USTR’s Special 301  reports on the adequacy and effectiveness of intellectual property  protection around the world demonstrate that, from a U.S. perspective,  intellectual property protection is weak in developed as well as developing  countries and that the willingness of countries to address intellectual  property issues varies greatly. Agencies Undertake Three Types of IPR Efforts

The efforts of U.S. agencies to protect U.S. intellectual property overseas  fall into three general categories—policy initiatives, training and technical  assistance, and U.S. law enforcement actions. U.S. Law Enforcement Efforts

A small number of agencies are involved in enforcing U.S. intellectual  property laws, and the nature of these activities differs from other U.S.  government actions related to intellectual property protection. Several Mechanisms Coordinate IPR Efforts, but Their Usefulness Varies

Several interagency mechanisms exist to coordinate overseas intellectual  property policy initiatives, development and assistance activities, and law  enforcement efforts, although these mechanisms’ level of activity and  usefulness varies. A specialized  subcommittee is central to conducting the Special 301 review and  determining the results of the review. National Intellectual Property Law Enforcement Coordination Council

The National Intellectual Property Law Enforcement Coordination Council  (NIPLECC), created by the Congress in 1999 to coordinate domestic and  international intellectual property law enforcement among U.S. federal  and foreign entities, seems to have had little impact. Weak Enforcement Overseas

The efforts of U.S. agencies have contributed to the establishment of  strengthened intellectual property legislation in many foreign countries,  however, the enforcement of intellectual property rights remains weak in  many countries, and U.S. government and industry sources note that  improving enforcement overseas is now a key priority. Challenges to U.S. Efforts

In addition, U.S. efforts confront numerous challenges. Many economic factors complicate and challenge U.S. and foreign  governments’ efforts, even in countries with the political will to protect  intellectual property. This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the  United States.
Why GAO Did This Study

Although the U.S. government provides broad protection for intellectual property, intellectual property protection in parts of the world is inadequate. As a result, U.S. goods are subject to piracy and counterfeiting in many countries. A number of U.S. agencies are engaged in efforts to improve protection of U.S. intellectual property abroad. This testimony, based on a recent GAO report, describes U.S agencies' efforts, the mechanisms used to coordinate these efforts, and the impact of these efforts and the challenges they face.

What GAO Found

U.S. agencies undertake policy initiatives, training and assistance activities, and law enforcement actions in an effort to improve protection of U.S. intellectual property abroad. Policy initiatives include assessing global intellectual property challenges and identifying countries with the most significant problems--an annual interagency process known as the "Special 301" review--and negotiating agreements that address intellectual property. In addition, many agencies engage in training and assistance activities, such as providing training for foreign officials. Finally, a small number of agencies carry out law enforcement actions, such as criminal investigations involving foreign parties and seizures of counterfeit merchandise. Agencies use several mechanisms to coordinate their efforts, although the mechanisms' usefulness varies. Formal interagency meetings--part of the U.S. government's annual Special 301 review--allow agencies to discuss intellectual property policy concerns and are seen by government and industry sources as rigorous and effective. However, the National Intellectual Property Law Enforcement Coordination Council, established to coordinate domestic and international intellectual property law enforcement, has struggled to find a clear mission, has undertaken few activities, and is generally viewed as having little impact. U.S. efforts have contributed to strengthened intellectual property legislation overseas, but enforcement in many countries remains weak, and further U.S. efforts face significant challenges. For example, competing U.S. policy objectives take precedence over protecting intellectual property in certain regions. Further, other countries' domestic policy objectives can affect their "political will" to address U.S. concerns. Finally, many economic factors, as well as the involvement of organized crime, hinder U.S. and foreign governments' efforts to protect U.S. intellectual property abroad.