On September 12 the State Council Standing Committee, chaired by Wen Jiabao, passed a new “Opinion on Concerning How to Improve The Work of Coordinating Administrative and Criminal Enforcement in Striking At IP Infringements and the Manufacture and Sale of Fake and Shoddy Goods” 关于做好打击侵犯知识产权和制售假冒伪劣商品工作中行政执法与刑事司法衔接的意见”. The full text of this Opinion will likely need to await its gazetting in the State Council Gazette. However, there have been plenty of press reports, and it seems possible at this point to construct a rough summary of what we will find in it: Continue reading
Category Archives: Criminal enforcement
KPMG Survey Predicts China’s Rise As an IT Innovator
The recently released KPMG 2012 Global Technology Innovation Survey of 668 geographically distributed technology business executives suggests that technology innovation may shift from Silicon Valley to another destination, with the most likely destination being China (44%), in the next four years.
Understanding China’s New Environment for Intellectual Property
On April 11th, Fordham Law School held its first China focused IP Conference, “Understanding China’s New Environment for Intellectual Property”. The program covered a range of issues, from patenting trends, to challenges in design protection, and intellectual property protection challenges for cloud computing in China, with mixed panels of academics, practitioners, judges and government officials from both countries. Continue reading
Simulating the China IPR Enforcement case
For the past few years, I have been conducting moot court simulations of DS/362, the WTO US-China IPR “enforcement case” with students and colleagues at Fordham University and elsewhere. The heart of DS/362 was the US’s argument that, by establishing prosecution and conviction thresholds that were too high, China did not provide an adequate criminal remedy to address commercial scale counterfeiting and piracy. The WTO panel determined that the United States had not made out an adequate case that China did not, in fact, provide such protection. The U.S. argued that China had not complied with an earlier request, under “Article 63” of the TRIPS Agreement, to provide additional data (including cases) about its IPR enforcement system that would have been germane to the case, while the panel believed that such data would not have been difficult to obtain. Continue reading
SIPO announces Annual Strategy and Plans of Implementation for Intellectual Property in 2012
April 26 is International IP day, and in anticipation of the day, Chinese state agencies are announcing plans for intellectual property, releasing statistics, and holding conferences. The activities during this month are key to analyzing the past year’s performance, and to understand those areas where China will be placing a special emphasis for this year. Continue reading
