68. The representative of Japan thanked China for its comprehensive responses. He said that question 26 of his delegation's document, regarding the statement by Prime Minister Wen on the lowering of prosecution thresholds, had not been directly addressed and he requested China to address this question. His delegation had continuously raised the issue of "further improvement of criminal enforcement" at the TRMs from 2002 to 2005. He appreciated that the Chinese Government had recognized the importance of IPR protection and had made considerable efforts to improve enforcement including, for example, the new judicial interpretation in December 2004 and "The China Action Plan on the Protection of Intellectual Property Rights" which stated that "clearer or more advanced interpretations will be presented on the problem recognized through treatment of concrete cases" based on an assessment of the situation after the new interpretation had been enacted.
69. Despite these efforts, however, a survey conducted by the Japanese Government in 2006 had illustrated Japanese industry's concerns that the actual administrative sanctions applied to IPR infringement in China were still insufficient and that enforcement by Chinese governmental authorities was not satisfactory. About 30% of Japanese companies that had used the remedial procedures in China had continued to suffer repeated infringement. Therefore, his delegation had to conclude that IPR enforcement in China was insufficient to deter further infringements, which continued to cause serious damage to the Japanese industry. He emphasized that it was important to improve the deterrent effect by strengthening administrative punishment and criminal prosecution, and improving sanctions against repeat offenders. Japan was looking forward to China enhancing IPR protection and taking further steps to provide effective enforcement against any act of infringement of IPRs, including through the lowering of the criminal thresholds for prosecuting IPR-related offences.
