Sublicense Royalties in Pharma Royalty Financing

Sublicense royalties have become an important feature in pharmaceutical royalty financing deals, especially as biotech firms and pharma companies seek creative funding structures. In simple terms, a sublicense royalty (or sublicensing income) is the share of revenue that an original licensor earns when its licensee grants a sub-license to a third party. This article provides an in-depth look at how sublicense royalties work, recent examples from 2024–2025, and comparisons with traditional royalty streams.

We'll examine financial structuring (e.g. NPV modeling, downstream milestone clauses), legal mechanics (license stacking, audit rights), strategic use cases (capital raising, R&D risk-sharing), and real-world case studies from early-stage biotech, big pharma, and specialized royalty funds like Royalty Pharma and XOMA.

Financial Structuring Considerations in Royalty & Sublicense Deals

Valuation and NPV Modeling: Royalty financing deals are fundamentally driven by NPV (net present value) modeling of expected future payments. Investors discount projected royalties and milestone streams (often at high rates reflecting risk). In recent years, rising interest rates have pushed discount rates higher, increasing the cost of capital for royalty financings. As a result, many deals incorporate performance-based payments to hedge risk.

For example, there's a growing preference for milestone-linked payments – instead of paying all cash upfront, investors stage payments upon clinical or sales milestones, which lowers their risk profile and the seller's cost of capital. This trend was evident in 2024–2025 transactions where buyers committed additional payments only if the drug hit regulatory or sales targets, aligning payouts with success.

Risk-adjusted net present value (rNPV) has become the industry gold standard for pharmaceutical asset valuation, separating development risk from the discount rate by explicitly weighting cash flows by probability of success. The critical advantage over traditional NPV is that rNPV uses a 10–15% discount rate reflecting only time value and commercial risk, while applying explicit probability weights for development failure.

Traditional NPV bundles all risk into discount rates of 20–50% depending on stage. Industry-standard probability of success rates show 52% transition from Phase I to Phase II, 29–34% from Phase II to Phase III, and 70–73% from Phase III to NDA filing, with overall likelihood of approval from Phase I ranging from 8–14% across all indications.

Upfront, Milestones, and Royalty Sharing: A typical royalty monetization or funding deal might involve an upfront sum plus a share of future royalties and milestones. For instance, in October 2024 XOMA acquired 50% of Twist Bioscience's future milestone and royalty economics on over 60 partnered programs (spanning 30 different sublicense partners) for a $15 million upfront payment. Under that arrangement, XOMA will receive half of all contingent payouts (including any sub-license fees, milestones, and low single-digit running royalties on product sales) from those programs.

This illustrates how sublicense income is directly built into the financial structure: XOMA's return will come not just from product sales royalties, but also from any license fees or milestone payments that Twist's partners pay to Twist. Such deals require careful modeling of various cash flow scenarios – e.g. predicting if/when a licensee will sub-license to another partner (triggering one-time fees) versus taking the product to market and generating sales-based royalties.

Synthetic vs. Traditional Royalties: Another structural nuance is "traditional" vs "synthetic" royalties. In a traditional royalty monetization, the seller already has an existing license agreement that entitles them to royalties – the financier simply buys a portion of that existing royalty stream. In a synthetic royalty deal, there may be no pre-existing third-party license; instead, an investor provides funding (often for R&D or product launch) in exchange for a contractually defined royalty on future sales.

For example, in 2025 Merck & Co. struck a synthetic royalty deal with Blackstone: Blackstone paid $700 million to fund Merck's development of an antibody-drug conjugate, and in return Blackstone will receive low- to mid-single-digit percentage royalties on the drug's future net sales. This kind of financing essentially creates a royalty where one didn't exist, as an alternative to equity or debt financing. Synthetic royalties have emerged as the fastest-growing segment, with a 33% compound annual growth rate from 2020–2024. Both traditional and synthetic structures must factor in sublicense scenarios – e.g. if the pharma later partners the product in certain markets, the contract will stipulate how those sub-licensing revenues are shared with the investor.

Downstream Payment Clauses: Many deals also include "downstream" milestone or tiered royalty clauses. These can adjust the financial terms based on how far along the asset is at the time of sublicensing or commercialization. One common approach is to tier the sublicensing share by stage – for instance, a licensor might take a smaller percentage of any sublicense payments if the sublicense occurs at a very early stage (to let the licensee retain more value for development) and a higher percentage if the product is already near market. In practice, we often see lower shares on pre-commercial upfronts vs. higher shares on post-approval royalties. A related method is a royalty "pass-through": the licensor requires that the full running royalty rate be passed through on sublicense sales.

For example, if a university licensed a drug to a biotech at a 5% royalty on sales, a pass-through clause means the university also gets 5% of the sublicensee's net sales (irrespective of what royalty the biotech negotiates). However, not all deals use full pass-through – some instead give the original licensor a fixed slice (e.g. 25%) of whatever royalty rate the sublicensee pays. Each structure has trade-offs in incentivizing the licensee and valuing the licensor's contribution.

Economic Modeling of Sublicense Scenarios: From a financial modeling standpoint, sublicense royalties add complexity because they introduce lumpy cash flows (large one-time license fees or milestones) on top of steady sales royalties. Analysts must forecast not only product sales curves but also the probability and timing of partnership deals.

For instance, a biotech might license a program to a big pharma for certain regions; if the pharma in turn sub-licenses regional rights (say, to a partner in China), the original biotech could be owed a sizable percentage of that regional license fee. Royalty funds and investors account for these possibilities by assigning probabilities or using option-like modeling for contingent payments. The 2024–2025 market has seen some innovative, bespoke royalty structures to accommodate these uncertainties.

XOMA's Twist deal is one example, essentially creating a portfolio of small royalty interests across dozens of early programs. Royalty Pharma likewise announced deals that include substantial milestone components – e.g. acquiring rights to ImmuNext's royalties on Sanofi's frexalimab for $525 million, a price that includes future milestone considerations. These structures ensure that if the drug succeeds wildly, the seller (original royalty owner) will receive additional value, whereas if it underperforms, the buyer's upfront outlay was lower. Overall, robust NPV analysis and sensitivity scenarios are critical when structuring deals involving sublicense income, due to the unpredictable timing and magnitude of such payments.

Legal Mechanics: Contract Provisions for Sublicense Royalties

When a licensing deal includes rights for the licensee to sub-license the technology, the contract will spell out how sublicensing income is shared. These provisions are often heavily negotiated and demand precise wording. A licensor (e.g. a biotech or university) will seek to capture value from all payments a sublicense generates, while the licensee (e.g. the biotech or pharma holding the license) will want flexibility to structure deals without onerous penalties.

This creates a tension: "The university's priority is to ensure the licensee can't 'game' the system to reduce payments, whereas the licensee wants the freedom to structure the sublicense deal in whatever way maximizes value". Thus, the contract must define "Sublicensing Income" broadly enough to prevent loopholes, but often carves out certain exceptions.

Defining Sublicense Income: Agreements typically include a definition of what counts as sublicensing revenue that must be shared. To prevent the licensee from disguising a license fee as something else, the definition usually sweeps in all payments received from a sublicensee – upfront fees, milestone payments, running royalties – except for a few allowed exclusions. Common exclusions are payments for research or services, reimbursement of R&D costs, supply or manufacturing payments, or equity investments in the licensee.

The idea is that the licensor should share in the true license value, but if the sublicensee is, say, paying the licensee to perform contract research or buying the licensee's stock, those amounts might be excluded as they're not strictly for the IP rights. Even with exclusions, clever structuring can occur, so licensors insist on comprehensive language and sometimes approval rights over any sublicense agreements.

Three primary structures govern sublicense income sharing. The allocation model applies a simple percentage (typically 10–25%) to all sublicense payments, which cannot be gamed but may prove too generous or too stingy depending on the payment type. The tiered allocation model applies different percentages pre- and post-commercialization, allowing licensees to retain more capital during development while ensuring licensors participate meaningfully in commercial success.

The pass-through model combines a royalty rate on sublicensee sales equal to the original royalty rate plus an allocation percentage on non-royalty payments. The Licensing Executives Society recommends exemplifying payment types exhaustively rather than relying on general terms – instead of simply "milestone payments," sophisticated drafting includes "milestone payments, including, but not limited to, payments for the achievement of patent, pre-clinical, clinical, regulatory, sales and any other milestones."

Preventing Manipulation of Sublicense Arrangements: Sophisticated licensors deploy multiple mechanisms to prevent licensees from structuring sublicense transactions to minimize payments. Fair market value requirements represent the first line of defense: any equity investment in the licensee is included in sublicense income to the extent it exceeds fair market value, and non-monetary consideration must be calculated based on fair market value "including all elements of such consideration."

Related-party transactions receive heightened scrutiny. Standard provisions require sublicense transactions to occur on an arm's-length basis, with sublicenses to affiliates typically requiring identical payment obligations as third-party sublicenses. When a sublicense includes both licensed technology and licensee-developed technology, agreements increasingly require explicit value allocation – often with a floor provision ensuring at least 30–50% of value is attributed to the original patent rights regardless of what other technologies are bundled.

License Stacking Provisions: A related legal mechanism is the "royalty stacking" clause. This doesn't involve sub-licensing per se, but it affects royalty calculations when multiple licenses are in play. For example, if a licensee must take a third-party patent license (unrelated to the original licensor) to commercialize the product, a stacking clause might allow the licensee to deduct a portion of those third-party royalties from the royalties owed to the original licensor. This protects the licensee from an excessive aggregate royalty burden.

Typically, contracts set a limit (e.g. royalty payments to the original licensor can be reduced by 50% of third-party royalties paid, with a floor royalty rate that can't be gone below). While license stacking is about third-party IP, it can intersect with sublicense deals too – for instance, if the sublicensee has to pay royalties up a chain of sub-licenses. All parties want to avoid double-counting or infinite royalty chains, so well-drafted agreements clarify these scenarios. A 2022 academic study offers a counterintuitive finding: anti-stacking clauses may paradoxically increase total royalty burdens because subsequent licensors demand higher rates knowing their royalties will be partially offset.

Audit Rights and Oversight: Because licensors are often one step removed from the actual sales or deals once they've out-licensed an asset, contracts grant them audit and information rights. The licensor will typically require the licensee to report all sublicense transactions and sometimes even provide a copy of any sublicense agreement for review. Licensors also insist on rights to audit the books of the licensee (and by extension, to get relevant records from sublicensees) to verify that the correct royalties and sublicense revenue share are being paid. Strong audit clauses and reporting obligations create transparency and help catch underpayments or attempts to mischaracterize fees.

In fact, reserving broad audit rights lets the IP owner verify that all parties are adhering to the deal terms, reducing the risk of non-compliance. For example, a pharma company licensing out a product might include language that it can audit the licensee's sublicense revenue reports or even require the sublicensee to certify sales figures, ensuring that the running royalty pass-through is accurate.

The critical elements of audit provisions include frequency limitations (typically once per calendar year), auditor requirements (independent CPAs subject to confidentiality agreements), and record retention obligations (three to five years after termination). Cost allocation provisions provide meaningful enforcement incentives: while licensors typically bear audit costs, agreements universally include a 5% threshold where any underpayment exceeding that percentage shifts audit costs to the licensee and triggers interest on the deficiency (commonly prime rate plus 2%).

Termination and Step-In Rights: Another key legal aspect is what happens to sublicenses if the main (head) license terminates. Licensors often negotiate that all sub-licenses will terminate upon termination of the head license, to prevent their IP from floating uncontrolled. However, licensees may push for protections for their sublicensees – for instance, an agreement might state that if the main license ends (e.g. due to the original licensee's default), the sublicensor (original licensor) will grant a direct license to any bona fide sublicensee so that the sublicensee isn't left high and dry.

This is sometimes handled via novation or direct licensing provisions in the contract. Additionally, licensors will require that the licensee indemnify them for any breaches by a sublicensee, since the sublicensor has less direct control over those third parties. All these legal mechanics ensure that while sublicensing can proceed to help develop or commercialize the product, the licensor's interests are safeguarded – they get their negotiated share of value, maintain oversight, and have recourse if things go awry.

Under English and U.S. common law, sublicenses generally terminate with the main license based on privity of contract – a licensee cannot sublicense more rights than it possesses. German courts have reached the opposite conclusion under the doctrine of "Sukzessionsschutz," holding that sublicenses remain intact when main licenses terminate to protect sublicensees who made substantial investments.

The NIH/PHS standard provision illustrates the direct license conversion approach: "Any sublicenses granted by Licensee shall provide for the termination of the sublicense, or the conversion to a license directly between such sublicensees and PHS, at the option of the sublicensee, upon termination of this Agreement."

Strategic Use Cases for Sublicense Royalties

Sublicense royalties and creative royalty financings serve several strategic purposes in the biopharma ecosystem:

Non-Dilutive Capital for Biotechs: Early-stage biotech companies often lack the cash to advance all their programs. By out-licensing a drug candidate (or partnering it) in exchange for royalties and milestones, they effectively monetize an asset to fund other R&D. They can go a step further and monetize the royalty itself – selling a portion of their future royalty interest to investors for upfront cash.

This funding is non-dilutive (no equity given up) and can extend their runway. A recent example is Twist Bioscience, which in 2024 secured $15 million upfront from XOMA by selling 50% of the future milestones/royalties from over 60 preclinical programs it had licensed out. Dozens of small biotechs have executed similar royalty transactions to raise capital without issuing stock, especially in the face of depressed equity markets.

Risk Sharing for Expensive R&D: For larger pharmas and late-stage programs, royalty financing allows sharing the risk of R&D or launch costs with investors. The November 2025 Merck–Blackstone deal is a prime case. Merck obtained $700 million from Blackstone to help fund the costly Phase 3 trials of an antibody-drug conjugate (sacituzumab-TMT), and in return gave Blackstone a slice of future sales royalties.

If the drug fails, Merck has offloaded some risk (Blackstone's upfront is at risk); if it succeeds, Merck will forego a small portion of revenue in exchange for having reduced its upfront investment. Such arrangements can de-risk R&D for pharma companies' budgets and are an innovative tool for pipeline financing. They effectively outsource some of the pipeline risk to specialized funds in exchange for a capped royalty obligation.

Monetization of Non-Core or Regional Assets: Big pharma or mid-sized companies sometimes have licensed-out products or regional rights that are non-core to their main business. Instead of waiting years for royalty trickle, they may choose to sell the royalty stream for immediate cash, which can be redeployed to core projects or paying down debt. In May 2025, Elanco (an animal health company) sold its royalty and milestone rights in a human ophthalmology drug (lotilaner, brand XDEMVY) to Blackstone for $295 million cash. Elanco had licensed that molecule to Tarsus, and once the drug was approved and generating royalties, Elanco monetized those U.S. royalty rights to accelerate debt reduction.

This illustrates how even large companies use royalty transactions strategically – converting a long-term royalty annuity into a lump sum to meet immediate financial goals. Notably, Elanco kept ex-U.S. royalties and other future uses of the molecule, showing these deals can be sculpted (carved-out by territory or indication) to fit the seller's strategy.

Funds Fueling Innovation and Earning Yield: Specialized royalty investment firms (Royalty Pharma, XOMA, Blackstone Life Sciences, Healthcare Royalty Partners, etc.) have emerged as major players providing capital to the sector. Their business model is to offer upfront funding (to companies, universities, or even other investors) in exchange for slices of future drug revenues. Royalty Pharma, for example, has a portfolio of over 35 commercial product royalties and often co-funds late-stage trials or product launches for future royalties. In 2024, Royalty Pharma spent $525 million to acquire ImmuNext's royalty rights on a Sanofi drug, and also bought a royalty stake in a rare disease drug (Ecopipam) for $49 million plus $44 million in milestones.

These funds deploy sophisticated financial structuring (sometimes combining debt-like features, equity kickers, or hedging) to generate returns that are uncorrelated to stock markets. From the biotech/pharma perspective, partnering with a royalty fund can be attractive because it validates the asset (due diligence by the fund) and provides large infusions of cash without giving up control of the asset (as would happen in a sale or full out-licensing).

How Royalty Funds Value Assets: Royalty Pharma, controlling approximately 60% of the market for large transactions, focuses on blockbuster pharmaceuticals and established biotech therapies. With 86% of invested capital in approved products, Royalty Pharma employs lower discount rates – mid-to-high single digits – reflecting minimal cash flow uncertainty. Healthcare Royalty Partners, now majority-owned by KKR following a July 2025 acquisition, has committed over $7 billion since inception across 55+ products, focusing on commercial and near-commercial stage assets. XOMA Royalty pursues a differentiated strategy, acquiring economic rights to milestone and royalty payments on pre-commercial clinical candidates in Phase 1 and Phase 2 – a higher-risk approach that implies higher discount rates but allows portfolio diversification.

Blackstone Life Sciences, managing $12 billion in assets, combines direct equity stakes, structured financings, and royalty streams, with reported 85% Phase III success rates on funded programs.

Global Partnerships and Market Expansion: Sublicensing is also used strategically to enter new markets. A company with global rights might sub-license a product to regional partners (e.g. a China or Japan-focused pharma) to leverage their local expertise. The original licensor still benefits via sublicense royalties on those regional sales. In practice, many 2024–2025 deals had a cross-border element – for instance, Merck's ADC came from a collaboration with China's Kelun Biotech, and any further sub-licenses in specific geographies would trigger sharing under the Merck-Kelun agreement.

We also see Western biotechs licensing Asian rights to local firms and stacking multiple royalty streams by region. Sublicense royalty terms ensure the originator gets a fair share from each region's deal. This strategy helps raise capital from regional deals while the primary licensee focuses on core markets.

In all these cases, sublicense royalties are a key part of the economics – either as the direct source of cash (when a partner is found) or as an element to be monetized with third-party financiers. The flexibility to slice and dice royalties and sublicense income has given companies more financing levers to pull, whether to bolster their balance sheet, fund innovation, or manage risk.

Traditional Royalties vs. Sublicensing Income: Key Differences

When discussing out-licensing arrangements, it's important to distinguish traditional product royalties from sublicense income – both reward the original IP owner, but they operate differently:

Source of Payment: A traditional royalty comes from product sales – the licensee pays the licensor a percentage of net sales of the drug. In contrast, sublicense income comes from deal payments – it is derived when the licensee grants rights to another party (the sublicensee) and receives upfront fees, milestones, or a cut of that sublicensee's sales. In essence, traditional royalties are paid by the licensee (out of product revenue), whereas sublicense royalties are paid by the licensee out of the proceeds of a further license transaction.

Timing and Lumpiness: Traditional royalties typically flow over time, after product launch – they depend on market uptake and can span many years. Sublicense income often arrives in large chunks (for example, a $50 million upfront payment from a regional licensing deal, or a milestone when the sublicensee's product is approved). This means sublicensing income can provide a big early cash boost (useful for biotech licensors or their investors), but it's one-time or episodic, not a long-term stream (unless the sublicense includes ongoing royalties too). The timing of sublicense income is also less predictable – it hinges on if/when the licensee finds a sublicense partner and on what terms.

Magnitude and Uncertainty: A product royalty rate might be, say, 5% of net sales – its ultimate value depends on how the drug sells, introducing market risk. Sublicense fees can sometimes far exceed the NPV of near-term sales royalties (especially if a development-stage asset is sublicensed for a rich upfront). However, there's deal risk – if the licensee never sublicenses (perhaps choosing to commercialize alone), the licensor might only get sales royalties and miss out on a big one-time payout. Thus, licensors often negotiate to get both: e.g. a share of any sublicense upfront and a continued royalty on eventual sales. An example: the Regents of UC's license with Medivation for a prostate cancer drug entitled UC to 10% of any sublicense payments plus a 4% royalty on the sublicensee's sales. This way, the licensor gains if the licensee flips the asset to a partner, and also if the drug is ultimately sold.

Contract Complexity: Royalty on sales is conceptually straightforward – once the product is sold, calculate net sales × royalty rate. Sublicense income splits are more complex and heavily negotiated. Parties must agree on definitions (what counts as sublicense revenue), percentages, tiering by stage or amount, etc., as discussed above. There's also more room for dispute: for instance, whether a particular payment from the sublicensee should be classified as royalty (shareable) or R&D funding (excluded). Indeed, audit rights and detailed reporting are even more crucial for sublicense income to ensure transparency. By contrast, once a product is on market, a sales royalty is just a matter of accounting (though audits still check for accuracy of net sales calculations).

Alignment of Incentives: A potential downside of sublicensing income share is that it might disincentivize the licensee from entering certain deals – if the licensee must give a high cut to the original licensor, they might prefer an alternative structure that minimizes shared revenue (for example, focusing on territories not covered by the original IP, or bundling value into service agreements). A well-crafted agreement tries to balance this by not over-burdening the licensee. Often the sublicense revenue share is set to a level that ensures the licensee still keeps the majority of value (especially pre-commercial) so they remain motivated to do deals rather than shelve the asset.

One rule of thumb sometimes cited is the Goldscheider 25% rule, where a licensor might target ~25% of the licensee's profit from sublicensing. In practice, that might translate to the licensor getting ~20–30% of sublicense cash flows, leaving ~70–80% with the licensee – enough for the licensee to find it worthwhile. Traditional royalties don't pose this structuring dilemma since they are proportional to sales by default (the licensee knows it must pay X% on sales, so it just prices that into its cost structure).

In summary, traditional royalties are the end-result of product success, whereas sublicense income is an upfront or intermediate monetization of product rights. Sophisticated pharma companies and investors treat them differently in financial models: royalties are often viewed as a long-term annuity tied to market performance, while sublicense fees are treated more like one-off cash events or options. Both are crucial in biopharma dealmaking, and indeed many licensing agreements ensure the licensor gets a piece of both worlds – immediate sublicense value and long-run sales royalties.

2024–2025 Deal Examples Illustrating Key Concepts

Royalty Pharma's June 2025 Revolution Medicines transaction exemplifies modern synthetic royalty structures: $250 million upfront plus a $1.25 billion synthetic royalty arrangement plus a $750 million credit facility, totaling up to $2 billion for daraxonrasib in pancreatic cancer and NSCLC. The layered structure – immediate capital plus synthetic royalty plus traditional credit – demonstrates how royalty financing now combines with other instruments.

Healthcare Royalty Partners' January 2025 GENFIT transaction illustrates European deal structures: up to €185 million (€130 million upfront) for Iqirvo royalties in primary biliary cholangitis. The deal includes no interest payments on royalty financing bonds, returns tied to Ipsen agreement royalties, an annual cap on royalties from maximum €600 million net sales, and an overall cap of 155% of subscription price – approximately €277.5 million if all tranches are paid.

DRI Healthcare's November 2024 KalVista sebetralstat deal demonstrates tiered royalty structures: $100 million upfront plus $57 million in milestones plus a $22 million option, with royalties at 5% on sales up to $500 million, 1.1% on $500–750 million, and only 0.25% above $750 million – aligning investor returns with reasonable commercial expectations.

XOMA's May 2025 BioInvent mezagitamab deal ($20 million upfront, $30 million total, mid-single-digit royalties) illustrates earlier-stage synthetic royalty investing on Phase 3 immunology assets – higher risk but correspondingly smaller upfront commitments.

Conclusion

Sublicense royalties play a pivotal role in today's biopharma financing landscape. They allow innovation to be funded and risks shared in creative ways: a small biotech can license out a program to bring in much-needed capital (or even double-monetize it by selling the royalty stream), a big pharma can partner with investors to bankroll expensive development in exchange for a slice of future sales, and specialized funds can earn attractive returns by purchasing royalty interests. The financial structuring of these deals has advanced in recent years – incorporating milestone-based payouts, tiered royalties, and carefully modeled scenarios – to balance risk and reward for all parties. Meanwhile, the legal mechanics of sublicensing ensure that when rights are passed along the chain, the original inventors and licensors are protected and compensated, albeit not without complex negotiations on definitions and terms.

The period 2024–2025 showcased a number of high-profile transactions underlining these trends: from Royalty Pharma's multi-hundred-million acquisitions of royalty stakes, to XOMA's aggregation of early-stage sublicensing rights, to big pharmas like Merck and companies like Elanco leveraging royalty deals for strategic ends. For an industry audience (MDs, CFAs, JDs and others) familiar with the basics, the key takeaway is that sublicense royalty provisions are where finance meets law and strategy.

They must be structured with foresight – with clear definitions, audit rights, and alignment – and valued with rigor, accounting for both the science risk and deal-making uncertainty. When done right, they enable win-win scenarios: innovation gets funded and de-risked, licensors secure value for their IP, and investors or licensees obtain rights that can generate substantial returns. As the biopharma sector continues to globalize and seek efficient capital, sublicense royalties and royalty financings will remain at the forefront of creative dealmaking in the years ahead.

Sources: Recent industry reports and press releases have been referenced to illustrate these points, including Gibson Dunn's 2025 royalty finance report, Licensing Executive Society discussions on sublicensing structures, Bird & Bird's overview of life science licensing terms, and 2024–2025 deal announcements from Royalty Pharma, XOMA, Blackstone, and others. These examples underscore the real-world application of sublicense royalty concepts in current pharmaceutical finance.

Disclaimer: The author is not a lawyer or financial adviser. This content is for informational purposes only and does not constitute investment, legal, or financial advice. Readers should consult qualified professionals before making any decisions based on this information.