ENFORCEMENT

Recommendations

Info

Joint Strategic Plan on Intellectual Property Enforcement authorities of each participating agency and provide a comprehensive response to IP theft. The collaboration allows law enforcement to use resources as efficiently as possible by de-conflicting cases and using each agency’s comparative advantage to most effectively conduct investigations. The ICE IPR Center has facilitated development and deployment of several highly-effective targeted, multi-agency enforcement efforts, and has become an indispensable partner to CBP, the Department of Justice, and the Food & Drug Administration on the Federal side, and to the private sector that now has a single point of contact within the Federal Government for law enforcement matters affecting their IP-related law enforcement concerns. 5 The “Whole of Government” approaches to IP enforcement at the policy and operational levels constitute important innovations in efforts to combat counterfeiting and commercial piracy at national and international levels. While there may be several factors that contribute to a given country’s challenges in effective IP enforcement, it is worth noting that countries that lack meaningful intra-governmental coordination—either at the policy level, or operational level, or both—are often among the countries that are facing some of the most pressing challenges in the area of effective and efficient IPR enforcement. 6 There exist opportunities to further promote these FIG. 57: IPR CENTER Defense Criminal Investigative Service “Whole of Government” frameworks with foreign government partners as part of an effort to increase the effectiveness of partnerships and collaborative strategies to combat IP crime. Spotlight: California State Board of Equalization – TRaCE Task Force The “Whole of Government” operational approach has also been adopted at the state level. For example, the State of California’s Tax Recovery and Criminal Enforcement (TRaCE) Task Force is a program facilitated by California Assembly Bill 576, bringing together state and federal resources to collaboratively combat illegal business activities. SECTION 4 The TRaCE Task Force is comprised of investigators and special agents from multiple state agencies working together to investigate, prosecute and recover revenue lost to the underground economy covering a convergence of multiple threats, including the manufacture, importation, distribution, and sale of counterfeit and pirated products. By adoption of a coordinated approach, the TraCE Task Force has been able to combat IP crimes by effectively pursuing multiple criminal penalties that may apply to a given offense—for example, copyright infringement coupled with evasion of business, payroll and/or income taxes—to arrive at higher penalties. Source: California’s Tax Recovery and Criminal Enforcement (TRaCE) Task Force (http://www.boe.ca.gov/trace/) 124
Office of the Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator Spotlight: USTR as “Whole-of-Government” Example While the “Whole-of-Government” approach detailed above is multi-disciplinary in nature, within the specific discipline of trade, the USTR serves as an example of a “Whole-of-Government” approach to IP enforcement from a trade policy development and enforcement lens. The USTR is the Cabinet member who serves as the President’s primary advisor on matters of trade policy. As relevant here, the USTR is charged by Congress to engage the rest of the Federal Government to assess annually the state of IP protection and enforcement abroad. It does this interagency work through the Special 301 Review pursuant to Section 182 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. § 2242) (as amended). The USTR relies on the Trade Policy Review Group (TPRG) and the Trade Policy Staff Committee (TPSC), which are administered and chaired by the USTR and composed of 19 Federal agencies and offices (one of which is OMB, which includes IPEC). Through these and other mechanisms, the USTR works to (1) identify the effectiveness of our trading partners’ protection and enforcement of IPR; (2) negotiate enforceable IP commitments with other countries; and (3) undertake specific enforcement actions to enforce trade-related IP rights. As noted above, USTR also serves as a member of the Senior IP Enforcement Advisory Committee set forth in the PRO-IP Act, effectively reinforcing government-wide IP enforcement policy coordination. 2. The “Specialized Office” Approach to Intellectual Property Enforcement. In addition to the “Whole of Government” approaches, another key government approach to successful IPR protection and enforcement is the IP enforcement “Specialized Office.” This approach enables the application and evolution of substantive organizational expertise and knowledge that is needed to operate effectively in the face of the dynamic IP environment domestically and abroad. The “Whole of Government” and “Specialized Office” organizational structures are complementary, and indeed often overlap. 7 Both have proven highly effective in driving policy and operational improvements in IPR enforcement in the United States. An IPR-specialized unit or task force develops a significant technical expertise and experience in IPR matters, and thereby is often well-positioned to develop strategically appropriate IP policies for its respective department. Indeed, vested with highly specialized expertise in areas of criminal exploitative IPR trends and tactics, for example, a “Specialized Office” may serve as an engine of policy development to address the evolving technological and legal landscape of IP enforcement. A “Specialized Office” does not operate alone and it materially benefits from the strength and resources of the home agency, which may carry a significant portion of the day-today workload. Rather, the focus is on a governmental framework that encourages a collaborative approach between specialized expert IPR units and the often larger home agencies whose support is necessary for achieving results. In the U.S. Government, the Departments of Justice, State, and Commerce include several examples of specialized offices and programs that focus on, and are dedicated to, IPR protection and enforcement. From a prosecution standpoint, one notable specialized unit is the Computer Crime and Intellectual Property Section (CCIPS) in the Justice Department’s Criminal Division. CCIPS “is responsible for implementing the Department’s national strategies in combating computer and IP-based crimes worldwide.” 8 In addition, CCIPS works closely with the Justice Department’s Computer Hacking and Intellectual Property (CHIP) network, which consists of Assistant United States Attorneys who are specially trained in the investigation and prosecution of IP and computer crimes. 9 The Justice Department also operates the Intellectual Property Law Enforcement Coordinator (IPLEC) program, under which seasoned Justice Department prosecutors are stationed in select U.S. embassies and consulates overseas in order to: assess the capacity of law enforcement authorities throughout the region to enforce IPR; develop and deliver training and other capacity building formats to enhance the ability of justice sector personnel to enforce IPR; assist in developing or strengthening institutions dedicated to enforcing intellectual property rights; monitor regional trends in IP protection and computer crimes; and provide expert assistance in support of U.S. Government IP and computer crime policies and initiatives in the region. 10 SECTION 4 125
Page 1:
U.S. JOINT STRATEGIC PLAN ON INTELL
Page 6 and 7:
B. In Furtherance of a Healthy Doma
Page 9:
PREAMBLE A Reflection on Creativity
Page 12 and 13:
Senior Advisory Committee Establish
Page 14 and 15:
INTRODUCTION IP-intensive industrie
Page 16 and 17:
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Services, the Dep
Page 18 and 19:
While seeking to be thorough, the S
Page 20 and 21:
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY • Advertising B
Page 23 and 24:
1 THE GLOBAL SCALE OF INTELLECTUAL
Page 25 and 26:
INTRODUCTION The story of intellect
Page 27 and 28:
Office of the Intellectual Property
Page 29 and 30:
Page 31 and 32:
« Office of the Intellectual Prope
Page 33 and 34:
Page 35 and 36:
Page 37 and 38:
Page 39 and 40:
Page 41 and 42:
Page 43 and 44:
Page 45 and 46:
Page 47 and 48:
Page 49 and 50:
Page 51 and 52:
Page 53 and 54:
Page 55 and 56:
Page 57 and 58:
Page 59 and 60:
Page 61 and 62:
Page 63 and 64:
Page 65:
Page 68 and 69:
SECTION 2 CONTENTS HELPING TO PROMO
Page 70 and 71:
Joint Strategic Plan on Intellectua
Page 72 and 73:
Page 74 and 75:
Page 76 and 77:
Page 78 and 79:
Page 80 and 81:
Page 82 and 83: Joint Strategic Plan on Intellectua
Page 99 and 100: 3 SECURE AND FACILITATE LEGITIMATE
Page 101 and 102: INTRODUCTION U.S. and international
Page 103 and 104: Office of the Intellectual Property
Page 121 and 122: ENDNOTES Office of the Intellectual
Page 125: Office of the Intellectual Property
Page 128 and 129: SECTION 4 CONTENTS PROMOTE FRAMEWOR
Page 162 and 163: ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS With thanks to, an
show all

ENFORCEMENT

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?