Incyte Corporation: The JAK Inhibitor Pioneer's Journey Through Innovation and Setbacks

I. Introduction & Episode Roadmap

Picture this: a small band of scientists huddled in leased lab space at DuPont’s historic Experimental Station in Wilmington, Delaware. It’s 2002. Their parent company—once a high-flying genomics darling that surfed the dot-com wave—has slammed back into reality. There are fewer than 25 researchers left. The money is tight. The mission is suddenly very simple: either reinvent, or disappear.

So they make a fateful call. Stop selling data. Start making drugs.

From that restart in Wilmington—with just a handful of scientists, chemists, and biologists—Incyte grew into a global biopharmaceutical company with a portfolio spanning Oncology and Inflammation & Autoimmunity. Today, the same scrappy outfit that was fighting for survival sits at roughly a $17 billion market cap and generates about $4.81 billion in trailing twelve-month revenue.

What makes Incyte so fascinating is how much it breaks the usual biotech script. This wasn’t a company born from one academic lab’s breakthrough, or a Nobel laureate’s single elegant idea. Incyte started in 1991 as a genomics database business—an information company, not a medicines company. Its journey is less “Eureka!” and more “adapt or die”: a long, hard-earned reinvention from selling access to genetic encyclopedias to discovering and developing therapies patients actually take.

So how did a genomics database company become the creator of the first FDA-approved JAK inhibitor? How did a subscription model for genomic data turn into blockbuster drugs in cancer and immunology? And how did Incyte survive one of biotech’s most spectacular late-stage clinical trial failures—only to keep going?

That’s the story we’re telling, in two interwoven acts: breakthrough success and high-stakes failure. Along the way, we’ll pull out the playbook lessons—when to abandon a dying business model, how to get world-class at one narrow area of science, and why even “can’t miss” biology can collapse when it meets a pivotal trial.

And if you’re trying to understand Incyte today, this history isn’t trivia—it’s the operating system. The company’s culture of reinvention, its obsession with the JAK-STAT pathway, and its scars from failure show up in the decisions it makes now. With Jakafi’s patent cliff looming in 2028 and CEO Bill Meury at the helm, the next chapter is being written in real time.

---

↑ Back to Top

II. Origins: The Genomics Gold Rush (1991–2002)

In April 1991—when biotech was still young and the Human Genome Project had barely gotten rolling—Schroder Venture Advisers, Inc. created Incyte Pharmaceuticals, Inc. for a very specific purpose: buy assets out of Invitron Corporation, a St. Louis biotech company being liquidated. Roy A. Whitfield, who had led Invitron subsidiary Ideon, became Incyte’s CEO. Randall W. Scott, one of Invitron’s founding scientists, became president and chief scientific officer.

Even the name “Incyte” signaled what they thought they were building. It was a mash-up of “information” and “cybernetics,” and it fit the original plan: don’t make drugs—power drug discovery by building the genomic database everyone else would need. Whitfield was an unusual biotech CEO for the time. Before healthcare, he’d spent seven years at Boston Consulting Group in international corporate strategy, working with Fortune 500, European, and Japanese clients. Incyte was going to be biotech, but run with a strategist’s mindset.

They set up shop in Palo Alto, California, right where biotech and the emerging tech world were starting to collide. And the market bought the story. On November 4, 1993, Incyte became the first genome science company to go public.

The flagship product was LifeSeq—an attempt to build the world’s most extensive “genetic encyclopedia.” Incyte pitched it as the Gray’s Anatomy of the 21st century: a foundational reference that could change how pharma researched disease and developed medicines.

If that sounds familiar, it should. LifeSeq was essentially a Google for genes before Google existed. It revolved around two core tools: a DNA Sequence database and a Gene Expression database. One cataloged sequences—the raw arrangement of DNA. The other interpreted them, analyzing and annotating those sequences, grouping them by likely function and by where in the body they showed up, or were “expressed.”

The business model was as straightforward as it was ahead of its time: charge subscription fees to pharma companies that wanted a shortcut through the early, messy parts of drug discovery. Pfizer became the first major subscriber in June 1994, signing a deal valued at $24.8 million. Incyte’s subscriptions were non-exclusive by design—the goal was to sell the same core asset to as many customers as possible.

And it worked. By January 1996, subscribers included Johnson & Johnson, Abbott Laboratories, Hoechst AG, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, and Pharmacia & Upjohn. The strategy culminated in deals like a $62 million partnership with Bayer AG in 1996, as Incyte stacked up subscriptions from nearly every major pharma player.

The late 1990s were the high-water mark for the genomics information business. In 1997 and 1998, Incyte managed something rare in the sector: it posted profits for eight straight quarters. Subscription fees drove most of the revenue, and its custom genomics business added close to a quarter of annual earnings.

Under the hood, LifeSeq kept getting bigger—and more defensible. The LifeSeq Gold database contained transcripts of 120,000 genes, more than half of them proprietary to Incyte, meaning scientists couldn’t get that information from any other commercial source. By 2000, Incyte counted more than 20 of the world’s top pharmaceutical companies as subscribers.

Then the ground shifted.

The dot-com bubble inflated everything in sight, including genomics. In early 2000, some genomics stocks more than tripled as investor money rushed back into the space. Celera and Incyte hit all-time highs, climbing 225% and 280%, respectively. Incyte leaned into the moment: in March 2000, it changed its name from Incyte Pharmaceuticals to Incyte Genomics, Inc., explicitly branding itself as an information company for the genome era. Around the same time, it launched Incyte.com and began pushing what it called an e-commerce genomics program.

But the party was ending. In spring 2000, Celera Genomics and the Human Genome Project each announced major milestones in mapping the human genome. It was a scientific triumph—and, for Incyte’s model, a looming commercial disaster. The more the genome became public, the harder it was to justify premium pricing for proprietary access. Why pay up for data if the baseline reference was becoming free?

Incyte’s profitability had already started to fade after 1998 as it poured money into gene-discovery equipment to expand and protect its database, while also starting to shift its business. The company moved to stay in front of the wave. In December 2000, it acquired Proteome, Inc., a privately held company based in Beverly, Massachusetts. But even with acquisitions and repositioning, it couldn’t outrun the core problem: the world was moving from scarce genomic information to abundant genomic information, and Incyte’s subscription business depended on scarcity.

In 2001, Incyte brought in a new leadership team: Paul A. Friedman became CEO, and Robert Stein became president and chief scientific officer—both former top executives at DuPont. Whitfield stayed on as chairman. The message was unmistakable. The era of selling information was running out. If Incyte wanted to survive, it needed to become something else.

---

↑ Back to Top

III. The Great Pivot: From Databases to Drug Development (2002–2010)

The pivot that would define Incyte’s next two decades didn’t happen in Palo Alto. It happened three thousand miles east, in Delaware—at DuPont’s historic Experimental Station in Wilmington.

By the early 2000s, DuPont Pharmaceuticals had been sold. A lot of world-class drug discovery talent suddenly had a choice: scatter, or find a way to keep building. Incyte’s new CEO, Paul Friedman—a former DuPont executive—saw the opening. In early 2002, he began pulling together a small team of ex-DuPont biologists and chemists, leasing lab space from DuPont, and effectively restarting Incyte as a drug company with a startup-sized bench and big-company scars.

It started tiny. Just 23 researchers. Not a sprawling genomics sales force—actual drug hunters.

“DuPont Pharmaceuticals’ focus was on research and development and innovation,” says Executive Vice President of Human Resources Paula Swain, a founding member of Incyte. She was one of many former DuPont employees who wanted to stay in Delaware after the sale, and Incyte became the place where that expertise could keep compounding.

The company still had one foot in its old identity, though. It was selling discovery research products and monetizing intellectual property even as it tried to build a real pipeline. The branding caught up to the strategy at the end of 2002. On December 16, Incyte Genomics announced it would rename itself Incyte Corporation—an explicit signal that “genomics” was no longer the whole story. The change took effect in 2003.

“This decision was driven by the desire to unify our genomic and proteomic information business, intellectual property and rapidly growing drug discovery organization under the Incyte name,” Friedman said at the time. “Incyte is not only the leading provider of genomic and proteomic information products and intellectual property, but also a talented and capable drug discovery organization. We believe the name change will help position the company better among our customers, collaborators, stockholders and employees as an emerging drug discovery company.”

Then came the unglamorous part: capability-building. Incyte wasn’t collecting assets at random—it was trying to assemble the pieces you need to discover medicines. In 2003, it bought Maxia Pharmaceuticals for $42 million, adding medicinal chemistry and inflammation research capabilities that would matter later.

And as the new organization took shape, Incyte made a defining scientific bet: the JAK-STAT pathway.

On paper, it was a beautiful target. The JAK-STAT pathway is a core signaling system inside cells, involved in everything from immune response and inflammation to blood cell production. When it goes off the rails, it can fuel cancer and autoimmune disease. If you could inhibit the JAK enzymes that drive the pathway, you might have a powerful lever—one drug class, potentially many diseases.

In reality, it was risky. JAK signaling shows up everywhere, which is another way of saying: safety would be hard. Block too much and you don’t just calm inflammation—you can suppress the immune system or disrupt blood cell production. And Incyte wasn’t alone. Multiple companies were chasing the same promise, betting they could thread the needle between efficacy and toxicity.

Still, Incyte committed. The work that eventually produced Jakafi—ruxolitinib—would take roughly a dozen years from those early Delaware days to an FDA approval in November 2011. In drug development time, that’s not a long slog. That’s the slog.

The early years tested whether the pivot was even survivable. Incyte planted its flag in Delaware in 2002 with 68 employees, and 56 of those original staffers remained with the company. In biotech, that kind of retention isn’t an HR statistic—it’s a tell. It suggests a culture built for long cycles, failed experiments, and the kind of delayed gratification most organizations can’t tolerate.

“Few people fully understand how much patience it takes to discover a new drug,” Hervé Hoppenot would later say. “It’s a marathon.”

As ruxolitinib advanced, Incyte faced another strategic choice: where do you take a first-in-class mechanism first? They chose myelofibrosis—a rare, devastating blood cancer with limited treatment options. Myeloproliferative neoplasms are clonal hematologic malignancies that originate in pluripotent hematopoietic stem cells. In myelofibrosis, patients can suffer progressive splenomegaly and severe symptoms like fatigue, pruritus, and bone pain, and the disease can be complicated by thrombosis, bleeding, and progression to acute leukemia.

A hematopoietic stem cell transplant offered the only potential cure, and only for a minority of eligible patients. For everyone else, the need was urgent. It was exactly the kind of setting where a meaningful therapy could be transformative—and where regulators would take seriously a drug that actually changed what life with the disease felt like.

---

↑ Back to Top

IV. The Jakafi Breakthrough: First JAK Inhibitor Approved (2008–2011)

Inside Incyte, ruxolitinib started life with a very unromantic name: INCB18424. But what it was, scientifically, was anything but ordinary. It was a potent JAK1/2 inhibitor—and it became the first JAK inhibitor to make it into clinical trials.

Incyte didn’t try to win myelofibrosis with a single, shaky study. The development plan was built around two pivotal Phase III trials that would define the program: COMFORT-I and COMFORT-II.

In October 2009, the FDA granted ruxolitinib Fast Track designation. Fast Track exists for drugs that might address serious conditions with major unmet need, and in this case the message was clear: the agency agreed myelofibrosis was a devastating disease with too few options, and ruxolitinib looked like it could matter.

That same year, Incyte made another decision that would shape everything that followed: it partnered with Novartis. In 2009, the two companies entered a worldwide collaboration and license agreement. Incyte kept exclusive rights to develop and commercialize ruxolitinib in the United States, while Novartis took exclusive rights outside the U.S. in hematology-oncology indications.

The deal also reached beyond ruxolitinib. Novartis negotiated ex-U.S. rights to ruxolitinib and global rights to Incyte’s Phase I cMET inhibitor INCB28060. Novartis paid $150 million upfront, plus another $60 million when the European Phase III ruxolitinib trial began. For Incyte, it was a classic “keep the home market, buy global scale” partnership—hold onto the most valuable commercial territory while gaining capital and a world-class ex-U.S. engine.

Then the COMFORT trials read out—and they delivered.

Across two large randomized Phase III studies, Incyte enrolled patients with intermediate-2 or high-risk myelofibrosis and compared ruxolitinib against placebo in COMFORT-I and best available therapy in COMFORT-II. The primary endpoint was practical and patient-relevant: how many people achieved at least a 35% reduction in spleen volume—measured at 24 weeks in COMFORT-I and 48 weeks in COMFORT-II.

Ruxolitinib didn’t just clear the bar. It crushed it. In COMFORT-I, 42% of patients on ruxolitinib hit the spleen-volume endpoint versus 1% on placebo. In COMFORT-II, 29% did versus 0% on best available therapy. And it wasn’t just anatomy on a scan. In COMFORT-I, 46% of patients on ruxolitinib achieved at least a 50% reduction in total symptom score, compared with 5% on placebo.

These weren’t subtle improvements. In myelofibrosis, an enlarged spleen can dominate a patient’s life—pain, discomfort, and early satiety that can spiral into malnutrition, on top of the crushing fatigue and other systemic symptoms. Shrinking the spleen by that magnitude wasn’t a vanity metric. It was a tangible change in how people felt and functioned.

On November 16, 2011, the FDA granted full approval to ruxolitinib (Jakafi; Incyte Corp.) for patients with intermediate- or high-risk myelofibrosis, including primary myelofibrosis, post-polycythemia vera myelofibrosis, and post-essential thrombocythemia myelofibrosis.

It was a triple milestone: the first FDA-approved treatment for myelofibrosis, the first approved JAK inhibitor for any indication, and Incyte’s arrival as a true drug company. A decade earlier, they’d been selling access to a database. Now they had an oral medicine that doctors could prescribe and patients could actually feel.

For patients, Jakafi meant something rare in oncology: real relief, backed by rigorous trials, in a disease that had offered very little. For Incyte, it was validation—of the Delaware restart, the long bet on JAK-STAT biology, and the patience to see a program all the way through to approval.

↑ Back to Top

V. Building on Success: Portfolio Expansion (2011–2017)

Once Jakafi was approved and bringing in real revenue, Incyte faced the next big strategic question: now that you have a molecule that works, what do you do with it?

In drug development, the highest-leverage move is often not inventing something new. It’s finding the next place the same drug can matter. So Incyte did what the best biotech companies do: it ran a deliberate indication-expansion playbook.

That led straight to polycythemia vera. For years, PV had been managed with workhorse approaches like phlebotomy, hydroxyurea, interferons, and aspirin. But the biology lined up with what Incyte already knew: PV, like myelofibrosis, is tied to overactive JAK-STAT signaling. And Incyte already had the clinical and commercial machinery for myeloproliferative diseases.

In 2014, the FDA approved Jakafi as a second-line option for polycythemia vera—specifically for patients who didn’t respond adequately to, or couldn’t tolerate, hydroxyurea. Similar approvals followed in the EU and Japan in 2015 for the same population.

This is pharmaceutical lifecycle management at its best: take a de-risked asset, move into an adjacent disease where the mechanism still makes sense, and expand the patient population without starting from scratch.

That same year also brought a leadership handoff that would shape the next era of the company. In January 2014, Incyte announced that Hervé Hoppenot—formerly President of Novartis Oncology—had been named President and CEO. Before that, he’d been Novartis’s Chief Commercial Officer starting in 2003, then became President of Novartis Oncology in 2010.

It was a fitting match. Hoppenot wasn’t arriving cold. He’d worked closely with Incyte through the Novartis partnership on ruxolitinib outside the United States, and he publicly praised what he was inheriting: “I have worked in close collaboration with Incyte for many years on ruxolitinib and have been very impressed with the entire team that drove the discovery, development and commercialization of this first and only FDA-approved JAK1/JAK2 inhibitor,” he said. “The strong science behind Incyte's R&D programs and the strength and diversity of the pipeline are compelling and hold much promise for making a difference in the lives of patients.”

Under Hoppenot, Incyte kept doing what had worked: partner smartly and compound its advantage in JAK biology. A key example was baricitinib, an oral JAK1/JAK2 inhibitor for rheumatoid arthritis developed with Eli Lilly. The drug gained EU approval in February 2017. In April 2017, the FDA rejected it, citing dosing and safety concerns. Then, in May 2018, baricitinib was approved in the United States for rheumatoid arthritis under the brand name Olumiant.

The Lilly deal also showed how Incyte wanted to play big markets. Rheumatoid arthritis is massive compared to myelofibrosis, and competing head-to-head commercially would have been a different kind of fight. With Lilly, Incyte could contribute the science and capture milestone payments and royalties while its partner took on the burden of large-scale commercialization.

From 2014 onward, Incyte broadened its ambitions. It expanded beyond Oncology into Inflammation & Autoimmunity, and it says it tripled the number of clinical candidates in its portfolio. Over that same period, revenue rose sharply, with multiple new sources of revenue added alongside Jakafi.

Over time, that expansion translated into a broader commercial footprint. Incyte now has seven marketed or co-marketed products: Jakafi (ruxolitinib), Pemazyre (pemigatinib), Monjuvi (tafasitamab-cxix), Opzelura (ruxolitinib), Tabrecta (capmatinib), Olumiant (baricitinib), and Iclusig (ponatinib). One important thread here traces back to the Novartis relationship: in 2013, Novartis acquired Incyte’s c-Met inhibitor capmatinib (INC280, INCB028060), later marketed as Tabrecta.

And then came the move that, in hindsight, looks like Incyte taking its JAK franchise into entirely new territory.

In September 2021, the FDA approved Opzelura, a ruxolitinib cream, for the short-term and non-continuous chronic treatment of mild to moderate atopic dermatitis in non-immunocompromised patients 12 and older whose disease isn’t adequately controlled with topical prescription therapies, or when those therapies aren’t advisable. Opzelura became the first and only topical formulation of a JAK inhibitor approved in the United States.

“The approval of Opzelura is an important advancement in the treatment of AD, and we are pleased to offer a novel topical treatment option that targets a pathway believed to be a source of inflammation,” Hoppenot said.

For Incyte, this wasn’t just a line extension. It was diversification with leverage: the same core mechanism, delivered in a new way, aimed at a much larger patient population than rare blood cancers.

In July 2022, Opzelura was approved in the United States for the treatment of vitiligo. Ruxolitinib became the first FDA-approved pharmacologic treatment to address repigmentation in patients with vitiligo.

---

↑ Back to Top

VI. The Epacadostat Disaster: When Moonshots Fail (2016–2018)

Every successful biotech eventually takes a moonshot that fails spectacularly. For Incyte, that moonshot was epacadostat.

On paper, the idea was clean and compelling. Epacadostat inhibits an enzyme called indoleamine 2,3-dioxygenase-1, or IDO1. IDO1 helps tumors manipulate their microenvironment by breaking down tryptophan in a way that dampens the immune response. If you could block IDO1, the thinking went, you could take away one of the tumor’s best escape hatches—“releasing the brakes” on the immune system.

And if that sounded promising on its own, it sounded even better as a combo. Checkpoint inhibitors like Merck’s pembrolizumab (Keytruda) were already reshaping cancer care. The entire industry was hunting for add-ons that could make those drugs work for more patients, in more tumors, more reliably. IDO inhibition looked like the next great amplifier.

Preclinically, epacadostat showed antitumor activity in some models, and it appeared most effective when combined with other immunotherapy agents. By 2017, Incyte and Merck were investigating epacadostat plus Keytruda across several cancers.

Then came the fuel that turned “promising” into “inevitable”: early Phase II results that looked almost too good to be true. An uncontrolled Phase II study of epacadostat plus Keytruda in melanoma suggested an eye-popping progression-free survival of 22.8 months. That single number did what hot mid-stage oncology data so often does—it collapsed skepticism, pulled capital forward, and created momentum that was hard to slow down.

So Incyte did what companies do when they think they’re holding the next cornerstone combination in immuno-oncology: it scaled up fast. By early 2018, the company had launched a slate of closely watched Phase III trials pairing epacadostat with Keytruda and Bristol-Myers Squibb’s Opdivo.

And then, almost overnight, it all imploded.

On April 6, 2018, an external Data Monitoring Committee reviewed results from the pivotal Phase III ECHO-301/KEYNOTE-252 trial in unresectable or metastatic melanoma. The verdict was devastating: the study did not meet its primary endpoint. Epacadostat plus Keytruda failed to improve progression-free survival versus Keytruda alone. Worse, overall survival was not expected to reach statistical significance either. The committee recommended stopping the study.

When the details landed, they were brutal. The combination didn’t just fail to help. It offered no numerical progression-free survival benefit versus Keytruda monotherapy. And overall survival numerically favored Keytruda alone, with a hazard ratio of 1.13.

In other words: not only was epacadostat not adding value—patients on the combo appeared to do slightly worse.

The market reacted instantly. Incyte’s stock dropped nearly 22% in early trading, falling from about $83 per share to around $65.

Internally and externally, the question was immediate: was this a one-trial faceplant, or was the entire IDO thesis wrong? “This remains an open question,” CEO Hervé Hoppenot said when asked whether the failure had read-through to other IDO studies. But the reality was hard to ignore. If an IDO combination couldn’t win in melanoma—one of the most immunogenic tumors, and the very setting where the Phase II story had looked strongest—then what, exactly, was IDO inhibition going to win?

The aftermath was swift and decisive. In May 2018, Incyte announced it would slash back its late-stage epacadostat program. Two pivotal epacadostat-Keytruda studies were downgraded to Phase II. Enrollment was discontinued in four pivotal Keytruda combination trials in bladder, kidney, and head and neck cancers. Two Opdivo combination trials also stopped enrollment. Patients already in those studies would be given the option to consider other therapeutic alternatives.

And the shockwave didn’t stop at Incyte. Bristol-Myers, which had its own IDO ambitions, pulled back on late-stage plans after learning of ECHO-301’s failure—scrapping assessments of an in-house IDO drug with Opdivo in head and neck cancer and non-small cell lung cancer.

So what went wrong?

The post-mortems offered several explanations, and none were comforting. Single-arm Phase II trials—where outcomes are compared to historical benchmarks instead of a concurrent control group—can make noise look like signal. The biology may have been more complex than the original model suggested. Patient selection might not have been optimized. But the overarching lesson was the one biotech learns over and over, at enormous expense: compelling early data, even when it fits a beautiful narrative, can collapse the moment you run a rigorous pivotal trial.

In fact, the broader takeaway went beyond IDO. ECHO-301 forced the industry to question not just the evidence behind IDO-plus-checkpoint blockade, but the logic of the entire “combo everything with PD-(L)1” mindset—where hype often runs far ahead of proof, and where mid-stage promise is regularly mistaken for late-stage inevitability.

↑ Back to Top

VII. Recovery and Reinvention (2018–Present)

The epacadostat disaster could have broken Incyte. Instead, it forced the company into something less glamorous, and far more sustainable: disciplined reinvention.

In the immediate aftermath, Incyte made a point of not panic-pivoting into a deal spree. Even if epacadostat was written off, it still had a very real anchor: Jakafi throwing off meaningful revenue. And it still had another external engine it could lean on, too—Olumiant, the rheumatoid arthritis JAK inhibitor partnered with Eli Lilly.

So Incyte went back to what it actually knew how to do. It doubled down on JAK biology and targeted oncology, and it kept running the highest-leverage play in pharma: expand the indications of a de-risked drug.

That meant continuing to push Jakafi into graft-versus-host disease, a devastating complication that can follow a stem cell transplant. Jakafi became the first and only FDA-approved treatment for patients with steroid-refractory acute GVHD. On May 24, 2019, Incyte announced that the FDA had approved Jakafi for steroid-refractory acute GVHD in adult and pediatric patients 12 and older.

“For the first time, patients with steroid-refractory acute GVHD, and the physicians that treat them, have an FDA-approved treatment for this serious disease,” Hoppenot said. “This approval is also an important milestone for Incyte, as it marks the third indication for Jakafi in the United States, further underscoring Incyte's commitment to delivering innovative medicines for patients in need.”

And Incyte didn’t stop there. The franchise kept expanding into chronic GVHD, too. In 2020, Incyte announced results from its Phase III REACH3 trial in patients with moderate or severe steroid-refractory or steroid-dependent chronic GVHD. Jakafi met the primary endpoint, showing a superior overall response rate at Week 24 versus best available therapy.

At the same time, Incyte started repairing the pipeline in a way that looked almost like an antibody to the epacadostat era: fewer giant bets, more disciplined shots on goal. In January 2020, Incyte signed a collaboration and license agreement with MorphoSys for the global development and commercialization of tafasitamab, an anti-CD19 monoclonal antibody—bringing a differentiated oncology asset into the fold.

And when it came to IDO, the company’s posture changed from “platform” to “possibility.” After the strategic review, Incyte’s leadership said it would continue to explore IDO1 inhibition—but only in small proof-of-concept trials, and only where the biology and translational data looked genuinely compelling.

The scale of the company kept changing, too. Over the past decade, Incyte grew to more than 2,500 employees worldwide, up from 588 in 2014—a signal that, despite the epacadostat crater, this was now a real, global commercial biotech.

Financially, the bounce-back was tangible. In 2023, Jakafi generated $2.5 billion in revenue. Total revenue was $3.6 billion, and the company earned $597 million in profit.

In 2024, total revenue reached $4.2 billion, up 15% year over year. Jakafi net revenue rose to $2.8 billion, and Opzelura net revenue climbed to $508 million.

“2024 was an important year for Incyte, with a 15% increase in total revenues, driven by strong growth from both Jakafi and Opzelura, as well as significant progress across our R&D pipeline,” Hoppenot said. “Looking ahead to 2025, we anticipate a year of continued strong revenue growth and diversification.”

Then came a major leadership transition. In June 2025, Incyte named Bill Meury President and CEO and appointed him to the Board, replacing Hoppenot, who retired after 11 years leading the company.

Meury arrived with a dealmaker’s résumé—and that, inevitably, reopened the question of what Incyte might do next. He had most recently led Anthos Therapeutics as CEO until Novartis acquired the company earlier that year for $925 million.

As the company put it, “Hervé is a proven company builder, having transformed Incyte from a single-product company into a diversified biotech leader and driving its growth from $350 million to more than $4 billion in revenue.”

Regulatory momentum also continued to build. In January 2025, Niktimvo (axatilimab-csfr) was approved by the FDA and became commercially available in the United States for chronic graft-versus-host disease. In September 2025, the FDA approved Opzelura for the short-term and non-continuous chronic treatment of mild to moderate atopic dermatitis in non-immunocompromised children two years of age and older.

And Incyte has said 2025 will be milestone-heavy—at least 18 key milestones on the year, including four planned product launches: Niktimvo in chronic GVHD, ruxolitinib cream in pediatric atopic dermatitis, tafasitamab in relapsed/refractory follicular lymphoma, and others.

---

↑ Back to Top

VIII. The Science & Business of Drug Development

To really understand Incyte, you have to understand the JAK-STAT pathway—and why it’s both a scientific unlock and a business engine.

The Janus kinase, or JAK, family includes four enzymes: JAK1, JAK2, JAK3, and TYK2. They’re part of the cell’s internal messaging system. When signaling molecules called cytokines bind to receptors on a cell’s surface, JAK enzymes switch on and phosphorylate STAT proteins. Those STAT proteins then move into the nucleus and activate specific genes. The result is a pathway that helps regulate fundamental processes like immune response and blood cell production.

In diseases like myelofibrosis and polycythemia vera, one of the most common problems is a JAK2 mutation known as JAK2V617F. It can leave the signal stuck in the “on” position, driving abnormal blood cell production and the downstream symptoms that come with it. By inhibiting JAK1 and JAK2, ruxolitinib helps quiet that runaway signaling—translating into reduced symptoms, smaller spleens, and better day-to-day functioning.

What makes the pathway so commercially powerful is that it doesn’t just show up in blood cancers. JAK-STAT signaling also plays a central role in inflammatory diseases like atopic dermatitis and rheumatoid arthritis. That’s the through-line for Incyte: one core mechanism, multiple clinical expressions. Same wiring problem, different rooms of the house.

That’s also why indication expansion became one of Incyte’s highest-leverage moves. Taking Jakafi from myelofibrosis to polycythemia vera to acute GVHD and then chronic GVHD is the art of compounding a single asset. Each step still demands new trials and new regulatory work, but you’re not reinventing the molecule every time. You already understand how the drug behaves in the body, you have a well-characterized safety profile, and you’ve solved manufacturing at scale. Compared to starting from zero, that’s an enormous advantage.

Partnerships have been the other core lever. Under the Incyte–Novartis collaboration and license agreement signed in 2009, Novartis received exclusive rights to develop and commercialize ruxolitinib outside the United States in hematology-oncology, where it markets the drug as Jakavi.

That structure let Incyte do something rare: access global markets without building a global commercial machine, while keeping full control of the most important market—the U.S. In the prior year, Jakafi generated $2.7 billion in sales for Incyte, plus $418 million in royalty revenue, while Novartis reported $1.9 billion in sales from the ex-U.S. franchise.

But partnerships aren’t free money. They come with complexity, misaligned incentives, and sometimes outright conflict. Incyte and Novartis eventually reached a settlement to resolve a years-long dispute over royalty payments related to Jakafi, with Incyte agreeing to pay Novartis $280 million.

The final pillar is how Incyte funds the whole machine. R&D investment has always been a statement of identity—and a hedge against the future. Incyte has reinvested about 44% of its revenue back into research and development, more than double what many other pharmaceutical companies have been spending. It’s a science-first posture, but it’s also practical: drug companies don’t get to stand still, especially with a major patent expiration ahead.

↑ Back to Top

IX. Playbook: Business & Investing Lessons

When to Pivot. Incyte’s transformation from a genomics database company into a drug developer is a clean example of seeing a business model’s expiration date—and acting before it hits. The warning signs were hard to miss: the company’s core advantage, proprietary genetic data, was becoming public; subscription momentum was fading; and customers could increasingly get similar information elsewhere, often for free. The crucial move was timing. Incyte started the transition while it still had enough resources and talent to survive the messy middle.

The Power of Focus. After the pivot, Incyte didn’t try to be good at everything. It chose to be great at one thing: JAK inhibition. That focus let the company build repeatable expertise—understanding the biology, learning how to develop the drugs, and then doing the highest-leverage move in pharma: systematically expanding into new indications once it had a winner. Plenty of biotechs die by scattering their bets across unrelated areas. Incyte did the opposite.

Risk Management in Biotech. Epacadostat is the reminder that even a program that looks “obvious” can fail the moment it faces a rigorous Phase III control arm. The reason that failure didn’t become existential is simple: Incyte had a cash-generating foundation in Jakafi. Without that ballast, losing its most advanced, most hyped pipeline program could have been fatal.

The Partnership Paradox. Incyte proved you can collaborate with giants—and even with quasi-competitors—without giving away the crown jewels. The pattern shows up again and again: keep what matters most, partner for what you can’t (or shouldn’t) build yourself. With Novartis, Incyte held onto U.S. rights to Jakafi while outsourcing ex-U.S. scale. With Eli Lilly, it helped develop baricitinib for rheumatoid arthritis, capturing milestones and royalties while letting Lilly take on the heavy commercial lift in a huge market—all while Incyte kept compounding its internal JAK know-how.

Capital Allocation in High-Risk Environments. In 2024, Incyte’s cash position fell largely because it did two expensive things at once. It completed a $2.0 billion share repurchase in June, and it paid cash to build the pipeline through M&A—most notably the acquisition of Escient Pharmaceuticals, a San Diego-based clinical-stage company, announced in May 2024 for $750 million, plus $783 million of total cash consideration paid to Escient shareholders. The takeaway isn’t the arithmetic. It’s the posture: return capital to shareholders, but still spend aggressively to strengthen what comes after the next patent cliff.

Culture Through Boom and Bust. Incyte’s long-cycle resilience shows up in the people story as much as the product story. Hoppenot once pointed to a detail he was especially proud of: out of the company’s early Delaware team, it retained 56 of the first 68 employees. “The fact that we retained so many people from the beginning is proof of how well it can go if we do things right,” he said. In biotech, where years of work can vanish with one trial result, that kind of continuity is a competitive advantage.

↑ Back to Top

X. Analysis & Bear vs. Bull Case

↑ Back to Top

Bull Case

Dominant JAK Position. Incyte didn’t just join the JAK era—it helped create it, and it still leads where it matters most. In myelofibrosis, Jakafi remains the only therapy that has shown superior overall survival regardless of a patient’s anemia status. It’s also still viewed as the most effective option for the core realities of the disease: controlling symptoms and shrinking spleens. As the company has put it, “That strong designation gives us confidence that we'll continue to be the leader in myelofibrosis.”

Multiple Approved Products. Incyte is no longer a one-drug story. It has seven marketed and co-marketed products, which gives it more than one engine. Opzelura’s roughly 50% year-over-year growth is the clearest sign that the company’s JAK know-how can translate beyond hematology into much larger markets.

Proven Discovery Capabilities. One of the most underappreciated parts of the Incyte story is that it learned how to discover drugs, not just acquire them. Its pipeline now includes internally advanced, novel mechanisms—like BET inhibitors and CDK2 inhibitors—moving forward, evidence that the company built a repeatable discovery machine.

Strong Partnerships and Global Reach. Incyte has paired focus with reach. With the explicit goal of delivering medicines worldwide, it has built operations across North America, Europe, and Asia—and it has a track record of using partnerships to expand globally without losing strategic control where it counts.

↑ Back to Top

Bear Case

JAK Inhibitor Safety Concerns. The same biology that makes JAK inhibition powerful also makes it politically and clinically fraught. The FDA’s black box warning—rooted in long-term oral tofacitinib (Xeljanz) data—casts a shadow over the whole class. That warning applies to ruxolitinib cream (Opzelura), the first topical JAK inhibitor approved for atopic dermatitis, and it creates a real-world friction point: dermatologists have to walk patients through serious risks before prescribing.

Ruxolitinib (Jakafi) and fedratinib were not included in the prescribing-information update requirements because they are not indicated for arthritis and other inflammatory conditions. But classwide concern still creates commercial headwinds for Opzelura, especially as competitors and prescribers become more cautious.

Patent Cliff Approaching. The clock is ticking on Jakafi. Based on patents and regulatory protections, the earliest generic entry appears to be December 12, 2028—though that date could shift with patent challenges or generic licensing. Incyte has pediatric exclusivity, which adds six months to the expiration for all ruxolitinib patents and extends Jakafi’s patent expiry through December 2028. But the point remains: the franchise that funds the machine is moving toward a hard reset.

Limited Pipeline Diversity Post-Epacadostat. Epacadostat was supposed to be the next pillar. Its failure erased what many expected to be a major future revenue stream. Incyte has rebuilt the pipeline since then, but there’s still no obvious single asset that looks ready to replace Jakafi’s revenue contribution on its own.

Competition Intensifying. Incyte is defending its home turf now. The FDA’s mid-September approval of GSK’s Ojjaara for anemic myelofibrosis patients—regardless of line of treatment—was widely viewed as meaningful competitive pressure. Analysts have pointed to Ojjaara’s line-agnostic label as a major threat to Jakafi.

↑ Back to Top

Porter's Five Forces Analysis

Threat of New Entrants: MODERATE. Drug development demands massive capital, deep expertise, and years of execution. But large pharmaceutical companies can still enter the JAK space through acquisitions or internal programs.

Supplier Power: LOW to MODERATE. Contract manufacturing is broadly available, and active pharmaceutical ingredient production is not highly concentrated.

Buyer Power: MODERATE to HIGH. Payers, healthcare systems, and pharmacy benefit managers increasingly push for discounts. In rare diseases like myelofibrosis—where options are limited—pricing power is stronger, but it’s not unlimited.

Threat of Substitutes: GROWING. New JAK inhibitors are entering the market, and alternative approaches (BET inhibitors, PI3K inhibitors, and others) continue to emerge.

Competitive Rivalry: INTENSIFYING. Bristol-Myers Squibb, GSK, AbbVie, and Pfizer all have approved products or advancing pipelines in the broader JAK landscape.

↑ Back to Top

Hamilton Helmer's 7 Powers Framework

Process Power: Incyte’s durable advantage is know-how. Its proprietary expertise in JAK-STAT biology and JAK inhibitor chemistry took decades to build—and it’s hard to replicate quickly.

Scale Economies: Moderate. Jakafi’s blockbuster scale brings advantages in manufacturing and commercial execution, but it doesn’t create an unassailable moat.

Network Effects: Limited. Drugs don’t compound value through user-to-user dynamics the way software platforms do.

Counter-positioning: Incyte’s willingness to focus on smaller, high-need markets like myelofibrosis and GVHD can be a form of counter-positioning against large pharma companies that prioritize bigger indications.

Switching Costs: Moderate. When patients and physicians find a regimen that works, they tend to stick with it. But if generics deliver comparable efficacy at much lower cost, switching pressure will rise.

Branding: Limited. In specialty pharma, clinical data and physician confidence matter far more than consumer-style brand awareness.

Cornered Resource: Incyte’s most important cornered resource was time: its first-mover head start in JAK inhibition, and the first-in-class positioning of Jakafi. That advantage naturally erodes as patents expire and competitors enter.

↑ Back to Top

Key Metrics to Track

For investors monitoring Incyte’s performance, two KPIs matter most:

1. Jakafi Net Revenue Growth Rate: A direct read on demand, patient additions, and pricing power. The closer the company gets to 2028, the more any slowdown becomes meaningful.

2. Opzelura Net Revenue as Percentage of Total Product Revenue: A simple diversification scoreboard. Currently around 15–18% of product revenues, this needs to climb materially over time if Opzelura is going to offset eventual erosion from Jakafi.

↑ Back to Top

XI. Epilogue & "What Would We Do?"

Incyte’s next frontier is straightforward to describe and brutally hard to execute: get to the other side of the 2028 patent cliff with new growth engines already running.

The company’s answer has been a broad lifecycle strategy it calls LIMBER—short for Leadership in MPNs and GVHD BEyond Ruxolitinib. The goal is to extend what Jakafi can do for patients, and, in doing so, stretch the value of ruxolitinib as long as possible before generics arrive.

LIMBER has a few clear threads. One is advancing a once-daily ruxolitinib formulation—because in chronic diseases, convenience can be competitive. Another is pairing ruxolitinib with new targets that could deepen responses or reach patients who don’t get enough benefit from JAK inhibition alone. Incyte has highlighted combinations tied to pathways like PI3K, BET, and ALK2. It’s also exploring emerging approaches in myeloproliferative neoplasms, including mutant CALR inhibitors.

Two early-stage efforts sit right at the edge of the company’s future narrative. Phase 1 studies evaluating mutCALR in myelofibrosis and essential thrombocythemia, and JAK2V617F-specific inhibitors in myelofibrosis, have been ongoing and enrolling patients. Incyte has said initial proof-of-concept data for both are anticipated in 2025.

The company has framed the broader ambition in simple terms: “A year ago, we set the goal to achieve more than 10 impactful product launches by 2030. In 2025, a number of key catalysts across the entire portfolio will bring that goal closer to reality.”

So 2025 has been positioned as a catalyst-heavy year. Jakafi is moving closer to exclusivity loss, which means Incyte needs other pillars—especially Opzelura, plus a steady drumbeat of launches and label expansions—to start carrying more of the load.

If internal R&D is one lever, M&A is the other. Incyte has completed three acquisitions to date: Maxia Pharmaceuticals in 2003 for $42 million; Villaris Therapeutics in 2022, valued at approximately $1.4 billion, adding assets aimed at vitiligo and other autoimmune conditions; and Escient Pharmaceuticals in 2024 for $750 million.

Zooming out, the lessons in the Incyte story hold up because they’re not abstract. This company really did pivot when the original business model stopped working. It really did become world-class at a narrow slice of biology. It really did get punched in the face by a late-stage failure and keep going, in large part because it had diversified revenue and kept reinvesting in R&D even when things were going well.

From a genomics subscription business that sold access to Pfizer, to the creator of the first FDA-approved JAK inhibitor, to a diversified biopharmaceutical company with seven marketed products—Incyte’s transformation is the rare kind that actually sticks.

What happens next comes down to execution. Can new products scale quickly enough to blunt Jakafi’s eventual decline? Can the pipeline produce real, defensible innovation? And can new leadership navigate the competitive and regulatory reality of modern biotech?

The scientists who restarted with 23 people in a DuPont lab built something that lasted. Now Incyte has to prove it can do it again.