Licensing in biotech: practical lessons from an EIC workshop

On 30 June 2022 the European Innovation Council's Health and Biotech team organised an online workshop titled "Licensing in Biotech". The session was run by the EIC Programme Manager for Health and Biotechnology, Iordanis Arzimanoglou, and brought together seven external speakers with operational experience in licensing, technology transfer and intellectual property. Institutions represented included BioNTech, Johnson & Johnson and Tufts University. The event combined presentations and two 45 minute panel discussions chaired by John Hodgson, former Editor at Large at Nature Biotechnology and managing director of communications at LifeSci Advisors.

Who took part and how the event was structured

Most participants were staff from universities and small and medium sized companies in the pharmaceutical sector that currently receive EIC funding. The format mixed short presentations from experienced practitioners with two moderated panels. The goal was practical. Speakers drew on real world, international licensing cases to explain how licensing works at different development stages and to highlight why some transactions succeed while others do not.

What the workshop covered

Speakers and panellists focused on how licensing transactions are actually done in biotech, across early and later development stages. Rather than offering theory, the presenters used their personal hands on experiences to explain decision points for licensors and licensees. The discussion covered timing of deals, the capabilities needed to execute a licence, the mind set required from founders and academics, how to target the right partner, and how to craft a credible value proposition. The panels also examined the role of Technology Transfer Officers, whether licensing can scale companies, and geographic contrasts between the US and different parts of Europe.

Key practical themes

Context and broader implications for European innovators

The workshop surfaced issues that extend beyond individual deals. Europe has fragmented capital markets and a more diverse research landscape than the United States. That fragmentation affects investment readiness, exit routes and licensing outcomes. Participants debated differences between the US and Europe and between Western and Eastern Europe. Speakers argued that the US remains more attractive for late stage investment on average because of deeper venture capital pools and a larger consolidated market. Within Europe, Western hubs tend to have stronger investor networks and more experienced transfer offices. Eastern European projects may face greater hurdles to attract commercial partners but can benefit from targeted ecosystem support.

Practical advice for EIC beneficiaries

Several practical recommendations emerged for academic teams and small companies supported by the EIC. Start early with a commercialization plan. Engage your tech transfer office but assess whether it has the skills and contacts the project needs. Build a succinct, evidence based value proposition that speaks to the commercial realities of potential licensees. Consider what you need from a deal structurally whether that is upfront funding, milestone payments, royalty streams or co development rights. And if your objective is to scale an independent company, consider whether licensing to an established partner will meet that objective or whether equity funding and internal development are required.

Critical perspective

The workshop provided well informed operational insights but it also underlined limits. Licensing can transfer the cost and risk of development to a third party but it also transfers control and future upside. The value of a licence depends heavily on negotiation capability, the quality of the IP dossier and the depth of clinical or preclinical data. Claims that licensing alone will scale companies should be treated with caution. For many biotechnology projects a mix of approaches is necessary including licensing, equity financing and strategic partnerships. The regional disparities discussed at the workshop are structural and require long term ecosystem building rather than single transactions alone.

Workshop assessment and logistics

John Hodgson, who chaired the panel sessions, described the workshop as having highly engaged participation from European and US business leaders, translation experts and technology transfer professionals. He said the event delivered sharply defined perspectives on licensing challenges and on mechanisms for better practice in life sciences technology licensing. The EIC noted that due to a technical issue the recording did not start at the very beginning of the session.

Takeaways for policy and for the EIC

For policy makers and programme managers supporting deep tech and biotech the workshop reinforces two points. First, technical innovation needs matched commercial capabilities to reach patients and markets. Funding instruments should therefore combine R and D support with business development and deal making capacity building. Second, geographic imbalances matter. EIC beneficiaries in regions with weaker ecosystems need access to coaching, investor matchmaking and stronger tech transfer support. The EIC and related agencies play a role in building those bridges but results require sustained investment in local capacity.

Useful concepts explained

Next steps and resources

The EIC has previously organised related webinars such as "Licensing as exit strategy for EIC beneficiaries" and has resources on business acceleration services and coaching. Participants are encouraged to follow EIC channels for future events and to use the EIC business coach service when preparing negotiation and licensing strategies.

Note on the record. The EIC disclosed that the session recording missed the very beginning due to a technical issue. Interested readers seeking the full output should check EIC event pages for available recordings and supplementary materials.