Still Time to Register…

I will be talking today, February 25, 2021 on the “Weaponization of Intellectual Property Against China” at a lecture hosted by the University of California at San Diego, with Prof. Barry Naughton as moderator. The lecture begins at 1:00 PM Pacific Time and should last about an hour. There is no charge.

I hope that readers of this blog will bring their own incisive comments and questions about the role intellectual property has played in bilateral relations, especially the concept of “IP Theft.” I am a non-resident fellow at UCSD, and I decided to choose this topic because of the need to deepen the public discussion around the role IP should play in US-China technology, security, and trade issues.

Here is the link to register. I hope to see you there!

Trade Wars: A New Beginning?

Why is this year’s  Special 301 Report (the “Report”) from USTR (April 29, 2019) different from prior reports?  In prior years, this report often repeated materials found elsewhere, such as in the  National Trade Estimate Report (March 2020).  This year’s Report reflects the Phase 1 Trade Agreement (January 15, 2020) (the “Agreement”) and the subsequent Chinese Action Plan (April 20, 2020). More importantly, it also suggests how the US might wish to see the implementation of the Agreement and negotiate a Phase 2 Agreement. There are a number of welcome surprises that suggest a new beginning.

Most importantly, the Report demonstrates a renewed commitment to the rule of law and the role of markets in protecting IP.  As noted in many of the postings of this blog, these were areas that I found seriously deficient in the Agreement.  The Agreement revitalized administrative campaigns and enforcement mechanisms and encouraged punitive mechanisms.  It generally underemphasized compensatory damages and other civil remedies, including appropriate civil procedures, and did not adequately emphasize the need to let market mechanisms govern IP creation and commercialization.

The Report addresses issues that the Phase 1 Agreement war did not, such as “poor quality patents”, “the presence of competition law concepts in the patent law” and challenges faced in trademark prosecution.  The Report also notes that  there are “obstacles in establishing actual damages in civil proceedings,” including a lack of “preliminary injunctive relief.”  These are useful statements, but even more important are the references to judicial procedures.

The Report states that “Chinese judicial authorities continue to demonstrate a lack of transparency”, including publishing only “selected decisions rather than all preliminary injunctions and final decisions.”  In addition, “administrative enforcement authorities fail to provide rights holders with information.” The issue of transparency has been repeatedly reported on in this blog as key to effective oversight of the Agreement.  The Report also notes that “[a] truly independent judiciary is critical to promote the rule of law and to protect IP rights.”  The Report mentions the need for transparency in China’s IP system five separate times.  By comparison, Chapter 1 of the Agreement mentions transparency once (with respect to Geographical Indications),  and not once with respect to judicial or administrative proceedings.

The Report comes down particularly hard in favor of legal process in its discussion on the social credit system, particularly the CNIPA/NDRC  et al, Memorandum of Cooperation on Joint Disciplinary Actions for Seriously Dishonest Subjects in the Field of Intellectual Property (Patent) 关于对知识产权(专利)领域严重失信主体开展联合惩戒的合作备忘录》(the “Dishonesty Measures”) (December 5, 2018) by noting that “these measure lack critical procedural safeguards, such as notice to the targeted entity, clear factors for determinations, or opportunities for appeal.” The Report further concludes that “The United States objects to any attempt to expand the ‘social credit system’ in the field of IP.”

This statement suggests a further distancing of the administration from rhetoric and outcomes of December 2018-May 2019 when the primary goal appeared to be strong legal commitments to punish IP infringement without explicit consideration of due process.  The Dishonesty Measures were likely enacted to appease US concerns on IP on the margins of the G-20 summit (November 30- December 1, 2018).  The concern then appeared to be that they were not sufficiently well-codified, not that they lacked due process.  Larry Kudlow said after the G-20 in 2019, that IP-related provisions (most likely the Dishonesty Measures) need to be “codified by law in China” and should not just be a “state council announcement.”

I am personally gratified to see the reintroduction of concerns over due process and rule of law into the Administration’s discourse of IP, although I believe the complexity of the relationship between IP protection and the social credit system may require further study.  I suspect that it may be difficult for rightsholders commercializing their rights or seeking to enforce judgments to completely distance themselves from the social credit system.

The Report also notes that the US had initiated dispute resolution proceedings against China at the WTO regarding China’s technology licensing regime and that China revised the measures the US had challenged in March 2019. The Report concludes that “[t]he significance of these revisions is under review.”  The Report does not note that the US had agreed to suspend the WTO case due to these legislative revisions, until May 1, 2020, at which time (the date of writing of this blog) it needs to decide whether or not to reinstate this case.  Perhaps USTR did not want to show its hand regarding what it would do effective May 1, 2020 – two days after the Report was issued.  Presumably, the United States will seek an extension of time in light of the continuing “review.”

Whatever decision is made at the WTO, the US team deserves credit for the legislative changes in licensing, forced tech transfer and trademarks that were made in the spring of 2019 and for re-emphasizing due process, the market, and rule of law, in the Report and in United States advocacy for better IP protection in China.

Is It In There – CNIPA’s “Phase 1” IP Action Plan?

CNIPA released on April 20, 2020, its  2020-2021 Implementation of the “Opinions on Strengthening the Protection of Intellectual Property” Promotion Plan” (2020—2021年贯彻落实《关于强化知识产权保护的意见》推进计划) (the “Promotion Plan”).  Attached are a copy of the Promotion Plan from the CNIPA website and a machine translation, as well as a bilingual translation provided by the USPTO. All translations are provided for readers’ convenience only, are unofficial and do not carry any representations as to accuracy.  Please review them carefully before committing to any course of action based on the translation, and please bring any errors to our attention.  We greatly appreciate USPTO,  China Law Translate, and the numerous trade associations and law firms that have made translations publicly available over the years.

The Promotion Plan specifically references and appears to be a further implementation of the CPC/State Council  Opinion on Strengthening the Protection of Intellectual Property, released in November 2019 (关于强化知识产权保护的意见) (CPC/State Council Opinion), which I blogged about here. In November I described this CPC/State Council Opinion as going “part way” in addressing US concerns about IP theft that were being raised by the Trump Administration. This Promotion Plan issued by CNIPA is more comprehensive and more directly reflects the Phase 1 Trade Agreement between the US and China that the CPC/State Council Opinion, including setting specific timetables and interagency responsibilities. However, it is being promulgated at a considerably lower level of governmental authority than the CPC/SC Opinion. CNIPA is a division within a ministry-level agency (SAMR) and is arguably weaker and less independent today than when SIPO was a separate agency. In this respect, the Promotion Plan is also weaker than previous action plans promulgated under MofCOM’s leadership. MofCOM and its predecessor agencies were ministries. In a sense, it harkens back to action plans from the 1990s.  The IPR Leading Group was chaired in the 1990s often by a Vice Minister, including Wu Yi, who later became Vice Premier. One may wonder: is this “déjà vu all over again”?.

Some caution also needs to be maintained in approaching this document. First and foremost, are all the Phase 1 commitments, in the words of a once famous  commercial for spaghetti sauce – “in there”? Please write to me with your observations.  A second issue involves CNIPA’s authority. Although this document sets out plans for the courts, procuracy, and legislative branches, Chinese state council government agencies do not have the authority to bind these other branches of government.  Nonetheless, these agencies often coordinate their activities together, including through national and local leading groups and coordinating bodies. The puzzle deepens further, however, as the Promotion Plan itself does not indicate the authority by which it has been enacted. Rumor had been that the Promotion Plan was delayed because NPC approval was needed.

To an experienced reader, this Promotion Plan also has the “look” and “feel” of the National IP Strategy Implementation Plan (NIPS Implementation Plan) with its extensive, specific commitments. I  blogged about the NIPS Implementation Plan here.  The NIPS Implementation Plan has a statutory basis in the China Science and Technology Promotion Law (2007). Moreover, the NIPS Implementation Plan similarly has a focus on China becoming a “strong” IP country.

One difference between a NIPS Implementation Plan and an implementation plan from MofCOM in the past is that a NIPS Implementation Plan would have likely needed more local coordinating entities to be implemented nationwide. MofCOM had such authority through its coordination of the former State Council leading groups on IP.  While serving in the Embassy (2004-2008), I visited many of the local IP coordination offices to discuss local IP coordination and enforcement issues. This plan, if it is to be rolled out locally through new mechanisms, will need the support of the CPC and State Council, or local CNIPA offices, or through other local structures.

Several friends have been asking me this morning if this is the Chinese IPR “Action Plan” as required by the Phase 1 Agreement.  The Phase 1 Agreement provided that “Within 30 working days after the date of entry into force of this Agreement, China will promulgate an Action Plan to strengthen intellectual property protection aimed at promoting its high-quality growth. This Action Plan shall include, but not be limited to, measures that China will take to implement its obligations under this Chapter and the date by which each measure will go into effect.”

On the first review,  this Promotion Plan appears to directly reflect the commitments made by China in the Phase 1 Agreement. What the US has called “high-quality growth” might be its misapprehension of China’s recent mantra of building a “strong IP economy.” There are many action items in the Promotion Plan that are focused on strengthening China’s IP resources. Considering the current pandemic, the timing for the release of the Promotion Plan is also about right. Moreover, it makes sense for China to release this document as part of the flurry of announcements surrounding April 26 (World IP Day). CNIPA releasing this document also does not contradict any explicit commitment in the Phase 1 Agreement. The negotiators of the Phase 1 Agreement did not apparently agree to nominate which Chinese agency would issue the Action Plan.

Based on a quick read, this Promotion Plan also appears to share the same weaknesses of the Phase 1 Agreement, with its selective focus, under-emphasis on the courts, lack of clarity around “patent linkage” (including “artificial infringement” determinations by the courts), continuing emphasis on ministry action plans and administrative enforcement, lack of historical context or data to ensure that the Promotion Plan actually delivers results, “old wine in a new bottle” commitments in Customs, criminal thresholds and other areas, and lack of any commitment to increasing administrative and judicial transparency.  The lack of strong commitments to increasing judicial and administrative transparency remains the most troubling of all and makes the agreement difficult for governments and rightsholders to adequately apprehend, including making sure that concrete improvements are not only “in there” but being fully implemented.  If the Phase 1 commitments implemented in the 133 action items of the Promotion Plan are the “Action Plan” it is a further indication that any forthcoming changes in China’s IP regime that arose from the trade war are likely to be significant, but not necessarily the kind of  “structural change” that would dramatically mandate more market reform through less government intervention in China’s IP regime.