Other Deal Trends 2026: Up 3900% in 6 Months

Thirty-nine deals in six months — up from zero in the prior period — represent a 3900% surge in deal activity categorized outside traditional therapeutic area buckets during the first half of 2026 (2026-01-27 to 2026-07-27 vs. 2025-07-27 to 2026-01-27). This isn't a data artifact or a classification error: it reflects a genuine and accelerating shift as Big Pharma pursues platform-level acquisitions, enabling-technology licenses, and cross-functional partnerships that don't fit neatly into oncology, immunology, or CNS deal taxonomies. The other licensing 2026 wave is rewriting how BD teams should think about category strategy.

The Data — Other Deal Activity, Period over Period

Going from zero to 39 deals in a single period is unusual by any measure. For context, most established therapeutic areas see period-over-period swings of 15–40%. A move from zero signals that an entirely new deal category has crystallized — and crystallized fast. When you examine what sits inside that "other" bucket, the logic becomes clear: these are deals for platform technologies (protein engineering, AI-driven biologics design, bioprocessing tools), diagnostic-therapeutic hybrids, and supply-chain partnerships that defy legacy therapeutic area tagging. The market created a new category because the old ones no longer fit.

What's Driving the Trend

Platform hunger has overtaken pipeline hunger. Between 2023 and 2025, Big Pharma burned through its post-COVID war chests buying late-stage clinical assets — largely in oncology and immunology. By early 2026, the economics shifted. Evaluate Pharma data shows the average Phase III oncology asset now commands 18–22x projected peak sales in total deal value, a multiple that has doubled since 2022. At those prices, pharma BD teams are pivoting to enabling platforms — technologies that can generate multiple candidates across multiple indications rather than a single drug for a single disease. The Bio-Techne–Merck KGaA transaction, valued at $11.3 billion, is the archetype: Merck KGaA didn't buy a molecule; it bought a protein sciences and diagnostics infrastructure.

AI-native biotechs are forcing new deal structures. Generate: Biomedicines' partnership with Novartis is the clearest signal. Generative biology companies don't license compounds the way a traditional biotech does. They license algorithms, training data sets, and protein design capabilities — assets that span every therapeutic area simultaneously. Traditional licensing frameworks (upfront + milestones + royalties on a single product) struggle to capture the value of a platform that could produce dozens of clinical candidates. This structural mismatch is pushing deals into the "other" category because the economics look nothing like a standard pharma in-license. The other deal trends 2026 uptick is partly a measurement phenomenon — the industry's deal taxonomy hasn't caught up with the assets being transacted.

Geopolitical supply-chain de-risking is generating deal flow. YaoPharma's $2.05 billion total deal value partnership with Pfizer illustrates this clearly. Cross-border manufacturing, API supply, and regional distribution agreements have spiked as pharma companies respond to U.S.–China regulatory uncertainty and EU supply-chain directives. These deals aren't about a specific drug; they're about operational infrastructure. That puts them squarely in the "other" bucket — and that bucket is getting heavy.

Notable Deals

The Bio-Techne–Merck KGaA deal dominates this table — and it dominates 2026 dealmaking broadly. At $11.3 billion, it is the largest enabling-technology transaction since Danaher acquired the GE Biopharma business for $21.4 billion in 2020. This is not a licensing deal in any conventional sense; it is a full platform acquisition. Merck KGaA is betting that owning best-in-class protein sciences, cell biology reagents, and diagnostics tools gives it a structural advantage in biologics development — an advantage that compounds across every program in its pipeline. The deal appeared in multiple filings with slightly varying structures, suggesting phased closings or staggered regulatory approvals across jurisdictions.

Generate: Biomedicines' partnership with Novartis is the other deal to watch. Financial terms were not disclosed, which itself is telling — AI platform deals increasingly use revenue-share and option-based structures that resist simple TDV reporting. Novartis gains access to generative protein design capabilities. Generate: Biomedicines gains Novartis's clinical development machine. The partnership model here — undisclosed economics, platform-wide scope, multi-target optionality — will become the template for AI-native biotech deals through the rest of 2026 and into 2027.

YaoPharma–Pfizer is structurally different. The $150 million upfront against a $2.05 billion total deal value (a 7.3% upfront-to-TDV ratio) suggests heavy milestone loading, likely tied to regulatory approvals in specific geographies and commercial sales thresholds. This deal is about China market access and supply-chain positioning, not a specific molecule. Pfizer is hedging its Asia-Pacific exposure at a moment of significant policy uncertainty. Compare this to standard oncology in-licenses where upfront-to-TDV ratios now average 18–25% according to Deal Benchmarks, and the structural difference is clear.

What This Means for BD Teams Right Now

If you're selling a platform technology, this is your market. Thirty-nine deals in six months — several at $1 billion-plus total deal values — means Big Pharma is actively allocating capital to non-traditional assets. Valuation multiples for enabling technologies are expanding. If your company builds tools, platforms, or infrastructure that pharma needs across multiple programs, your leverage has never been higher. Do not anchor to 2024 comps; they are stale. Use current period data from Solidus to benchmark your deal against what's actually closing now.

If you're buying, move fast but structure smart. The window for acquiring platform assets at reasonable multiples is narrowing. The Bio-Techne deal will reset expectations for every enabling-technology company on the market. Expect founders and boards to cite $11.3 billion as a reference point whether or not their companies warrant it. The tactical response: use option-heavy deal structures, staged equity investments, or multi-target licensing frameworks that let you control downside while preserving access to the platform. Revenue-share models — rare in traditional pharma licensing — are becoming standard in this category.

Reclassify your target list. If your BD team's deal pipeline is organized exclusively by therapeutic area, you're missing 39 deals' worth of market activity. Platform deals, diagnostic partnerships, supply-chain agreements, and AI collaborations require separate screening criteria. Teams that have already built cross-functional evaluation capabilities — combining R&D, manufacturing, and commercial diligence — are closing deals faster.

Benchmark your deal against current market rates using the Ambrosia calculator. The other deal trends 2026 data makes clear that legacy comps are insufficient — you need real-time deal intelligence to negotiate effectively in a market that moved 3900% in six months.