China Patent and Licensing Discussions – Week of June 14th

On Wednesday, June 17th at 4:30 PM PST,  former Chief Judge Paul Michel (ret.) will be moderating a star-studded panel hosted by Berkeley Law on one aspect of one of the great ironies of this current moment in US-China IP relations: the weakening of the US IP system with respect to patent eligibility and China’s concurrent strengthening in those areas.  Judge Michel will be joined by former PTO Director David Kappos, Berkeley Law Professor Robert Merges, Beijing East IP Partner Liaoteng Wang, and Tsinghua Professor Guobin Cui.  Liaoteng Wang has recently written an article in anticipation of this event.  Information and registration information is available here and here.

The United States-China Intellectual Property Exchange and Development Foundation, of which I am a board member, will be hosting two webinars on pharmaceutical-related IP.  The first session focuses on the Phase 1 Trade Agreement including post-filing supplementation of data and patent term extension (June 16, 7 AM PST).    The second session focuses on patent linkage (June 17, 7 AM PST).   Former Chief Judge Randall Rader and several notable practitioners will be joining the discussions.

On June 16th at 9 AM  PST, I will also be speaking along with Jim Harlan of InterDigital on the US Department of Commerce’s Bureau of Industry and Security’s (BIS) ban on Huawei and its effect on global Standards Developing Organizations (SDOs). This program is sponsored by the American Intellectual Property Law Association’s Standards and Open Source Committee.  Non-AIPLA members may join this open event without charge.  Call: +1 (347) 991-7204, passcode 251151532, or join the Skype Meeting.

100 Priority IP Projects for 2020

wordcloudstrongipcountry

What does the recently released CNIPA document listing “100  Projects in 2020  to Deeply implement the National Intellectual Property Strategy to Accelerate the Construction of the Intellectual Property Powerful Country Promotion Plan” (2020年加快建设知识产权强国推进计划提出 100项具体措施) (the “100 Project List”) (May 28, 2020) add to the discussion around where China is headed on IP?

The projects reveal much more than its lengthy, bureaucratic-sounding title might indicate. There are several  themes worth noting:

  1. It is ambitious. It includes doing many things over a short period of time, including reducing patent examination time for “high value” patents to 16 months and trademark examinations to 4 months (Projects 55-56).
  2. China is paying attention to its IP quality vs quantity dilemma. This document calls for ending local subsidies for utility model and design patents, as well as trademark (task 59).  It also discusses problems with incentives that are intended to encourage high quality patenting in universities and research institutions, SOE’s, and major government projects (Projects 3, 4, 5, 12, 55, 60 -61, 66, 77-79, 93, 96-97).
  3. There is increased attention to defense patenting. The word “defense” appears 17 times.  Defense patenting also occupies a greater role than in prior plans of type (Projects 6-10, 25, 80).
  4. Trade secrets as well as improving the criminal IP process play important roles (Projects 24, 44, 49, 51-54).
  5. We can expect some important developments in plant variety protection (Projects 26, 47, 57, 92).
  6. There is no attention to innovative pharma IP challenges. There are tasks related to generic medicines and traditional Chinese medicine (Projects 38, 73).  Patent linkage does not appear in this list of tasks.  These omissions could suggest a lack of CNIPA commitment to Phase 1 pharmaceutical IP reforms.
  7. There is a big focus on improving IP-related services (Projects 1, 2, 62, 72, 74, 77, 86).
  8. China reiterates its commitment to plurilateral IP policy (Projects 82, 87).
  9. The drafters are committed to the  Phase 1 Agreement.  China is also doing a lot more on IP than what the Phase 1 Agreement requires (Projects 24, 49, 51, 83, 87, and others).

The word cloud above is drawn from a machine translation of the 100 Project List.

Further background: I have been blogging about China’s national IP plans for years now, including in  2014,  2015 , 2016 as well as in my discussions on the National IP Strategy.  Readers may wish to compare this document with some of the prior strategy documents.

 

Second Annual Berkeley-Tsinghua Transnational IP Litigation Conference Is Fast Approaching

Transnational-Conference-new-ver-823x1024

Berkeley Law and Tsinghua law will be co-hosting their Second Annual Conference on Transnational IP Litigation, at the campus of UC Berkeley on October 22, 2019.  Details, including registration information, are available here.

The program will look at strategic concerns in many of the hot issues in cross-border US-China IP litigation, including trade secret cases, standards-essential patents, whether foreigners “win” in each other’s jurisdictions, Section 337, criminal cases, on-line enforcement, civil litigation and the role of China’s new IP courts, administrative challenges to validity, forum non conveniens claims, enforcement at trade fairs, and other issues.  Please register soon if you are interested in attending.

We have great speakers and we look forward to having a great audience!

China’s “Naked Bolar” and the Tapering Momentum to Protect Innovative Pharmaceuticals

There have been several important developments in recent weeks involving pharmaceutical IP protection in both mainland China and Taiwan.  Based on these developments, mainland China appears to be slowing its momentum to afford better IP protection to innovative pharmaceutical products (perhaps as a negotiating position in the Trade War), while Taiwan is pursuing a more protective approach.

On August 26, 2019, China’s National People’s Congress adopted the new Drug Administration Law (“DAL”), which will take effect on December 1, 2019. The DAL was passed after almost two years of review and deliberation.  The legislative history is set forth in the  NPC Observer.    The new law addresses some important issues involving counterfeit and substandard medicines.  However, it does little to improve the IP regime for innovative medicines.

As noted in this blog, there had been expectations that certain IP issues such as patent linkage and regulatory data protection might be reflected in the DAL and especially pending IP legislation.  In the latest draft of the Chinese Patent Laws presented to the State Council in December 2018, no detailed improvement mechanisms of the patent examination/granting system were included with respect to pharmaceutical patents were included.   It was hoped that a linkage system would emerge as part of a package of legal reforms to resolve the US-China trade war or to implement as earlier CFDA policy decision.

China has long adopted one small part of a modern IP/regulatory approval mechanism to encourage its generic sector.  China’s “Bolar Exemption” which was incorporated into the 2008 Patent Law amendments (Article 69), exempts from infringement producing, using, or importing patented drugs or patented medical apparatus and instruments, for the purpose of providing the information required for administrative examination and approval.   This type of Bolar Exemption has often been called a “naked Bolar exemption” as it provides for the erosion of the innovator’s patent rights to exempt from infringement research to introduce competing generic drugs.  It is “naked” as it it does not compensate the innovator for the losses of the patent term caused by this exemption nor for the resultant instability to any marketing exclusivity the innovator may face by reason of accelerated challenges to the patents it holds.   One way of compensating the innovator for such erosion of the term is to extend it on the “back end”  before its expiration.  A 2019 draft of the patent law amendments sought to correct this lack of a patent term extension.  Another way of providing for greater stability would be establishing a patent linkage regime which “links” marketing authorization with patents that read on the relevant pharmaceutical product or successful challenges to its exclusivity.

The current naked Bolar regime has several adverse consequences. The most obvious and significant is that it does not provide legal support for approval and marketing of generic drugs that are proven not to infringe an innovator’s patent rights, as a “patent linkage” regime might.   A Bolar exemption only addresses research intended to support regulatory approval and is not an exemption from infringement.  To the extent that Chinese regulatory authorities may be relying on the Bolar exemption to approve the marketing of infringing generics, such an effort is legally misguided.  A naked Bolar is not a substitute for an IP and regulatory regime that balances the needs of generics and innovators.  As Amcham noted in its comments on the original Bolar exception provision: “Effective IP protection for pharmaceutical products requires notice, transparency, and time to resolve legal issues prior to the approval of a generic product.” Such protections are not afforded under the existing regime and could be with an effective linkage regime.

Another adverse consequence is that it erodes the term of the patentee without the kind of bargaining that went into the US Bolar exemption, creating a kind of sui generis exemption from infringement for additional acts of research to facilitate product introduction which is not otherwise permitted under the patent law.  To the extent that the naked Bolar expands research exemptions to production and warehousing of an infringing generic pharmaceutical, and does not adequately limited or compensate the rights holder,  it may violate the terms set forth the in the WTO decision EU v Canada (DS/114) where the WTO noted that the Canadian Bolar exception could only apply to regulatory review where  “no commercial use is made of resulting final products.” (line 7.45).   The Bolar exemption should not be used to bootstrap a broader researcher or pre-marketing exemption.  As former Chief Judge Rader noted of the US patent law in discussing research exemptions: “the Patent Act leaves no room for any de minimis or experimental use excuses for infringement. Because the Patent Act confers the right to preclude ‘use,’ not ‘substantial use,’ no room remains in the law for a de minimis excuse.”  (Embrex v. Service Engineering, 216 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2000).

Finally,  the “naked Bolar” sends a wrong signal by suggesting that China is not fully committed to developing an innovative pharmaceutical sector, despite China’s considerable human resources, investments, rhetoric and planning to the contrary.

Judging by recent generic drug approvals in China, there may be decreased momentum on the ground to protect innovative pharmaceuticals through limiting regulatory approval during the pendency of relevant patent protection.  Several generic versions of innovative pharmaceutical products have recently been approved by China for different manufacturers at the time of these recent DAL amendments, including Azilsartan, a product originally developed by Takeda that addresses hypertension, and is now produced by Zhaoke Pharma, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Lees Pharma. Azilsartan and Esketamine (a Janssen product for treatment-resistant depression) are also now being produced by Jiangsu Hengrui Medicine.  Pomalidomide,  a Celgene-developed product for treating multiple myeloma,  is produced by Chiatai Tianqing Pharma.  Bendamustine, a Teva product for  chronic lymphocytic leukemia, is being produced by Nanjing Simcere Pharma.  These products have obtained approval priority from CFDA and are expected to be approved by the time the new DAL comes into effect.  As is evident from this list, some products (Azilsartan) are being produced in generic form by more than one manufacturer.  This phenomenon of multiple competing generic manufacturers who may not have had to pursue patent challenges to the innovator to obtain marketing approval (as in a linkage regime), could also result in competition amongst generic manufacturers without strong incentives for follow-on innovation to the original compound.

By comparisons to this apparent backsliding in Mainland China, the Taiwan Executive Yuan has passed the bill to enact the new Pharmaceutical Affairs Act (“PAA”) on January 31, 2018. Patent linkage was specifically approved in Chapter 4 of the new PAA. Previously, in 2018, the Taiwan Food and Drug Administration had issued two drafts of the Enforcement Rules for Patent Linkage. Further, in May 2019, the Taiwan Ministry of Health and Welfare and the Ministry of Economic Affairs held a public hearing to clarify the intent to extend the patent linkage system in PAA to biosimilars. In July 2019, the Ministry of Health and Welfare officially announced that it is considering adding transitional clauses to exempt biosimilars which have obtained official clinical trial approvals during the implementation phase of patent linkage system in Taiwan.

While there appears to be weakening momentum for patent linkage, the DAL does change the regulatory regime for counterfeit medicines and vaccines.  In an apparent effort to address public health needs, the DAL, as revised, modifies the definition of counterfeit drugs.   Under the prior version of the DAL, unapproved imported drugs are deemed as counterfeit. Although the new DAL still prohibits importing and selling of unapproved drugs in large quantity, the importation of small amounts of drugs which have been legally marketed in other countries for urgent clinical needs is exempted under the new DAL, subject to other relevant laws and regulation.  The DAL also seeks to strengthen regulation over vaccine manufacturing, most likely in response to the vaccine scandal of 2018. Under the DAL, out-sourcing of vaccine manufacture is strictly prohibited. The punishment on manufacture and supply of counterfeit vaccine has increased from 5 times of revenue to 30 times of illegal proceeds.  The vaccine Marketing Authorization Holder (“MAH”) must meet certain standards set out in the new Vaccine Administration Law. The regulators will also establish a national traceable platform for the production, transportation, and storage of vaccines.  Lastly, new mechanisms such as the MAH system, defective drug recall system, filing system of clinical trial institutions will be implemented.  The existing “Good Manufacturing Practice for Pharmaceutical Products” (GMP) certification system for drug manufacturers and the “Good Supply Practice for Pharmaceutical Products (GSP) certification system for drug suppliers will be canceled.

Looking at all of the various legislative and regulatory developments in Mainland China and Taiwan, it is hoped that mainland China will ultimately find the right balance of incentives to encourage the further development of its innovative pharmaceutical sector, much as the US did with its Hatch-Waxman Act, while continuing to develop a secure supply of high quality innovative and generic products.

This article was written by Mark A. Cohen and Angel Liu.

Collaboration or Confrontation: Beyond the False Dichotomy in US-China IP Relations

Recently several writers have criticized the Trump administration’s strategic choice of confrontation over collaboration with China.  Among them was an open letter published in the July 2, 2019, Washington Post, “China is Not an Enemy,” or “Making China A US Enemy is Counterproductive” (based on its hyperlink) that was signed by several former officials and scholars. Prof. Alastair Iain Johnston of Harvard University also wrote an excellent article, “The Failures of the ‘Failure of Engagement’ with China.”  Chinese commentators have also chimed in.  One of the signatories of the July 2, 2019 letter, Jim McGregor spoke on a podcast about the limitations of collaboration.  A counter-letter, “Stay The Course On China: An Open Letter To President Trump” .  The debate is also an extension of the Stanford University report “China’s Influence and American Interests: Promoting Constructive Vigilance” from 2018, which also generated its share of controversy.

The authors of these studies discuss all aspects of the US-China relationship – trade, security, scientific, intellectual property, etc., and fold these issues into the collaboration vs. confrontation dichotomy. I lack the breadth to discuss all aspects of a complex relationship.  My focus is solely on IP and innovation and the role of collaboration or confrontation. 

An assumption of many of these authors is that we should avoid making China an enemy unnecessarily.  I agree. At the same time, many of the commentators seem to suggest that either IP engagement or confrontation may be counterproductive because of systemic failures of the WTO, or past disappointments.  As Prof. Johnston notes: “[T]here is no doubt that there are persistent WTO incompatible non-tariff trade barriers, including weak intellectual property protection, technology theft, and non-transparent regulatory practices, among others.” 

Overall, the IP-related arguments present a false dichotomy between engagement or confrontation.  Bilateral engagement is only one tool, and it need not be sacrificed to more assertive strategies.  The toolbox includes varied approaches. Softer advocacy might include training programs in China on novel issues, supporting more focused strategies by businesses, joint collaboration on shared challenges and trade agreements that include China (such as a bilateral investment treaty), to name a few.  More assertive postures might involve critical white papers or non-papers, multilateral engagement, WTO or other international law diplomacy or cases, trade agreements that exclude China (TPP), and, in appropriate circumstances, quid pro quo retaliation such as tariffs and sanctions.  Simply put, carrots and sticks are not exclusive of each other.  Moreover, there are a variety of carrots and sticks.  Sticks, however, carry a cost and need to be carefully considered before deploying.

One of the legacies of the Obama administration on IP was that it was over-committed to dialogues.  As Chinese trade diplomacy has been highly transactional, this had permitted China to “buy time” without committing to any trade concession.  For those who lived through Obama’s excesses and opposed them, President Trump has demonstrated himself to be Obama’s Hegelian opposite.

The explosion in IP dialogues during the Obama period is well documented. For example, the 2015 Joint Commission on Commerce and Trade (JCCT), which was co-chaired by the Department of Commerce and USTR and was the highest-ranking trade-specific bilateral dialogue.  It established IP-specific sub-dialogues, exchanges and programs on such topics as: standards, trade secrets, geographical indications, sports broadcasting, media boxes and copyright, on-line enforcement (including referrals to another IP-related working group involving criminal law), case law and databases with the judiciary, bad faith trademarks, copyright legislation, IP legislation and protection of plant varieties.  Additionally IP was discussed outside of the JCCT in dialogues with a range of US agencies, including antitrust (DOJ/FTC), criminal law (DOJ/DHS), innovation (OSTP) and strategic and economic dialogues (State, USTR, Treasury), as well as at the WTO (USTR), WIPO (PTO), and in plurilateral discussions, such as the IP-5 (the five largest patent offices), TM-5 (the five largest trademark offices) and ID-5 (the five largest industrial design offices).  There were also other dialogues, including judicial exchanges (2016) and commercial rule of law (2016), which also focused on IP.

Properly and economically utilized, dialogues can advance understanding where ignorance is a major impediment to resolving differences. They can build trust and long-lasting government to government relationships.  Dialogues may also spread the burden of advocacy among the US government, industry and trade associations and even foreign governments.  Educational training and assistance can also be leveraged for seeking additional concessions.  They also help establish a baseline for a measured approach to escalating issues to increasingly higher political levels.  However, dialogues should never become ends in themselves and need to be periodically evaluated for their effectiveness and efficiency.  

In a typical, hypothetical IP matter, a strategic approach to dialogues and engagement might involve a white-boarded multiple-year plan for the US that reflects the varying interests of the US government, foreign governments, industry, and academia.  The plan might progressively escalate concerns from a discussion around, say, bad faith trademarks, to a seminar on this topic, a meeting between the heads of the US and Chinese trademark offices, a JCCT meeting at a political level, a TM-5 meeting, a program with the International Trademark Association or the EU’s technical “IP Key” assistance effort, comments on proposed legislation, a meeting among cabinet-level officials and/or a WTO case.  These approaches may be consecutive or simultaneous. This type of strategy is also well known in Chinese military history, as “coordinating one’s strategies” 连环计 i.e., never relying on a single strategy but having many to fall back on, which is the 35th of the 36th classical military stratagems 三十六计. 

There have been several successful examples of coordinated engagement in IP that have delivered real changes over the years.  Examples include China’s providing design patent protection for graphical user interfaces, which involved multi-year engagement by industry, academia, the Chinese and US patent offices, and ultimately the offices of the JCCT, to deliver a tangible commitment in Chinese patent office practices.  Another example during the Obama period is the reform of China’s pharmaceutical patent examination process, which involved a similar process.   A longer-term engagement focused on the creation of China’s specialized appellate IP court.  It also involved several judges of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) (including former Chief Judge Rader), the Federal Circuit Bar Association, academia, and others over a nearly 20-year period.  

To be effective, however, dialogues must be strategic.  The 2015 JCCT, by contrast, seemed to have an approach of letting “a 100 dialogues bloom”  (百对话齐放).   

An example of the failure of dialogue and coordinated strategies is found in the US handling of a request of China to revise China’s discriminatory Administration of Technology Import/Export Regulations (TIER).  The 2015 JCCT included a commitment to “support a technology licensing joint seminar to be convened by MOFCOM in the first quarter of 2016.”  This was a strikingly modest ask of the very senior US and Chinese officials that chaired the JCCT: a Chinese Vice Premier and three US Cabinet-level officials.  However, JCCT support was necessary to overcome entrenched Chinese resistance. Moreover, despite the JCCT commitment, China did not follow through on this modest ask.  Despite such high level support, China did not host the seminar.   

During this same time period, the US Chamber of Commerce, Global IP Center,  published a report through its “Track II”, IP Cooperation Dialogue calling for reform in the TIER. The Track II Dialogue seeks to encourage expert non-government IP-engagement and not rely solely on over-politicized official bilateral dialogues.  It includes former judges and patent office officials, as well as academics (including this author). The 2016 Report also did little to convince official China to reform the TIER.

USG persisted.  The 2017 JCCT reiterated the commitment to “hold a joint seminar”. This program was ultimately convened on March 18, 2017,  However, the program concluded with no change in China’s position regarding the reform of the TIER.     

With no demonstrable momentum by China, USTR identified the TIER in its 301 investigation of China’s technology transfer practices.  It also filed a WTO case in March 2018. China finally took notice and amended these discriminatory provisions in 2019. Now that the offending provisions of the TIER have been amended, the WTO case has been suspended.  Today, with the suspension legal case, its full implementation should be monitored.  It appears that “collaboration” did not work, but a more confrontational approach resulted in a positive outcome.

However, while it is likely that China would not have amended the TIER absent the WTO case, dialogue on the TIER also played the important roles of coordinating USG positions, elevating an issue politically, involving other foreign governments, testing the waters with senior leadership in China, and making sure that the US proceeded in a measured and thoughtful manner.   Many foreign governments, including the European Union and Japan were involved in these dialogue efforts and many also supported the WTO case.  Even more striking, the WTO “win” on the TIER is ironic as it came from an administration (Trump) has generally shown opposition to multilateral institutions as well as dialogues.   In fact, the President has demonstrated that a thoughtful combination of collaboration and confrontation with a diversity of approaches may be the most effective for advancing IP and innovation issues.

Nor is it wrong to cast the United States as the sole cause of the demise of softer approaches.  China contributed to the demise of dialogues and similar mechanisms in its use of bilateral meetings as instruments of delay and retaliation.  It responded to the first WTO IP case that the US brought in 2007 as an “act of aggression” that it would “fight to the bitter end” in 2007 (DS/362).  China thereafter suspended many forms of IP-related cooperation with the US.   In the build-up to DS/362, the United States also sought to compel China to publish all its IP cases, which the WTO declined to support (a TRIPS “Article 63” request).  China also did not oblige in that request. 

DS/362  was the only WTO case brought against China on IP prior to the Trump administration. That case dealt with infringement of consumer goods – notably, copyright piracy and trademark counterfeiting, particularly criminal and customs remedies. DS/362 did not involve technology. Anybody claiming that the WTO has been a failure with respect to China’s enforcement of patents and trade secrets should look elsewhere.  That case has not yet been brought.

USTR likely viewed DS/362  was a failure. The US did not succeed in compelling China to amend its criminal IP laws in DS/362, nor in requiring China to make its cases publicly available.  As a consequence of losing the case, the US government lost faith in the WTO as a mechanism for resolving IP-related disputes. USTR instead launched a series of bilateral and multilateral negotiations, including a proposed Anticounterfeiting Trade Agreement and revised model IP texts in bilateral and plurilateral trade agreements.  

The ensuing devaluation of WTO mechanisms was, in my view, premature.  While lawsuits in the US often appear binary in their outcomes, pressuring foreign countries to adopt legal regimes that they are otherwise opposed to at the WTO is much more complex.  Additionally, US impatience is not well-justified as the US itself has also been slow in responding to many WTO rulings.  USTR’s assessment regarding DS/362 may also have reflected its own institutional limitations. USTR is thinly staffed and lacks resources to engage in softer programs such as technical training or monitoring.  USTR relies heavily on industry suggestions, which may also be short-term in nature.  Unlike other US government agencies involved in IP, USTR is not the lead USG agency in a number of important IP exchanges, such as at the World Intellectual Property Organization, Interpol or the World Customs Organization. It does not participate in or promote IP office related exchanges,  does not have IP officers or law enforcement officers posted to China, and does not have a China Resource Center like the USPTO, which provides statistical analyses of IP-trends in China.  Despite this lack of depth, it has two important primary functions: negotiates deals with trade officials and bring disputes. This binary choice is limited when compared to the much broader toolbox that can be used to address an IP issue. 

The arguments that the WTO does not work in addressing IP-related disputes also ignore the success achieved by the Trump administration in seeing the TIER revised, as well as the demonstrable impact that DS/362 had in elevating the importance of criminal trademark and copyright enforcement to China, despite the setback of a loss in dispute proceedings.  The victory the US achieved in the criminal enforcement case materialized in the form of an uptake in criminal IP prosecutions. China increased its criminal IP cases from 904 in 2007 (the date DS/362 was filed) to 15,121 cases, involving 17,869 people in 2012This is a  16 fold increase.  By 2012, the Chinese criminal IP docket also grew to over 200 times the  US criminal IP docket of 2018. which consisted of 117 defendants in 67 cases.  One Chinese Supreme People’s Court judge confided in me that he attributed that increase to the spotlight that the US gave to the importance of criminal IP in China’s evolving IP ecosystem. For some recent analysis on these trends, please see Dan Prud’homme and Zhang Taolue’s excellent book “China’s Intellectual Property Regime for Innovation” (Springer 2019) which summarizes recent research on this increase, and provides data on criminal IP cases, defendants, prosecutions and convictions.  

A similar argument regarding the ultimate success of the US claims might be made about the request of the US that China should make all its IP cases publicly available in 2005/2006 (the so-called “Article 63 Request”). By 2014, China had decided to publish the  majority of its cases of all types.  This publication of cases has been welcomed by the legal and judicial community alike and has helped to provide greater predictability in adjudication, minimize corruption and provide a basis for strategic IP enforcement.  

By contrast to these successes, there was one claim in DS/362 that had no significant positive impact.  This failure was not due to China’s intransigence. In DS/362 USTR also alleged that China’s disposal of seized infringing goods by auction offended WTO requirements to dispose of such goods outside of the channels of commerce.  However, WTO rules only require Chinese Customs to seize goods upon importation (TRIPS Agreement Art. 51). China was and remains primarily an exporter of counterfeit and pirated goods.  The WTO was unable to identify a single instance where China had auctioned off counterfeit goods imported into China.   “No infringing goods destined for importation”, the panel stated “have ever been auctioned…during the period for which statistics are available.” (Para. 7.351).  The Customs claim, criminal IP claim and the case publication achievement all underscore the continual need for good data to support IP engagement of either the “carrot” or “stick” variety.

Arguing over whether China is becoming our enemy and the need for confrontation is redolent of the post-Korean War China rhetoric in the US.  A better approach might be to remake the US government into an institution that better understands, persuades and strategizes on complex technological and IP issues in China.  During the past 30 – 40 years, the US government has defunded or terminated every technology–oriented agency that cared to engage in a significant way with China, including the Office of Technology Assessment in Congress, the Technology Administration in Commerce, and the Office of Science and Technology Policy in the White House.  USTR’s mandate is  too limited to effectively engage in collaboration. USPTO has the deepest technical resources on IP and innovation issues, but lacks political clout. We need to coordinate more closely, and provide incentives for deeper engagement among all US agencies as well as with industry in order to be effective.   These issues have been apparent since at least the time of China’s WTO accession.  As I noted at a conference at the 24th Annual Fordham University IP Conference in 2016 (Session 4B-b “Asia and the Political Landscape”):

MR COHEN:… One of the lessons from WTO accession was — and I don’t know how to say this gently — how … under-informed US industry was about the legal system.  I say that because if you look at the number of civil cases involving intellectual property, in the year that China joined the WTO — and the negotiations occurred in the years before — there were about thirty.  So one could, theoretically, have contacted every company that had filed a lawsuit involving IP and you still wouldn’t have a very large cohort.

So a lot of trade negotiations, unfortunately but necessarily, are based on hypothetical constructs.  What makes a good legal system, with big words like “impartial,” “fair”?…

METALITZ:  So who was under-informed in that situation?  Was it the US negotiators or was it the US industry?  US industry — you’re right — was not bringing these cases.  But that may not have been out of ignorance. That may have been out of a supposition that they would not be useful.

BAI:  May I chime in?… I have seen US government officials talking about China when they don’t get their briefing right…. 

One way to improve policy is to hire the right people.  We need to promote and reward individuals who have the three “magic” skills: knowledge of Chinese law, knowledge of Chinese IP  or technology, and Chinese language skills. These individuals should also be given roles commensurate with their knowledge and skills.  The 2013 Report of the Commission to Stop American IP Theft, also identified this as an issue in the staffing of our embassies overseas: 

Strengthen American diplomatic priorities in the protection of American IP. American ambassadors ought to be assessed on protecting intellectual property, as they are now assessed on promoting trade and exports. Raising the rank of IP attachés in countries in which theft is the most serious enhances their ability to protect American IP. 

The need to restructure US government on tech and IP issues has long affected the quality of our “engagement.”   

Whether confrontation or engagement are pursued, the choice is complex, should be well-coordinated, and will need to evolve based on circumstances.  It should be based on the right information made by well-informed people.  It is not, ultimately, an ideological issue as many of the recent articles might otherwise suggest.  

Revised: July 21, 2019, October 8, 2019.