Use case · licensing diligence
Read the record behind the pitch.
Before the CDA, before the data room, before the term sheet: an independent assessment of the target asset built entirely from public evidence — the comparable-trial record, the patent runway, the enrolment reality and a valuation whose inputs you can replace.
Public evidence, read properly — no data room required.
The situation
The pitch is polished. The record is public.
Almost everything that decides whether a licensing asset is worth the price is already in the public record — the failures in the indication, the exclusivity clock, the enrolment feasibility. The work is reading all of it before the process moves.
- Public sources only, so you can start early
- No CDA needed
- Live public sources behind the read
- ~50
- Pillars, every figure cited
- 6
What happens today
Diligence starts after the momentum does.
Serious diligence is expensive, so it is commissioned once the deal is real — which is exactly when the organisation has become invested in the answer being yes.
The independent view comes too late
By the time external diligence reports, a term sheet is circulating. Findings that would have changed the price now have to change a commitment.
The failure record is summarised, not read
The target summarises the competitive landscape. Reading every comparable trial — including the ones that stopped and never reported — is days of work nobody has scheduled.
Exclusivity is taken from the deck
Runway at readout is the single most valuation-sensitive input and is routinely carried over from the target’s own patent summary.
Nobody checks whether the pivotal can enrol
The model assumes the guided timeline. Whether that many eligible patients can be recruited, in that geography, against that competition, is rarely tested.
What you do instead
Start diligence before the process does.
The complete comparable-trial record
Every comparable trial in the indication, its outcome, and — where stated — its reason for stopping, including trials that quietly never reported.
Patent and exclusivity runway
The public patent landscape around the molecule and its class, and how much exclusivity remains at the expected readout.
A directional probability, transparently derived
The base rate for the phase and area, and every adjustment made for this specific program, shown separately so you can dispute a step rather than a score.
An enrolment reality check
Cohort reach, eligibility burden and competing-trial density measured against the timeline the target is guiding to.
Valuation you can take apart
Market size, value-based price against the standard of care and a risk-adjusted eNPV, with every driver exposed for your own model.
Delay and safety signals
Timeline slippage read from public filings and transcripts, and adverse-event signals for the molecule and its class from public safety data.
What runs, and who drafts
The scope for this job
Diligence is a science-plus-value question. Where & How runs as the execution check on the target’s stated timeline rather than as a plan you will operate.
Pillars involved
How it runs
Name the target, read the evidence.
Name the asset and indication
A molecule or drug class is enough. Because the assessment is public-data only, it can run before any confidentiality agreement is in place.
The independent read assembles
Six pillars against around 50 live public sources — comparable trials, patents, labels, pricing, safety data and filings — with every figure cited.
Go in with a position
Use it to price the opportunity, to shape the confirmatory diligence list, and to know which of the target’s assumptions you actually need to test.
What lands on your desk
A diligence read you can hand to the deal team.
Including — deliberately — a list of what public evidence cannot settle, so the confirmatory diligence goes where it is actually needed.
What lands on your desk
Independent asset assessment + confirmatory-diligence question list
- The comparable-trial record with outcomes and stated stop reasons.
- Patent and exclusivity runway against the expected readout.
- A directional probability of success with base rate and adjustments shown separately.
- Risk-adjusted valuation with replaceable drivers.
- An enrolment feasibility check against the guided timeline.
- A list of the questions public evidence cannot answer — the ones worth spending data-room time on.
Honest limits
Where this stops
What this does not do for you. Naming it here is cheaper for both of us than finding it in a procurement review.
It is an evidence synthesis, not investment or legal advice, and it does not replace confirmatory diligence once the data room opens.
Patent work reads public records to establish runway. It is not a freedom-to-operate opinion and does not substitute for patent counsel.
Public data only. Unpublished results, CMC status, manufacturing risk and confidential regulatory correspondence are outside its view — several of which can decide a deal.
Adverse-event signals come from public spontaneous-report data, which cannot establish causation.
The probability of success is directional and presented with its assumptions — not a forecast, and not a valuation input to be used unqualified.
Questions
The ones you would ask first
Can we really run this before a CDA?
Yes. The assessment reads public sources only, so naming the molecule or drug class and the indication is sufficient. Nothing confidential is required or received.
What does it tell us that the data room will not?
The outside view: what happened to every comparable trial, what the exclusivity clock actually says, and whether the pivotal can enrol on the stated timeline. The data room gives you the inside view — the two are complementary, and this one arrives first.
Does it replace our technical diligence?
No. It gives your technical and commercial diligence a cited evidence base to start from, and a specific list of what public evidence could not settle.
How do we handle the valuation output in negotiation?
Treat it as a set of inputs with visible derivations. Its value in a negotiation is that a counterparty has to dispute a named assumption rather than a conclusion.
Read the asset before the room opens.
Name the target and the indication. We’ll return an independent, fully cited assessment — and a list of the questions worth spending data-room time on.