Exclusion orders direct CBP to stop  certain goods from entering the United States while the order is in effect. Multiple Agencies Carry Out IP Enforcement, but Their IP Priorities Vary, and Few Resources Are Dedicated Exclusively to IP Enforcement

For the five key federal agencies with IP enforcement roles, such  enforcement is not a top priority for most of them, and determining their  resource allocations to IP enforcement is challenging. These agencies’ IP  enforcement functions include: (1) seizing IP infringing goods; (2)  conducting investigations; and (3) prosecuting alleged violations. Staff in agency headquarters play a role in setting  IP enforcement policies and, at some agencies, carry out certain IP  enforcement actions, but most enforcement activity takes place at the field  office level. IP Enforcement Generally Increased, but Agencies Have Not Taken Key Steps to Assess Enforcement Efforts

Federal IP enforcement activity generally increased from fiscal year 2001  through 2006; however, most agencies have not taken key steps to assess  their achievements. Specifically, most agencies have not: (1) conducted  systematic analyses of their IP enforcement data to inform management  and resource allocation decisions, (2) clearly identified which of their  efforts relate to a key IP enforcement area—IP crimes that affect public  health and safety—nor collected data to track these efforts, and (3)  established performance measures or targets to assess their achievements  and report to Congress and others. The other agencies lack data for identifying IP enforcement actions related  to public health and safety. The National Intellectual Property Rights Coordination Center Has Not Achieved Its Mission, and Staff Levels Have Decreased

The National Intellectual Property Rights Coordination Center, an  interagency mechanism created by the executive branch to improve  federal IP enforcement and coordinate investigative efforts between ICE  and FBI, has not achieved its mission or maintained the staffing levels set  for it upon its creation. FBI filled  or nearly filled all eight positions during fiscal years 2001 through 2005. ICE Views Center’s Relocation as an Opportunity to Revisit Center’s Purpose and Agency Roles

In early 2008, ICE plans to move the center to a new location that is being  configured specifically for the center and some additional functions. According to ICE officials, the new center will continue to focus on private  sector outreach. Appendix I: Scope and Methodology

The Ranking Minority Member of the Senate Subcommittee on Oversight  of Government Management, the Federal Workforce and the District of  Columbia, Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs,  asked us to (1) examine federal agencies’ roles, priorities, and resources  devoted to intellectual property (IP) enforcement, (2) evaluate agencies’  IP-related enforcement statistics and achievements, and (3) examine the  status of the National Intellectual Property Rights Coordination Center.
Why GAO Did This Study

Federal law enforcement actions against criminals who manufacture and distribute counterfeit and pirated goods are important to enforcing intellectual property (IP) rights and protecting Americans from unsafe or substandard products. GAO was asked to: (1) examine key federal agencies' roles, priorities, and resources devoted to IP-related enforcement; (2) evaluate agencies' IP-related enforcement statistics and achievements; and (3) examine the status of the National Intellectual Property Rights Coordination Center. GAO reviewed relevant documents, interviewed officials in five key agencies, and analyzed agency IP enforcement data from fiscal years 2001 through 2006.

What GAO Found

Five key agencies play a role in IP enforcement, and their enforcement functions include seizures, investigations, and prosecutions. While IP enforcement is generally not their highest priority, IP crimes with a public health and safety risk, such as production of counterfeit pharmaceuticals, is an IP enforcement priority at each agency. Determining agencies' IP enforcement resources is challenging because few staff are dedicated to this area, and not all agencies track staff time spent on IP enforcement. Agencies carry out some enforcement actions through their headquarters, but significant enforcement takes place in the field. Federal enforcement actions generally increased during fiscal years 2001-2006, but the key agencies have not taken key steps to assess their achievements. For example, most have not systematically analyzed their IP enforcement statistics to inform management and resource allocation decisions, collected data on their efforts to address IP crimes that affect public health and safety, or established IP-related performance measures or targets to assess their achievements. Also, Customs and Border Protection's enforcement of exclusion orders, which stop certain IP-infringing goods from entering the country, has been limited due to certain procedural weaknesses. The National Intellectual Property Rights Coordination Center, an interagency mechanism created to coordinate federal investigative efforts, has not achieved its mission and staff levels have decreased. Currently, only one agency participates in the center's activities, which focus on private sector outreach. Agencies have lacked a common understanding of the center's purpose and agencies' roles. The center's upcoming move to a new location presents an opportunity to reconsider its mission.