On 24 November 2019, for the first time, the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China and the State Council have jointly issued an opinion (here in Chinese) on the strengthening of IPR protection. They defined and set two concrete and ambitious goals for 2022 and 2025:
By 2022, China shall be able to effectively curb IPR infringement, and evidently overcome the difficulties met by right holders when enforcing their rights, namely limited access to discovery, burden of proof, protracted period of litigation, high costs, low damages.
By 2025, public satisfaction with IPR protection in China shall reach a high level and remain at that level, protection capacity and system will be further improved, business environment of appreciating the value of knowledge will be optimized and the role of IPR system to encourage innovation will be fully played.
Since IPR is of course indispensable in China’s development from imitator to innovator, the CPC and State Council take it very serious: “Comprehensively strengthen the party’s leadership over IP protection. All relevant parties should study specific policies and measures in accordance with the division of functions and work together to promote the construction of an IP protection system. CNIPA shall, in conjunction with relevant departments, continuously improve the working mechanism, strengthen coordination and guidance and supervise inspections to ensure the effective implementation of various work requirements, and timely report major issues to the Party Central Committee and the State Council in accordance with procedures.”
“Local party committees and governments at all levels must fully implement the decision-making arrangements of the Party Central Committee and the State Council, implement territorial responsibility for the protection of IPRs, regularly hold special meetings of party committees or governments, study IP protection work, strengthen institutional mechanisms, formulate supporting measures, and implement personnel funding. IPR protection work should be included in the important agenda of local party committees and governments, and regular evaluations should be conducted to ensure that various measures are put in place.”
Also interesting is that the opinions aim to unify evidence standards in different channels such as judicial and administrative law enforcement, arbitration, and mediation.
Read the Opinions here.