"default","site-sidebar-style":"default","ast-global-header-display":"","ast-banner-title-visibility":"","ast-main-header-display":"","ast-hfb-above-header-display":"","ast-hfb-below-header-display":"","ast-hfb-mobile-header-display":"","site-post-title":"","ast-breadcrumbs-content":"","ast-featured-img":"","footer-sml-layout":"","ast-disable-related-posts":"","theme-transparent-header-meta":"","adv-header-id-meta":"","stick-header-meta":"","header-above-stick-meta":"","header-main-stick-meta":"","header-below-stick-meta":"","astra-migrate-meta-layouts":"default","ast-page-background-enabled":"default","ast-page-background-meta":{"desktop":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-4)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"tablet":{"background-color":"","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"mobile":{"background-color":"","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""}},"ast-content-background-meta":{"desktop":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-5)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"tablet":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-5)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"mobile":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-5)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""}},"footnotes":""},"categories":[10],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-32990","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-insights"],"modified_by":"DrugPatentWatch","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.drugpatentwatch.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/32990","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.drugpatentwatch.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.drugpatentwatch.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.drugpatentwatch.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.drugpatentwatch.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=32990"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/www.drugpatentwatch.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/32990\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":38374,"href":"https:\/\/www.drugpatentwatch.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/32990\/revisions\/38374"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.drugpatentwatch.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/34213"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.drugpatentwatch.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=32990"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.drugpatentwatch.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=32990"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.drugpatentwatch.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=32990"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}