China is the world's largest supplier of active pharmaceutical ingredients (APIs), and its life sciences sector is rapidly expanding. Collaborations, licensing deals, and supply chain arrangements of international life science companies with Chinese companies are becoming more common and complex, and so are the disputes that can arise.

As part of China's efforts to modernize its commercial arbitration regime in line with international best practice, China has, for the first time since 1994, undergone a major revision of its Arbitration Law, which comes into force on 1 March 2026. It offers global life science companies additional options and stronger procedural safeguards for managing disputes with Chinese partners.

For the first time, Chinese law recognizes ad hoc (non-institutional) arbitration seated in Mainland China, albeit limited to foreign-related disputes of companies registered in specific areas, such as China's Pilot Free Trade Zones and the Hainan Free Trade Port (Article 82). This gives companies registered in these free trade zones additional options for dispute resolution.

In support of Mainland-seated arbitrations (domestic arbitrations or foreign-related arbitrations), parties can now seek interim measures such as evidence, property, and act/conduct preservations, both before and during the arbitration proceedings (Articles 39 and 58). Chinese people's courts have exclusive competence for ordering interim measures and are required to handle the matters promptly.

For foreign‑seated arbitrations, interim measures in Mainland China are available where a cooperation mechanism exists between Mainland courts and the relevant jurisdiction, and where the arbitration is administered by an institution covered by that mechanism. For example, under the Mainland-Hong Kong Interim Measures Arrangement, parties to Hong Kong‑seated arbitrations administered by designated institutions may apply directly to Mainland courts for interim measures in support of the arbitration (Article 3).

With the introduction of the "seat" standard by the reform, awards rendered in Mainland-seated arbitrations administered by foreign arbitration institutions like the ICC are now considered (foreign-related) domestic awards, and are enforceable under Chinese laws instead of the New York Convention (Article 81). Previously, the nationality of the arbitration was predominantly dependent on the place of the arbitration institution.

The provisions for the enforcement of foreign-related and purely domestic awards remain unchanged. China's new Arbitration Law unifies the previously different legal grounds for setting-aside and resisting enforcement of domestic arbitral awards (Articles 71 and 76). It also unifies the grounds for challenging foreign-related domestic arbitral awards, which remain separate from purely domestic awards (Articles 83 and 84).

The intermediate people's court remains the competent court for recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards rendered outside Mainland China and will continue to handle the matter in accordance with the New York Convention. In addition, it can now apply the principle of reciprocity in cases where foreign arbitration institutions impose restrictions or discrimination upon the "lawful rights and interests" of Chinese parties (Article 88). It remains to be seen how this change will affect the recognition and enforcement of foreign awards in practice.