Posts Tagged: "ustr"

The Office of the United States Trade Representative’s (USTR’s) 2021 Special 301 Report, published late last month, brought into sharp relief one of the ongoing issues the United States has with China. The country was again listed on its “Priority Watch List” in this annual review of the state of intellectual property (IP) protection and enforcement in the United States’ international trading partners, and the report explained that the United States remains unsatisfied with China’s failure to grant IP protection and enforcement to foreign rights holders. On the surface, very little is surprising about the USTR’s statement concerning China’s approach to the enforcement of IP rights. By now, China’s failures in the context of IP enforcement are a well-known refrain in the Western media. But dig beneath the surface, and the statement raises a multiplicity of issues that have gone unaddressed. Which IP rights are at issue? Whose IP rights are not being enforced? Should one country enforce the IP rights of the citizens of another country? If so, how and in what way does it do that? Last but not least, has the United States enforced the IP rights of the citizens of other countries?

The petition by South Africa and India at the World Trade Organization (WTO) to waive most of the protections in the Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) Agreement was all but dead. It failed in October, December, January, March, and May. Then, after the Biden Administration expressed in the most neutral terms is was “considering” and “discussing” the proposal, U.S. Trade Representative Katherine Tai yesterday announced U.S. support for text-based negotiations that “will take some time.” IP rights are not the barrier to rapid production of vaccines advocates think they are, the waiver would cause more harm than possible good. The WTO would do much better to discuss removing obstacles to the trade of COVID-19 related items than removing intellectual property rights. There are 191 trade restriction measures on COVID-19 related supplies.  

On April 29, the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) released its 2020 Special 301 Report on Intellectual Property Protection and its 2019 Review of Notorious Markets for Counterfeiting and Piracy. The Report identifies countries and IP-related market access barriers and steps necessary to address those barriers. Section I of the Report highlights “Developments in Intellectual Property Rights Protection, Enforcement, and Related Market Access” and Section II is a Priority Watch List including country reports for countries where particular problems exist with respect to IP protection, enforcement, or market access. The Review identifies illustrative examples of online and physical markets that are alleged to have contributed to substantial trademark counterfeiting and copyright piracy activities around the world.

On September 13, U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer reportedly expressed a willingness to negotiate on several points of contention regarding the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA), including potentially reducing the 10-year period of intellectual property protection for biologic medicines. In response to this, the Pass USMCA Coalition is touting a memo penned by Former Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Tommy Thompson aimed at “debunking the widespread myth that the USMCA will drive up drug prices.” Thompson, also a four-term governor of Wisconsin, now advises the Pass USMCA Coalition. Thompson’s memo focuses on three key arguments that he considers myths

In the face of pressure to pull provisions in the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) that would grant 10 years of regulatory data protection (RDP) for biologics inventions, a recent report claims that the requirement would not result in higher drug prices for U.S. patients. The USMCA is currently being negotiated, but the chances of a vote this summer are quickly dwindling. In addition to other objections, many Democrats have opposed granting 10 years of RDP—an increase from 8 years in Canada and from 0 in Mexico (the U.S. period of exclusivity is longer, at 12)—arguing it would result in higher drug prices and delayed entry for biosimilars. Patrick Kilbride, Vice President of International Intellectual Property for the Global Intellectual Property Center (GIPC) at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, has argued here before that the data does not support those claims.

On April 25, the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) released both its annual Special 301 Report and an updated Notorious Markets List, each of which highlights international issues facing U.S. intellectual property owners living in the United States and abroad. The Special 301 Report this year includes 36 countries that have been placed on watch lists for either inadequate IP protections or denying IP rights to U.S. rights holders. Similarly, the Notorious Markets List includes a non-exhaustive collection of online and physical markets that are alleged to have contributed to piracy and counterfeiting activities around the world. The Special 301 Report makes it clear that China is the source of greatest concern for U.S. owners of all types of intellectual property. The report’s executive summary notes that China remains on the USTR’s Priority Watch List for various reasons, including forced tech transfer, discriminatory licensing practices and high-volume counterfeit manufacture. Other countries included on the Priority Watch List are India, where the national government has restricted transparency on state-issued pharmaceutical manufacturing licenses and expanded patentability exceptions for rejecting pharmaceutical patents; Indonesia, where concerns have been raised over patentability criteria and compulsory licensing; and Saudi Arabia, which has failed to address concerns involving lack of IP protection for pharmaceuticals and the illicit pirate service BeoutQ.

This week in Other Barks & Bites, governments and intellectual property offices around the world celebrate World IP Day; the U.S. Trade Representative releases its most recent Notorious Markets List; TiVo subsidiary Rovi files another patent suit against licensing holdout Comcast; Amazon ramps up program for connecting sellers with lawyers for patent infringement issues; the USPTO seeks public comments on gathering data for SUCCESS Act study; music industry groups submit letter to Copyright Office regarding Mechanical Licensing Collective membership; and weak China data center sales sends Intel stock tumbling by 7.5 percent.

Brexit has been postponed and will not now happen at midnight on March 29, 2019.The UK’s House of Commons has twice voted against the Withdrawal Agreement and Political Declaration, which were agreed between the UK Government and the European Union in November 2018. It is not clear at this stage whether Members of Parliament (MPs) will support the Agreement if and when it is put before them again. The UK Government updated its guidance on IP and Brexit on March 22 2019.The most important point for IP rights holders is that on Brexit day, whenever that is, unitary EU rights (notably EU trademarks and registered Community designs) will cease to cover the UK, unless there is an agreement to the contrary.

While a preliminary trade deal seems to have been struck between China and the United States over tariffs, the two sides have yet to seriously address the toughest and perhaps most economically crucial issues on the table: China clinging to a tech policy based on systematic theft of U.S. intellectual property (IP), forced technology transfer, and cybertheft.President Trump has paid lip service to the need for any deal to include IP protections, and China responded on March 14 by rushing a law that would, according to CNBC, “prohibit the forced transfer of technology from foreign-invested businesses in China, step up protection of intellectual property and claim to give the companies equal footing with domestic players.”  Nevertheless, China watchers are skeptical that these commitments remain cosmetic, while it remains clear that Trump has focused his negotiators chiefly on those things nearest and dearest to his heart: physical goods and tariffs. As talks move forward, the question remains—how will U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) Robert Lighthizer resolve these challenges for the benefit of IP holders?

The letter explains that the results from the Chamber’s IP Index has shown that as a whole North America is at a considerable disadvantage compared with both Asia and Europe. “NAFTA modernization is an opportunity to elevate the IP frameworks to a level commensurate with the world’s leading economies – if it fails to put Canada and Mexico among the top 10 countries ranked on the Index it will be a missed opportunity,” the letter reads.

ACTION for Trade asks Lighthizer to consider advocating for strong IP protections and robust enforcement to benefit a diverse group of industries, including digital content producers and distributors, biopharmaceutical firms and software developers… Along with strong patent policy, ACTION for Trade calls for the establishment of regulatory data protection (RDP) provisions which are consistent with U.S. law, especially where medical innovations are concerned. The letter to USTR Lighthizer notes that U.S. law recognizes a 12-year period of RDP for biologic treatments and a 5-year period of RDP for small molecule treatments. Such provisions would allow the original innovators of novel medicines to submit data on the safety and efficacy of medicines while shielding that data from others who might produce generics based on the data.

According to the Office of the United States Trade Representative, imports of counterfeit and pirated physical products are valued at about half a trillion dollars, or about 2.5 percent of all imports around the globe… The recent review of notorious markets by the USTR identifies 43 such markets offering counterfeit or pirated goods either through physical stores or online channels. A total of 25 notorious markets identified in the report operate in the online space as websites either facilitating infringing conduct or lacking consumer privacy safeguards, some of which even enable the installation of malware on consumer computers. This malware can include remote access Trojans (RATs) which can steal sensitive personal information, like bank account information, or gain control of computer hardware.

This latest victory for a foreign plaintiff asserting intellectual property claims is proof of yet another step down the road leading to a reformed, intellectual property friendly China, with China cracking down on infringers — as promised by Chinese President Xi Jinping… The Chinese IP court in Beijing reportedly ordered three domestic shoemakers to pay a total of 10 million yuan ($1.5 million USD) to New Balance for infringing upon the slanted ‘N’ logo utilized by New Balance on its branded shoes. That’s not a huge damages award in the grand scheme of trademark damages ordered around the world but reports indicate that the damages in this cases were the most ever handed out by a Chinese court to a foreign plaintiff for trademark infringement allegations.

The most recent notorious markets report from the USTR seems to have further galvanized Alibaba into taking action to reduce the number of counterfeit products sold on its e-commerce platforms. In early January, Alibaba filed its first pair of lawsuits targeting retailers selling fake Swarovski watches on the company’s e-commerce platforms. Then in late February, Alibaba released an official corporate statement in which it blamed China’s ambiguous counterfeiting laws for contributing to the problem… Alibaba’s statement goes so far as to equate counterfeiting to drunk driving in terms of how strongly such actions should be criminalized.