Best efforts to enroll is how sponsors fund a dispute with no winner. Enrollment lag fights in China trials are won or lost in the milestone definitions signed two years earlier. This article explains how sponsors should draft CRO enrollment milestones, liquidated damages and evidence requirements so that a delay becomes a contract claim with a provable loss, rather than a blame game that leaves both parties paying the lawyers.
Why enrollment lag disputes are structural
Clinical trial enrollment is the least predictable phase of drug development, and China sites add specific variables: site activation depends on ethics committee schedules, human genetic resource approvals, hospital contract processes and local investigator capacity. When a CRO fails to meet enrollment targets, the sponsor's first instinct is to withhold fees and demand compensation. The CRO's first defence is that the delay was caused by the sponsor, by the sites or by regulatory gates outside its control. Both positions are usually partially true, and the dispute resolution turns on two things: what the contract defined as the milestone, and what evidence each party can produce about the events that affected the timeline. Sponsors that drafted the contract with vague milestones and no evidence obligations lose the dispute even when they are right about the facts.
- Enrollment lag is structural — draft LD that survives judicial
- DRAFT WELL
- Define the clock
- Screening vs randomisation; exclusions for sponsor
Statutory framework
Civil Code contract remedies
The PRC Civil Code provides the framework for breach claims in CRO contracts. Article 577 provides that where a party fails to perform its contractual obligations or performs them in a manner inconsistent with the agreement, it shall bear liability for breach including continued performance, remedial measures or damages. Article 584 limits damages to the loss caused by the breach and the benefits obtainable that the breaching party foresaw or should have foreseen at the time of contracting. Article 585 permits the parties to agree on liquidated damages and allows the court to adjust the amount where it is excessively higher or lower than the actual loss. The Article 585 adjustment power is the reason that a liquidated damages clause alone is not enough; the sponsor must be able to prove the actual loss when the CRO asks the court to reduce the agreed amount.
"Article 585 of the PRC Civil Code: Where the parties agree on liquidated damages, where the agreed amount is excessively higher than the loss caused, the party may request a court or arbitration body to reduce it appropriately."
Good Clinical Practice
The NMPA Good Clinical Practice, revised in 2020, allocates regulatory responsibility between the sponsor and the CRO. Article 23 confirms that the sponsor is responsible for the trial and may delegate tasks to a CRO, but the sponsor retains ultimate responsibility for the quality and integrity of the trial. The provision matters in disputes because it undercuts the CRO's argument that regulatory findings are solely the sponsor's problem, while also reminding the sponsor that it cannot fully delegate its oversight duties. The contract should reflect this shared responsibility framework, with the CRO's obligations described in operational terms that map to the GCP duties.
Enforcement context: the Shanghai CRO adjustment case
A 2022 decision of the Shanghai First Intermediate Court illustrates the adjustment risk. The court adjusted contractually agreed CRO penalty deductions downward under Civil Code Article 585, ruling that the sponsor was required to prove the actual financial loss resulting from the site activation delays. The court found that the sponsor's calculation of loss was not sufficiently substantiated, and reduced the deduction to an amount that reflected the provable loss. The case is a warning to sponsors that the liquidated damages clause is the starting point, not the end, of the damages analysis. The sponsor that enters the dispute with a bare clause and no loss evidence will see the clause adjusted; the sponsor that enters with both the clause and the evidence pack will be in a position to resist the adjustment.
Defining the clock
The first drafting discipline is to define the milestones with operational precision. The contract should state what site activation complete means: ethics committee approval, contract execution, drug on site, or first eligible screen. The definition should be the same in the contract, the site activation plan and the tracking system, because a mismatch between the documents creates the ambiguity that drives the dispute. The contract should also identify which inclusion criteria changes reset the clock and who may make them. A protocol amendment that narrows the eligible population is often the CRO's defence to a slow enrollment claim, and the contract should make clear that sponsor-requested protocol changes that materially affect enrollment constitute sponsor-caused delay only where the change was not reasonably foreseeable at the time the milestone was set.
Competitive trial density should be addressed explicitly. A CRO defending an enrollment shortfall will argue that competing trials for the same indication recruited patients first, and that the site's available patient pool was exhausted. The contract should acknowledge this risk and allocate it: either the CRO bears the risk by committing to enrollment targets in light of known competition, or the parties share the risk through a milestone adjustment mechanism. Leaving the question unaddressed guarantees that it becomes the centre of the dispute.
- Define enrollment events
- What counts as enrolled; data source
- Allocate delay causes
- Sponsor / CRO / hospital / force
Liquidated damages that work
Liquidated damages provisions in CRO contracts work when they satisfy three tests: they are tied to measurable key performance indicators, they include a cure period, and they carve out sponsor-caused delay. The measurable KPI should be the enrollment number at defined time points, calculated from the site activation dates and verified against the screening funnel data. The cure period gives the CRO an opportunity to correct the shortfall before the penalty accrues, which makes the clause more defensible under Article 585 because it shows the parties intended a remedy, not a penalty. The sponsor-caused delay carve-out should list the specific events: protocol freezes, drug supply delays, human genetic resource gates and investigator training requirements. Each carve-out should require a written notice from the CRO within a defined period, because the notice obligation creates the evidence trail that prevents retroactive claims.
The reporting obligation is the operational engine of the clause. The contract should require weekly enrollment funnel reports as a contractual deliverable, with the format and recipients specified. Missing reports should themselves be a breach, not a surprise at the quarterly business review. The reports give the sponsor the early warning that makes the cure period meaningful, and they create the contemporaneous record that the sponsor needs when the dispute arrives. A CRO that cannot produce the weekly reports cannot claim the enrollment data was never visible.
The evidence pack when you withhold fees
When the sponsor decides to withhold fees or claim damages, the evidence pack should contain five components. First, the protocol versions and amendment log, showing what changed and when. Second, the site list with activation dates, showing which sites were activated late and why. Third, the screening and enrollment funnel exports, showing the actual patient flow against the plan. Fourth, the change orders and dependency notices, including email and WeChat records, showing which delays were sponsor-caused and which were not. Fifth, the actual loss calculation, showing the incremental cost of the delay: extended site payments, additional monitoring visits, delayed market entry and any committed regulatory milestones that slipped. The loss calculation is the component that survives the Article 585 adjustment, and it should be prepared with the same discipline as a damages expert report even where no expert will be used.
Operational discipline during the trial
The contract is only as good as the operational discipline around it. The sponsor's clinical operations team should review the funnel data weekly, compare it against the contractual milestones, and document any divergence immediately. The sponsor should not wait for the quarterly business review to raise an enrollment problem, because the delay in raising the issue will be characterized as acceptance. Every site visit report, every monitoring note and every email that touches the enrollment timeline should be retained in the trial master file, because the dispute will be decided on the contemporaneous record. The sponsor should also appoint a single point of contact for enrollment issues, so that the CRO cannot claim it received conflicting instructions from different sponsor functions.
The relationship between the enrollment milestone and the trial budget deserves attention. Many sponsors tie the CRO's fee schedule to enrollment milestones, which creates the right incentive but also the risk that a dispute over milestones halts the entire payment flow and damages the trial. The contract should separate the enrollment milestone payments from the fixed service fees, so that the sponsor can withhold the milestone component without freezing the trial operations. The separation protects the trial while preserving the sponsor's leverage.
Finally, sponsors should remember that the dispute is an event in a relationship that must continue until the trial is complete. The CRO that is still operating the trial is also the party being asked to pay damages, and an aggressive enforcement of the liquidated damages clause can convert a partner into an adversary at the worst possible time. The practical approach is a graduated escalation: written notice of the shortfall, a joint recovery plan with revised dates, the exercise of the cure period, and only then the formal claim. The evidence pack assembled during the dispute becomes the basis for the negotiated settlement, which in most cases is faster and cheaper than litigation. The sponsor that drafts well, monitors well and escalates proportionately will find that most enrollment disputes settle on terms that reflect the actual facts.
Read next: CRO/CDMO contract disputes · HGR compliance
Discussion
Share experience or questions about this topic. This is a public discussion — not legal advice. Do not post confidential case details.
Have a question after reading? Leave it here, or Ask a Lawyer for a free initial consultation.
Comments are moderated. China Legal Portal is a directory and information resource; no attorney–client relationship is formed by posting here.
