How GreyB Identifies In-Licensing and Divestment Opportunities for Global Pharma Teams

The Challenge

Business development and licensing teams frequently encounter a common issue: an abundance of late-stage assets in databases and presentations. The real gap lies in identifying assets that are genuinely ready for a transaction.

An asset may appear promising during an initial review, yet fail to meet practical requirements on closer examination. 

Key questions often go unanswered: 

• Is the asset available for licensing in the relevant markets? 
• Is there an open partner window, or are existing agreements already in place? 
• Does the regulatory pathway and market access profile hold up to scrutiny? 
• Is the remaining IP life sufficient to justify the investment?

The client required a more reliable way to progress from “appears interesting” to “ready for outreach this week,” without spending resources on assets that were unavailable, misaligned, or not yet at a transactable stage.

Client Objective

The client sought support in identifying divestment opportunities that could realistically advance toward a transaction.

The objective was to identify late-stage assets aligned with the client’s strategic priorities and assess deal readiness early. This went beyond clinical merit to include the factors that commonly delay or block transactions in practice, such as regional licensing availability, regulatory status, market access signals, IP runway, and partner willingness to transact.

The final output was a ranked shortlist accompanied by a practical outreach plan that the licensing team could execute directly.

How did we approach?

The engagement was structured into three steps, designed to cast a wide net at the outset while applying strict filters to eliminate unsuitable assets early on.

Step 1: Building the Asset Universe

The process began with a broad scan across established sources, including clinical and regulatory pathways, pipeline disclosures, and investor communications.

Clear criteria were applied from the start:

• Assets already in clinical trials or on an approved drug list
• Timeline to commercialization
• Relevance to the disease area of interest
• Company size and profile
• Signals of partnering intent

All identified assets were consolidated into a single repository with consistent tagging to allow direct comparison. The scan formed the starting universe; the substantive work began with structured scoring, pressure-testing of licensing status, and the development of an actionable shortlist.

Step 2: Assessing Deal Readiness

This step converts a longlist into a tiered, deal-ready plan. For each asset, the following parameters were evaluated:

• Clinical differentiation and its relevance to commercial positioning
• Regulatory maturity and implications for transaction timing
• Region-level readiness, including market access signals and launch feasibility in target markets
• IP runway and strength of protection across key jurisdictions
• Rights availability and open licensing signals, along with any exclusivity or partnership constraints

Key assumptions were validated through direct outreach, focusing on rights availability, exclusivity terms, transaction timing, and preliminary deal expectations.

Assets were then tiered using an investment-readiness matrix:

Step 3: Prioritization and Recommendations

Following the tiering exercise, a detailed review was conducted for the five to six highest-priority assets.

For each top candidate, a concise decision-ready summary was produced, covering commercial differentiation, the regulatory and launch pathway, IP position and associated risks, and an assessment of the partner window and deal feasibility. Each summary concluded with a clear recommendation: pursue, monitor with defined triggers, or decline.

Key Findings

Across the assets reviewed, those that passed screening consistently shared several characteristics:

• Demonstrated progress along at least one major regulatory pathway
• Sufficient IP runway to support commercialization, with clear jurisdiction-level coverage
• An unencumbered or accessible licensing position in the client’s priority markets
• Partnering behavior indicating willingness to transact, once exclusivity and constraint checks were completed

Negative signals were equally important to identify. Several assets that appeared clinically strong were disqualified once it became clear that rights were already committed, remaining patent life was insufficient, or the partner’s timeline did not align with the client’s requirements.

Recommendations

Recommendations were structured to enable the client to act without over-committing internal resources.

1. Two-Wave Outreach Plan

• Wave 1: Tier I assets with the clearest licensing availability in target markets and the strongest near-term readiness
• Wave 2: Tier II assets placed under active monitoring, with defined triggers such as regulatory milestones, pivotal readouts, or partnering announcements

2. Standardized Deal-Readiness Questions

A consistent set of questions was applied across all outreach conversations to ensure comparable, actionable responses:

• Which regional licensing rights are currently available, and what restrictions apply?
• What exclusivity arrangements, options, or prior agreements are in place?
• What is a realistic timeline for a transaction?
• What is the status of manufacturing and supply readiness for commercialization?
• What deal structure does the counterparty expect?

3. Decision Packets for Tier I Assets

Each Tier I asset was accompanied by a one-page decision summary covering:

• The basis for commercial differentiation
• The actual regulatory and launch pathway
• IP strength and key risk areas
• Assessment of the partner window and overall deal feasibility
• A clear recommendation with supporting rationale: pursue, monitor, or decline

This approach is applicable to teams evaluating in-licensing or divestment opportunities across multiple geographies. The filter criteria are adjusted by market; the underlying methodology remains consistent.

For teams seeking to move from initial scanning to structured, decision-ready outputs more efficiently, this framework provides a repeatable process to identify, assess, and prioritize transactable assets.