On April 7, 2026, the U.S. pharmaceutical company Gilead Sciences announced the acquisition of the Munich-based biotech company Tubulis GmbH – for up to $5 billion ($3.15 billion upfront plus up to $1.85 billion, depending on the milestone). Tubulis, founded in 2019 as a spin-off of the Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich (LMU) and the Leibniz Institute for Molecular Pharmacology (FMP) in Berlin, develops novel antibody-drug conjugates (ADCs) against cancer. LMU praised the deal as a “successful transfer of research”. Munich is to be retained as an ADC research hub at Gilead.

At first glance, this is a success: tax-financed basic research from the LMU Biocenter and FMP is being transformed into a clinically advanced company. Tubulis had previously raised massive funding rounds, including a €308 million Series C (later expanded to €344 million) in October 2025 – the largest for a European biotech at this stage. Investors: US funds such as Venrock Healthcare Capital Partners as well as German and European players such as High-Tech Gründerfonds (HTGF), Bayern Kapital, EQT Life Sciences and Evotec.

But the quick exit after only seven years raises a hard question: Is this really the best transfer for Germany? Or a clear example of how publicly funded universities systematically hand over highly qualified know-how to international corporations – instead of building independent champions in the country in the long term?

Since 2002, intellectual property has belonged to the universities

With the abolition of the university lecturer privilege in 2002, inventions by scientists became the property of the universities. Technology transfer offices are to exploit the knowledge – by license or spin-off. In practice, many TTOs prefer secure licensing deals with established corporations instead of risky investments in spin-offs. Founders criticize bureaucratic hurdles, long negotiations and a lack of incentives.

The number of spin-offs from universities and non-university institutions has increased. Nevertheless, commercialization lags behind US or British standards. Early funding often comes from Europe, but US investors often dominate scaling and late-stage. Many biotech spin-offs reach clinical phases – and then end up with major international players.

The recurring pattern: research here, value creation elsewhere

Tubulis is not an isolated case. German university spin-offs in life sciences and deep tech deliver strong technologies, but strategic control, high profits and long-term jobs often migrate abroad. The reasons are structural: too little venture capital for late phases in Europe, the lack of a liquid stock market for biotech and pressure from investors for quick exits.

The core technology of Tubulis (Platform for Stable, Highly Loaded ADCs) comes from publicly funded research. The company benefited from programs such as the m4 Award Bavaria and EXIST. Gilead had already agreed on a license option in 2024. Now full control goes to the US group (market capitalization before the deal around 172 billion dollars). In the future, strategic decisions will be made from California – even if parts of the research remain in Munich.

Reports by the Stifterverband and SPRIND have been criticizing this dynamic for years: IP transfer is often non-transparent, slow and not sufficiently founder-friendly. Initiatives such as “IP Transfer 3.0” with model contracts are supposed to help, but practice is changing only slowly.

Who really benefits?

The deal flushes money into the coffers of LMU, FMP, founders and investors. For Germany, the main thing that remains is an R&D unit. Long-term tax revenues on high profits, real technological sovereignty and the emergence of a global champion are lost.

Germany shines in basic research, but often fails in scaling and exploitation. As long as the VC ecosystem, capital market and framework conditions favor rapid sales to foreign corporations, the “transfer of research” will remain one-sided: public funds finance the know-how, global corporations secure the fruits.

The Tubulis case makes it clear: Lucrative exits are nice for those involved. However, a real success for the location would be independent companies with headquarters, IP control and sustainable value creation in Germany.

The article was originally published by LabNews Media LLC

Read also:

DKLM 2025: Exclusive interview with Prof. Uta Ceglarek and Prof. Berend Isermann – MedLabPortal

Editor: X-Press Journalistenbüro GbR

Gender Notice. The personal designations used in this text always refer equally to female, male and diverse persons. Double/triple naming and gendered designations are used for better readability. ected.