First--you're jumping ahead here. A memo of understanding does not translate into clinical trials in the near future.
In the past, there has been discussion about a partner being nervous about having someone else taint their compound, though I believe it was in reference to two different companies developing a compound for two different indications. A company developing an Ampakine for ADHD would not want a problem in someone else's apnea trial, for example, messing up their ADHD chances. In this circumstance, where an Asian company might run a trial eventually in the same indication(s) as the NA/EU partner, that is not particularly a concern; it is how business is often conducted, with this kind of geographic split. You generally need a local partner for Asian drug development.
For example, and going back to Lexapro, Lundbeck licensed it to Mochida for clinical development/marketing in Japan. They ran the risk that, if something bad happened in a Japanese trial, that could have interfered with their marketing of a blockbuster drug where it was already approved. Small companies will sometimes sell Japanese rights early to generate money for US development costs, as EnVivo Pharma did with EVP-6124, their nicotinic drug for sz/AD.
Thus--I don't see a problem here, it's how companies often divide up rights.
NeuroInvestment