Why does China increasingly treat intellectual property as a strategic instrument of national development, international influence, and global governance while the United States often continues to view it primarily through the lens of enforcement and compliance? Building on my recent article with former USPTO Director David Kappos in The National Interest, this essay argues that intellectual property should be viewed as a central issue of foreign policy rather than as a specialized area of law. Recent Chinese writings emphasize the development of an indigenous intellectual property knowledge system and greater international “discourse power,” while U.S. policy remains focused on criminal enforcement campaigns and “IP theft.” If the United States wishes to preserve a market-oriented international intellectual property system, it must modernize its own laws, renew engagement with China’s civil IP institutions, emphasize transparency and private rights, and recognize that competition increasingly extends to the institutions, concepts, and norms that will govern the future of innovation.
Regifting, Signaling, and Implementation: Comparing China’s IP Commitments Across the 2026 NTE, Phase One, and the 2016 JCCT
The recently released 2026 National Trade Estimate Report on Foreign Trade Barriers (March 31, 2026) (the “NTE”) provides a useful opportunity to reassess U.S.–China intellectual property negotiations, particularly the Phase One Trade […]
Litigation Meets Innovation: A Glimpse at China’s Continuing Litigation Explosions
In recent lectures I have been fond of asking: if China were to have as meteoric a pace of growth in intellectual property acquisition and enforcement as it has had in gross […]
