Crossing the International Dateline: US-China Life Sciences Transactions
Despite the trade-related headwinds, the question for U.S. life sciences companies is not whether to engage with China—but how?
August 22, 2019 at 11:37 AM
7 minute read
The headlines report almost daily news of trade tensions between the United States and China. In life sciences, however, China offers an unprecedented opportunity for U.S. biopharmaceutical and medical device companies:
- large commercial markets with expanding health insurance;
- regulations for product development and approval increasingly harmonized to international standards;
- an ecosystem of government-supported “incubators,” private venture capital and highly educated entrepreneurs building new companies on innovative science; and
- new public listing venues in Hong Kong and Shanghai for life sciences companies.
So, despite the trade-related headwinds, the question for U.S. life sciences companies is not whether to engage with China—but how?
Some key considerations follow.
|CFIUS Restrictions: An Obstacle—Not Always a Barrier
CFIUS is the Committee for Foreign Investment in the United States. It is a U.S. federal interagency committee that reviews certain investments in the United States from a national security perspective. CFIUS jurisdiction was expanded by the Foreign Investment Risk Review Modernization Act of 2018 (FIRRMA), which, among other things, expanded the scope of transactions requiring CFIUS review to include investments in certain U.S. businesses that are involved in “critical technologies.”
The extent to which CFIUS will impact life sciences is a developing story, in part because experience will further define what “critical technologies” means with respect to biopharmaceuticals, diagnostics and medical devices. Just as the regulatory landscape is shifting, so too is life sciences technology evolving—for example, “big data,” artificial intelligence, and personalized health information are increasingly woven into everything from discovery of new drugs to diagnostic tools that identify which patients will benefit from a specific commercial drug product.
A detailed analysis of CFIUS and how it applies to life sciences technologies is beyond the scope of this article. We can, however, offer this suggestion: life sciences companies considering investments from Chinese investors should seek specialized advice at the outset to determine if the proposed deal is covered by CFIUS and, if so, how best to navigate this evolving regulatory regime, taking into consideration a variety of factors, including the specific investor, the technology and products at issue, the deal structure and the proposed investment terms. There are well-trodden paths and structures to satisfy the CFIUS compliance requirements but it is important that the parties work together collaboratively and early on.
|Partnering U.S. Assets in China: Meshing Local and Global Development
In the current climate of trade tensions, it may come as a surprise to learn that China continues to harmonize its regulations pertaining to pharmaceutical development with those of the United States and E.U. China’s evolution in this regard is not new, but neither has it abated during the trade war. These Chinese regulatory reforms, together with increasing levels of expertise in all aspects of development and manufacturing, benefit U.S. life sciences companies in several ways, including:
- Time is money: A U.S.-developed drug or device that now can get to market in China sooner is more valuable to a Chinese partner. Recent reforms enable Chinese companies, in some circumstances, to rely on clinical trial data that has already been generated elsewhere in the world to support regulatory approval in China—with smaller (or no) local clinical trials in China.
- Quality is Key: Whether it is accuracy in generating and reporting clinical trial data for new drugs or manufacturing quality-controlled biopharmaceutical or medical devices, the right Chinese partner can adhere to international standards. For well over a decade, China has benefited from the return of its citizens after stints working for global multinational pharmaceutical and medical device companies. These returnees—so called “sea turtles”—have now established a robust ecosystem of high-quality companies in China.
- Navigating a Complex Commercial Landscape: Distributing, promoting and selling drugs and devices in China is a daunting undertaking. For example, each of the 31 provincial regions in mainland China operates its own provincial centralized drug procurement system (unlike U.S. states) through a competitive tender bidding process for procurement of drugs by public hospitals. Drug companies may only sell products to public hospitals in a provincial region after winning the tender there. Finding a Chinese company with commercial experience and resources is essential—and many such companies exist. In addition, however, a U.S. company should understand the key factors that will influence the price and breadth of distribution of its product in China, and negotiate contract terms that match its commercial expectations.
Looking to China for Innovation: An Abundance of Assets
Decades of investment and effort are transforming China—once known for its inexpensive research services—into a country that rivals the traditional life sciences innovation hubs of San Francisco and Boston. One Chinese life sciences incubator alone—bioBay in Suzhou—houses over four hundred young companies, and has already had several of its progeny become publicly traded, international companies.
With this abundance and potential, a U.S. company looking for assets has a lot to consider, including:
- Finding the Needle in the Haystack: Locating the right asset in a vast, competitive and unfamiliar country is a challenge. This requires time and effort; business development professionals with experience in China can add tremendous value.
- Due Diligence is Key: While true in any deal, China is often perceived—fairly or not—to present special risks. Diligence covers many fronts; but, for deals involving rights to a compound or device, it may be especially prudent for a U.S. company to obtain samples of the compound or device under a “material transfer agreement” to determine if you can replicate the data.
- Global versus “ex-China” Deals: Even a small Chinese company may want to retain rights to its product in Greater China—e., mainland China, the Special Administrative Regions of Hong Kong and Macau, and Taiwan. As with any such “territory-splitting” deal, the ability to work cooperatively and constructively with the other company is key. But it is also important to understand the development and regulatory pathways applicable to the product in China, and to establish an optimal allocation of responsibilities to mesh those activities in China with the rest of the world.
Conclusion
In life sciences, product development cycles are long—for a drug, a decade or more can separate discovery from regulatory approval to sell. In that context, taking the long view of opportunities in China makes sense. Even today, amidst trade tensions, great opportunity remains for U.S. life sciences companies willing to equip themselves with the right knowledge and resources.
Tom Duley is a partner in Sidley Austin’s San Francisco office. He has extensive experience representing life sciences companies in a wide range of cross-border technology and intellectual property transactions, including working with clients in both the United States and China.
Ruchun Ji is a partner in the firm’s Palo Alto office. He represents corporations, private equity sponsors and venture capital investors in the United States, China and other Asia countries in domestic and cross-border investments, divestitures and acquisitions, both inbound and outbound.
|This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllPharmacies Accuse GoodRx of 'Inviting Price-Fixing' in Series of Antitrust Class Actions
4 minute readWilson Sonsini Knocks Out Claims Against Inhibrx Biosciences in Trade Secrets Verdict
Major Drug Companies Agree to Pay $49.1 Million to 50 States, Territories
3 minute readLos Angeles Secures $35M Settlement From Monsanto in Water Contamination Lawsuit
Trending Stories
- 1King & Spalding E-Discovery Director Jumps to Nebraska Women-Owned Firm
- 2Nation's Largest Utility Parts Ways With CLO Who Helped It Navigate Bribery Scandal
- 3Advocates Renew Campaign for Immigrant Right to Counsel in New York
- 4From ‘Unregulated’ to ‘A Matter of Great Concern’: PFAS Regulation under Biden
- 5Public Interest Lawyers in NY Fear Rollback of Federal Loan Assistance in '25, Ask Gov. to Add $4M to State Program
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250