ENFORCEMENT
eop_ipec_jointstrategicplan_hi-res
eop_ipec_jointstrategicplan_hi-res
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
Joint Strategic Plan on Intellectual Property Enforcement<br />
SECTION 4<br />
21<br />
See The White House, “The Trans-Pacific Partnership: What<br />
You Need to Know about President Obama’s Trade Agreement”<br />
(“Last year, we broke the record in American exports for the<br />
fifth year in a row, selling $2.34 trillion in goods and services<br />
abroad.”) accessed from: https://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/<br />
economy/trade.<br />
22<br />
See United States Department of Commerce, “Intellectual<br />
Property and the U.S. Economy: 2016 Update (2016),” at<br />
p. 27, accessed from http://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/<br />
documents/IPandtheUSEconomySept2016.pdf.<br />
23<br />
See Section 1.<br />
24<br />
See, e.g., World Health Organization (WHO), “Substandard,<br />
spurious, falsely labelled, falsified and counterfeit (SSFFC)<br />
medical products” (Updated January 2016) (“No countries<br />
remain untouched by this issue — from North America and<br />
Europe through to Sub Saharan Africa, South East Asia, and<br />
Latin America. What was once considered a problem suffered<br />
by developing and low income countries has now become an<br />
issue for all. . . . However, it is low- and middle-income countries<br />
and those in areas of conflict, or civil unrest, with very weak or<br />
non-existent health systems that bear the greatest burden of<br />
SSFFC medical products.”) (emphasis added), accessed from<br />
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs275/en/.<br />
25<br />
See World Customs Organization (WCO), “High-impact<br />
Customs operation tackles illicit medicines in Africa” (October<br />
25, 2012), accessed from http://www.wcoomd.org/en/media/<br />
newsroom/2012/october/high-impact-customs-operationtackles-illicit-medicines-in-africa.aspx.<br />
26<br />
Pursuant to Section 182 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended<br />
(19 U.S.C. § 2242), the Office of the United States Trade<br />
Representative (USTR) is required to identify “those foreign<br />
countries that deny adequate and effective protection of<br />
intellectual property rights, or deny fair and equitable market<br />
access to United States persons that rely upon intellectual<br />
property protection.” To aid in the administration of the statute,<br />
USTR created the “Special 301 Priority Watch List” and the<br />
“Special 301 Watch List” under the Special 301 provisions.<br />
Placement of a trading partner on the Priority Watch List<br />
or the Watch List indicates that particular problems exist in<br />
that country with respect to IPR protection, enforcement, or<br />
market access for persons relying on IPR. Countries placed<br />
on the Priority Watch List are the focus of increased bilateral<br />
attention concerning the specific problem areas. Additionally,<br />
under Section 306 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended (19<br />
U.S.C. § 2416), USTR monitors a trading partner’s compliance<br />
with measures that are the basis for resolving an IPR-based<br />
investigation under Section 301 of the Trade Act, as amended<br />
(19 U.S.C. § 2411). USTR may apply sanctions if a country fails<br />
to satisfactorily implement such measures.<br />
27<br />
See Office of the United States Trade Representative,<br />
“Report to Congress on China’s WTO Compliance,” at p. 9<br />
(December 2015), accessed from https://ustr.gov/sites/default/<br />
files/2015-Report-to-Congress-China-WTO-Compliance.pdf.<br />
28<br />
See Office of the United States Trade Representative, “2016<br />
Special 301 Report,” (2016), accessed from: https://ustr.gov/<br />
sites/default/files/USTR-2016-Special-301-Report.pdf.<br />
29<br />
United States Department of Commerce, “Intellectual<br />
Property and the U.S. Economy: 2016 Update,” at p. 22<br />
(September 2016), accessed from http://www.uspto.gov/sites/<br />
default/files/documents/IPandtheUSEconomySept2016.pdf.<br />
30<br />
See Michelle K. Lee, Under Secretary of Commerce for<br />
Intellectual Property and Director of the USPTO, “Enhanced<br />
Patent Quality Initiative: Moving Forward” (November 6, 2015),<br />
accessed from http://www.uspto.gov/blog/director/entry/<br />
enhanced_patent_quality_initiative_moving.<br />
31<br />
U.S. Const., art. 1, sec. 8, cl. 8 (among the powers of<br />
Congress is “To promote the Progress of Science and useful<br />
Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the<br />
exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.”).<br />
32<br />
See United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO),<br />
“Request for Comments on Enhancing Patent Quality,” 80 FR<br />
6475, at 6476 (February 5, 2015) (“As the USPTO commences<br />
its enhanced patent quality initiative, the USPTO is targeting<br />
three aspects of patent quality, termed the ‘patent quality<br />
pillars.’ These pillars are: (1) Excellence in work products, in<br />
the form of issued patents and Office actions; (2) excellence in<br />
measuring patent quality, including appropriate quality metrics;<br />
and (3) excellence in customer service.”), accessed from https://<br />
www.federalregister.gov/articles/2015/02/05/2015-02398/<br />
request-for-comments-on-enhancing-patent-quality; USPTO,<br />
“Enhanced Patent Quality Initiative” (USTPO webpage on<br />
the Initiative), accessed from https://www.uspto.gov/patent/<br />
initiatives/enhanced-patent-quality-initiative-0.<br />
33<br />
See Executive Office of the President, Council of Economic<br />
Advisers, Issue Brief on “The Patent Litigation Landscape:<br />
Recent Research and Developments” (March 2016), accessed<br />
from https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/page/<br />
files/201603_patent_litigation_issue_brief_cea.pdf; Yeh, Brian<br />
T., Congressional Research Service, “An Overview of the ‘Patent<br />
Trolls’ Debate” (April 16, 2013), accessed from http://fas.org/<br />
sgp/crs/misc/R42668.pdf.<br />
34<br />
See Federal Trade Commission, “Patent Assertion Entity<br />
Activity: An FTC Study” (October 6, 2016), accessed from https://<br />
www.ftc.gov/reports/patent-assertion-entity-activity-ftc-study.<br />
35<br />
See Executive Office of the President, Council of Economic<br />
Advisers, Issue Brief on “The Patent Litigation Landscape:<br />
Recent Research and Developments,” at pp. 5-7 (March 2016),<br />
accessed from https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/<br />
files/page/files/201603_patent_litigation_issue_brief_cea.pdf;<br />
Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, Pub. L. No. 112-29, 125 Stat.<br />
284 (2011); Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S.Ct. 2347 (2014)<br />
(patent eligibility); The National Law Review, “New Federal Rules<br />
of Civil Procedure: 3 Must Read Changes” (December 23, 2015)<br />
(discovery), accessed from http://www.natlawreview.com/article/<br />
new-federal-rules-civil-procedure-3-must-read-changes; Octane<br />
Fitness, LLC v. ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 1749 (2014)<br />
(attorneys’ fees), and Highmark, Inc. v. Allcare Health Mgmt.<br />
System, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 1744 (2014) (attorneys’ fees).<br />
36<br />
Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, Pub. L. No. 112-29, 125<br />
Stat. 284 (2011).<br />
37<br />
See, e.g., Farre-Mensa, Joan, et al., “The Bright Side<br />
of Patents,” NBER Working Paper 21959 (February 2016),<br />
accessed from http://www.nber.org/papers/w21959.pdf. In<br />
the Abstract, the authors explain that: “We examine whether<br />
patents help startups grow and succeed . . . We find that patent<br />
approvals help startups create jobs, grow their sales, innovate,<br />
and reward their investors. Exogenous delays in the patent<br />
examination process significantly reduce firm growth, job<br />
creation, and innovation, even when a firm’s patent application<br />
is eventually approved. . . .”<br />
150