Other Deal Trends 2026: Activity Surges 3900% in H1

Thirty-nine deals in six months, up from zero in the prior period — other deal trends 2026 are defined by a 3900% surge in activity that has no precedent in recent dealmaking history. Comparing the window from 2025-07-25 to 2026-01-25 (zero recorded transactions) against 2026-01-25 to 2026-07-25 (39 transactions), the data is unambiguous: pharma and biotech are aggressively pursuing transactions that fall outside conventional therapeutic area classifications, and the dollars involved are enormous. This isn't a statistical artifact from a low base — it's a structural shift in how Big Pharma is sourcing innovation, driven by platform technology acquisitions, enabling tool deals, and cross-category licensing that doesn't fit neatly into oncology, immunology, or CNS buckets.

The Data — Other Deal Activity, Period over Period

The jump from zero to 39 is worth interrogating. These are not miscategorized oncology or rare disease deals — they represent a growing class of transactions centered on platform technologies (AI-driven protein design, reagent and bioprocess tools, multi-modal delivery systems) and geographic licensing structures that defy single-TA classification. The fact that the previous six-month window recorded literally no comparable activity tells you this category was effectively invisible to dealmakers 12 months ago. Now it's absorbing $20B+ in total deal value.

What's Driving the Trend

Three forces converge to explain the explosion in other licensing 2026 activity. First, platform technology hunger. Big Pharma's pipeline gaps aren't just therapeutic — they're technological. Merck KGaA's $11.3B acquisition of Bio-Techne is the clearest signal: this is a diversified life sciences tools company, not a single-asset biotech. When a top-20 pharma pays $11.3B for a reagent, protein, and diagnostics platform, it tells you the buy-vs-build calculus has shifted decisively toward buy. Pharma R&D leaders have concluded that owning enabling infrastructure — not just clinical-stage molecules — is a competitive necessity.

Second, AI-native drug design is creating a new deal category. The Generate:Biomedicines–Novartis partnership, announced June 28, 2026, epitomizes a class of deals where the asset isn't a molecule — it's a generative biology engine. These transactions don't map to traditional TA taxonomies because the platform's output spans multiple therapeutic areas simultaneously. BD teams are structuring these as broad option-based collaborations rather than single-indication licenses, which pushes them into the "other" classification. Expect this sub-category to grow as more AI-native biotechs reach partnering maturity.

Third, cross-border licensing with geographic complexity. YaoPharma's deal with Pfizer ($150M upfront, $2.05B TDV) reflects the accelerating trend of China-to-global and global-to-China licensing structures that span multiple products or involve distribution rights rather than single-asset development deals. These multi-product, multi-territory agreements resist clean therapeutic classification. Regulatory divergence between the FDA, NMPA, and EMA is actually fueling these structures — companies are arbitraging approval timelines across geographies, and the resulting deal architectures are inherently cross-category.

Notable Deals

The Merck KGaA–Bio-Techne deal dominates the dataset and deserves scrutiny. At $11.3B, this is a full acquisition rather than a traditional license — Merck KGaA is buying vertical integration in life science tools, from protein reagents to advanced cell analysis. The TDV equaling the upfront confirms this is a cash acquisition, not a milestone-laden partnership. For context, this is larger than most single-asset oncology acquisitions in 2025. It signals that "other" is no longer a residual category — it's where some of the biggest checks are being written.

The Generate:Biomedicines–Novartis deal, while undisclosed on financial terms, is strategically significant. Novartis has been the most active Big Pharma partner for AI-native biotechs (following its Isomorphic Labs collaboration in 2024 and the Recursion data-sharing agreement in 2025). This deal likely involves a broad multi-target option structure, which is why financial terms resist simple categorization. BD teams watching this space should note that Novartis is building an AI-drug-design ecosystem through partnerships rather than internal build — that's a template other pharma companies will follow.

YaoPharma–Pfizer at $150M upfront and $2.05B TDV is the most conventional deal in this set, but its placement in the "other" category reflects its multi-product, cross-geography structure. Pfizer is clearly using licensing to fill near-term revenue gaps in China and emerging markets while its internal pipeline matures. The 13.7x milestone-to-upfront ratio is aggressive but consistent with multi-product portfolio deals where diversification de-risks the buyer's investment. Compare this to Deal Benchmarks data for single-asset transactions, where the typical ratio sits closer to 5–8x.

What This Means for BD Teams Right Now

If you're a seller with platform technology: This is the most favorable market for enabling-technology deals in at least five years. Big Pharma is paying full strategic premiums for platform assets — the Bio-Techne valuation at roughly 8x revenue proves it. If your technology spans multiple therapeutic areas or enables drug discovery infrastructure, position it as a platform acquisition, not a single-program partnership. The valuation uplift is substantial.

If you're a buyer: Move fast on AI-native and platform deals. The window where generative biology companies were underfunded and available for option-based partnerships at modest upfronts is closing. Novartis, Merck KGaA, and Pfizer have signaled to the market that these assets command real capital. Waiting six months means competing against three to five additional pharma BD teams for the same targets. Use Solidus to pressure-test whether your term sheet is competitive against the deals closing now.

Deal structure implications: Traditional milestone-heavy structures are losing ground in the "other" category. The Bio-Techne deal is 100% upfront. The YaoPharma deal has significant upfront commitment relative to TDV. Sellers of platform assets are demanding — and receiving — higher upfront commitments because the optionality value of multi-TA platforms is finally being priced correctly. If your term sheet still relies on 80% back-loaded milestones for a platform deal, expect to lose the competitive process.

Classification matters for strategy: BD teams should stop treating "other" as a catch-all and start tracking it as a distinct strategic category. The 39 deals in H1 2026 represent a real cluster of platform, tools, and cross-category transactions that share structural characteristics — high upfronts, broad rights, multi-TA optionality. Teams that build internal expertise in valuing these deals will have a meaningful edge in the next 12 months.

Benchmark your deal against current market rates using the Ambrosia calculator — especially if you're structuring a platform or multi-TA transaction where traditional TA-specific comps may undervalue the asset.