Other Deals Are Up 4100% in 2026 — Here's the Data

42 deals in six months versus 1 in the prior period — a 4100% increase in "other" deal activity that demands attention from every BD team tracking non-traditional licensing structures in 2026. Comparing the periods of July 13, 2025 through January 13, 2026 (1 deal) against January 13 through July 13, 2026 (42 deals), the surge isn't noise — it reflects pharma's growing appetite for deal architectures that don't fit neatly into traditional licensing, M&A, or collaboration buckets. Platform acquisitions, technology access agreements, and hybrid structures are where the action is, and the pace is accelerating.

The Data — Other Deal Activity, Period over Period

The single deal recorded in the back half of 2025 makes the percentage spike look extreme, but the absolute number — 42 deals in six months — is the real story. That's nearly two deals per week falling into non-traditional structures. This isn't a statistical artifact from a low base. It's a structural migration of dealmaking into categories that legacy tracking systems often miss.

What's Driving the Trend

Platform technology hunger is the primary accelerant. Big Pharma's pipeline gaps aren't just about molecules anymore — they're about capabilities. AI-driven drug design, next-generation biologics manufacturing, and novel delivery platforms are commanding deal structures that blend technology licensing, equity stakes, and milestone-heavy option agreements. The Generate:Biomedicines/Novartis deal, announced June 28, exemplifies this: Novartis isn't buying a drug, it's buying access to a generative biology engine. These deals defy traditional licensing taxonomy because the asset isn't a compound — it's an infrastructure layer. Other licensing 2026 trends show that pharma is paying platform premiums that would have been unthinkable two years ago.

Geographic diversification is the second driver. The YaoPharma/Pfizer deal ($150M upfront, $2.05B TDV) signals Western pharma's intensifying interest in Chinese-origin assets and regional commercialization rights structures that don't map cleanly to standard in-license or out-license frameworks. These deals often involve manufacturing rights, co-development provisions, and territory-specific regulatory obligations that push them into the "other" category. With geopolitical dynamics reshaping supply chain strategy, expect more of these hybrid cross-border structures. Use the Deal Benchmarks tool to compare how these non-traditional structures stack against standard licensing economics.

Capital deployment pressure is the third force. Pharma balance sheets remain loaded. The top 20 companies are sitting on an estimated $300B+ in deployable capital and cash equivalents, but traditional M&A targets above $5B are scarce and expensive. Non-traditional deal structures — technology acquisitions, platform partnerships, capability-building agreements — offer a way to deploy capital without the full integration risk and premium multiples of outright acquisitions. The Bio-Techne/Merck KGaA transaction, at $11.3B, is the clearest proof point: this is an acquisition-scale commitment structured as something other than a straightforward buyout.

Notable Deals

Bio-Techne/Merck KGaA ($11.3B) is the deal that anchors this entire trend. Bio-Techne is a tools and diagnostics platform, not a therapeutics company. Merck KGaA paying $11.3B for access to protein sciences, cell biology reagents, and diagnostics capabilities signals that pharma valuations are extending well beyond clinical-stage pipelines. This is a capability acquisition priced at a premium historically reserved for late-stage oncology assets. It sets a new ceiling for platform technology valuations.

Generate:Biomedicines/Novartis is notable for what we don't see: no disclosed upfront, no disclosed TDV. Novartis is keeping this one quiet, but the strategic signal is clear. Generative AI for protein design is no longer speculative — it's worth structuring a formal partnership around. The lack of disclosed financials suggests either an equity-heavy structure or a deeply milestone-contingent arrangement, both hallmarks of other deal trends 2026.

YaoPharma/Pfizer ($150M upfront, $2.05B TDV) is the cross-border play worth watching. A 7.3% upfront-to-TDV ratio is lean — Pfizer is clearly back-loading value and hedging risk. For a Chinese pharma company granting rights to Pfizer, the $150M upfront provides immediate capital while retaining significant milestone upside. This structure is becoming the template for East-West pharmaceutical partnerships in 2026.

Silence Therapeutics/Hansoh ($16M upfront) sits at the opposite end of the value spectrum but reinforces the same trend: RNAi platform deals structured outside traditional licensing frameworks. The modest upfront suggests early-stage platform access rather than asset-specific licensing — another example of capability-driven dealmaking that defies conventional categorization.

What This Means for BD Teams Right Now

If you're selling a platform technology, this is your market. The data is unambiguous: pharma is paying acquisition-scale prices for capabilities, not just compounds. If your company offers differentiated technology infrastructure — AI drug design, novel delivery, manufacturing innovation — you have leverage you didn't have 12 months ago. Price accordingly. Don't accept traditional royalty-based licensing terms for platform assets that should command equity-like valuations.

If you're buying, move fast but structure carefully. The 42 deals recorded in six months means the competitive landscape for platform assets is crowding quickly. Waiting another quarter means bidding against more suitors at higher prices. But the Bio-Techne deal also serves as a cautionary benchmark — $11.3B for a tools company will face intense scrutiny on returns. Build option-heavy structures with clear go/no-go decision points. Use the Deal Calculator to model milestone scenarios before your term sheet goes out.

Deal structures gaining favor: Hybrid agreements combining technology access with equity stakes; milestone-heavy arrangements with low upfronts (see the YaoPharma/Pfizer 7.3% ratio); multi-component deals that bundle manufacturing rights, territorial commercialization, and platform licensing into single agreements. Structures losing favor: Simple exclusive licenses for single assets; one-time upfront payments without ongoing value participation; standard royalty-only arrangements for platform technologies.

Benchmark your deal against current market rates using the Ambrosia calculator. With 42 non-traditional deals closed in the first half of 2026, the dataset is finally large enough to establish meaningful comparables for platform technology transactions. Don't negotiate blind — model your structure against real-world precedents before your next term sheet discussion.