USTR’s Special 301 annual 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 multiple 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. Most agencies involved in efforts to protect  U.S. IPR overseas conduct training and technical assistance activities. Select Agencies Engage in U.S. IPR Law Enforcement Efforts

A small number of agencies are involved in enforcing U.S. intellectual  property laws. U.S. Efforts Have Contributed to Improved Foreign IPR Laws, but Enforcement Overseas Remains Weak; Industry Supports U.S. Efforts

U.S. efforts have contributed to strengthened foreign IPR laws and  international IPR obligations, and, while enforcement overseas remains  weak, U.S. industry groups are generally supportive of U.S. efforts. However, the specific  impact of many U.S. activities, such as diplomatic efforts or training and  technical assistance, can be difficult to measure. The efforts of U.S. agencies have  contributed to the establishment of strengthened intellectual property  legislation in many foreign countries. 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. According to U.S. government and industry officials, this interagency  process is rigorous and effective. Council to Coordinate IPR Enforcement Has Had Little Impact

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. In  addition, a Justice official noted that the department increasingly engages  in policy activities, such as the Special 301 annual review and the  negotiation of free trade agreements, as well as training efforts, to improve  coordination between policy and law enforcement agencies and to  strengthen international IPR enforcement. For  example, internally, competing U.S. policy objectives can affect how much  the U.S. government can accomplish. In  addition, many economic factors, including low barriers to entering the  counterfeiting and piracy business and large price differences between  legitimate and fake goods as well as problems such as organized crime,  pose challenges to U.S. and foreign governments’ efforts, even in countries  where the political will for protecting intellectual property exists. Of note, the Training Coordination Group is a  completely voluntary effort and is generally cited as a positive  development. To describe agencies’ efforts, as well as the impact of these efforts, we  analyzed key U.S. government intellectual property reports, such as the  annual “Special 301” reports for the years 1994 through 2004, and reviewed  information available from databases such as the State Department’s  intellectual property training database and the Department of Homeland  Security’s online database of counterfeit goods seizures.
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 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. In addition, a voluntary interagency training coordination group meets about once a month to discuss and coordinate training activities. 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. The Special 301 review is widely seen as effective, but the impact of actions such as diplomatic efforts and training activities can be hard to measure. U.S. industry has been supportive of U.S. actions. However, future 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.