Abstract
We study three contractual arrangements—co‐development, licensing, and co‐development with opt‐out options—for the joint development of new products between a small and financially constrained innovator firm and a large technology company, as in the case of a biotech innovator and a major pharma company. We formulate our arguments in the context of a two‐stage model, characterized by technical risk and stochastically changing cost and revenue projections. The model captures the main disadvantages of traditional co‐development and licensing arrangements: in co‐development the small firm runs a risk of running out of capital as future costs rise, while licensing for milestone and royalty (M&R) payments, which eliminates the latter risk, introduces inefficiency, as profitable projects might be abandoned. Counter to intuition we show that the biotech's payoff in a licensing contract is not monotonically increasing in the M&R terms. We also show that an option clause in a co‐development contract that gives the small firm the right but not the obligation to opt out of co‐development and into a pre‐agreed licensing arrangement avoids the problems associated with fully committed co‐development or licensing: the probability that the small firm will run out of capital is greatly reduced or completely eliminated and profitable projects are never abandoned.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
