In the context of increased pharmaceutical innovation deficits and Big Pharma blockbusters’ patent expirations, this paper examines the moderating role of firms’ absorptive capacity in external innovation activities of Big Pharma firms. The study indicates a rising interest of Big Pharma in acquisitions of and alliances with biotechnology companies. Unfortunately, this increased interest is not reflected in the number of new drugs generated by Big Pharma. We find that acquisitions of biotech companies have negatively affected Big Pharma firms’ innovation performance on average but these acquisitions might have a positive effect at higher levels of acquiring firms’ absorptive capacity. Moreover, also acquisitions of pharma companies and alliances with biotech companies only have a positive effect on innovation performance at sufficiently high levels of absorptive capacity. The moderating role of absorptive capacity implicates that a tight integration of internal R&D efforts and (unrelated) external knowledge is crucial for harnessing complementarity effects.

During the past two decades the biopharmaceutical industry has been facing an innovation deficit, characterized by increasing research & development costs and stagnant productivity. From its inception, biotechnology has been expected to counter this deficit by its revolutionary science-based approach to drug discovery. For this study we gathered patent and product data related to the technological development of the first two biotechnologies: recombinant DNA technology and monoclonal antibody technology. We studied the technological lifecycles of these technologies in terms of scientific discoveries and inventions as well as product innovations. Results indicate that over the years inventions related to these technologies have simultaneously become less radical and less valuable. Furthermore, our analysis shows that these biotechnologies have reached a stage of technological limit or saturation, which may be followed by an innovation cliff. Now, more than ever, it is crucial to examine new strategies and opportunities for value creation, capturing, and delivery, within the biopharmaceutical industry

The management and exploitation of biotechnological product innovation have proven to be more difficult than initially expected because the number of currently marketed biotechnological products is far from sufficient to counter deficits in pharmaceutical innovation. This study provides insight into the role of governance structures in interfirm cooperation and their effects on biotechnological product innovation and company success. Most of the existing literature regarding alliances and mergers and acquisitions (M&A) examines their effects on technology recipients' innovation performance. Here, the effects of alliances and M&A on both the innovation success and financial performance of technology suppliers (i.e., sources) are examined. Drawing from a sample of 220 human therapeutic biotechnology and biopharmaceutical firms over a period of 32 years (1980–2011), an analysis of the effects of biotechnology clusters, strategic alliances, and acquisitions is provided. This study reveals the existence of a risk‐return trade‐off for strategic alliances between biotech companies and larger, more established firms. Increased biotech company involvement in product development alliances decreases risk by increasing the likelihood of future product introductions. The trade‐off, however, is that biotech companies earn lower returns when their products are developed through such alliances. A similar risk‐return trade‐off effect is found for clusters. However, acquisitions generally affect both product introductions and product returns in a negative way. These findings have strategic implications not only for managing the development of biotechnological product innovations and technology platforms but also for commercialization strategies with respect to interfirm cooperation and risk reduction.

No abstract

Venture capitalists (VCs) aim at trade sales as a preferred exit-strategy for biotechnology companies they invest in. Therefore, VCs pay close attention to the wishes of larger (bio)pharmaceutical acquirers. In this paper we explore VCs’ behavior and strategies by analyzing the technology fields and therapeutic areas in which they are invested most and which yield the highest returns by means of trade sales. The data show that VCs are by far most invested in oncology and this is also an area in which relatively high returns are realized. Regarding other areas, VCs could balance their average investment valuations more in correspondence with what acquirers are willing to pay. In addition, VCs have formidable insight in the types of technologies that do well and they seem to employ a strategy focused on both short-term and long-term success. They are investing most in small molecule drugs and protein/peptide therapeutics, which both yield high returns, followed by DNA/RNA technologies which underlie the possibilities of personalized medicine. We conclude that Venture Capitalists act as technological gatekeepers because they are predicting long-term cure and care macro-trends.