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

February 24, 2026

The Southern District of Florida recently dismissed a complaint without prejudice because the allegations used a form of “shotgun pleading.” The court explained that a shotgun pleading includes those where every count incorporates every preceding paragraph into each cause of action, and that dismissal of such pleadings was required under Eleventh Circuit precedent.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

February 20, 2026

The Federal Circuit recently addressed whether the PTO must conduct notice‑and‑comment rulemaking before issuing instructions that guide how the Board should exercise discretion at the institution stage of IPRs. The court held that no such rulemaking is required. Instructions to the Board regarding its use of the Director’s delegated discretionary authority not to institute review are merely general statements of policy exempt from notice-and-comment rulemaking.  

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

February 18, 2026

The District Court for the District of Delaware recently invalidated claims directed to a panoramic objective lens for lack of enablement, holding the claims impermissibly recited a single element in means‑plus‑function form. Under § 112, ¶ 6, “[a]n element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function….” By its plain terms, the statute permits means‑plus‑function claiming only in the context of a “combination.” In other words, a claim may not consist solely of a single means‑plus‑function element. Claims drafted as a single means are invalid for lack of enablement as a matter of law.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

February 13, 2026

In an ANDA litigation, the District of Delaware recently denied the defendants’ motion to compel the production of correspondence between the plaintiffs’ testifying expert and a third-party analyst who had performed experiments and provided data used by the testifying expert. The court found that the scope of material sought by the motion was overbroad and disproportionate to the needs of the case.

...

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.