Lilly pledges up to $1.8B to Pfizer for access to potential blockbuster

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Eli Lilly and Co. and Pfizer Inc., which are both suffering through some of the largest patent cliffs in the industry, have found a new answer to their struggles: hold each other up.

The two drugmakers have entered into a deal to bring a troubled osteoarthritis drug to market. If successful, the deal could see Indianapolis-based Lilly pay as much as $1.78 billion to New York-based Pfizer.

The drug at the center of the deal, tanezumab, was predicted as recently as 2010 to have potential for more than $1 billion in annual sales.

That was before patients taking the drug in clinical trials reported higher rates of blowing out their joints—apparently because the drug was so effective at reducing pain, that the patients over-exerted themselves.

That led the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to place a hold on the drug. Pfizer worked through that issue, but then last December, the FDA placed another hold on the development of tanezumab and all similar drugs. This second hold was due to concerns about nervous system effects seen in animal studies of these kinds of drugs, which are called anti-NGF inhibitors.

Pfizer said late last month that it will submit new dosing data about tanezumab in the first half of 2014. If the FDA gives the drug a green light to restart a Phase 3 clinical trial of the drug, Lilly and Pfizer will split any future development and commercialization costs for tanezumab, and then will split any profits if the drug makes it to market.

In a securities filing, Lilly said it won’t pay anything until the FDA gives a response to Pfizer’s clinical data. But if the companies get the OK, Lilly will pay Pfizer $200 million immediately. After that, Lilly could pay up to $350 million as tanezumab hits further regulatory milestones. And then, depending on tanezumab’s sales, Lilly could pay another $1.23 billion to Pfizer.

It’s a creative way both companies might get a new blockbuster on the market—something both companies desperately need.

Lilly’s revenue peaked at $24.3 billion in 2011, the year its bestselling drug Zyprexa saw its U.S. and European patents expire. Now, at the end of 2013, Lilly will see its new bestseller, Cymbalta, lose its U.S. patents.

Analysts expect Lilly’s revenue next year to fall to just below $20 billion—18 percent below the peak in 2011.

And while the company has submitted four new drugs for approval this year, all of which stand a good chance of reaching the market, they won’t produce enough revenue to replace the nearly $8 billion Lilly will have lost in Zyprexa and Cymbalta sales.

For its part, Pfizer saw patents expire on Lipitor—the all-time bestselling in pharma history—in 2011. The loss of Lipitor’s peak annual sales of $13 billion has helped Pfizer’s revenue plunge nearly 10 percent last year and to fall another 7 percent so far this year.

“We're very excited about the deal that we've announced today with Eli Lilly,” said John Young, president of Pfizer’s primary care business unit, during an Oct. 29 conference call with analysts. “And we believe that represents a very positive opportunity for us to collaborate to take tanezumab into Phase 3 clinical development and ultimately we believe into the marketplace, which clearly has significant need and opportunity for new pain treatment options.”


Post a comment to this story

We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. Apologies for the wall of text. I promise I had this nicely formatted in paragraphs in Notepad before pasting here.

  2. I believe that is incorrect Sir, the people's tax-dollars are NOT paying for the companies investment. Without the tax-break the company would be paying an ADDITIONAL $11.1 million in taxes ON TOP of their $22.5 Million investment (Building + IT), for a total of $33.6M or a 50% tax rate. Also, the article does not specify what the total taxes were BEFORE the break. Usually such a corporate tax-break is a 'discount' not a 100% wavier of tax obligations. For sake of example lets say the original taxes added up to $30M over 10 years. $12.5M, New Building $10.0M, IT infrastructure $30.0M, Total Taxes (Example Number) == $52.5M ININ's Cost - $1.8M /10 years, Tax Break (Building) - $0.75M /10 years, Tax Break (IT Infrastructure) - $8.6M /2 years, Tax Breaks (against Hiring Commitment: 430 new jobs /2 years) == 11.5M Possible tax breaks. ININ TOTAL COST: $41M Even if you assume a 100% break, change the '30.0M' to '11.5M' and you can see the Company will be paying a minimum of $22.5, out-of-pocket for their capital-investment - NOT the tax-payers. Also note, much of this money is being spent locally in Indiana and it is creating 430 jobs in your city. I admit I'm a little unclear which tax-breaks are allocated to exactly which expenses. Clearly this is all oversimplified but I think we have both made our points! :) Sorry for the long post.

  3. Clearly, there is a lack of a basic understanding of economics. It is not up to the company to decide what to pay its workers. If companies were able to decide how much to pay their workers then why wouldn't they pay everyone minimum wage? Why choose to pay $10 or $14 when they could pay $7? The answer is that companies DO NOT decide how much to pay workers. It is the market that dictates what a worker is worth and how much they should get paid. If Lowe's chooses to pay a call center worker $7 an hour it will not be able to hire anyone for the job, because all those people will work for someone else paying the market rate of $10-$14 an hour. This forces Lowes to pay its workers that much. Not because it wants to pay them that much out of the goodness of their heart, but because it has to pay them that much in order to stay competitive and attract good workers.

  4. GOOD DAY to you I am Mr Howell Henry, a Reputable, Legitimate & an accredited money Lender. I loan money out to individuals in need of financial assistance. Do you have a bad credit or are you in need of money to pay bills? i want to use this medium to inform you that i render reliable beneficiary assistance as I'll be glad to offer you a loan at 2% interest rate to reliable individuals. Services Rendered include: *Refinance *Home Improvement *Inventor Loans *Auto Loans *Debt Consolidation *Horse Loans *Line of Credit *Second Mortgage *Business Loans *Personal Loans *International Loans. Please write back if interested. Upon Response, you'll be mailed a Loan application form to fill. (No social security and no credit check, 100% Guaranteed!) I Look forward permitting me to be of service to you. You can contact me via e-mail howellhenryloanfirm@gmail.com Yours Sincerely MR Howell Henry(MD)

  5. It is sad to see these races not have a full attendance. The Indy Car races are so much more exciting than Nascar. It seems to me the commenters here are still a little upset with Tony George from a move he made 20 years ago. It was his decision to make, not yours. He lost his position over it. But I believe the problem in all pro sports is the escalating price of admission. In todays economy, people have to pay much more for food and gas. The average fan cannot attend many events anymore. It's gotten priced out of most peoples budgets.