Minutes - TRIPS Council - View details of the intervention/statement

Ambassador Yonov Agah (Nigeria)
United States of America
96. The representative of the United States thanked China for its detailed responses to the questions. While it was difficult to follow the responses as particular countries' questions had not been identified, it was his delegation's impression that the following questions posed by the United States had not been responded to or further clarification was necessary. Regarding US question 5 on the legislative priorities in China 2007 Action Strategy, his delegation had not heard a response on whether China was considering any further new IPR measures that were not mentioned in that Action Strategy. Regarding enforcement issues, particularly those relating to criminal enforcement, the United States had asked in questions 6 and 7 whether there were Uniform Guidelines for Public Security Bureaus with regard to case initiation standards for criminal IP investigations and particular pilot projects in effect. US question 9 had been about whether there were any legislative proposals that would enhance the power of Chinese judges to enforce judicial orders. In questions 12 and 13 the United States had requested particular data about cases in China. In response to China's comment that these requests were beyond the scope of the TRIPS Agreement and the transitional review, he said that in his view this type of mechanism could be a useful tool and exercise in transparency and, for it to make progress, it should be interpreted broadly rather than narrowly. Regarding the questions on copyright piracy on the Internet, his delegation had the same concern. Regardless of competing views of this issue's relevance under the TRIPS Agreement, China should have answered US questions 18, 19, 20 and 21 on copyright piracy on the Internet in the interest of transparency. Regarding question 22, while appreciating China's responses on past efforts to combat textbook piracy on university campuses, there had been no answer to the additional question whether any new enforcement efforts were being planned. Lastly, regarding question 36 regarding data exclusivity, the United States had asked about the total number of data exclusivity grants provided by SFDA but had not received a response. His delegation was looking forward to further clarifications and responses from China in this regard.