China lawyersI wish there were some way I could write a blog post in stealth mode, making it available to all of the world, with the exception of my firm. Let me explain….

This past week has been one of the busiest/most horrible weeks for three of the China lawyers on my firm’s “China team.” It has been horrible because they have been working on two China technology licensing agreements, both of which this week involved a particular hard-edged China negotiating tactic, which tactic we described in How To Handle Chinese Negotiating Tactics as follows:

My favorite tactic is the artificial deadline. It is my favorite because it is such an obvious manipulation of the foreign side and yet it seems to work extremely well. The tactic works like this. At the very beginning of the negotiating process, the Chinese side sets a fixed date for executing the contract. It then sets up a public signing ceremony on that date, at which high-level officers from both sides will participate amidst much pomp and circumstance. The date is set far enough in advance to ensure that parties negotiating in good faith can reach agreement on the contract. The Chinese side then ensures that no agreement is reached. This results in panic on the foreign side, since failure to get an agreement that the bosses will sign is seen as a loss of face. The Chinese side then uses this concern to extract concessions from the already exhausted foreign side negotiator. This tactic also has two variants. The first variant is the crude approach. The Chinese side simply refuses to concede on key points under the quite reasonable assumption that the foreign side will crumble when faced with the fixed signing deadline. The second variant is much more subtle. In this variant, the Chinese side initially concedes on key points, while still holding its ground on numerous minor points, consistent with the “wear them down” tactic. Then, just a day or two before the signing ceremony, the Chinese side announces that the contract must be revised on one or more key issues in a way that entirely benefits the Chinese side. The Chinese side usually justifies this by referring to the demand of a “government regulator” or an outside source such as a bank or insurance company. The claim is “we don’t want to go back on our word, but these other folks have forced us to do this.” Again, the plan is that the combination of the pressure of the impending signing ceremony and the general fatigue of the negotiators will result in a crucial concession favoring the Chinese side.

These three China attorneys have had to deal with this tactic on two licensing deals at the same time. What that means in practical terms is the following:

  1. Ultra-complicated agreements with a large number of exhibits (all in two languages) were revised by the Chinese side at the last minute and provided to our lawyers in pdf format, making it all that more difficult for us to track the changes. Yes, we know we can convert them to Word documents and run “compare docs,” but still.
  2. The Chinese side would change the terms of the agreements in Chinese and then we would need to rapidly translate them into English for our clients.
  3. 16 hour+ work days for our attorneys.

It is number three that causes me to fear those in my firm seeing this post.

You see, I am about to tout the benefits of licensing your product, technology or even your name to China. I am touting this not because I want the attorneys in my firm to have to keep working 16 hour+ days (14 would be plenty for me) but because licensing these things to China can be an amazing economic stimulant for so many companies. And as much as I would have liked to have waited to write this post so as not to anger these three lawyers, I could not resist after the Wall Street Journal essentially just touted China licensing deals in its article, Second Pipeline: Some Drugs Looking for a New Chance in China. The article talks about Western drugs that either were never approved in the West or simply never sold well there. Western companies are licensing some of these drugs to China pharmaceutical companies, which prefer them to better selling but far more expensive competitor drugs. These are win-win deals because the Chinese companies and Chinese citizens get perfectly fine medicines (I presume) at a good price and the Western companies get a revenue source from a formerly moribund product.

The licensing deals our firm has been handling in the last year or so have been similar to the Pharma deals described in the WSJ article, but have mostly involved technology, not medicine. Ours have mostly been licensing deals involving expensive and complicated computer and industrial technologies where the Chinese company wants to use the licensed technology to jump-start their own technology development. These Chinese companies initially plan to license the licensed technology to build their own, cheaper products in China and then later use that technology and the funds they receive from new product sales to further develop and refine (and perhaps even localize) the technology and their own products to compete better with other Western companies on the high end. These licensing deals are often limited to giving the Chinese company use of the technology only in Mainland China, and oftentimes Hong Kong, Taiwan, and Macao or even all of Asia as well.

For more on what goes into a China licensing contract, check out China Licensing Agreements: The Extreme Basics.

Photo of Dan Harris Dan Harris

Dan is a founder of Harris Bricken, an international law firm with lawyers in Los Angeles, Portland, San Francisco, Seattle, China and Spain.

He primarily represents companies doing business in emerging market countries, having spent years building and maintaining a global, professional network. 

Dan is a founder of Harris Bricken, an international law firm with lawyers in Los Angeles, Portland, San Francisco, Seattle, China and Spain.

He primarily represents companies doing business in emerging market countries, having spent years building and maintaining a global, professional network.  His work has been as varied as securing the release of two improperly held helicopters in Papua New Guinea, setting up a legal framework to move slag from Canada to Poland’s interior, overseeing hundreds of litigation and arbitration matters in Korea, helping someone avoid terrorism charges in Japan, and seizing fish product in China to collect on a debt.

He was named as one of only three Washington State Amazing Lawyers in International Law, is AV rated by Martindale-Hubbell Law Directory (its highest rating), is rated 10.0 by (also its highest rating), and is a recognized SuperLawyer.

Dan is a frequent writer and public speaker on doing business in Asia and constantly travels between the United States and Asia. He most commonly speaks on China law issues and is the lead writer of the award winning China Law Blog. Forbes Magazine, Fortune Magazine, the Wall Street Journal, Investors Business Daily, Business Week, The National Law Journal, The Washington Post, The ABA Journal, The Economist, Newsweek, NPR, The New York Times and Inside Counsel have all interviewed Dan regarding various aspects of his international law practice.

Dan is licensed in Washington, Illinois, and Alaska.

In tandem with the international law team at his firm, Dan focuses on setting up/registering companies overseas (via WFOEs, Rep Offices or Joint Ventures), drafting international contracts (NDAs, OEM Agreements, licensing, distribution, etc.), protecting IP (trademarks, trade secrets, copyrights and patents), and overseeing M&A transactions.