U.S. – China Trade Agreement: China Agrees to Make Changes That Could Benefit U.S. Drug Companies Doing Business in China

Jan 21, 2020

Reading Time : 2 min

Most notably, China agreed to take steps to implement a patent resolution procedure, similar to that provided in the Hatch-Waxman Act, to resolve patent disputes before generic drugs enter the Chinese market. The Agreement leaves it to China to develop and implement the precise details for this patent resolution procedure consistent with its legal system. However, the Agreement requires that the procedure include a notification system whereby patent holders, licensees or parties who previously submitted safety and efficacy information to secure marketing approval are informed when another party seeks approval based on the same information. The procedure must also provide for a system to adjudicate patent rights and expeditious remedies, which will possibly include preliminary injunctive relief or equivalent measures.

China also agreed to allow pharmaceutical patent applicants to rely on supplemental data (for example, test results) to satisfy the requirements for patentability during patent examination, patent review and judicial proceedings. Implementing this provision will provide applicants and patent owners in China similar opportunities to present helpful supporting data as applicants and patent owners in the United States have enjoyed.

Finally, the Agreement provides that China will establish mechanisms to modify a patent’s term similar to those provided in 35 U.S.C. §§ 154, 156. Specifically, the Agreement allows term extensions for patents whose issuance is unreasonably delayed during examination for reasons not attributable to the applicant. The Agreement also provides that the terms of patents covering new pharmaceutical products (or methods of making or using such products) can be extended to compensate for unreasonable delays in receiving Chinese marketing approval. However, China may limit such adjustments to no more than five years, and may limit the resulting effective patent term to no more than 14 years from the date of marketing approval in China.

The Agreement provides China with 30 working days to promulgate an Action Plan identifying the measures it will take to implement its obligations related to intellectual property reform and the date by which the measures will go into effect. However, the ultimate impact of the Agreement will depend largely on when and how these provisions are implemented and on the strength of the protections ultimately provided. But at least on their face, the provisions of Chapter 1 of the Agreement represent a commitment from China to take steps to improve protections for innovative pharmaceutical companies.

Share This Insight

Previous Entries

IP Newsflash

December 18, 2025

The Federal Circuit recently vacated a $20 million jury verdict in favor of a patentee and remanded with instructions to dismiss the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, finding that the patentee did not own the asserted patents at the time it filed suit and therefore lacked standing.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

December 17, 2025

The Federal Circuit recently affirmed a Patent Trial and Appeal Board decision finding claims that had been subject to an ex parte reexamination unpatentable. As a threshold issue, the court held that IPR estoppel under 35 USC § 315(e)(1) does not apply to ongoing ex parte reexaminations. Accordingly, the Patent Office did not err in continuing the reexamination after issuing final written decisions in co-pending IPRs.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

December 15, 2025

The District of Delaware recently denied a defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s demand for enhanced damages based on willful infringement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284, explaining that neither a demand for damages under § 284 nor an accusation of willful infringement amount to a claim for relief that can be subject to dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6).

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

December 9, 2025

The Federal Circuit recently denied a petition for a writ of mandamus that challenged the PTO Director’s reliance on “settled expectations” to discretionarily deny two inter partes review (IPR) petitions. In so doing, the court explained that, while it was not deciding whether the Director’s use of “settled expectations” was correct, the petitioner’s arguments about what factors the Director may consider when deciding whether to institute an IPR or post-grant review (PGR) are not generally reviewable and did not provide sufficient basis for mandamus review here.

...

Read More

© 2026 Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP. All rights reserved. Attorney advertising. This document is distributed for informational use only; it does not constitute legal advice and should not be used as such. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Akin is the practicing name of Akin Gump LLP, a New York limited liability partnership authorized and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority under number 267321. A list of the partners is available for inspection at Eighth Floor, Ten Bishops Square, London E1 6EG. For more information about Akin Gump LLP, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP and other associated entities under which the Akin Gump network operates worldwide, please see our Legal Notices page.