U.S. Trade Representative Issues 2012 Special 301 Report

by McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP
Contact

[author: Kevin E. Noonan]

U.S. Trade RepresentativeOn Monday, the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR), Ronald Kirk, issued the 2012 Special 301 Report.  According to the USTR website, the Report "reflects the Administration's resolve to encourage and maintain effective IPR protection and enforcement worldwide."  This effort is "more significant than ever in light of recent U.S. Government data showing that IP intensive industries support as many as 40 million American jobs and up to 60 percent of U.S. exports."  "When trading partners don't protect IPR, they threaten those critical jobs and exports," according to USTR Kirk.  The USTR Report "provides a means for the United States to promote the protection and enforcement of IPR," according to the website announcement, and hails Malaysia and Spain for being removed from the Watch for their efforts to strengthen copyright protection and combating piracy over the Internet, respectively.  On the other hand, the press release noted that the Ukraine was moved to the Priority Watch List "in light of serious and growing concerns relating to counterfeiting and rampant piracy."

The Report is promulgated pursuant to Section 182 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended by the Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988 and the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (enacted in 1994).  The Trade Representative is required under the Act to "identify those countries that deny adequate and effective protection for IPR or deny fair and equitable market access for persons that rely on intellectual property protection."  The Trade Representative has implemented these provisions by creating a "Priority Watch List" and "Watch List."  Placing a country on the Priority Watch List or Watch List is used to indicate that the country exhibits "particular problems . . . with respect to IPR protection, enforcement, or market access for persons relying on intellectual property."  These watch lists are reserved for countries having "the most onerous or egregious acts, policies, or practices and whose acts, policies, or practices have the greatest adverse impact (actual or potential) on the relevant U.S. products."

2012 Special 301 ReportThis report, on the state of intellectual property rights worldwide, identifies thirteen countries on a "Priority Watch List" and another 28 countries on the "Watch List," all relating to deficiencies in intellectual property protection in these countries.  The Priority Watch List in the Report lists China, Russia, Algeria, Argentina, Canada, Chile, India, Indonesia, Israel, Pakistan, Thailand, Ukraine, and Venezuela, the same countries that were on this list in last year's Report with the addition of Ukraine.  Countries on this list "do not provide an adequate level of IPR protection or enforcement, or market access to persons relying on intellectual property protection."  On the Watch List this year are Belarus, Bolivia, Brazil, Brunei, Columbia, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, Finland, Greece, Guatemala, Italy, Jamaica, Kuwait, Lebanon, Mexico, Norway, Peru, Philippines, Romania, Tajikstan, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, Uzbekistan, and Vietnam; compared to last year, Malaysia and Spain have been removed from the list and Lebanon and Ukraine are on the list this year.  The Report "identifies a wide range of concerns, including troubling 'indigenous innovation' policies that may unfairly disadvantage U.S. rights holders in China, the continuing challenges of copyright piracy over the Internet in countries such as Canada, Italy, and Russia, and other ongoing, systemic IPR enforcement issues presented in many trading partners around the world."  Despite these concerns, the Report evinces a desire to "work[] closely with the governments of [U.S.] trading partners [identified in the Report] to address both emerging and continuing concerns, and to build on the positive results many of these governments have achieved."

The Report notes that public response to a Federal Register Notice used to prepare the Report continued the "enhanced approach to public engagement" instituted last year, with the USTR receiving 42 comments (access to these comments is provided at www.regulations.gov, docket number USTR-2011-0021).  In addition, 12 witnesses provided testimony at a public hearing on February 23, 2012; these witnesses included "representatives of foreign governments, industry, and non-governmental organizations" (available on the USTR website).

The Report notes some "positive developments" in the past year, including copyright amendments that "significantly strengthen[ed] protection of copyrights" in Malaysia.  Also noted were the efforts by the Spanish government to enact the "Ley Sinde," described in the Report as "a law to combat copyright piracy over the Internet."  The Report states that the situation in Spain will continue to be monitored, particularly the "decriminalization [of] peer-to-peer sharing of infringing materials."  Israel was mentioned for enacting a law that protects pharmaceutical companies from "unfair commercial use" of data "generated to obtain marketing approval" of new drugs.  In the Philippines, the Report notes as a positive step promulgation of specialized procedural rules for enforcing intellectual property rights, and Russia was cited for enacting legislation creating a specialized IPR court and to "revise" criminal liability for copyright piracy.  In an "Out-of-Cycle" review, the Report removed the Savelovskiy Market from the "Notorious Markets List" resulting from a plan for stopping distribution of infringing goods.  China was mentioned in this section of the Report for establishing a "State Council-level leadership structure" for coordinating IPR enforcement in China, and states that "China's leadership committed to increased political accountability, as the performance of provincial level officials will be measured based on enforcement of IPR in their regions."  Finally, separate "free trade" agreements between the U.S. and Korea and the U.S. and Columbia were noted for "includ[ing] strong standards for the protection and enforcement of IPR rights."

Several initiatives were also mentioned.  These included the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement, between the U.S. and Australia, Brunei Darussalam, Chile, Malaysia, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, and Vietnam; the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) between the U.S. and Australia, Canada, the European Union, Japan, Korea, Mexico, Morocco, New Zealand, Singapore, and Switzerland; actions by the World Trade Organization in support of IP rights; bilateral and regional initiatives, including free trade agreements and Trade and Investment Framework Agreements; and the USTR Trade Preference Program Reviews such as the Generalized System of Preferences (GSP) program relating to Russia, Lebanon, and Uzbekistan, and regional programs including the Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act (CBERA).  Finally, the Representative "looks forward to continuing engagement with trading partners in bilateral, regional, and multilateral fora to improve the global IPR environment"; including the U.S.-EU Summit, and in the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) forum, and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD).

The Report contains a section on "best practices" among U.S. trading partners, which include reports that "foreign governments are open and transparent in bringing about legislative or regulatory change, and where such governments ensure that there is open dialogue between government officials and affected parties"; the Czech Republic was called out specifically in this regard for its efforts, as were Hong Kong Customs officials.  Cooperation between governments is also mentioned, specifically with regard to efforts in Russia to "combat counterfeit medicines" and "innovative mechanisms" for encouraging IP rights holders to donate or license their IP were also contained in this section of the Report (specifically, the Medicines Patent Pool under the auspices of the World Health Organization and the WIPO Re:Search Consortium among the U.S., Brazil and South Africa).

There is a section of the Report this year regarding "capacity building efforts" that relate to "opportunities for the U.S. Government to work closely with trading partners to address [IPR] concerns."  These efforts are described in the Report as being directed to "building stronger, more streamlined, and more effective systems for the protection and enforcement of IPR," which seems to include an effort to encourage U.S. trading partners to enact criminal penalties for IPR infringement.  The Report documents the efforts of the USPTO's Global Intellectual Property Academy (GIPA) to provide training ("over 5,300 foreign IP officials from 138 countries through 149 separate programs") as well as programs administered by other U.S. government agencies (including the USPTO's Office of Policy and External Affairs; the International Trade Administration; the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection; the Commercial Law Development Program and programs in law enforcement administered by the Departments of Justice and Homeland Security).

A significant part of the Report focuses on "trends" in counterfeiting and copyright piracy, as it has in other years.  This area has "evolved," according to the Report, "into a sophisticated global business involving the mass production and far-reaching sales of a vast array of fake goods, including items such as counterfeit medicines, health care products, food and beverages, automobile and airplane parts, toothpaste, shampoos, razors, electronics, batteries, chemicals, sporting goods, motion pictures and music."  The Report recites a "[s]ustained growth in piracy of copyrighted products in virtually all formats," which "offer enormous profits and little risk."  Online sales of counterfeit goods "will soon surpass the volume of such goods sold" in physical markets, which raise "difficulties" for IPR enforcement.  Also noted is an increase in legitimate businesses, such as courier services, enlisted to deliver infringing goods, as well as the practice of producing the goods and the counterfeit labels separately, specifically mentioning Russia and Paraguay in this regard.  There is also an increase in the difficulty encountered by IPR holders in collecting royalties for public performances of musical works and others, particularly in the Caribbean.  The Report calls for "[s]tronger and more effective criminal and border enforcement" to reverse these trends.  Another "growing" problem is counterfeit pharmaceuticals, either final drug product or active pharmaceutical ingredients (API); Brazil, China, India, Indonesia, Lebanon, Peru, and Russia are cited as countries where the former type of counterfeiting is a problem and China is cited as being a "major source" of counterfeit APIs.

Another section of the Report is concerned with digital piracy, particularly over the Internet, which is "a significant concern in many U.S. trading partners."  "[T]his phenomenon has also made the Internet an extremely efficient vehicle for disseminating copyright-infringing products, replacing legitimate markets for rights holders."  So-called "hybrid" websites offer both pirated and counterfeit goods, creating a "one-stop-shop" for "cheap or free content or goods."  The Report asserts that the U.S. will "will work with its trading partners to combat these growing problems," and urges U.S. trading partners to "adequately implement the WIPO Internet Treaties."  The Report specifically recites a list of trading partners that includes Argentina, Belarus, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Canada, Chile, China, Colombia, India, Italy, Mexico, Philippines, Romania, Russia, Spain, Switzerland, Thailand, Turkey, Ukraine, Venezuela, and Vietnam in this regard, and Switzerland is "strongly encourage[d] . . . to combat online piracy vigorously."

Trade secrets and forced technology transfer are identified as problems in "a wide variety of industry sectors" that include "information and communication technologies, services, biopharmaceuticals, manufacturing, and environmental technologies."  Governments are the "problem" with forced technology transfer, which are cited for being used as a quid pro quo for access to markets, requiring the use of products or services where the IPR were locally developed or owned, or requiring disclosure of "confidential business information" in order to obtain regulatory approval.  "The United States urges its trading partners to reject such policies, says the Report, and further urges it trading partners to "take account of the increasingly cross-border nature of commercial research and development, and of the importance of voluntary and mutually agreed-upon commercial partnerships."  Strong IPR protection can "provide incentive for the voluntary transfer of critical green goods and services," providing another and timely rationale for the IPR regime.

As it has for the past few years, the Report contains a section on "Intellectual Property and Health Policy," again specifically mentioning the 2001 Doha Declaration on the TRIPS Agreement.  The Report states that the Declaration "recognized the gravity of the public health problems afflicting many developing and least-developed countries, especially those resulting from HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, malaria, and other epidemics," and that the U.S. "respects a trading partner's right to protect public health and, in particular, to promote access to medicines for all, and supports the vital role of the patent system in promoting the development and creation of new and innovative lifesaving medicines."  Accordingly, the Report states that the U.S. "respects our trading partners' rights to grant compulsory licenses in a manner consistent with the provisions of the TRIPS Agreement, and encourages its trading partners to consider ways to address their public health challenges while maintaining intellectual property systems that promote investment, research, and innovation."  On the other hand, the Report contains a section relating to the USTR's efforts to "reduce market access barriers faced by U.S. pharmaceutical and medical device companies in many countries," specifically calling out Algeria, Finland, Germany, Greece, Indonesia, Japan, Korea, New Zealand, Poland, Turkey, and Taiwan as countries of particular concern in this regard.  In specific examples, Poland is cited for healthcare reform legislation that "would alter Poland's pricing, reimbursement, and clinical trials policies"; New Zealand, for the "policies and operation of the Pharmaceutical Management Agency; and Turkey with "the lack of fairness and the slow pace of pharmaceutical manufacturing inspections."

The Report contains in a final section a review of U.S. activities in the WTO to resolve disputes with countries such as China and the EU over trade issues.

Section II of Report is a detailed, country-by-country discussion for each country on the Priority Watch List and the Watch List, relating to the activities (or lack thereof) of each country that results in placement of that country on these lists.

As it has for the past several years (and across otherwise very different Administrations), the U.S. Trade Representative Report provides insights into both the concerns of U.S. IP rights holders and the Administration's intentions to work with, cajole, coerce, or threaten other countries to increase protection for IP rights of U.S. IP rights holders.  In contrast with last year's Report, which included an invitation to U.S. trading partners for coordinated efforts in enforcing IPR, this year the Report contains a discussion of the WTO and dispute resolution under GATT/TRIPS, including mention of President Obama's creation of the Interagency Trade Enforcement Center (ITEC) by Executive Order.  The ITEC "will serve as the primary forum within the federal government for USTR and other agencies to coordinate enforcement of obligations under international trade agreements, which can include the identification of unfair trade practices and barriers that involve IPR."  Hardly a "warm and fuzzy" approach to intellectual property rights enforcement, and one that is in stark contrast with the attitude of cooperation against a common enemy (i.e., counterfeiters) evident in last year's Report.  Perhaps the cooperative approach has not worked, but the Report does not contain any strong evidence that the cooperative approach has been given enough time to work.  The Report seems to revert to earlier attempts, generally no more than partially successful, by the U.S. and other Western governments to implement international trade treaties designed to increase IP rights protection.  It remains to be seen if that approach is continued in next year's Report, or if U.S. trade policy will continue to swing through the pendulum of the carrot or the stick regarding international intellectual property rights enforcement.

For additional information regarding this and other related topics, please see:

• "U.S. Trade Representative Releases Special 301 Report on Global IPR," May 4, 2011
• "U.S. Trade Representative Releases Special 301 Report on Global IPR," May 19, 2010
• "New Administration, Same Result: U.S. Trade Representative's Section 301 Report," May 6, 2009
• "Congressmen Criticize U.S. Trade Representative over Special 301 Report," July 1, 2008
• "U.S. Continues Efforts to Protect Patent Rights Abroad," April 29, 2008

 

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP
Contact
more
less

McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP on:

Readers' Choice 2017
Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
Sign up using*

Already signed up? Log in here

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Privacy Policy (Updated: October 8, 2015):
hide

JD Supra provides users with access to its legal industry publishing services (the "Service") through its website (the "Website") as well as through other sources. Our policies with regard to data collection and use of personal information of users of the Service, regardless of the manner in which users access the Service, and visitors to the Website are set forth in this statement ("Policy"). By using the Service, you signify your acceptance of this Policy.

Information Collection and Use by JD Supra

JD Supra collects users' names, companies, titles, e-mail address and industry. JD Supra also tracks the pages that users visit, logs IP addresses and aggregates non-personally identifiable user data and browser type. This data is gathered using cookies and other technologies.

The information and data collected is used to authenticate users and to send notifications relating to the Service, including email alerts to which users have subscribed; to manage the Service and Website, to improve the Service and to customize the user's experience. This information is also provided to the authors of the content to give them insight into their readership and help them to improve their content, so that it is most useful for our users.

JD Supra does not sell, rent or otherwise provide your details to third parties, other than to the authors of the content on JD Supra.

If you prefer not to enable cookies, you may change your browser settings to disable cookies; however, please note that rejecting cookies while visiting the Website may result in certain parts of the Website not operating correctly or as efficiently as if cookies were allowed.

Email Choice/Opt-out

Users who opt in to receive emails may choose to no longer receive e-mail updates and newsletters by selecting the "opt-out of future email" option in the email they receive from JD Supra or in their JD Supra account management screen.

Security

JD Supra takes reasonable precautions to insure that user information is kept private. We restrict access to user information to those individuals who reasonably need access to perform their job functions, such as our third party email service, customer service personnel and technical staff. However, please note that no method of transmitting or storing data is completely secure and we cannot guarantee the security of user information. Unauthorized entry or use, hardware or software failure, and other factors may compromise the security of user information at any time.

If you have reason to believe that your interaction with us is no longer secure, you must immediately notify us of the problem by contacting us at info@jdsupra.com. In the unlikely event that we believe that the security of your user information in our possession or control may have been compromised, we may seek to notify you of that development and, if so, will endeavor to do so as promptly as practicable under the circumstances.

Sharing and Disclosure of Information JD Supra Collects

Except as otherwise described in this privacy statement, JD Supra will not disclose personal information to any third party unless we believe that disclosure is necessary to: (1) comply with applicable laws; (2) respond to governmental inquiries or requests; (3) comply with valid legal process; (4) protect the rights, privacy, safety or property of JD Supra, users of the Service, Website visitors or the public; (5) permit us to pursue available remedies or limit the damages that we may sustain; and (6) enforce our Terms & Conditions of Use.

In the event there is a change in the corporate structure of JD Supra such as, but not limited to, merger, consolidation, sale, liquidation or transfer of substantial assets, JD Supra may, in its sole discretion, transfer, sell or assign information collected on and through the Service to one or more affiliated or unaffiliated third parties.

Links to Other Websites

This Website and the Service may contain links to other websites. The operator of such other websites may collect information about you, including through cookies or other technologies. If you are using the Service through the Website and link to another site, you will leave the Website and this Policy will not apply to your use of and activity on those other sites. We encourage you to read the legal notices posted on those sites, including their privacy policies. We shall have no responsibility or liability for your visitation to, and the data collection and use practices of, such other sites. This Policy applies solely to the information collected in connection with your use of this Website and does not apply to any practices conducted offline or in connection with any other websites.

Changes in Our Privacy Policy

We reserve the right to change this Policy at any time. Please refer to the date at the top of this page to determine when this Policy was last revised. Any changes to our privacy policy will become effective upon posting of the revised policy on the Website. By continuing to use the Service or Website following such changes, you will be deemed to have agreed to such changes. If you do not agree with the terms of this Policy, as it may be amended from time to time, in whole or part, please do not continue using the Service or the Website.

Contacting JD Supra

If you have any questions about this privacy statement, the practices of this site, your dealings with this Web site, or if you would like to change any of the information you have provided to us, please contact us at: info@jdsupra.com.

- hide
*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.
Feedback? Tell us what you think of the new jdsupra.com!