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. Training and Technical Assistance

In addition, most of the agencies involved in efforts to promote or protect  IPR overseas engage in some training or technical assistance activities. 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. Such actions are initial efforts to address recommendations that can be  further implemented over time. Several Mechanisms Coordinate IPR Efforts, but Their Usefulness Varies

Several interagency mechanisms exist to coordinate overseas law  enforcement efforts, intellectual property policy initiatives, and  development and assistance activities, although these mechanisms’ level  of activity and usefulness vary. National Intellectual Property Law Enforcement Coordination Council (NIPLECC)

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. The law also provides additional direction regarding NIPLECC’s  international mission, providing that NIPLECC shall (1) establish policies,  objectives, and priorities concerning international intellectual property  protection and intellectual property law enforcement; (2) promulgate a  strategy for protecting American intellectual property overseas; and (3)  coordinate and oversee implementation of items (1) and (2) by agencies  with responsibilities for intellectual property protection and intellectual  property law enforcement. Strategy Targeting Organized Piracy (STOP!) The most visible new effort undertaken as a part of STOP! Enforcement Overseas Remains Weak and Challenges Remain

U.S. efforts such as the annual Special 301 review have contributed to  strengthened foreign IPR laws, but enforcement overseas remains weak. 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. For example, according to DHS and Justice  officials, U.S. efforts to investigate IPR violations overseas are  complicated by a lack of jurisdiction as well as by the fact that U.S.  officials must convince foreign officials to take action. Further, the impact of U.S. activities is affected by a country’s own  domestic policy objectives and economic interests, which may  complement or conflict with U.S. objectives. 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 domestically, 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 prior GAO report as well as recent work, 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 identifying countries with the most significant problems--an annual interagency process known as the "Special 301" review. In addition, many agencies engage in assistance activities, such as providing training for foreign officials. Finally, a small number of agencies carry out law enforcement actions, such as criminal investigations and seizures of counterfeit merchandise. Agencies use several mechanisms to coordinate their efforts, although the mechanisms' usefulness varies. The National Intellectual Property Law Enforcement Coordination Council, established in 1999 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 despite recent congressional action to strengthen the council. The Congress's action included establishing the role of Coordinator, but the position has not yet been filled (although the selection process is underway). The Administration's October 2004 Strategy Targeting Organized Piracy (STOP!) is intended to strengthen U.S. efforts to combat piracy and counterfeiting. Thus far, the initiative has resulted in some new actions and emphasized other ongoing efforts. 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 such as national security interests 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.