Navigating Portfolio Optimization Strategies in a Patent-Heavy Landscape

Moral Randeria
Dec 20, 2025
7 min read

By Moral Randeria, Global Pharma Strategist & Intelligence

Pharmaceutical R&D executives enter 2026 confronting an unforgiving arithmetic. The industry average cost per approved therapeutic asset now exceeds 2.3 billion U.S. dollars, while the internal rate of return (IRR) for R&D investments hovers at 4.1 percent—below the cost of capital. Simultaneously, roughly 236 billion dollars in annual sales from today’s leading therapies will expire into patent cliffs by 2029. In this environment, merely adjusting R&D portfolios incrementally is futile. What is needed is surgical reallocation: a disciplined transformation that converts 93 percent attrition into targeted amplification—protecting enterprise value as mega-blockbuster revenues erode under biosimilar pressure.

The coming waves of biosimilar competition—affecting therapies such as Humira, Keytruda, and Stelara—are expected to reduce blockbuster valuations by up to 75 percent. Leaders who navigate this inflection point most effectively are not those who chase breadth but those who balance innovation portfolios, aligning emerging modalities such as antibody–drug conjugates (ADCs), radioligands, and gene or cell therapies with scalable manufacturing resilience. Among the best-in-class firms, such balance has produced up to 30 percent IRR uplift through what can be termed resilience multipliers—strategic hedges against both patent expirations and geopolitical supply vulnerabilities.

The Patent Cliff

From 2026 onward, the biopharma sector faces an accelerated succession of patent losses. More than 20 blockbuster molecules—including Ozempic, Januvia, and others—will lose exclusivity within three years, slashing revenues by 40 to 60 percent for firms that fail to restructure ahead of time. Novartis has preemptively concentrated around 20 pipeline assets projected to achieve individual peak sales above one billion dollars, focusing investment into cardiovascular–renal–metabolic and immunology segments instead of pursuing diluted therapeutic breadth.

Projected Revenue Shifts (2026-2035): As blockbuster drugs like Humira, Keytruda, and Januvia face patent cliffs, the growth of novel modalities such as ADCs and CGTs is projected to drive revenues, reaching $183 billion for CGTs by 2035 and $236 billion for ADCs.

Roche offers another empirical case study. Its post-2023 portfolio shift increased total R&D value by 27 percent, with 55 percent of its active clinical assets now aligned to what it classifies as high-bar, novel modalities. Its strategic insight was clear: front-loading attrition in early phases limits sunk costs in later development, insulating enterprise value.

To formalize such thinking, the concept of Innovation IRR emerges—a probabilistic extension of traditional internal rate of return models.

The framework integrates success probability at each stage of the R&D lifecycle.

Expressed in plain text:

Innovation IRR = [Sum of (Cash Flow at phase k) X (Probability of success at phase k)] / [(1 plus the Cost of capital)] raised to the power of time at phase k, for all phases k from 1 to n.

By applying this innovation-adjusted IRR framework, several leading firms have doubled their portfolio value creation compared to peers, while laggards continue to lose approximately 15 percent of R&D margin annually due to misallocation.

Novel Modalities as Resilience Multipliers

Resilience multipliers—factors that improve the sustainability of returns—now extend beyond product science into supply-chain strategy. Favoring U.S.-centric or geopolitically secure manufacturing hubs can add meaningful IRR uplift. For one leading pharmaceutical manufacturer, simply rebalancing its modality mix—optimizing allocation between ADC programs and cell or gene therapy platforms—unlocked a 30 percent improvement in project-level IRR without adding new spending.

Biopharma's Novel Modalities: Transitioning from legacy small molecules, which face a 40-60% cliff erosion, to innovative treatments like ADCs with 15% PK uplift, exploring cell/gene therapies projected at $183B market by 2025 with 17.5% CAGR, and integrating other novel modalities to enhance the biopharma portfolio amidst a competitive landscape with a 93% kill rate through Phases I to III approvals.

According to Deloitte’s 2026 Life Sciences Outlook, 43 percent of global biopharma companies are prioritizing pipeline expansion into new therapeutic classes. Yet, only a disciplined subset convert investment breadth into value. IQVIA analysis highlights that firms which deliberately front-load attrition—eliminating low-probability assets early—reduce average cost-per-approval by about 25 percent compared to those with late-stage failures.

The cell and gene therapy ecosystem demonstrates both promise and peril. The market is projected to reach approximately 183 billion dollars by 2035, expanding at a compound annual rate of about 17.5 percent. However, as venture capital financing contracts in 2026, leadership focus is shifting from early speculative funding to de-risked late-stage clinical development. Large pharma companies are already paying premiums for scalable manufacturing capacity—signaling that portfolio gravity has migrated from discovery to platform economics.

To quantify diversification strength, executives may track the Revenue Diversification Index (RDI), defined in plain-text form as:

RDI = 1 - [the sum of squared ratios of each segment’s revenue to total revenue (i.e., 1 - Sum of (Segment Revenue divided by Total Revenue)] squared).

Empirically, maintaining an RDI above 0.7 correlates with greater enterprise resilience. Roche’s AI-guided modality curation between 2023 and 2026 illustrates how platform-focused diversification produced a 27 percent rise in total portfolio value.

Case Studies: Roche and Novartis Mastery

Roche institutionalized a post-approval viability benchmark—an internal “Bar” that screens assets for commercial sustainability beyond regulatory clearance. This approach redirected 55 percent of its clinical budget toward validated platform technologies such as radioligands and ADCs, leading to a 27 percent increase in overall portfolio valuation amid patent cliff headwinds.

Novartis, conversely, chose radical focus. It narrowed its core concentration to four major therapeutic domains and engaged in targeted licensing deals, including 580 million dollars in radioligand and DARPin-based technology acquisitions. As a result, it positioned roughly 20 compounds for potential billion-dollar peak sales by 2026.

Both firms maintain exceptional partnership renewal and referral rates, reflecting strong external innovation ecosystems.

Pharmaceutical Strategy Paradox: Intelligent Subtraction for growth

This can be quantified through a Partnership Strength Index (PSI), which can be expressed simply as:

PSI = Sum of (Partner Tier multiplied by Deal Value divided by total number of Partnerships).

Top-tier performers maintain PSI scores above 4.0, renewal rates near 90 percent, and convert roughly half of partnerships into recurring or referral-based engagements.

By contrast, firms that fail to optimize their portfolios face structural erosion—manifested in contract research organization (CRO) layoffs, late-stage project terminations, and persistent operating inefficiency. IQVIA’s data shows that integrated portfolio governance—where early and late-phase committees are connected by cross-functional data analytics—can deliver around 20 percent efficiency gains.

The strategic paradox is striking: progress in R&D is achieved not by adding more programs, but by subtracting intelligently. Killing roughly 70 percent of Phase I projects enables the remaining 6.7 percent of survivors to mature into enterprise-defining innovations.

Quantitative Frameworks for Executives

To operationalize optimization, executives can implement Innovation IRR iteratively—calculating it per asset, then aggregating across the portfolio using real-options valuation to capture synergy effects. For example, shared ADC platforms can increase the probability of clinical success by an estimated 15 percent due to translational learning and manufacturing leverage.

This should be combined with RDI and PSI metrics for unified portfolio scoring. An optimal balance might target RDI above 0.75 and PSI exceeding 4.0, similar to Moderna’s demonstrated innovation velocity, which delivered approximately 7.5 billion dollars in investment value across ten mRNA-enabled programs.

Modernization of R&D infrastructure amplifies these outcomes. Deloitte’s research shows that AI and laboratory automation alone can raise productivity by up to 30 percent—creating the bandwidth to sustain higher innovation risk tolerance even under margin compression.

IQVIA modeling further quantifies the value of front-loaded attrition: shifting 50 percent of project failures from Phase III to preclinical discovery effectively halves cost-per-approval. McKinsey’s analyses confirm that companies applying Net Present Value at Risk governance principles reduce R&D risk exposure about 40 percent faster than peers.

Ultimately, Innovation IRR reframes decision dynamics within executive teams—making assumptions explicit, quantifying uncertainty, and turning data into the arbiter of truth over internal hierarchy.

Executive Action Principles

The following operating principles summarize how leading pharmaceutical boards can apply quantitative discipline to portfolio renewal:

1. Quarterly Asset Challenge: Evaluate every asset versus the Innovation IRR hurdle rate of at least 8 percent. Assets falling below should trigger strategic review or divestment.

2. Resilience Allocation: Designate 20 to 30 percent of new R&D allocation toward modalities that are both geopolitically and operationally scalable, emphasizing domestic manufacturing platforms.

3. Cross-Functional Governance: Empower early- and late-stage committees with shared PSI and RDI dashboards, enforcing strict 90-day “kill or scale” decisions.

4. Diversification Rituals: Review RDI semi-annually and retire portfolios below 0.7 diversification threshold.

5. Predictive Attrition Tools: Integrate AI-driven probability modeling into the gating process to anticipate clinical failure and forecast cost-of-capital realignment.

These rules treat the R&D pipeline as a portfolio of living, interdependent options rather than static bets. Ruthless pruning compounds the performance of survivors.

Outlook to 2030

By 2030, portfolio-optimized biopharma players will redefine capital efficiency. The new normal will feature R&D IRRs approaching 10 percent, powered by roughly half a trillion dollars in novel modality market capitalization across ADCs, radioligands, RNA therapies, and regenerative cell technologies.

The future of pharmaceutical value creation thus hinges less on how much is invested, and more on how deliberately it is reallocated. Patent cliffs, often viewed as existential threats, can instead become launchpads for enduring leadership—if governed by precision metrics, innovation-driven IRR models, and unwavering discipline in executing subtractions that compound growth.

References