SUZHOU, China ­– The mostly Chinese attendees at a partnering boot camp that kicked off the 2014 Chinabio Partnering Forum here on Tuesday got an earful of practical advice, delivered diplomatically, on cross-border partnering from a pharma that has been fostering relationships in the country for more than 40 years.

Anand Gautam, director of biopharm innovation sourcing for Novo Nordisk A/S, acknowledged up front that no "hard and fast rules" exist for structuring agreements between biotechs and big pharmas in the important and fast-growing Chinese market. He cautioned, however, that many of the nation's young biotechs ignore even the most fundamental rules of engagement by failing to do basic homework.

"More often than not, when we're contacted by a potential partner, [the request] has nothing to do with our strategy," Gautam said, citing cancer as a frequent target indication of such requests. "We're not in cancer," he added, outlining the company's legacy in diabetes along with its development efforts in obesity, hemophilia, growth disorders and inflammation.

Although Gautam maintained that Novo eventually responds to every partnering inquiry, errant requests – which still must be vetted – slow the overall collaborative process and hurt a prospect's credibility. The meeting requests are staggering. The pharma expects to field 400 to 500 inquiries for the three-day BIO International Convention in San Diego next month but can accommodate only some 100 meetings.

Gautam's guidance is just as relevant for eager biotechs outside China in avoiding rookie mistakes with potential partners. In addition to pursuing companies that have suitable interest in a given indication, biotechs should fully investigate a potential partner's scientific expertise, he said, noting that Novo is focused solely on proteins. Small molecules, vaccines and other technologies don't fit its development profile.

That's not to say Novo isn't interested in working with Chinese biotechs. The company has an "innovation sourcing team" at its Beijing R&D facility that, along with its Seattle lab, feeds into its major R&D center in Bagsvaerd, Denmark. Licensing and partnering are essential components of the pharma's strategy, Gautam said, and the company is "keen to partner" in China.

But across every indication, "we're looking for differentiation," he added. "This is very important, because not every product out there is going to cut it." In China, as in other countries, the pharma looks at the quality of the science in relation to its targets – particularly diabetes, hemophilia and inflammation – before considering whether to execute a deal. So far, much of the technology emerging from China has represented "follow-ons and me-toos," which don't move the needle on innovation.

"We are partnering for differentiation," Gautam emphasized, noting that 70 percent of patients in its target indications do not respond to existing drugs, including blockbusters such as Humira (adalimumab, Abbvie Inc.), Enbrel (etanercept, Amgen Inc.) and Remicade (infliximab, Johnson & Johnson). "In doing so, we have built up a reasonable pipeline, mostly with monoclonal antibodies. We're trying to differentiate ourselves in treating diseases with assets other than TNF products."

Other pharmas and big biotechs are seeking to do no less, Gautam insisted.

"Technology is very important," he said, adding that pharmas are looking for "value-creating discoveries that can turn into medicines." Ultimately, the ability to transform a scientific discovery into a useful therapeutic is the most practical definition of innovation, according to Gautam, who said research for its own sake is not beneficial in drug discovery.

"Nonmarketable, unaffordable discoveries are essentially worthless to patients," he maintained, noting that Chinese researchers still have a tendency to get caught up in the science more than the application. "For patients, a Nature paper is useless unless you can transform it into medicine," Gautam said.

He acknowledged that China is coming on strong as a source of scientific discovery, however, citing statistics indicating that, within Asia, China has leapfrogged Japan in just a decade as the top source of papers published in immunology and autoimmunity. Now, the challenge for Chinese researchers is to translate that science into clinical applications, which requires more mature partnering strategies.

Touching on a theme that is resonating throughout China's biotech community, Patrick Loofbourrow, partner in the emerging companies and public companies practice groups at Cooley LLP, said the nation's momentum in life sciences is being driven by returnees bringing their Western educations, experience and knowledge of industry best practices. That phenomenon is occurring at the same time that China's homegrown research efforts are intensifying. For example, the ambitious ShanghaiTech University campus, with its iHuman Institute focused on human cell signaling, is scheduled to be fully operational this year.

U.S. and European companies want to tap into China's life sciences ecosystem and gain access to the country's enormous market, he said.

"It's an interesting time in terms of rapid change and rapid modernization," Loofbourrow said. "More and more capital is available for investing in innovative life sciences companies in China. With that, we're going to see great opportunities for partnering."

The Chinabio Partnering Forum continues through Thursday.