Page:Special 301 Report 2006.pdf/24

 The U.S. government looks forward to providing further assistance to China, and believes that such cooperation is critical for China's full implementation of the treaties.

The JCCT IPR Working Group is an important vice-ministerial level vehicle to discuss IPR issues and problems, including those that are discussed at the JCCT. Since its creation in 2004, the group has met three times, and the United States is working toward holding a fourth meeting in upcoming months. In addition to vice-ministerial discussions, the group devotes a great deal of time to detailed expert-to-expert discussion of issues that impact IPR enforcement efforts within China, such as the clarifying the meaning and reviewing the application of China's various measures governing its administrative, criminal, and customs enforcement actions. Expert discussions have produced concrete outcomes. For example, after such expert discussions, China agreed at the 2005 JCCT – and the Supreme People's Court subsequently confirmed – that China would apply its 2004 judicial interpretation on criminal IPR infringements to sound recordings.

Article 63 of the WTO TRIPS Agreement requires laws, regulations and final judicial decisions and administrative rulings of general application pertaining to IPR infringement be made publicly available to rights holders. Despite this requirement, lack of transparent information on IPR infringement levels and enforcement activities in China continues to be a problem.

In October 2005, the United States, along with Japan and Switzerland, requested that China provide additional IPR enforcement data pursuant to Article 63.3 of the TRIPS Agreement. After initial resistance, China invited the United States to Beijing in March 2006 for a full day of constructive discussions on improving transparency in the field of IPR enforcement. China provided previously unavailable IPR criminal prosecution data, and the two governments identified specific areas in which China will work toward greater transparency on IPR enforcement matters. China also stated that it would make a database of IPR enforcement statistics available to the public on the Internet in both Chinese and English to consolidate diverse IPR statistics and provide a consistent view for both governments and right holders. On the whole the two governments achieved progress, and the United States hopes to achieve further progress in obtaining information in such areas as criminal copyright cases, cases involving U.S. right holders, and cases involving exports. The United States does not consider, however, that China has provided a full response to the October 2005 Article 63.3 request. The United States continues to look forward to China's full response. The United States also continues to welcome and encourage increased efforts by U.S. industry to enhance transparency through monitoring of IPR enforcement in China and its results in the Chinese market.

Transparency in rulemaking is also a continuing problem. Government entities responsible for drafting rules often refuse to make drafts widely available for public comment, and instead limit their "consultations" to pre-selected industry and trade associations. The United States welcomed opportunities to comment on some administrative rules adopted by China in 2005 and 2006. For example, the United States provided comments to China on its draft measures on IPR