Cross-border licensing and biotech partnership deals with Chinese firms have surged in recent years, reshaping the global life sciences landscape.
A January 2025 white paper from the globally respected biopharma and medtech consultancy Back Bay highlights the speed of this transformation. Between 2014 and 2019, Chinese-headquartered firms averaged only 1 to 4 licensing and partnership deals annually with multinational pharma companies. By 2024, that number had jumped to 25 deals—a dramatic acceleration. China's share of the global drug development pipeline also reached about 27% in 2024, up from 24% in 2023 and more than six times its level a decade ago.
Amid this surge, one player has been especially active: Grand Pharmaceutical Group Limited—known as Grand Pharma—a Hong Kong–listed pharmaceutical group with roots in mainland China. Through a series of high-profile acquisitions and partnerships with Western biotech firms, the company has positioned itself as a key conduit for capital and technology transfer.
For U.S. biotech founders, Grand Pharma raises a set of urgent questions: how should they evaluate such offers, and what risks or opportunities might be hidden within them?
The Premium Payment Warning Sign
One of the earliest red flags is Grand Pharma's willingness to pay well above market value for Western assets. The company has offered premiums in acquisitions that far exceed what strategic buyers or traditional venture investors might consider. A case in point: in 2018, Grand Pharma and its partner CDH Genetech acquired Sirtex Medical for approximately $1.9 billion—a deal noted across the industry for its unusually high valuation. Another 2018 example: Grand Pharma outbid Varian Medical Systems, an established U.S. oncology company, by offering about 20% more than Varian's agreed-upon price.
In these instances, such pricing raises a critical question: Are these deals driven purely by commercial interests, or by other strategic motivations?
For early-stage founders, the draw of an above-market value offer can be hard to resist. Yet outsized offers suggest that the buyer's objectives are unrelated to financial performance, which could threaten a startup's long-term control and independence.
State-Owned Roots Disguised as Private Capital
Another layer of complexity arises from the blurred line between state and private ownership in Chinese life sciences investment. Grand Pharma's origins trace back to state-owned enterprises and asset transfers, making it difficult to identify where government influence ends and private decision-making begins.
While the company now operates as a public entity, analysts note that its resources and strategies often appear aligned with broader state priorities. The People's Republic of China (PRC) alignment extends further. CNCB (Hong Kong) Investment Limited, which is owned by CITIC Group Corporation, a state-owned investment company of the PRC, held a 5.88% ownership interest in GP as of December 31, 2023.
For U.S. founders, all this prompts important questions: who ultimately controls the capital flowing into their business, and what long-term objectives might accompany it? Understanding this dynamic is crucial because it can determine whether an investor's goals align with a company's mission or whether the funding could come with hidden strings attached.
A Pattern of Strategic Acquisitions
Grand Pharma has repeatedly targeted acquisitions and partnerships in high-value areas, such as oncology, immunotherapy, and precision medicine. Its 2024 acquisition of Blackswan Vascular, a company specializing in minimally invasive tumor interventions, fits this pattern. The question is whether these moves are aimed at building sustainable businesses abroad or channeling Western innovations into China?
For startups, this distinction matters. Does working with a Chinese investment partner mean that breakthrough science will be used to drive independent growth, or will the involvement of the partner mean that innovation will be redirected to serve external industrial strategies? Understanding this risk is critical, since the trajectory of a startup's technology influence can shape not only its business prospects but also the wider innovation ecosystem.
Limitations of Current Protections
U.S. oversight mechanisms, such as the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS), have become more active in reviewing life science deals. But gaps remain, particularly for early-stage companies that often fall below regulatory thresholds—the very companies most eager for external capital and validation.
In a recent article on the challenges U.S. biotech companies face with Chinese investors, Allan Gobbs, managing partner at New York-based life sciences venture firm ATEM Capital, pointed to CFIUS' limitations and explained why he remains cautious. "The technical expertise of Chinese investors is strong," Gobbs noted, "but their business commitments and reliability raise concerns."
In cases when oversight would apply—and by the time CFIUS gets involved—essential intellectual property may already have changed hands. Founders should view regulatory protections as helpful guardrails, not as a substitute for their own vigilance.
Evaluating Foreign Investor Risk — Questions Every Founder Must Ask
To navigate this landscape, founders should watch for several warning signs: Offers well above market norms, opaque ownership structures, and deal terms granting investors disproportionate influence over intellectual property or R&D. These features often point to motivations beyond a long-term partnership.
Robust due diligence remains the best defense. This means looking beyond financial terms to investigate ownership structures, historical deal behavior, and possible state affiliations.
Diligence cuts both ways: just as investors scrutinize startups, founders should rigorously vet potential investors. Asking the right questions early can prevent vulnerabilities that may shape a company's future in ways misaligned with its mission.
Here are a few key questions founders should ask:
- Is the valuation being offered in line with industry norms, or far above market averages?
- Can the true ownership structure of the investor be clearly identified?
- Do deal terms grant investors unusual control over intellectual property or R&D direction?
- Does the investor's track record suggest long-term support or rapid technology absorption?
- Are regulatory bodies like CFIUS likely to apply to the stage of investment under consideration?
By systematically pressing on these points, biotech startups can better distinguish genuine partners from investors with hidden agendas.
Why This Matters Now
The rapid rise of Chinese investors in biotech and medtech is less a neutral trend than a strategic shift that carries real risks for U.S. startups.
But as capital flows accelerate, founders face a tougher calculus: which deals represent genuine partnership, and which may carry hidden agendas?
Grand Pharma illustrates the complexities at play. The Sirtex deal and subsequent acquisitions underscore why U.S. life science founders should approach such offers with caution—and why rigorous questions may be the most powerful tool for preserving independence and innovation.
Join the Conversation