Other Deals Are Up 3900% in 2026 — Here's the Data

Thirty-nine deals in six months, up from zero in the prior period — a 3900% surge in deal activity outside traditional therapeutic licensing categories. The "other" classification, which captures platform technology acquisitions, research tools licensing, AI-driven drug design partnerships, and cross-sector collaborations, went from flatline to the busiest corridor in biopharma BD. This isn't noise. This is Big Pharma systematically buying the infrastructure layer of drug discovery, and the capital deployed — north of $24 billion in total deal value across just the top transactions — confirms the thesis: other licensing 2026 is where the real strategic repositioning is happening.

The Data — Other Deal Activity, Period over Period

The zero-to-39 jump demands context. A +3900% headline from a base of zero is mathematically extreme, but the absolute volume — 39 deals in six months — is itself remarkable. For reference, entire therapeutic areas like gene therapy or microbiome rarely crack 30 deals in a comparable window. The "other" category isn't a dumping ground anymore. It's becoming the primary vehicle for pharma to acquire capabilities rather than compounds.

What's Driving the Trend

Three forces converged in early 2026 to ignite this surge. First, the platform acquisition thesis matured. After years of cautious option deals and narrow research collaborations with AI-native biotechs and tools companies, Big Pharma boards started approving full-scale acquisitions of enabling technology platforms. Merck KGaA's $11.3B acquisition of Bio-Techne is the clearest signal: this wasn't a licensing deal for a single asset. It was a wholesale purchase of protein sciences, cell biology tools, and diagnostics infrastructure. When a top-20 pharma pays $11.3B for a tools company, it redefines what counts as pipeline-critical.

Second, generative biology partnerships crossed the threshold from exploratory to strategic. Novartis's deal with Generate: Biomedicines — details still emerging — represents the next phase of AI-driven drug design moving from proof-of-concept to platform-level commitment. These partnerships don't fit neatly into traditional TA categories because they span multiple modalities and indications simultaneously. The deal structures reflect that ambiguity: broad platform access, milestone stacks tied to multiple programs, and co-development rights that blur the line between licensor and licensee.

Third, geographic diversification accelerated. YaoPharma's $2.05B TDV deal with Pfizer exemplifies a pattern we're tracking across Deal Benchmarks: Western pharma is licensing manufacturing capabilities, regional distribution rights, and formulation expertise from Asian partners at valuations that would have seemed aggressive 18 months ago. This isn't traditional in-licensing of a clinical asset. It's capability acquisition disguised as a partnership, and it's happening at scale because internal capacity constraints — particularly in biologics manufacturing and complex generics — are now acute enough to justify premium pricing.

Notable Deals

Bio-Techne / Merck KGaA ($11.3B): The defining deal of the cycle. Multiple filings across late June reflect the staged announcement and regulatory documentation of a single massive transaction. At $11.3B, this is the largest tools-company acquisition in biopharma history. Merck KGaA is betting that owning research-grade reagents, recombinant proteins, and spatial biology platforms creates a durable competitive moat in drug discovery services. The strategic logic is sound: if you control the tools, you see the data first. The price, however, raises questions. Bio-Techne's trailing revenue multiple at $11.3B implies Merck KGaA is paying roughly 14–15x revenue — a premium that only works if cross-selling into their Life Science segment generates meaningful synergies within 36 months. Bold, defensible, but expensive.

Generate: Biomedicines / Novartis: Financial terms remain undisclosed, which itself is telling. When Novartis keeps a deal's economics private, it usually means the structure is non-standard — likely involving equity, co-development provisions, or milestone architectures that don't map cleanly to a single TDV figure. Generate's protein engineering platform is among the most advanced generative biology engines in the industry. This deal validates that Novartis views AI-native drug design not as an R&D efficiency tool but as a pipeline source.

YaoPharma / Pfizer ($150M upfront / $2.05B TDV): The upfront-to-TDV ratio here — roughly 7% — is below the current median for cross-border deals we track in Deal Benchmarks, which sits closer to 12–15%. That discount likely reflects the manufacturing and regional-access nature of the partnership rather than clinical-stage asset risk. Pfizer is solving a capacity problem, not a pipeline problem, and the deal terms reflect that distinction. For BD teams evaluating similar capability-licensing structures, this is the comp to study.

What This Means for BD Teams Right Now

If you're a platform technology company or tools provider, you are in a seller's market — the most favorable since 2021. The Bio-Techne deal reset valuation expectations for the entire sector. Every protein sciences company, spatial biology platform, and AI-native drug design outfit should be revisiting their outbound BD strategy immediately. The window is open, but it won't stay open indefinitely; once the first wave of acquisitions closes, buyer urgency will normalize.

If you're on the buy side at a top-20 pharma, the imperative is speed and decisiveness. The other deal trends 2026 data shows that competition for platform assets is intensifying faster than most corporate development timelines accommodate. Waiting for another quarter of diligence on a target that three competitors are also circling is a losing strategy. Structure for speed: consider using option-to-acquire frameworks, upfront equity stakes, or staged acquisitions that let you lock in access now and close the full transaction over 12–18 months.

Deal structures in this category are diverging from traditional therapeutic licensing. We're seeing more all-cash acquisitions (Bio-Techne), more undisclosed/non-standard structures (Generate: Biomedicines), and more capability-access deals with lower upfront percentages (YaoPharma). Milestone-heavy biobucks structures are losing favor for platform deals because the value isn't tied to a single clinical binary — it's tied to sustained capability deployment across multiple programs. If you're still drafting term sheets with Phase II/III milestone triggers for a platform deal, you're negotiating from a 2022 playbook in a 2026 market.

Benchmark your deal against current market rates using the Ambrosia calculator. The data shifts quarterly, and the other licensing 2026 cohort is moving fast enough that comps from even six months ago are already stale. Run the numbers with today's data before your next term sheet goes out.