THE CRISIS IN INTELLECTUAL

PROPERTY PROTECTION AND

CHINA'S ROLE IN THAT CRISIS

Trade Lawyers Advisory Group

Terence P. Stewart, Esq.

Elizabeth A. Argenti, Esq.

Philip A. Butler, Esq.

Stewart and Stewart

May 2007
Acknowledgements:

Section III (An Overview of Enforcement Measures in China and China’s

Efforts to Improve Intellectual Property Enforcement) co-authored by

David J. Ohrenstein of Trade Lawyers Advisory Group Associate Member,

Fontheim International, LLC.

Appendix 2 (U.S.- China Trade Flow Statistics) was prepared by Charles

W. McMillion, Ph.D. of Trade Lawyers Advisory Group Associate Member, MBG Information Services

Appendix 13 (The Global Publication of U.S. Patent Applications & Select

Patent Reform Proposals) was prepared by Pat Choate of Trade Lawyers

Advisory Group Associate Member, The Manufacturing Policy Project

Additional research and assistance provided by Mirko Czechleba, Patrick J.

McDonough, Esq., and Nobutami Shimomoto of Stewart and Stewart

Copyright © 2007 by The Trade Lawyers Advisory Group LLC

This project is funded by a grant from the U.S. Small Business Administration

(SBA). SBA’s funding should not be construed as an endorsement of any

products, opinions or services. All SBA-funded projects are extended to the public

on a nondiscriminatory basis.
i 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

I. THE CRISIS IN PROTECTING INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS ............................ 1

A. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................. 1

B. THE NATURE OF THE CRISIS.............................................................................. 2

1. Global Problem........................................................................................ 5

2. China’s Role ............................................................................................. 12

C. PHARMACEUTICALS .......................................................................................... 16

1. Counterfeit Drugs ..................................................................................... 17

2. Data ........................................................................................................... 25

D. BIOTECHNOLOGY .............................................................................................. 26

E. CONSUMER GOODS ........................................................................................... 28

1. Auto Parts ................................................................................................. 32

2. Electrical.................................................................................................... 36

3. High Tech Components ............................................................................ 39

4. Apparel and Accessories ........................................................................... 42

F. COPYRIGHT PIRACY........................................................................................... 44

1. Film and Music ........................................................................................ 47

2. Software ..................................................................................................... 53

3. Publications .............................................................................................. 55

G. LINKS TO ORGANIZED CRIME ........................................................................... 58

H. CUSTOMS SEIZURES OF COUNTERFEIT AND PIRATED GOODS; TRADE 

FLOWS OF SELECTED CATEGORIES OF GOODS ................................................ 60

II. THE DEVELOPMENT OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS IN CHINA.................... 66
ii 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

A. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................. 66

B. EARLY ATTEMPTS TO INTRODUCE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW IN 

CHINA ................................................................................................................. 67

C. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW IN CHINA SINCE THE LATE 1940S ................ 70

D. PRESSURE ON CHINA TO DEVELOP INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAWS 

AFTER THE CULTURAL REVOLUTION ............................................................... 72

1. 1982 Trademark Law ................................................................................ 75

2. 1984 Patent Law........................................................................................ 77

 

3. 1990 Copyright Law .................................................................................. 79

4. 1991 Regulations for Computer Software Protection.............................. 80

E. THE UNITED STATES INCREASES PRESSURE ON CHINA TO IMPROVE IPR

PROTECTION....................................................................................................... 81

F. CHINA’S ACCESSION TO THE WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION (“WTO”)

AND COMPLIANCE WITH LEGAL REQUIREMENTS OF THE WTO TRIPS

AGREEMENT ...................................................................................................... 85

1. Amendments to the Copyright Law .......................................................... 88

2. Amendments to the Trademark Law ....................................................... 90

3. Amendments to the Patent Law ............................................................... 92

III. AN OVERVIEW OF ENFORCEMENT MEASURES IN CHINA AND CHINA’S EFFORTS 

TO IMPROVE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ENFORCEMENT.......................................... 93

A. ENFORCEMENT MECHANISMS ........................................................................... 94

1. Administrative Enforcement .................................................................... 94

a. Customs Enforcement..................................................................... 100

2. Criminal Enforcement ............................................................................. 101
iii 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

a. Supreme People’s Court’s Judicial Interpretations on 

Criminal Enforcement .................................................................... 104

i. Trademarks ............................................................................. 106

ii. Copyrights ............................................................................... 107

iii. Patents..................................................................................... 109

3. Civil Enforcement ..................................................................................... 109

B. STRUCTURAL OVERVIEW OF ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES ................................. 111

1. Anti-Counterfeit Enforcement.................................................................. 111

2. Copyright and other IPR Enforcement.................................................... 112

C. CHINA’S EFFORTS TO IMPROVE ITS IPR REGIME HAVE SHOWN 

INCREMENTAL IMPROVEMENTS ....................................................................... 118

1. China’s 2006 Action Plan on IPR Protection ......................................... 118

2. China’s Progress Pursuant to Action Plans............................................. 121

3. New IPR Website ...................................................................................... 125

4. Progress in the Province of Jiangsu......................................................... 125

5. Other Key Recent Developments............................................................... 127

6. Assessment of Enforcement Challenges................................................... 130

IV. MULTILATERAL, BILATERAL, AND PRIVATE SECTOR MONITORING OF CHINA’S 

IPR REGIME AND THE TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE PROVIDED TO IMPROVE 

ENFORCEMENT ............................................................................................................ 132

A. WTO SECRETARIAT COMMENTS ON CONTINUING HIGH LEVELS OF IPR

INFRINGEMENT AND INADEQUATE IPR ENFORCEMENT IN CHINA ................... 133

1. Article 63.3 Request................................................................................... 135
iv 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

B. THE UNITED STATES: MONITORING CHINA’S PROGRESS WITH THE 

SPECIAL 301 REVIEWS, COMPLIANCE REPORTS AND THROUGH THE JOINT 

COMMISSION ON COMMERCE AND TRADE........................................................ 136

1. China’s Compliance with 2004 JCCT Commitments ............................. 139

a. To significantly reduce the level of IPR infringement ................. 139

b. To promulgate a Judicial Interpretation to increase penalties 

and expand the range of violations subject to criminal 

investigation .................................................................................... 140

c. To increase pressure on IPR violators by conducting nationwide enforcement actions and increase actions at Customs ......... 142

d. To protect copyright works on the internet by ratifying and 

implementing the WIPO internet-related treaties.......................... 145

e. To begin IPR education campaign................................................. 146

f. To expand the ban on pirated software in government offices..... 147

2. Additional JCCT commitments and concerns.......................................... 148

C. EUROPEAN UNION : MONITORING CHINESE ENFORCEMENT........................... 150

D. BUSINESSES CONTINUE TO FACE HIGH LEVELS OF IPR INFRINGEMENT IN 

CHINA ................................................................................................................. 152

E. TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE INITIATIVES TO HELP CHINA IMPROVE 

ENFORCEMENT................................................................................................... 157

1. Government Programs ............................................................................. 158

a. United States ................................................................................... 158

b. European Union ............................................................................. 166

c. Japan .............................................................................................. 170

d. Australia ......................................................................................... 171
v 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

e. Canada ............................................................................................ 172

2. Activities by International and Regional Institutions to Improve IPR 

Enforcement .............................................................................................. 173

a. World Trade Organization 173

b. World Intellectual Property Organization (“WIPO”) 173

c. Asian-Pacific Economic Cooperation Forum (“APEC”) 175

F. INITIATIVES BY THE PRIVATE SECTOR TO PROTECT INTELLECTUAL 

PROPERTY IN CHINA ......................................................................................... 178

V. PROACTIVE U.S. GOVERNMENT ACTION................................................................... 185

A. WTO REQUESTS FOR CONSULTATIONS ............................................................ 186

B. POTENTIAL CHANGE TO U.S. LAWS THAT COULD PROVIDE BETTER 

PROTECTION FOR INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS HOLDERS AND 

USERS OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY................................................................ 189

1. Patent Reform and the 18 Month Rule .................................................... 190

2. Inadequate Remedies for Domestic Purchasers of Patented 

Machinery.................................................................................................. 191

a. Possible Studies and Legislative Options........................................ 199
The Crisis in Intellectual Property Protection 

and 

China’s Role in That Crisis

I. THE CRISIS IN PROTECTING INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS 

A. INTRODUCTION

A significant contributor to the extraordinary global economic growth over the last two 

centuries has been the development of intellectual property rights protection in major trading 

nations around the world. Despite the large membership to core treaties in the area, the nature 

and extent of the theft of intellectual property rights has changed and intensified in recent 

decades to where there is widespread concern about the ability to protect the source of much 

innovation. While there are many causes for the increasing problems being seen around the 

world, technological change (which has made distribution of fakes or pirated products much 

easier) and the integration of countries that historically have not had a strong intellectual 

property protection philosophy are certainly two of the prominent causes. 

For the United States and many other major trading nations, the largest source of 

intellectual property problems is product manufactured in China. The Chinese government for 

the last several decades has been pressed by the United States and other countries to adapt their 

laws to conform to international norms and to take the steps necessary to be able to provide 

effective enforcement. The Chinese government has taken many actions, before and after 

joining the World Trade Organization, to conform its laws to international norms and to address 

at least some of the concerns of trading partners on enforcement. Despite the pressure and the 

affirmative steps taken, the extent of counterfeiting, piracy and other IP violations in China and 
THE CRISIS IN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PROTECTION AND CHINA’S ROLE IN THAT CRISIS

Trade Lawyers Advisory Group 

May 2007

2 

in exported Chinese goods, remains, in the view of many nations, unacceptably high and is 

putting enormous pressure on the global trading system. 

This report starts by looking at the nature and extent of the crisis in intellectual property 

and China’s role in that crisis. The report then examines the evolving history of intellectual 

property law within China, efforts of the Chinese government over time to address the pressure 

from the United States and others to improve both its IP laws and their enforcement, and what 

efforts trading partners have undertaken to help China achieve an acceptable level of protection 

of intellectual property rights. The report then concludes by examining the question of whether 

there are actions the United States could be taking to better protect IP rights in the United States. 

Two examples are explored: (1) whether a change in U.S. law in 1999 to provide for the 

publication of patent applications after 18 months may be harming innovators and (2) whether IP 

laws need to provide remedies to companies who purchase products with IP rights but compete 

with product made off of products which violate such rights. 

B. THE NATURE OF THE CRISIS

As is widely recognized, intellectual property (“IP”) is among the most valuable property 

that exists.1

 Intellectual property rights (“IPR”) and effective enforcement of such rights are 

critical to nations’ ability to encourage innovation. The inability to protect such rights can 

reduce nations’ tax revenues and job-creating potential, and can threaten the safety and health of 

citizens at home and abroad. Unfortunately, the growth in IP theft in recent decades has reached 

crisis proportions and has touched every aspect of modern society. Intellectual property theft has 

 

1

 Progress Report of the Department of Justice’s Task Force on Intellectual Property, United States Department 

of Justice, June 2006, at 13 [hereinafter “DOJ Progress Report”]. 
THE CRISIS IN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PROTECTION AND CHINA’S ROLE IN THAT CRISIS

Trade Lawyers Advisory Group 

May 2007

3 

moved beyond luxury goods (handbags, designer clothes, watches, perfumes) and audio/visual 

materials (CDs, DVDs, software) and now includes counterfeit goods from pharmaceutical 

drugs, auto parts, airplane parts, batteries, cosmetics and even food products.2

 In recent years 

there have been reports of exploding counterfeit cell phone batteries,3 babies dying after being 

fed fake formula with little nutritional value,4

 auto parts entering the market that are made of 

nothing more than well-constructed cardboard and sawdust,5 counterfeit drugs being sold at wellknown pharmacies such as CVS and Rite-Aid,6

 and even gypsum and starch being painted to 

look like tofu and then sold in legitimate stores.7

 This extensive range of counterfeit and pirated 

products has not only cost businesses hundreds of billions in lost sales, cost governments tax 

revenues from the lost legitimate sales, harmed consumers, cost workers’ jobs, and damaged the 

reputation of businesses whose products have been copied, but it has also created serious public 

health and safety concerns and undermines the basis of innovation itself. 

While not a new phenomenon, intellectual property theft used to be mainly a problem for 

producers of luxury goods, such as apparel and handbags, and was often considered a victim-less 

 

2

 See, e.g., The Negative Consequences of International Intellectual Property Theft: Economic Harm, Threats to 

Public Health and Safety, and Links to Organized Crime and Terrorist Organizations, International 

AntiCounterfeiting Coalition, January 2005, at 2; Counting the Cost: The Economic Impacts of Counterfeiting 

and Piracy, Preliminary Findings of OECD Study Presented by John Dryden, Deputy Director for Science, 

Technology and Industry, OECD, at the Third Global Congress on Combating Counterfeiting and Piracy, 

January 30-31, 2007, at 3 [hereinafter “Counting the Cost, OECD Preliminary Findings”]; Counterfeit Food a 

‘Serious Threat’ Says EC, MeatProcess.com, November 13, 2006, available at

www.meatprocess.com/news/ng.asp?id=72010-counterfeit-ec-alcohol. 3

 See Exploding Cell Phones, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, TheTrueCosts.org, November 2004, available at

http://www.thetruecosts.org/portal/truecosts/getthefacts/healthandsafety.htm. 

4

 See Jonathan Watts, Drug Pirates Leave Death in Their Wake, The Guardian, December 4, 2006. 5

 See Tom Nash, Counterfeit Parts: A Poor Fit For Your Shop, Motor Magazine, January 2004. 

6

 See Inside the World of Counterfeit Drugs, Dateline NBC, June 9, 2006, available at www.msnbc.com. 

7

 See Jaroslaw Anders, U.S. Businesses Pursue Different Strategies to Fight Counterfeiters,

USINFO.STATE.GOV, January 25, 2007. 
THE CRISIS IN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PROTECTION AND CHINA’S ROLE IN THAT CRISIS

Trade Lawyers Advisory Group 

May 2007

4 

crime.8 However, counterfeiters now target any product with a market, including medicines, 

parts of airplanes, trucks, automobiles and other mobile equipment, foodstuffs, and pesticides – 

products with health and safety consequences. 

This shift in IP theft from luxury goods to a broader array is evident in the European 

Union’s (EU) seizure statistics. According to a report by the European Commission, 70 percent 

of the firms affected by counterfeiting in the mid-1980s produced luxury items, but by 2004 less 

than 2 percent of the items seized at the EU border were luxury goods.9

 In that same year, EU 

officials seized over 4 million counterfeit foodstuffs and drinks, which accounted for 4 percent of 

the total.10 

The growth in scope of the problem can be measured in dollar terms for IP holders as 

well. According to a 1988 report by the International Trade Commission, U.S. industries were 

losing between $43 billion and $61 billion as a result of IP theft.11 In 2005, this estimate had 

 

8

 See, e.g., Kathleen Millar, Financing Terror: Profits from counterfeiting goods pay for attacks, U.S. Customs 

Today, November 2002; Jerry Markon, Virginia Men Face U.S. Trial in Peddling of Phony Purses, 

Washington Post, January 30, 2007, at A01. 

9

 See Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament and the European 

Economic and Social Committee on a Customs Response to the Latest Trends in Counterfeiting and Piracy, 

Commission of the European Communities, COM(2005) 479 Final, November 10, 2005, at 3 [hereinafter “EC 

Response to the Latest Trends in Counterfeiting and Piracy”]. 10 See European Commission Taxation and Customs Union Seizure Statistics, 2004, at 1, available at

http://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/customs/customs_controls/counterfeit_piracy/statistics/index_en.htm

[hereinafter “2004 EC Seizure Statistics”]. 11 Foreign Protection of Intellectual Property Rights and the Effect on U.S. Industry and Trade, United States 

International Trade Commission, Pub. 2065 (February 1988), at H-3. See Dr. A. O. Adede, The Political 

Economy of the TRIPS Agreement: Origins and History of Negotiations (2001), at 4, available at

www.ictsd.org/dlogue/2001-07-30/Adede.pdf. 
THE CRISIS IN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PROTECTION AND CHINA’S ROLE IN THAT CRISIS

Trade Lawyers Advisory Group 

May 2007

5 

reached $250 billion.12 The same 1988 report found that at least 5,300 American jobs were lost 

as a result of IP theft.13 In 2005, this number had increased to over 700,000.14 

The rapid growth in the size of the IP theft problem is at least partly due to advancing 

technologies, which not only aid in production of infringing goods but also in their distribution. 

For instance, current digital technology makes it easy to copy a CD and scan its cover to make a 

near-exact replica, or to distribute that sound recording to virtually limitless consumers over the 

internet. The advancement of the internet, in particular, is leading to increasing amounts of 

counterfeit and pirated goods entering supply chains and extending the global reach of the 

problem.15 

1. Global Problem 

IP theft is global in reach, affecting businesses and individuals around the world. While 

large companies with well-known brands are often targets, counterfeiting can also have a severe 

impact on small and mid-sized businesses. For instance, consider the Eastman Machine 

Company in Buffalo, New York. This is a relatively small, family-run business that was 

established in 1892 and manufactures cloth-cutting machines.16 According to the Chairman of 

the company, since 1990, Eastman Machine Company has had to cut its work force by two-thirds 

 

12 See 2005 Special 301 Report, United States Trade Representative, 2005, at 3 [ hereinafter “2005 Special 301 

Report”]; DOJ Progress Report, supra note 1, at 13. 

13 Foreign Protection of Intellectual Property Rights and the Effect on U.S. Industry and Trade, United States 

International Trade Commission, Pub. 2065 (February 1988), at 4-13.

14 See What are Counterfeiting and Piracy Costing the American Economy, National Chamber Foundation, 2005, 

at 10; DOJ Progress Report, supra note 1, at 13. 15 See Counting the Cost, OECD Preliminary Findings, supra note 2, at 5.

16 Statement of Robert Stevenson, Chief Executive Officer, Eastman Machine Company, Buffalo, NY, Testimony 

Before the House Ways and Means Committee, April 14, 2005, available at 

www.wtcbn.org/news/Stevenson%20Testimony.pdf.
THE CRISIS IN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PROTECTION AND CHINA’S ROLE IN THAT CRISIS

Trade Lawyers Advisory Group 

May 2007

6 

because it is being pushed out of the market by counterfeit products.17 Despite the fact that the 

majority of the world’s cutting machines are located in China, Eastman cannot compete there 

due to the prevalence of what the company characterizes as counterfeit “Eastman-clones,” with 

an estimated 100,000 counterfeit machines sold there each year.18 Eastman Machine Company’s 

Chairman has testified that the clones have been reverse-engineered to replicate Eastman’s 

machines, with counterfeiters copying not only the design, but also model numbers, trademarks, 

color schemes, and labels.19 The copies can be so good that experienced distributors are not even 

able to detect the fakes.20

The illegal nature of counterfeiting and piracy makes it difficult to quantify the full scope 

of the problem. Counterfeiting and other forms of IP theft can affect domestic markets from 

domestic sources as well as from imports. Export markets can be affected for producers in the 

same way, by counterfeiting or other IP violations from in-country sources or from imports from 

one or more countries. Many IP violations are not discovered and, if discovered, are hard to 

measure in terms of historical reach or current volume or distribution. Thus, efforts to put a 

value on the global extent of IP theft is, by definition, an exercise in estimations based on certain 

facts and certain assumptions. While estimates vary widely, all estimates show rapid increases in 

 

17 See Jobs Killed, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Anti-Counterfeiting and Piracy Website, 2006, available at 

www.thetruecosts.org/portal/truecosts/getthefacts/jobs.html; Piracy: Industry fights back, 

TheManufacturer.Com, January 2007, available at www.themanufacturer.com. 18 See id. 

19 See Piracy: Industry fights back, TheManufacturer.Com, January 2007, available at 

www.themanufacturer.com; see also Statement of Robert Stevenson, Chief Executive Officer, Eastman 

Machine Company, Buffalo, NY, Testimony Before the House Ways and Means Committee, April 14, 2005, 

available at available at www.wtcbn.org/news/Stevenson%20Testimony.pdf. 20 In response to this reality, Eastman has developed an automated cutting-machine, which is a more complex 

design and cannot be easily copied. However, given that Eastman is now legitimately concerned about sending 

its technology overseas, the automated design is manufactured only in the United States. See Piracy: Industry 

fights back, TheManufacturer.Com, January 2007, available at www.themanufacturer.com. 
THE CRISIS IN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PROTECTION AND CHINA’S ROLE IN THAT CRISIS

Trade Lawyers Advisory Group 

May 2007

7 

the problem and suggest the problem affects a significant part of commerce. For example, the 

highest estimate from any sources seems to be an estimate of $670 billion provided by one of the 

speakers at the 2007 Third Global Congress on Combating Counterfeiting and Piracy held in 

Geneva in early 2007. The American Chamber of Commerce in China (“AmCham China”) has 

reported that global production of counterfeit and pirated goods had increased an estimated 1700 

percent between 1993 and 2005.21 Rules of thumb for counterfeit and pirated goods as a percent 

of global trade have been used in the past – 5-7 percent was developed in an OECD paper from 

the late 1990s.22 More recently, the OECD has been conducting a new economic analysis which 

attempts to provide a clear methodology for looking at the question as it pertains to global 

trade.23 The OECD approach excludes large parts of the counterfeit/pirating problem (e.g., the 

in-country portion).24 Using this methodology, the preliminary report states that international 

trade of counterfeit and pirated products account for 2.4 percent of the current total world trade 

in manufactured goods, or 2.0 percent of all goods.25 According to the study, the counterfeiting 

and pirated goods displaced about $176 billion of legitimate goods.26 This estimate appears to 

be based solely on the value of the goods, as the amount does not include the price charged to the 

 

21 Hugh Stephens, Fake Products, Real Problems, AmCham China Brief, April 2006. 

22 See, e.g., Counting the Cost, OECD Preliminary Findings, supra note 2, at 5; see also The Economic Impact of 

Counterfeiting, OECD, 1998, at 24. This 1998 OECD report stated that the value of counterfeit goods was 

about 3 percent of world trade in 1990, or about $100 million dollars, and that by 1995, it had increased to 5 

percent of world trade, or $250 billion. Id. 23 See Counting the Cost, OECD Preliminary Findings, supra note 2, at 5 (explaining that the original OECD 

report did not specify whether the methodology incorporated only exports and imports or if it included 

counterfeit products contained within a country, or whether it considered all traded items or just goods or even 

just manufactured goods).

24 See id. 

25 Id. The study emphasized the conservative nature of the estimate and noted that these numbers did not include 

counterfeit or pirated goods that were consumed internally (e.g., counterfeit auto parts that were made in China 

and sold in China), thus the 2.4 percent represents only the amount of counterfeit manufactured goods that 

were exported/imported. 26 Id.
THE CRISIS IN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PROTECTION AND CHINA’S ROLE IN THAT CRISIS

Trade Lawyers Advisory Group 

May 2007

8 

final purchaser or any economic costs such as lost jobs or tax revenues.27 The study also points 

out that while this estimate is lower than the oft-cited 5-7 percent range, $176 billion is higher 

than the entire GDP of many OECD countries, including Ireland.28

Looking just at the effect of IP theft on U.S. businesses, recent reports estimate that IP 

theft costs American businesses $200-250 billion each year29 and has contributed to the loss of at 

least 750,000 American jobs.30 New York City alone estimates that it loses $1 billion a year in 

sales tax revenue due to counterfeit goods,31 while Los Angeles reportedly lost at least $483 

million in tax revenues in 2005 as a result of global IP theft.32 As a whole, the California 

economy reportedly loses $34.5 billion every year because of counterfeiting and piracy.33 

Many U.S. multinational companies are known throughout the world, having invested 

many billions in brand development, product development, advertising, and quality assurance 

programs. Famous brands are frequent targets of counterfeiters. The top five brands in the 

world in 2006 were all U.S. companies, with Coca-Cola, Microsoft, IBM, GE, and Intel leading 

the list.34 This is important because IP theft results in losses that extend beyond the value of lost 

sales. These additional losses include brand reputation, potential product liability stemming 

 

27 Id. 28 Id. at 6.

29 See 2005 Special 301 Report, supra note 12, at 3; DOJ Progress Report, supra note 1, at 13. 

30 See What are Counterfeiting and Piracy Costing the American Economy, supra note 14, at 10; DOJ Progress 

Report, supra note 1, at 13. 

31 See id. at 6; Reuters, Counterfeit Goods Are Linked to Terror Groups, International Herald Tribune, February 

12, 2007. 32 See Gregory Freeman, Nancy D. Sidhu and Michael Montoya, A False Bargain: The Los Angeles County 

Economic Consequences of Counterfeit Products, Los Angeles County Economic Development Corporation, 

February 2007, at ii; Music & Movie Piracy Takes Bite Out of Los Angeles Economy, FMQB, February 19, 

2007, available at www.fmqb.com/article.asp?id=353659. 

33 Intellectual Property: Source of innovation, creativity, growth and progress, International Chamber of 

Commerce, August 2005, at 14. 34 See Top 100 Brands 2006, BusinessWeek Online, available at http://bwnt.businessweek.com/brand/2006/. 
THE CRISIS IN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PROTECTION AND CHINA’S ROLE IN THAT CRISIS

Trade Lawyers Advisory Group 

May 2007

9 

from counterfeit goods, and legal expenses incurred while trying to remove the counterfeit 

products from the market. 35 For example, consumers often buy a product because of the 

reputation they associate with the brand, such as Coca-Cola beverages or Microsoft software. IP 

theft can inflict heavy damage to brand reputation and credibility. Companies are often forced to 

defend in lawsuits stemming from counterfeit products to prove that a faulty product was not of 

their manufacture.36

The losses associated with IP theft are clearly substantial, but so are the profits for those 

engaged in the production of illegitimate goods. Thus, the attraction to counterfeiting and piracy 

is fairly straightforward. Investments in research and development are the most expensive 

aspects of bringing the majority of intellectual property-intensive goods and services to the 

market, as opposed to manufacturing or duplication. 37 Innovation investments require a 

company to take on significant risk, as the viability of an idea is never known until it is 

researched, tested and developed. 38 Those who steal others’ innovation do not incur the 

investments for innovation and avoid those risks. Stated differently, those who counterfeit or 

pirate IP rights have little in the way of costs, making such theft very lucrative even at much 

lower prices. While it may cost more than $100 million to create a blockbuster movie, the cost 

of copying a DVD is next to nothing. 

 

35 See Intellectual Property: Source of innovation, creativity, growth and progress, supra note 33, at 17. 36 See Clark R. Silcox and Philmore H. Colburn, II, Counterfeit Products Present Additional Business Risks for 

Distributors and Contractors, International Association of Electrical Inspectors, May-June 2005, available at

www.iaei.org/subscriber/magazine/05_c/silcox.htm. 

37 Foreign Infringement of Intellectual Property Rights: Implications for Selected U.S. Industries, Office of 

Industries Working Paper, United States International Trade Commission, October 2005, at 1. 38 Id.; Intellectual Property: Source of innovation, creativity, growth and progress, supra note 33, at 8. 
THE CRISIS IN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PROTECTION AND CHINA’S ROLE IN THAT CRISIS

Trade Lawyers Advisory Group 

May 2007

10 

To illustrate the attractiveness of IP theft and the potential profits generated in this area, 

the European Commission’s Taxation and Customs Union states that one kilo of cannabis will 

sell for 2000 euros in Europe, while one kilo of counterfeit CDs will sell for 3000 euros.39 

Similarly, a U.S. report states that, with $47,000, someone can buy either a kilo of cocaine or 

1,500 pirated copies of Microsoft Office.40 The person who buys the cocaine can sell it for 

$94,000 and generate a 100 percent return, but the person who buys the pirated software can sell 

the copies for $423,000, which is an 800 percent return on their investment.41

Despite increasing global awareness and concern regarding the issue of IP theft, there is a 

general consensus that the problem is growing.42 A review of customs statistics demonstrates 

that counterfeit goods continue to flood markets at high rates. U.S. Customs reports the number 

of counterfeit seizures on a fiscal year basis and these statistics show a consistent increase 

between 2001 and 2005, when seizures increased from 3,586 in 2001 to 8,022 in 2005.43 In 

2006, this number surged to 14,675 seizures of counterfeit goods.44 Both New Zealand and 

South Africa have also reported that counterfeit seizures have dramatically increased in recent 

 

39 A Serious Problem for Everyone, European Commission Taxation and Customs Union, available at

http://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/customs/customs_controls/counterfeit_piracy/combating/index_en.htm. 

40 What are Counterfeiting and Piracy Costing the American Economy, supra note 14, at 13. This example is 

based on Microsoft Office 2000. 41 Id. 

42 See, e.g., Counting the Cost, OECD Preliminary Findings, supra note 2, at 6, 7; Ray Parry, The Great Gall of 

China, Counterfeit.com, last modified September 8, 2006, available at www.counterfeit.com/main/publication/

content/487.html. 

43 FY 2002 Top IPR Commodities Seized, United States Customs [hereinafter “2002 U.S. Customs Statistics”]; FY 

2005 Top IPR Commodities Seized, Department of Homeland Security, United States Customs and Border 

Protection and United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement [hereinafter “2005 U.S. Customs 

Statistics”]. A summary of these seizure statistics can be found at Table 3 in Appendix 1. 44 FY 2006 Top IPR Commodities Seized, Department of Homeland Security, United States Customs and Border 

Protection and United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement [hereinafter “2006 U.S. Customs 

Statistics”]. Included in the 2006 statistics is a summary graph showing the dramatic increase in the number of 

seizures in recent years. This graph is attached as Table 5 in Appendix 1. 
THE CRISIS IN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PROTECTION AND CHINA’S ROLE IN THAT CRISIS

Trade Lawyers Advisory Group 

May 2007

11 

years.45 Similarly, the number of seizures in Japan increased almost 380 percent between 2001 

and 2005, from 2,812 seizures in 2001 to 13,467 seizures in 2005.46 In the EU, the official 

statistics report the actual number of articles seized, rather than the number of times they seized 

counterfeit goods, and these show slightly less consistent, though still significant, numbers of 

infringing products. In 2003, the EU seized 92.2 million counterfeit articles.47 This number 

increased to 103.5 million in 2004, but then declined to 75.7 million in 2005.48 

These border seizures have occurred despite the constant efforts of counterfeiters to adapt 

their actions to avoid detection. One common method used to avoid seizure is to modify the 

shipment route to make it appear as though the goods are entering from a country that is 

perceived as being low risk.49 For instance, EU officials stopped a shipment of counterfeit car 

parts in 2004 that was coming from the U.S., but which actually originated in China.50 Similarly, 

American officials have seized shipments that originated in China but traveled through Belize 

before entering the U.S.51 Additionally, EU Customs statistics for 2005 show an increase in 

 

45 See Counterfeit Crime on the Increase, One News, January 25, 2007, available at http://tvnz.co.nz (citing a 

300 percent increase in counterfeit goods since 2001); SARS Media Release: International Customs Day, South 

African Revenue Service, January 26, 2007, available at www.sars.gov.za (stating the rate of counterfeit 

seizures in South Africa has been steadily increasing, with seizures increasing from 335 in the 2004-2005 

financial year to 725 seizures the following year). 

46 Intellectual Property Violation Seizure Report, Japan Customs, 2002-2006. English translation attached as 

Table 2 in Appendix 1. 47 European Commission Taxation and Customs Union Seizure Statistics, 2003, available at 

http://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/customs/customs_controls/counterfeit_piracy/statistics/index_en.htm

[hereinafter “2003 EC Seizure Statistics”]. 

48 2004 EC Seizure Statistics, supra note 10; European Commission Taxation and Customs Union Seizure 

Statistics, 2005, available at http://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/customs/customs_controls/counterfeit_

piracy/statistics/index_en.htm [hereinafter “2005 EC Seizure Statistics”]. A summary of these seizure statistics 

can be found at Table 4 in Appendix 1. 

49 See, e.g., EC Response to the Latest Trends in Counterfeiting and Piracy, supra note 9, at 6. 

50 See id.

51 See Beverley Lumpkin, Counterfeit Consumer Goods Could Present Health and Safety Risks, Associated 

Press, January 12, 2007, available at www.signonsandiego.com. 
THE CRISIS IN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PROTECTION AND CHINA’S ROLE IN THAT CRISIS

Trade Lawyers Advisory Group 

May 2007

12 

counterfeit goods coming from Switzerland, which is presumed to be an easier way to get 

shipments into the EU and avoid raising suspicion.52

Another method used to avoid detection is to send individual components of a counterfeit 

product, which are harder to detect at the border, and then have someone, either a member of the 

counterfeit organization or a third-party, assemble the final product for distribution within the 

importing country.53 Additionally, counterfeiters are increasingly using the internet and free 

trade zones to facilitate distribution and avoid seizure at the border.54 E-commerce sites may be 

misused by pirates to deceive consumers by posing as legitimate sellers.55 With the changing 

technology and increasingly diverse channels for distributing goods, the levels of counterfeiting 

and piracy have continued to rise creating a crisis for IP holders and for nations which look to 

innovation for continued growth. All of these distribution methods are leading to increasing 

levels of infringing goods in the stream of commerce.56

2. China’s Role

While IP theft is truly a global problem, China is widely regarded as one of the worst 

offenders. The United States Trade Representative (USTR) evaluated China’s IPR enforcement 

regime a few years ago and determined that China should be placed on its Priority Watch list in 

 

52 See 2005 EC Seizure Statistics, supra note 48; see also Thomas Mulier and Hugo Miller, China, Russia Make 

Most Counterfeit Goods, Group Says (Update 1), Bloomberg.com, January 29, 2007, available at

http://www.thetruecosts.org/portal/truecosts/news/default (Weekly Clip Report January 26-29). 53 What are Counterfeiting and Piracy Costing the American Economy, supra note 14, at 9. 

54 See William New, Industry, Intergovernmental Organizations Launch Global Anti-Piracy Blitz, Intellectual 

Property Watch, January 31, 2007, available at www.ip-watch.org; see also Guidelines on Controlling Free 

Zones in Relation to Intellectual Property Rights Infringements, World Customs Organization, EC0183E1a, 

January 12, 2005. 55 Andrew Noyes, Business Groups Release New Tools to Combat Piracy, National Journals Technology Daily 

PM Edition, January 24, 2007, available at http://www.thetruecosts.org/portal/truecosts/

news/default (Weekly Clip Report January 26-29). 56 See Counting the Cost, OECD Preliminary Findings, supra note 2, at 4. 
THE CRISIS IN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PROTECTION AND CHINA’S ROLE IN THAT CRISIS

Trade Lawyers Advisory Group 

May 2007

13 

April 2005, which demonstrated that the U.S. government felt China was lacking in IPR 

protection and enforcement.57 Studies by non-governmental organizations also confirm that 

China is considered to be a severe offender. At the third annual Global Congress on Combating 

Counterfeiting and Piracy, held in Geneva in January 2007, preliminary results from an OECD 

study summarizing seizure statistics showed that four countries were responsible for 62 percent 

of all reported seizures, with the largest percentage originating in China.58 Additionally, a recent 

survey of 48 businesses found that China and Russia were perceived as the worst offenders in 

terms of their IP protections and enforcement.59 Finally, the most recent member survey by the 

American Chamber of Commerce in China (AmCham China) found that 55 percent of its 

member companies reported they were negatively affected by IPR violations in China, and 41 

percent reportedly experienced increases in counterfeits of their goods over the past year.60 As 

one author put it, China “seems to have become the ‘Godfather’ of counterfeiting – and is the 

mastermind behind the crisis.”61

The UK-based Anti-Counterfeiting Group estimates that China is the source of 60 to 75 

percent of the total counterfeit goods in global circulation.62 This estimate is supported by U.S. 

and EU government statistics, which demonstrate the significant and disproportionate number of 

 

57 See 2006 Report to Congress on China’s WTO Compliance, United States Trade Representative, December 11, 

2006, at 71. 

58 Counting the Cost, OECD Preliminary Findings, supra note 2, at 4 (noting that 32 percent of the goods seized 

originated in China, followed by Thailand at 13 percent, Korea at 9 percent, and Hong Kong at 8 percent). 

59 Global Survey on Counterfeiting and Piracy, Business Action to Stop Counterfeiting and Piracy, January 29, 

2007, at 3. 60 See White Paper 2006: American Business in China, The American Chamber of Commerce – The People’s 

Republic of China, 2006, at 34 [hereinafter “AmCham White Paper 2006”]; see also U.S. Chamber of 

Commerce and American Chamber of Commerce China Joint Submission in Support of USTR Special 

Provincial Review of IPR Protection in China, July 14, 2006, at 2. 

61 Sativa Ross, Parts Counterfeiting, Aftermarket Business, October 1, 2004, available at 

www.aftermarketbusiness.com. 62 Parry, supra note 42. 
THE CRISIS IN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PROTECTION AND CHINA’S ROLE IN THAT CRISIS

Trade Lawyers Advisory Group 

May 2007

14 

counterfeit goods that originate in China. In 2001, 46 percent of counterfeit goods seized at the 

U.S. border came from China, and the second-largest offender was Hong Kong at 10 percent.63 

In 2003, China accounted for 66 percent of the goods seized at the U.S. border and this number 

had increased to 69 percent by 2005.64 Last year, the number increased even more with an 

astounding 81 percent of counterfeit goods seized at the U.S. border originating in China, and 

Hong Kong was still responsible for the second-largest amount at 6 percent.65 The EU statistics 

show a similarly large percentage of counterfeit goods originating in China, with China 

accounting for 60 percent of the seizures in 2003, 54 percent in 2004, and 64 percent in 2005.66 

Japanese customs statistics show somewhat smaller amounts coming from China, but there have 

been dramatic increases in recent years, with China accounting for 7.9 percent in 2002 and 

increasing to 46.6 percent by 2005.67

To put these numbers in perspective, China currently accounts for approximately 20 

percent of the world’s population, with 1.3 billion people.68 This percentage appears to be 

proportionately represented in U.S. import statistics, with China accounting for approximately 16 

percent of all U.S. imports by value in 2006,69 yet 81 percent of all counterfeit goods seized that 

year originated in China. Similarly, while 13.4 percent of total EU imports came from China in 

 

63 2002 U.S. Customs Statistics, supra note 43. The U.S. statistics for percentages are determined by value of the 

goods, i.e., the value of goods originating from China represented 46 percent of the total value seized in 2001. 

64 FY 2003 Top IPR Commodities Seized, Department of Homeland Security, United States Customs and Border 

Protection and United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement [hereinafter “2003 U.S. Customs 

Statistics”]. 

65 2006 U.S. Customs Statistics, supra note 44. 66 2003 EC Seizure Statistics, supra note 47; 2004 EC Seizure Statistics, supra note 10; 2005 EC Seizure 

Statistics, supra note 48. 

67 Intellectual Property Violation Seizure Report, Japan Customs, 2002-2006. English translation attached as 

Table 2 in Appendix 1. 

68 See The World Factbook, Central Intelligence Agency, last updated March 15, 2007, available at

https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/index.html (comparing China and the World). 69 See U.S. Import Statistics, attached as Table 1 in Appendix 1. 
THE CRISIS IN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PROTECTION AND CHINA’S ROLE IN THAT CRISIS

Trade Lawyers Advisory Group 

May 2007

15 

2005,70 the country accounted for a much larger percentage of counterfeit goods entering the EU 

at 64 percent. 

China’s counterfeit operations have achieved a great level of sophistication, which 

enables them to thrive so successfully in this area. For instance, Chinese companies not only 

manufacture copies of the branded products, but also duplicate the anti-theft devices used by 

companies to protect their innovations, such as holograms, which are devices commonly used for 

security protection.71 China is known to have one of the most highly sophisticated hologram 

manufacturing industries in the world.72 China also excels at copying packaging designs and 

security inks that are intended to differentiate the real products from the fakes.73 According to 

one author, “brand owners must accept that Chinese counterfeiters have the technical skills and 

equipment to copy almost anything and everything produced anywhere in the world including 

most protective deterrent and detection products.”74

There are some signs that China’s own appreciation for IPR is growing, which may be an 

important step in creating effective protection of foreign IPR. China’s modern IP framework is 

only about two decades old,75 which means that China is still cultivating an appreciation and 

understanding of IP rights.76 However, the Director General of the World Intellectual Property 

Organization (WIPO) noted in December 2006 that the Chinese are rapidly increasing the 

 

70 EU Bilateral Trade With China, DG Trade Statistics, September 15, 2006. 

71 See Parry, supra note 42. 72 Id. 73 Id. 

74 Id. 75 See infra Section II for a discussion on the history of China’s IP laws. 

76 See Kathleen E. McLaughlin, U.S. calls Beijing on Piracy – Despite Washington’s Complaints, China Lags in 

Policing Intellectual Property Theft, San Francisco Chronicle, June 8, 2005, at C-1, available at

www.sfgate.com. 
THE CRISIS IN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PROTECTION AND CHINA’S ROLE IN THAT CRISIS

Trade Lawyers Advisory Group 

May 2007

16 

number of patents they file at WIPO, signaling an increased desire to protect their own IP 

rights.77 As China places more value on its own intellectual property and takes actions to protect 

local IP owners, the international community may also see a corresponding increase in its efforts 

to protect the rights of foreign entities.78

While this increasing appreciation for its own IPR by the Chinese government introduces 

some hope for the future, as it stands now, many U.S. industries consider IP theft to be a serious 

trade barrier with China. Companies are less inclined to invest in new projects in that region 

when they feel the investments are not provided adequate security, and the incredibly high rates 

of IP theft in China make it difficult for U.S. businesses to compete.79 The following sections 

highlight some of the challenges facing particular industries and identify, where possible, the 

industries’ perceptions of the problems in China. 

C. PHARMACEUTICALS

IP theft in the pharmaceutical industry is a growing problem that has serious 

repercussions on public health and safety. Cancer medications, anti-malarial drugs, cholesterol 

medications, painkillers, antibiotics, HIV/AIDS drugs, Alzheimer’s medication, hormones, 

weight loss drugs, and blood pressure medications are just some examples of the fake products 

 

77 William New, Piracy, Innovation Top Developed-Country Industry Priority List, Intellectual Property Watch, 

January 26, 2007, available at www.ip-watch.com. According to WIPO statistics, patent applications from 

China increased 56.8 percent in 2006 as compared to 2005. See Record Year for International Patent Filings 

with Significant Growth from Northeast Asia, World Intellectual Property Organization, Press Release 

PR/476/2007, February 7, 2007. 78 See The Boot Is On The Other Foot – China Discovers the Virtues of Intellectual Property, The Economist, 

May 30, 2006; see also Marlowe Hood, Steal This Software, IEEE Spectrum, June 2005, available at 

www.spectrum.ieee.org/june05/1232 (noting that counterfeiting is also harming the Chinese software industry 

and quoting a Beijing-based attorney as saying, “Chinese companies will drive change more than foreign 

pressure”). 

79 See, e.g., Foreign Infringement of Intellectual Property Rights, supra note 37, at 1; Intellectual Property: 

Source of innovation, creativity, growth and progress, supra note 33, at 15. 
THE CRISIS IN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PROTECTION AND CHINA’S ROLE IN THAT CRISIS

Trade Lawyers Advisory Group 

May 2007

17 

that have made their way into the supply chain. Counterfeiters target both brand name and 

generic pharmaceuticals, and it is often difficult, if not impossible, to distinguish the real from 

the fake using only the naked eye.80 Clearly, the ramifications from receiving a fake form of one 

of these pharmaceuticals can often be deadly. 

The pharmaceutical industry is one of the few industries that estimates lost revenues due 

to inadequate patent protection in other countries.81 For 2005, the industry estimates that it lost 

over $7 billion in revenue from IP theft in 22 countries, with China accounting for the highest 

percentage of lost sales at 33 percent.82 The production and sale of counterfeit drugs is the 

biggest problem facing the industry. However, there are also concerns in the industry regarding 

insufficient protection for pharmaceutical data. 

1. Counterfeit Drugs

In 2003, 600,000 boxes of fake Lipitor, a cholesterol-lowering medication, ended up in 

American drugstores, including Rite-Aid.83 In 2004, at least 50 babies died and more than 100 

were found to be severely malnourished in the Anhui province of China because they were fed 

fake milk formula, containing as little as six percent of the vitamins and protein necessary for an 

infant’s growth and development.84 In that same year, a 22-year old woman in Argentina was 

diagnosed with mild anemia and died after receiving highly-toxic, counterfeit iron injections.85 

 

80 See World Health Organization Revised Fact Sheet No. 275: Counterfeit Medicines, November 14, 2006. 81 Foreign Infringement of Intellectual Property Rights, supra note 37, at 27. 82 Id. 

83 Inside the World of Counterfeit Drugs, Dateline NBC, June 9, 2006, available at www.msnbc.com. 84 Watts, supra note 4. 

85 World Health Organization Revised Fact Sheet No. 275, supra note 80. An additional woman died from the 

same counterfeit iron injection the following year, yet at the time of the report (November 2006), Argentina did 

not consider counterfeiting medicines a crime. Id. 
THE CRISIS IN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PROTECTION AND CHINA’S ROLE IN THAT CRISIS

Trade Lawyers Advisory Group 

May 2007

18 

In 2005, two boys died from rabies in the Guangdong region of China, despite their parents’ 

belief that the boys had been vaccinated against such disease.86 Police later found 40,000 boxes 

of fake rabies vaccine.87 In 2006, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) intercepted 

51 shipments of counterfeit Tamiflu, the most popular medication for both the treatment and 

prevention of the bird flu, which had originated in China.88 

These examples demonstrate that production of counterfeit drugs covers a broad 

spectrum, incorporating an array of illegal and infringing activity. The most harmless, in terms 

of public health, involves copying a brand label and applying it to generic drugs. This allows the 

counterfeiter to benefit from the brand recognition and charge a higher price, which is 

detrimental to the brand owner’s reputation and results in significant lost profits but does not 

necessarily endanger the customer. A much more hazardous practice involves creating fake 

drugs that contain diminished levels of active ingredients, or even lack them entirely. 

Given these multiple aspects, WHO has developed the following definition for 

counterfeit medicine: 

a medicine, which is deliberately and fraudulently mislabeled with 

respect to identity and/or source. Counterfeiting can apply to both 

branded and generic products and counterfeit products may include 

products with the correct ingredients or with the wrong ingredients, 

without active ingredients, with insufficient active ingredients or 

with fake packaging.89

 

86 Watts, supra note 4. 87 Id. 

88 Watts, supra note 4. 

89 Counterfeit Medicines: an Update on Estimates, International Medical Products Anti-Counterfeiting Taskforce 

(IMPACT), November 15, 2006, at 1 [hereinafter “Counterfeit Medicines: an Update on Estimates”]. 
THE CRISIS IN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PROTECTION AND CHINA’S ROLE IN THAT CRISIS

Trade Lawyers Advisory Group 

May 2007

19 

A working paper by the U.S. International Trade Commission (“ITC”) states that there are 

increasing reports of these fake and/or mislabeled drugs, which not only expose customers to 

serious health risks but also diminish consumer confidence in the global medical supply chain.90 

Producing counterfeit drugs is a highly lucrative business, as there is high demand for the 

products yet low production costs.91 Medicine can be very expensive and people looking for 

cheaper options often fall prey to counterfeiters who target drugs that are known to be in high 

demand. This equation has resulted in the highest concentration of counterfeit drugs making 

their way into the developing world. It is estimated that less than one percent of medicine sold in 

developed countries are counterfeit drugs; in developing countries, estimates range from 10 to 50 

percent.92 

However, the developed world is certainly not immune to counterfeit medications. The 

European Commission states that it stopped 148 counterfeit drug shipments at EU borders in 

2005,93 and that seizures of counterfeit drugs increased 1000 percent between 1998 and 2004.94 

 

90 See Foreign Infringement of Intellectual Property Rights, supra note 37, at 33. The report provides the 

example of an active ingredient such as aspirin being distributed in bottles bearing counterfeit trademarks, such 

as for the schizophrenia drug, Zyprexa. Id. See also PhRMA Written Comments to USTR re 2007 National 

Trade Estimate, Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, November 8, 2006 [hereinafter 

“PhRMA Comments re 2007 NTE”]. 

91 World Health Organization Revised Fact Sheet NO. 275, supra note 80. 

92 See Counterfeit Medicines: an Update on Estimates, supra note 89, at 1; Robert Cockburn, et al., The Global 

Threat of Counterfeit Drugs: Why Industry and Governments Must Communicate the Dangers, PLoS Medicine 

2(4), April 2005, available at doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0020100; Counterfeit Drugs Questions and Answers, 

United States Food and Drug Administration, available at www.fda.gov/oc/initiatives/counterfeit/qa.html. 93 Emilie Reymond, Drug Counterfeiters Changing Tactics to Bypass EU Customs, In-Pharmatechnologist.Com, 

November 16, 2006. 

94 Brian Schwarz and Vanessa Wong, Counterfeit Cures, Insight Magazine, The American Chamber of 

Commerce in Shanghai, October 2006, at 29. See also Intellectual Property Rights Issues and Imported 

Counterfeit Goods: Hearing Before the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission, 109th Cong.,

2d sess., 176 (June 7-8, 2006) (statement of Mr. Peter Pitts, Center for Medicine in the Public Interest) . 
THE CRISIS IN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PROTECTION AND CHINA’S ROLE IN THAT CRISIS

Trade Lawyers Advisory Group 

May 2007

20 

In the U.S., a doctor in St. Louis, Missouri prescribed Procrit to a married mother of six 

to help with her energy levels as she battled cancer.95 The family paid $500 for each weekly 

injection that they picked up at their local pharmacy. The drug worked well for a while but then 

seemed to stop. It turned out that the last batch they received was fake and did not have enough 

of the active ingredient to make an impact.96 The source was a counterfeit drug operation based 

in Miami and as many as 11,000 boxes of the fake Procrit had been distributed nationwide, with 

some even ending up in a well-known chain, CVS.97 The counterfeiters pocketed an estimated 

$28 million dollars, while the mother of six who was dying from cancer lost valuable time with 

her family.98 

Additionally, in January 2007 police arrested the owner of Spin Quality Printers in Miami 

for his involvement in a large-scale illicit drug operation that focused on prescription 

medications for the treatment of HIV and the treatment of psychotic disorders such as 

schizophrenia.99 The owner of the printing business used his equipment to create fake labels by 

forging brand names, lot numbers, and even expiration dates, so that the drugs could be marketed 

as legitimate pharmaceuticals.100 Although the operation was based in Miami, investigators 

determined that these altered medications had been shipped throughout the country.101 

 

95 Inside the World of Counterfeit Drugs, Dateline NBC, June 9, 2006, available at www.msnbc.com. 96 Id. 97 Id. 

98 Id. 99 See Miami Man Arrested for Counterfeiting Prescription Drug Labels, Office of the Attorney General, January 

26, 2007, available at http://myfloridalegal.com/newsrel.nsf/newsreleases. 100 See id. 101 Id. 
THE CRISIS IN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PROTECTION AND CHINA’S ROLE IN THAT CRISIS

Trade Lawyers Advisory Group 

May 2007

21 

While counterfeit drugs are clearly already a major global concern, many fear that the 

situation will only get worse. One study estimates that counterfeit drug sales will increase 

annually by 13 percent through 2010, a growth rate nearly double that for sales of legitimate 

pharmaceuticals.102 Given this growth rate, counterfeit drug sales are expected to reach $75 

billion by 2010, an increase of more than 90 percent from 2005.103 Increasing use of the internet 

is one aspect that may help explain these escalating numbers, as online pharmacies are growing 

in number and estimates seem to agree that the majority of them are distributing counterfeit 

drugs. The high cost of prescription drugs, combined with a lack of health insurance, make the 

internet an attractive option for many consumers.104 However, a report by WHO states that 

medicines purchased over the internet from websites that conceal their actual physical address 

are counterfeit in over 50 percent of the cases,105 while a Columbia University study of 185 

websites found that only 11 percent of the internet pharmacies were legitimate.106 

A 30-year old man in Chicago experienced the dangers of buying drugs online in 2004 

when he ordered $400 worth of Xanax and Ultram, a painkiller, to help with his back pain.107 He 

took one pill of each and woke up three weeks later in the hospital to learn that he had suffered a 

heart attack, fell into a coma and experienced brain damage as a result. The Xanax he ordered 

 

102 Anti-Counterfeiting and Piracy Update – Counterfeit Pharmaceuticals: Coming to a medicine cabinet near 

you, National Chamber Foundation, January 2007. 103 World Health Organization Revised Fact Sheet No. 275, supra note 80. 104 See Special Report: Bitter Pills, BusinessWeek Online, December 18, 2006, available at 

www.businessweek.com. 105 Counterfeit Medicines: an Update on Estimates, supra note 89, at 1. 

106 See Anti-Counterfeiting and Piracy Update – Counterfeit Pharmaceuticals: Coming to a medicine cabinet near 

you, National Chamber Foundation, January 2007; Special Report: Bitter Pills, supra note 104. 107 Special Report: Bitter Pills, supra note 104. 
THE CRISIS IN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PROTECTION AND CHINA’S ROLE IN THAT CRISIS

Trade Lawyers Advisory Group 

May 2007

22 

turned out to be four times the normal dosage, which proved to be an almost-lethal combination 

when taken with the Ultram.108 

The more common example may be Viagra, which happens to be one of the most 

frequently counterfeited drugs.109 The attraction to buying this drug over the internet is not 

surprising as customers are able to bypass a visit to their doctor, but they often receive 

illegitimate pills that may pose serious health risks. 

In addition to the health and safety concerns arising from this aspect of IP theft, there are 

also significant financial costs associated with it. As mentioned above, research and 

development (“R&D”) are expensive, and often lengthy, aspects of the total production of a 

good. This is particularly true in the pharmaceutical industry. The USITC reports that it takes 

14.2 years to develop a new drug, with the average total cost to develop a new research-based 

prescription drug estimated at more than $800 million.110 U.S. pharmaceutical manufacturers 

reportedly spent an estimated $39.4 billion on R&D in 2005, but for every 250 drugs that enter 

preclinical testing, only one ends up being approved by the FDA.111 Moreover, only about 30 

percent of drugs that make it onto the market generate returns that either meet or exceed their 

R&D costs. 112 Counterfeiting of drugs makes it much more difficult for pharmaceutical 

companies to continue to invest in new medicines to improve the quality of life. 

 

108 Id. 109 See, e.g., Emilie Reymond, Drug Counterfeiters Changing Tactics to Bypass EU Customs, InPharmatechnologist.Com, November 16, 2006; World Health Organization Fact Sheet No. 275: Substandard 

and Counterfeit Medicines, World Health Organization, November 2003. 

110 Foreign Infringement of Intellectual Property Rights, supra note 37, at 21. 111 PhRMA Comments re 2007 NTE, supra note 90. 112 Id. 
THE CRISIS IN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PROTECTION AND CHINA’S ROLE IN THAT CRISIS

Trade Lawyers Advisory Group 

May 2007

23 

China, India and Russia are considered to be three of the largest producers of counterfeit 

drugs.113 It is estimated that between 200,000 and 300,000 people die in China each year as a 

result of counterfeit medications. 114 In 2005, official figures state that China investigated 

310,000 reports of counterfeit drugs, which resulted in the destruction of 530 illegal factories, 

but only 214 cases continued on to prosecution.115 According to the Pharmaceutical Research 

and Manufacturers of America (“PhRMA”), one of the biggest problems pharmaceutical 

manufacturers face in China in terms of IP theft is that Chinese manufacturers produce bulk 

active pharmaceutical ingredients (“API”), which are then used in the manufacture of counterfeit 

drugs.116 The API are bought by counterfeiters who process the chemicals into counterfeit pills 

that are both sold in China and exported to other countries, including the U.S.117 

A rather alarming fact is that the act of selling bulk quantities of active chemical 

ingredients to the counterfeiters is not illegal under Chinese law.118 According to the Chinese 

Drug Administration Law, when a chemical company registers its API product with the State 

Food and Drug Administration (“SFDA”), it must notify the SFDA that the API will be used in a 

finished pharmaceutical product and the SFDA must grant the company a product registration 

number before the company can legally supply the API for the finished product.119 When a 

 

113 Watts, supra note 4. See PhRMA Special 301 Submission 2007, Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers 

of America, at 8 [hereinafter “PhRMA Special 301 Submission 2007”]. 

114 Schwarz and Wong, supra note 94, at 29. 

115 Watts, supra note 4. 116 See PhRMA Comments re 2007 NTE, supra note 90, at 13. 117 See id. 

118 See id. This is in contrast to U.S. law which penalizes suppliers of API when they knowingly provide 

chemicals for a drug that will be marketed in violation of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. See id. at 

13 n.1 (referencing 18 U.S.C. § 371 and 18 U.S.C. § 2). 

119 See id.; see also Drug Administration Law of the People’s Republic of China, December 2001, available at

www.sfda.gov.cn/cmsweb/webportal/W45649037/A48335975.html; Regulations for Implementation of the 
THE CRISIS IN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PROTECTION AND CHINA’S ROLE IN THAT CRISIS

Trade Lawyers Advisory Group 

May 2007

24 

company chooses not to register its API with the SFDA, however, there is no government 

oversight to preclude the inclusion of the API in finished products.120 While the SFDA clearly 

recognizes the importance of regulating such chemicals, this illustrates a loophole in the law that 

is being exploited for counterfeiting purposes. According to PhRMA, chemical companies in 

China advertise API on commercial websites under the general heading of “for medicinal use,” 

while having no regard for the specific intended use and often blatantly ignoring the SFDA 

regulations that would subject them to government oversight.121

China’s laws regarding criminal prosecution of production and sale of counterfeit drugs 

are also troublesome.122 They contain extensive evidentiary requirements, including a certain 

amount of sales of the offending pharmaceutical and some proof that the drug contains a 

substantially deficient level of active ingredients, which are often difficult to show. 123 

Additionally, these laws are reactionary as opposed to precautionary or preemptive, as the drug 

must already be in the supply chain and there must be some proof of its harmful effect before a 

criminal investigation can even commence.124 According to PhRMA, these requirements “all 

but preclude[] criminal prosecution against counterfeiters under China’s drug laws.”125

 Drug Administration Law of the People’s Republic of China, September 2002, available at

www.sfda.gov.cn/cmsweb/webportal/W45649038/A48335997.html. 120 See PhRMA Comments re 2007 NTE, supra note 90, at 13. 121 See id. 

122 See AmCham White Paper 2006, supra note 60, at 38. 123 See id; PhRMA Special 301 Submission 2007, supra note 113, at 55. 

124 See AmCham White Paper 2006, supra note 60, at 38; PhRMA Special 301 Submission 2007, supra note 113, 

at 55. 125 PhRMA Special 301 Submission 2007, supra note 113, at 55. 
THE CRISIS IN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PROTECTION AND CHINA’S ROLE IN THAT CRISIS

Trade Lawyers Advisory Group 

May 2007

25 

2. Data 

An additional issue of concern to pharmaceutical companies is the lack of data protection 

in many emerging pharmaceutical industries. 126 One of the most expensive aspects of 

developing a new drug is conducting the clinical trials and gathering test data.127 Maintaining 

that data and ensuring that others do not benefit from it is crucial to continued pharmaceutical 

innovation. Accordingly, Article 39.3 of the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of 

Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS Agreement) recognizes the importance of data exclusivity 

and requires WTO members to provide drug companies with protection such that their clinical 

data are not disclosed or used unfairly for commercial gain.128 Countries with sophisticated IPR 

regimes generally provide a period of exclusivity that prohibits others from using the protected 

data to support their own generic drug applications for a period of at least five years.129 China, 

however, falls within a group of countries with emerging pharmaceutical industries that has yet 

to provide adequate data protection in accordance with the provisions of TRIPS Article 39.3.130 

While China adopted rules for data exclusivity in 2002 that called for a six-year term of 

protection, the American Chamber of Commerce in China has reported that China has had 

problems implementing the rules effectively.131

 

126 See Foreign Infringement of Intellectual Property Rights, supra note 37, at 24. 

127 See id. 128 See id.; see also Agreement on Trade-Related Intellectual Property Rights, April 15, 1994, Marrakesh 

Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization, Annex 1C [hereinafter “TRIPS Agreement”]. 

129 See id. 130 See id. 

131 AmCham White Paper 2006, supra note 60, at 134. See Regulations for Implementation of the Drug 

Administration Law of the People’s Republic of China, September 2002, Article 35, available at

www.sfda.gov.cn/cmsweb/webportal/W45649038/A48335997.html. 
THE CRISIS IN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PROTECTION AND CHINA’S ROLE IN THAT CRISIS

Trade Lawyers Advisory Group 

May 2007

26 

D. BIOTECHNOLOGY

Biotechnology is another research-intensive industry where IP theft is a growing 

problem. Certain biotechnology companies work to produce, inter alia, genetically modified 

organisms (GMOs) and pesticides with a focus on crop protection and sustainable agriculture. 

These clearly have important societal benefits, such as in the area of poverty alleviation. 

This industry suffers from similar forms of infringement as the pharmaceutical industry, 

with bogus products being sold with fake labels, legitimate containers being re-used to sell 

counterfeit products, and diluting or otherwise altering legitimate products to significantly 

modify their effects.132 This can tarnish the reputation of the original brand owners but, more 

importantly, it creates great uncertainty for the consumers who may rely on the products for their 

livelihood. 

In China, a fake pesticide used on 200 hectares of wheat completely destroyed the 

harvest, on which over 100 households relied. 133 In 2004, hundreds of hectares of maize, 

potatoes and tomatoes were either completely destroyed or severely damaged by an agriculture 

product containing the wrong ingredient.134 This resulted in the farmers incurring substantial 

economic loss, estimated at tens of thousands of euros per crop.135 In addition to this economic 

loss, fake pesticides can cause significant environmental and health risks, particularly when used 

 

132 See CropLife International’s Response to OECD Industry Questionnaire, OECD Counterfeiting and Piracy 

Project, at Q1. CropLife International is a global federation representing the plant science industry across 91 

countries. Some of its leading member companies include DuPont, Monsanto, Bayer Cropscience, and Dow 

Agrobusiness. 

133 Id. at Q2. 134 Id. 135 Id. 
THE CRISIS IN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PROTECTION AND CHINA’S ROLE IN THAT CRISIS

Trade Lawyers Advisory Group 

May 2007

27 

on food crops. 136 It is important to consider that when the counterfeit goods contain unregistered 

ingredients, the quality of the produce is unknown and exports of such produce may no longer 

comply with international sanitary and phytosanitary standards. If these below-grade 

commodities make it into the market, they can compromise the entire food chain and pose 

serious health safety risks.137

Given these potential ramifications, as well as the societal benefits associated with 

legitimate biotechnology projects, it is understandable that IP is considered the “life blood” of 

the industry. 138 Investors will not provide financial resources necessary to continue 

developments in this area if there is weak patent protection and they fear their investment may 

not generate attractive returns. 139 In the area of biotechnology, reduced investment and 

innovation is truly detrimental to society as it not only results in economic losses and health 

risks, but it hinders economic development. Additionally, as IP theft becomes a more imposing 

problem in this industry, companies are forced to spend money on monitoring markets for 

counterfeit products and investing in programs to combat this problem.140 This further hinders 

innovation as it means less money that can be spent researching and developing new products 

that could have substantial social benefits. 

 

136 CropLife America’s Comments Regarding USTR’s Special Provincial Review of IPR Protection in China, July 

19, 2006 (explaining that “farming communities could suffer long-term economic damages, based on sustained 

use of untested, unproven counterfeit chemical products on their crops and their land”). 137 See CropLife International’s Response to OECD Industry Questionnaire, supra note 132, at Q2. 138 Biotechnology Industry Organization’s Written Comments to USTR Regarding China’s WTO Compliance, 

September 18, 2006, at 3, available at www.bio.org/ip/letters/. 139 Biotechnology Industry Organization’s Written Comments to State Intellectual Property Office of the Peoples’ 

Republic of China Regarding Draft Amendments to China’s Patent Law, August 28, 2006, at 1, available at

www.bio.org/ip/letters/. 140 See Counterfeiting, CropLife International, at www.croplife.org, accessed December 4, 2006. 
THE CRISIS IN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PROTECTION AND CHINA’S ROLE IN THAT CRISIS

Trade Lawyers Advisory Group 

May 2007

28 

Again, China presents a serious obstacle as an estimated 30 percent of agricultural 

chemical products in China are believed to be counterfeit.141 These counterfeit chemicals are not 

just affecting areas in China but they are also increasingly being exported to other markets.142 

While China is the largest market for U.S. biotechnology crops, China is also a large producer of 

its own technologically-enhanced plants. Given these mutual interests in the field of 

biotechnology, a positive environment that promotes innovation is beneficial to both the U.S. and 

China. Yet many believe that significant trade barriers exist in China, including inefficient 

enforcement of IP laws, which inhibit development in this area.143 

E. CONSUMER GOODS

Some of the most well-known counterfeit products are manufactured consumer goods 

such as designer apparel, handbags and watches. However, counterfeiters have extended far 

beyond these items, with just about everything now being susceptible to IP theft. Many of the 

fake consumer goods finding their way into the market pose serious dangers to public health and 

safety.144 The following reports demonstrate the broad array of known counterfeit consumer 

goods: 

- U.S. Customs officials in Puerto Rico confiscated 13,000 fake light bulbs in 2006, 

worth an estimated $45,000.145

- Over the past two and a half years, U.S. Customs has made more than 800 seizures of 

counterfeit golf equipment with an estimated domestic value of almost $600,000.146 

 

141 See CropLife America’s Comments Regarding USTR’s Special Provincial Review of IPR Protection in China, 

July 19, 2006. 142 See id. 143 See Biotechnology Industry Organization’s Written Comments to USTR Regarding China’s WTO Compliance, 

September 18, 2006, at 1, available at www.bio.org/ip/letters/. 144 See, e.g., Lumpkin, supra note 51 (quoting Caroline Joiner of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce Global AntiCounterfeiting and Piracy Initiative as saying, “Every product and every industry is vulnerable [to 

counterfeiting].”). 145 Id.
THE CRISIS IN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PROTECTION AND CHINA’S ROLE IN THAT CRISIS

Trade Lawyers Advisory Group 

May 2007

29 

- South African Customs officials have already seized counterfeit goods with the 2010 

World Cup logo.147

- In 2006, U.S. officials confiscated 60,000 counterfeit Duracell batteries containing a 

considerable amount of mercury and lacking proper ventilation such that they had a 

high probability of exploding under normal usage conditions.148

- Since 1993, more than nine million articles of counterfeit sports paraphernalia have 

been seized. The merchandise contained illegal sports logos for professional teams, 

colleges and universities, and was valued at more than $300 million.149

- In the twenty-year period between 1973 and 1993, at least 166 accidents occurred as a 

result of counterfeit airplane parts.150

- In April 2004, authorities in multiple locations, including Hong Kong and the U.S., 

seized more than 7,000 counterfeit Xerox toner cartridges for color laser printers, 

worth an estimated $1.3 million.151

- Of the 75 million counterfeit articles seized by EU officials in 2005, more than 5 

million were counterfeit foodstuff, drinks and alcohol products.152

- In 2006, police in Illinois found close to 600 bottles of fake “Head and Shoulders” 

shampoo. Tests showed that the bottles contained four different types of bacteria that 

could endanger those with weakened immune systems.153

- Nintendo of America worked with Chinese officials to seize over 1.2 million 

counterfeit Nintendo video game products and semi-finished components in 2005.154

- The FDA posted a warning in October 2006 regarding counterfeit blood glucose test 

strips that had found their way into the American supply chain.155

 146 CBP Helping U.S. Golfers To Continue Hitting Them Straight, CBP Today, October/November 2006. 

147 See SARS Media Release: International Customs Day, South African Revenue Service, January 26, 2007, 

available at www.sars.gov.za. 

148 See Ron Magers, Dangerous Fakes, ABC 7 Chicago, November 14, 2006, available at

http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section=special_coverage&id=4761950. 149 NBA Issues Warning to Basketball Fans: Beware of Counterfeit All-Star Game Merchandise, 

BusinessWire.Com, February 12, 2007. 150 See Willy Stern, Warning!, Business Week, June 10, 1996, available at www.businessweek.com/1996/ 

24/b34791.htm; see also DOJ Progress Report, supra note 1, at 13. 

151 See $1.3 Million in Counterfeit Toner Cartridges Confiscated, Xerox, April 12, 2004, available at

http://www.xerox.com/go/xrx/template/inv_rel_newsroom.jsp?app=Newsroom&ed_name=NR_2004April12_

Counterfeit_Cartridges&format=article&view=newsrelease&Xcntry=USA&Xlang=en_US. 

152 See 2005 EC Seizure Statistics, supra note 48; see also Counterfeit Food a ‘Serious Threat’ Says EC, 

MeatProcess.Com, November 13, 2006, at www.meatprocess.com/news. 153 Magers, supra note 148. 

154 IIPA Comments to TPSC on China’s WTO Compliance, International Intellectual Property Alliance, September 

21, 2006, at 28. 

155 See FDA Issues Nationwide Alert on Counterfeit One Touch Basic/Profile and One Touch Ultra Blood Glucose 

Test Strips, United States Food and Drug Administration, October 13, 2006, available at

www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/NEWS/2006/NEW01490.html. 
THE CRISIS IN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PROTECTION AND CHINA’S ROLE IN THAT CRISIS

Trade Lawyers Advisory Group 

May 2007

30 

- In 2004, both Verizon Wireless and Kyocera Wireless recalled potentially counterfeit 

batteries after receiving complaints of batteries smoking and burning users. Verizon 

recalled 50,000 units, while Kyocera recalled about 1 million.156

A review of the written comments submitted to the USTR regarding the 2007 National 

Trade Estimate and China’s WTO compliance provides additional insight into the breadth of this 

problem: 

- The California Table Grape Commission reports that Chinese counterfeiters copy 

U.S. table grape box designs and use the American flag on their packaging in order to 

market their domestic grapes as U.S. grapes, which confuses the buyers and detracts 

from the high quality image and reputation of California table grapes.157

- A small American manufacturer of commercial door fixtures has learned that its 

trademark is well known in China due to extensive counterfeiting, even though the 

company does not conduct business there.158

- Sunkist Growers reports increasing IP infringement occurring in China with the 

Sunkist brand being applied illegally to everything from toys to beverages to fresh 

fruit.159

- Chinese wood is apparently being packaged to look like an American product. The 

illegal use of U.S.-licensed trademarks and the inferior quality of the products poses 

serious risk to the integrity of the U.S. industry.160

- The Society of Plastics Industry (“SPI”) reports “massive intellectual property rights 

violations,” particularly with respect to China. As examples, the SPI states that large 

quantities of counterfeit plastic flashlights containing a U.S. company’s logo were 

made in China and sold in the U.S. and Canada; counterfeit household products were 

packaged to look like American products, even containing a fake “Made in the USA” 

 

156 See Recall Alert: CPSC, Verizon Wireless Announce Recall of Counterfeit Cell Phone Batteries, United States 

Consumer Product Safety Commission, June 24, 2004, available at www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/

prerel/prhmtl04/04559.html; Recall Alert: CPSC, Kyocera Wireless Corp. Announce Recall of Cell Phone 

Batteries, United States Consumer Product Safety Commission, October 28, 2004, available at

www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhmtl05/05505.html.

157 See Written Comments of California Table Grape Commission Regarding USTR’s 2007 National Trade 

Estimate, November 8, 2006, at 3. 

158 See Written Comments of National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) Regarding USTR’s 2007 National 

Trade Estimate, November 1, 2006, at 2. 

159 See Written Comments of Sunkist Growers Regarding USTR’s 2007 National Trade Estimate, November 8, 

2006, at 10. 

160 See Written Comments of American Forest and Paper Association Regarding USTR’s 2007 National Trade 

Estimate, November 8, 2006, at 13. 
THE CRISIS IN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PROTECTION AND CHINA’S ROLE IN THAT CRISIS

Trade Lawyers Advisory Group 

May 2007

31 

label, and sold in Europe; and counterfeit medical devices have been discovered in 

numerous markets.161

- The Air-Conditioning and Refrigeration Institute (“ARI”) reports that many of its 

members have experienced IP infringement in China. Chinese companies copy U.S. 

logos and trade names, and in some cases even the actual equipment, and market the 

products both domestically and internationally. Counterfeit U.S. industry products 

have shown up in catalogues as well as at North American industry trade shows, and 

U.S. manufacturers are receiving warranty complaints on products that turn out to be 

counterfeit. One particularly egregious example concerns a Chinese company that 

uses ARI’s internationally-recognized certification symbol as its own company 

logo.162 

In addition to the counterfeit goods themselves, there has been an increasing problem of 

products bearing counterfeit safety certifications. Underwriters Laboratories, Inc. is a longestablished, well-respected company that tests products and certifies their safety by affixing their 

copyrighted “UL” label on the product.163 Between 1995 and 2005, there were 1300 seizures of 

counterfeit products bearing the UL certification label, worth an estimated $150 million.164 

Some examples include counterfeit extension cords, power strips, lamps, fire sprinklers, fire 

extinguishers, and natural gas hoses.165 Since these counterfeit products are often made with low 

quality materials and do not meet minimum safety standards, there is a good chance the electrical 

 

161 See Written Comments of The Society of Plastics Industry, Inc. Regarding USTR’s Annual Review of China’s 

WTO Compliance, September 20, 2006, at 5-6; see also Written Comments of The Society of Plastics Industry, 

Inc. Regarding USTR’s 2007 National Trade Estimate, November 8, 2006, at 4. 

162 See Written Comments of The Air-Conditioning and Refrigeration Institute Regarding USTR’s 2007 National 

Trade Estimate, 2006, at 4. 

163 See Underwriters Laboratories, Inc., at www.ul.com (accessed January 12, 2007). 

164 See Facts and Figures on UL Intellectual Property Protection, Underwriters Laboratories, Inc., available at 

www.ul.com/ace/AntiCounterfeiting_Facts.pdf. 165 See id.; Underwriters Laboratories Issues Warning Over Counterfeit Sprinklers, Fire Engineering, January 26, 

2007, available at http://www.thetruecosts.org/portal/truecosts/news/default (Weekly Clip Report January 26-

29); UL Warns of Counterfeit Fire Extinguishers, Underwriters Laboratories, February 14, 2007, available at

www.ul.com/newsroom/newsrel/nr021407.html; UL Warns of Liquefied Petroleum Gas and Natural Gas 

Hoses with Unauthorized UL Marks, Underwriters Laboratories, February 9, 2007, available at

www.ul.com/newsroom/newsrel/nr020907.html. 
THE CRISIS IN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PROTECTION AND CHINA’S ROLE IN THAT CRISIS

Trade Lawyers Advisory Group 

May 2007

32 

products can overheat or cause short circuits, which may lead to fires or explosions.166 The UL 

certification appears on an estimated 20 billion legitimate products that enter the supply chain 

each year and Underwriters Laboratories is seriously concerned that these counterfeit labels and 

dangerous products will have a significant impact on consumer confidence.167 

1. Auto Parts

One particularly dangerous type of consumer good experiencing increased counterfeiting 

activity is auto parts.168 In 1997, seven children died and many others were injured when the 

brake pads failed and a school bus overturned; the brake pads were counterfeit and made of 

sawdust.169 There are also reports of numerous deaths in Saudi Arabia due to counterfeit brake 

pads made from compressed wood chips, and brake shoe linings in Nigeria that were made from 

compressed grass, which burst into flames when pressure was applied.170 

In addition to these known accidents, there have been numerous raids on counterfeit 

operations resulting in the seizure of substantial amounts of fake auto parts. Over the past two 

decades, General Motors has worked with authorities to conduct nearly 500 raids and shut down 

hundreds of counterfeit schemes, confiscating more than $250 million worth of fake products.171

 

166 UL’s Anti-Counterfeiting Program, Underwriters Laboratories Inc., available at www.ul.com/ace/

program.html. 

167 See Anti-Counterfeiting Operations, Underwriters Laboratories Inc., available at www.ul.com/ace/index.html. 168 See Foreign Infringement of Intellectual Property Rights, supra note 37, at 33; see also Pirates of the 21st

Century: Curse of the Black Market, Hearing Before the Oversight of Government Management, the Federal 

Workforce and the District of Columbia Subcomm. of the Comm. of Governmental Affairs, United States 

Senate, 108th Cong., 2d Sess., 27 (April 20, 2004) (testimony of Phillip A. Rotman, II, Assistant Patent and 

Trademark Counsel, Dana Corporation, stating that the company has experienced a steady increase in 

counterfeit auto parts over the past five years). 

169 See Nash, supra note 5. 

170 See id. 

171 See David Shepardson, Phony Parts Cost Ford $1B, The Detroit News, January 22, 2007, available at

www.detnews.com; Nash, supra note 5. 
THE CRISIS IN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PROTECTION AND CHINA’S ROLE IN THAT CRISIS

Trade Lawyers Advisory Group 

May 2007

33 

One of the raids in 2001 involved a facility that was producing branded glass windshields that 

had no shatterproof safety element to protect passengers in the event of an accident; these 

windshields were being exported all over the world.172 In 2000, Chinese authorities responded to 

complaints by foreign auto manufacturers by conducting raids on 248 markets and confiscated 

some 30,000 counterfeit parts with brand name labels such as Toyota, Nissan and Mercedes 

Benz.173 In 2004, police arrested four wholesale auto parts dealers in New York because they 

were found to be selling $700,000 worth of substandard parts, including brake pads, tail lights, 

ignition coils, tie rods, and water pumps.174 

While counterfeit auto parts are not necessarily a new problem, they did not become a 

major problem until around 2003.175 This is a problem that has primarily affected passenger 

vehicles but is beginning to show up more in medium and heavy truck parts,176 and even military 

vehicles.177 It is estimated that $3 billion worth of counterfeit auto parts are sold in the U.S., 

with the global number reaching $12 billion.178 The Ford Motor Company recently announced 

 

172 See Ross, supra note 61. 173 See Louis J. Gorenc, Counterfeit Automotive Replacement Parts Entering the DOD Procurement System, 

Army AL&T Magazine, January-March 2007, available at http://asc.army.mil/pubs/alt/.

174 Intellectual Property: Source of innovation, creativity, growth and progress, supra note 33, at 17. 175 Counterfeiting: Crime of the 21st Century, Babcox Publications, Inc., 2005, available at 

http://members.mema.org/source/Orders/index.cfm?section=unknown&task=3&CATEGORY=BPPUB&PRO

DUCT_TYPE=SALES&PRODUCT_CODE=AA16%2D06&SKU=AA16%2D06&DESCRIPTION=Brand%2

0Protection&FindSpec=&CFTOKEN=57739971&continue=1&SEARCH_TYPE=find&StartRow=1&PageNu

m=1&FindIn= [hereinafter “Counterfeiting: Crime of the 21st Century”]. 176 See No Trade in Fakes Supply Chain Tool Kit, U.S. Chamber of Commerce Coalition Against Counterfeiting 

and Piracy (CACP), 2006, at 5. 177 See Gorenc, supra note 173. 178 See Pirates of the 21st Century: Curse of the Black Market, Hearing Before the Oversight of Government 

Management, the Federal Workforce and the District of Columbia Subcomm. of the Comm. of Governmental 

Affairs United States Senate, 108th Cong., 2d Sess., 3 (April 20, 2004) (opening statement of Senator 

Voinovich); Shepardson, supra note 171. 
THE CRISIS IN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PROTECTION AND CHINA’S ROLE IN THAT CRISIS

Trade Lawyers Advisory Group 

May 2007

34 

its own conservative estimate that IP theft costs the company $1 billion each year.179 It is 

unclear whether this cost includes employment of the full time staff it has dedicated to seeking 

out counterfeit products in the market and shutting down the counterfeit operations, but it does 

not account for any of the safety risks associated with the fake products.180 However, the 

estimate does include the lost sales revenue as well as warranty costs. Auto parts companies are 

one of the many businesses that are experiencing serious increases in warranty costs as 

consumers return products presumed to be under warranty. Only after the parts are returned and 

replaced do the companies discover they are not real branded products.181 In addition to these 

costs, the U.S. Commerce Department estimates that the American auto industry could hire an 

additional 200,000 workers if the sale of counterfeit auto parts were eliminated.182

The GM Goodwrench website provides information on counterfeit parts and includes the 

following list of those most commonly imitated: wheel covers, oil and air filters, shock 

absorbers, fan belts, disc brake pads and shoes, air conditioning compressors, starters, spark 

plugs, oxygen sensors, valves and valve lifters, distributor caps, gasoline filters and filter caps, 

rocker arms and camshafts, antifreeze/coolant and transmission fluids, bearings, alternators and 

generators.183 The ITC notes that counterfeit auto parts are particularly prominent in overseas 

markets and provides additional examples of exceptionally dangerous products, including oil 

 

179 See No Trade in Fakes Supply Chain Tool Kit, supra note 176, at 7; David Shepardson, Phony Parts Cost Ford 

$1B, The Detroit News, January 22, 2007, available at www.detnews.com. 

180 See No Trade in Fakes Supply Chain Tool Kit, supra note 176, at 7-8. 181 See, e.g., id. at 5. 

182 What are Counterfeiting and Piracy Costing the American Economy, supra note 14, at 10. 

183 Counterfeit Parts, GM Goodwrench, available at www.gmgoodwrench.com/partsaccessories/

counterfeitparts.jsp. 
THE CRISIS IN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PROTECTION AND CHINA’S ROLE IN THAT CRISIS

Trade Lawyers Advisory Group 

May 2007

35 

filters made from old rags and perforated food cans, and gas filters that are lacking check 

valves.184

These products enter the supply chain through a range of methods, including international 

schemes, trade shows, and product diversion. In some cases, the parts are produced overseas and 

then shipped to other countries, including the U.S., where partners will apply counterfeit labels 

and packaging for distribution. 185 One means of distribution is trade shows, such as the 

Automotive Aftermarket Products Expo (AAPEX), which is one of the largest annual trade 

shows in the U.S. 186 In 2004, the staff at AAPEX investigated 24 cases of suspected IP 

violations, which resulted in the discovery of multiple patent and trademark infringements.187 

This trade show also attracted close to 59,000 buyers, all of which could have unknowingly 

purchased fake products and included them in their inventories.188 Additionally, there are reports 

of boxes of Bendix-branded braking systems that, upon opening, contained rows of legitimate 

products on top, but counterfeit parts placed below them, which illustrates another means of 

getting counterfeit products into the supply chain.189

Product diversion occurs when a company sends its technology to an overseas 

manufacturer who fulfills its obligation to the original owner but also produces excess inventory 

that can then be sold through underground distribution channels.190 This additional inventory 

may not be subject to the same quality control and safety standards, which means that the 

 

184 See Foreign Infringement of Intellectual Property Rights, supra note 37, at 33. 185 See Ross, supra note 61. 

186 Counterfeiting: Crime of the 21st Century, supra note 175. 187 Id. 

188 Id. 

189 See Ross, supra note 61. 

190 See id.; Foreign Infringement of Intellectual Property Rights, supra note 37, at 33.
THE CRISIS IN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PROTECTION AND CHINA’S ROLE IN THAT CRISIS

Trade Lawyers Advisory Group 

May 2007

36 

original owners may end up competing against lower priced, substandard goods that came off of 

their own technology.191 

Asia is again alleged to be the source of many of these counterfeit products, with China 

leading the region.192 The National Association of Manufacturers has even described China as 

the “epicenter of global counterfeiting.” 193 Chinese automotive counterfeiters operate 

sophisticated schemes, often splitting up the manufacturing and labeling and making it difficult 

for authorities to determine the scope of the counterfeiting and to shut down an entire 

operation.194 The Chinese province of Zhejiang reportedly poses an exceptional problem in 

terms of counterfeit auto parts.195 

2. Electrical

Similar to counterfeit pharmaceuticals and fake auto parts, counterfeit electrical products 

are cause for serious concern due to the potential health and safety implications, in addition to 

the economic costs and detrimental impact on a brand owner’s reputation. There have been 

numerous reports on a broad array of counterfeit electrical products, including circuit breakers, 

holiday lights, cables and wires, power strips, electrical cords, light bulbs, and heating and air 

conditioning equipment. In 2006, U.S. Customs seized over $7 million worth of counterfeit 

consumer electronics, which constituted five percent of the total goods seized that year, and the 

EU reports that counterfeit electronic equipment represented four percent of its total seizures in 

 

191 Counterfeiting: Crime of the 21st Century, supra note 175. 192 See, e.g., No Trade in Fakes Supply Chain Tool Kit, supra note 176, at 6. 

193 National Association of Manufacturers’ Recommendations on Special 301 Out of Cycle Review of China, 

February 14, 2005, available at www.nam.org. 

194 See AmCham White Paper 2006, supra note 60, at 38. 

195 See Submission of the International AntiCounterfeiting Coalition, Inc. to the United States Trade 

Representative Regarding Special 301 Recommendations, February 12, 2007, at 16-17. 
THE CRISIS IN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PROTECTION AND CHINA’S ROLE IN THAT CRISIS

Trade Lawyers Advisory Group 

May 2007

37 

2005, with more than 3 million items seized at the border.196 The detailed examples that follow 

further demonstrate the magnitude of this problem. 

- A British electrical safety organization assisted in raids between April and August of 

2006 that resulted in the seizure of over 220,000 items of fake switchgear, 210,000 

items of counterfeit electrical wiring, and over 50,000 pieces of fake packaging.197 

These raids brought the group’s total number of items seized throughout the past ten 

years to over 10 million items.198 

- In July 2006, New York police seized more than 100,000 counterfeit electrical goods, 

including extension cords and smoke detectors.199 

- In Australia, thousands of power sockets containing the misappropriated logo of a 

well-known Australian company were installed in homes and later determined to be 

significantly inferior, posing the potential risk of melting, fire or exposure to live 

wires.200 

- In August 2006, the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission issued a notice 

regarding 600,000 counterfeit extension cords that had been imported from China and 

were being sold at various Dollar Tree stores nationwide.201 The six-foot extension 

cords contained undersized wires and lacked sufficient insulation such that they posed 

a risk of overheating and could lead to possible shock.202 

- A November 2006 article in a Qatari newspaper called for increased action against 

the flood of counterfeit products entering their market, noting specifically that many 

recent fires in Doha were believed to be the result of low-quality electrical cables and 

equipment being used in new home construction.203 Similarly, East African Cables 

called for tighter enforcement of standards to curb the use of counterfeit electrical 

equipment in booming African construction. The organization believed that 

 

196 See 2006 U.S. Customs Statistics, supra note 44; 2005 EC Seizure Statistics, supra note 48. 

197 Wiring Accessories – Top tips to avoid counterfeits, ASTA BEAB Certification Services, February 24, 2007, 

available at www.beab.co.uk/live/NewsRel3.asp. 198 Id. 

199 Bradley Hope, Kelley Outlines Dangers of Counterfeiting, The New York Sun, February 2, 2007, available at

www.nysun.com/pf.php?id=47938. 200 See Kelly Burke, Fake Power Sockets Pose Fire Risk, Sydney Morning Herald, September 25, 2006, available 

at www.smh.com.au, accessed via www.nema.org/gov/anti-counterfeiting/news.cfm. 201 See Dollar Tree Stores Recall Counterfeit Extension Cords Due to Shock Hazard, United States Consumer 

Product Safety Commission, August 10, 2006, available at www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/

prerel/prhtml06230.html, accessed via www.nema.org/gov/anti-counterfeiting/news.cfm. 202 Id.

203 See Residents Call For Stern Action Against Low-Quality Products Flooding Markets, The Peninsula, 

November 16, 2006, available at www.thepeninsulaqatar.com, accessed via www.nema.org/gov/anticounterfeiting/news.cfm. 
THE CRISIS IN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PROTECTION AND CHINA’S ROLE IN THAT CRISIS

Trade Lawyers Advisory Group 

May 2007

38 

substandard cables and faulty electrical equipment contributed to numerous recent 

fires.204 

- Most recently, the Canadian Standards Association International (“CSA”) issued a 

warning in February 2007 regarding substandard light bulbs bearing counterfeit CSA 

certifications.205 These light bulbs were found to pose a risk of fire due to the fact 

that they created temperatures beyond allowable limits. 

In most cases, it is incredibly hard to determine whether something is fake, so much so 

that electrical contractors often cannot even tell the difference.206 In one case, counterfeit circuit 

breakers were such good aesthetic copies that the only way to tell they were fake, without 

opening them up, was by a difference in their weight.207 The fact that counterfeiters are now 

copying various certification logos and applying them to the substandard products is adding to 

the complexity of the situation and making it even more difficult to determine the real from the 

fake.208 These counterfeit electrical products not only expose the consumer to safety risks, such 

as fire or shock, but they also expose the installing contractor and brand owner to potential 

liability for any accidents that occur down the line.209 

 

204 See EA Cables Roots for Quality Products, Kenya Broadcasting Corporation, March 17, 2006, available at

www.kbc.co.ke/story.asp?ID=35664, accessed via www.nema.org/gov/anti-counterfeiting/news.cfm. 

205 See CSA International Announces Important Consumer Safety Alert for Encore Sales “Bright Ideas” Type A 

Light Bulbs of Certain Ratings, CSA International, February 2, 2007, accessed via www.nema.org/gov/anticounterfeiting/news.cfm. 

206 See Statement of the National Electrical Manufacturers Association at the U.S. Ambassador’s IP Roundtable, 

November 18, 2003, available at www.nema.org/gov/anti-counterfeiting/position.cfm. 207 See Clark R. Silcox and Philmore H. Colburn, II, Counterfeit Products Present Additional Business Risks for 

Distributors and Contractors, International Association of Electrical Inspectors, May-June 2005, available at

www.iaei.org/subscriber/magazine/05_c/silcox.htm. 208 See, e.g., Facts and Figures on UL Intellectual Property Protection, Underwriters Laboratories, Inc., at 

www.ul.com/ace/AntiCounterfeiting_Facts.pdf; Manny Gratz, White Paper: The Threat of Counterfeit 

Product Approval Marks Warrants Aggressive Detection and Enforcement Action, Canada Standards 

Association, October 2002, at 2; Written Comments of The Air-Conditioning and Refrigeration Institute 

Regarding USTR’s 2007 National Trade Estimate, at 4. 

209 See Silcox and Colburn, II, supra note 207. 
THE CRISIS IN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PROTECTION AND CHINA’S ROLE IN THAT CRISIS

Trade Lawyers Advisory Group 

May 2007

39 

In 2003, the National Electrical Manufacturers Association (“NEMA”) generated a list of 

known electrical products where either the brand mark or the certification mark had been 

misappropriated.210 The list included: General Electric, Cutler Hammer, MEMS, and Square D 

circuit breakers; smoke detectors with fake certification marks and fake Chinese brand marks; 

Cooper Bussman fuses; control relays used in industrial automation equipment containing fake 

certification marks; Philips, Osram and General Electric lamps; wires and cables with fake 

certification marks and fake brand marks of Coleman Cable, Commscope, Cable Design 

Technologies, Nexans, and Pirelli.211 According to NEMA, most of these products had been 

manufactured in China. 212 NEMA has also stated that “China is the single biggest factor 

influencing our members’ business these days,” and explained that China is viewed as a doubleedged sword.213 On the one hand, it is becoming a more prominent trading partner and export 

market, generating huge demand for electrical products, but on the other hand, manufacturers of 

these products feel they are being victimized due to insufficient IP protection.214

3. High Tech Components

In addition to electrical products, counterfeiters also target high tech electronic 

components, such as circuit boards, resistors, capacitors, and semiconductors (such as DRAMS 

 

210 See Statement of the National Electrical Manufacturers Association at the U.S. Ambassador’s IP Roundtable, 

November 18, 2003, available at www.nema.org/gov/anti-counterfeiting/position.cfm. 211 Id. 212 Id; Statement of the National Electrical Manufacturers Association at the U.S. Ambassador’s IP Roundtable, 

January 13, 2005, available at www.nema.org/gov/anti-counterfeiting/position.cfm. According to the U.S. 

Customs seizure statistics, just over $7 million worth of electronics were seized at the border in 2006 and $5.1 

million of that total came from China, with an additional $1 million worth coming from Hong Kong. See 2006 

U.S. Customs Statistics, supra note 44. 213 United States-China Economic Relations and China’s Role in the World Economy, Hearing Before the House 

Ways and Means Committee, 109th Cong., 1st Sess., April 14, 2005 (Statement for the Record by National 

Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA)). 214 Id.
THE CRISIS IN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PROTECTION AND CHINA’S ROLE IN THAT CRISIS

Trade Lawyers Advisory Group 

May 2007

40 

(dynamic random access memory)). 215 There are reports of whole servers and personal 

computers (“PCs”) being replicated, but more commonly it is the individual components, with 

illegitimate integrated circuits and chip components causing the biggest problems as they are 

often used in PC motherboards and power management systems where a single faulty part can 

have a disastrous impact.216 

The information technology industry, which incorporates these electronic components, is 

another research-intensive industry where the products are in high demand, similar to 

pharmaceuticals, which makes it a prime target for counterfeiting.217 IP theft in this area has 

become more of a problem over the past ten to fifteen years due to a combination of factors: 

companies increasingly outsource their manufacturing, supply chains have grown in complexity, 

and the internet has provided an anonymous distribution channel where merchandise is rarely 

inspected before it is purchased. 218 This combination, along with increasing technological 

advances that allow for easier replication and production, provides the opportunity for 

counterfeiting and makes for difficult monitoring. It is now estimated that up to ten percent of 

all high tech products sold globally could be counterfeit, which results in the global IT industry 

losing $100 billion a year in revenues.219

 

215 See Michael Pecht and Sanjay Tiku, Bogus!, IEEE Spectrum, May 2006, available at 

www.spectrum.ieee.org/may06/3423; Counterfeit Electronic Component Resources, Design Chain Associates, 

available at www.designchainassociates.com/counterfeit.html. 216 See Counterfeit Components, Emphasis, National Electronics Manufacturing Center of Excellence, December 

2003, available at www.empf.org/empfasis/archive/1203counterfeit.htm. 217 See Managing the Risks of Counterfeiting in the Information Technology Industry, KPMG International, 2005, 

at 5. 

218 See Pecht and Tiku, supra note 215, at 11. 

219 Managing the Risks of Counterfeiting in the Information Technology Industry, supra note 217, at 1. 
THE CRISIS IN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PROTECTION AND CHINA’S ROLE IN THAT CRISIS

Trade Lawyers Advisory Group 

May 2007

41 

There are two general types of counterfeiting in this area: unlicensed copies and 

repackaging. Unlicensed copies are usually made off of the same equipment as the legitimate 

products but without the consent and/or knowledge of the brand owners.220 Repackaging, on the 

other hand, is a basic concept but it covers a variety of activities. One report recounts that an 

electronics company, Philips, received numerous complaints regarding certain integrated circuit 

chips bearing the Philips Semiconductors logo, including complaints from a military 

contractor.221 Upon investigation, Philips was able to determine that the chips were in fact 

Philips’ product, but the company had allegedly discarded them as defective. The defective 

chips were apparently retrieved by counterfeiters and repackaged as legitimate chips, which were 

then sold through an unauthorized distributor.222 Another example of repackaging is when 

counterfeiters modify the model number or date to make a part look like an earlier version that 

may be in demand but is harder to find than the newer models.223 

Perhaps the newest form of repackaging is occurring in response to new environmental 

regulations in Europe pursuant to the Restriction on Hazardous Substances (“RoHS”) 

directive. 224 This directive, which bans the sale of electronic components containing lead, 

mercury and other toxic substances, is causing problems for some manufacturers as the process 

for producing lead-free components may be different from the production process they normally 

 

220 See Michael Singer, Gray Market a Double-Edged Sword, InternetNews.Com, January 21, 2005, available at 

www.internetnews.com/bus-news/article.php/3462561. 

221 See Pecht and Tiku, supra note 215. 222 See id.

223 See id. 

224 See James Carbone, Watch out for Bogus RoHS Parts, Purchasing Magazine Online, May 18, 2006, available

at www.purchasing.com/article/CA6333246.html. 
THE CRISIS IN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PROTECTION AND CHINA’S ROLE IN THAT CRISIS

Trade Lawyers Advisory Group 

May 2007

42 

use. It is anticipated that counterfeiters will respond to this sharp increase in demand for leadfree products by repacking leaded products to reflect the new lead-free directive.225

As a manufacturing and distribution center, China again finds itself at the heart of high 

tech counterfeiting. IT companies feel competitive pressure to lower manufacturing costs, which 

has led to increased outsourcing and China’s low wages make it a popular option.226 An influx 

of foreign direct investment and advanced technology, combined with inadequate IP protection, 

has provided the opportunity for counterfeiters to prosper in China.227 Much of the foreign 

investment has focused on the southern manufacturing provinces of Fujian and Guangdong, 

which now have large concentrations of counterfeiting. 228 According to one report, once 

companies established their legitimate manufacturing processes in these regions, it was very easy 

for the processes to “‘migrate’ to illegitimate factories nearby.”229

4. Apparel and Accessories

Counterfeit apparel and accessories are not a new phenomenon, nor are they necessarily 

associated with similar health and safety concerns as are other industries, but they are still an 

imposing problem. In 2006, the categories of footwear and wearing apparel constituted 57 

percent of the goods seized at the U.S. border, and the addition of accessories, such as handbags, 

watches and headwear, brings the total up to 70 percent.230 

 

225 See Pecht and Tiku, supra note 215; James Carbone, Watch out for Bogus RoHS Parts, Purchasing Magazine 

Online, May 18, 2006, at www.purchasing.com/article/CA6333246.html. 

226 See Pecht and Tiku, supra note 215. 227 Managing the Risks of Counterfeiting in the Information Technology Industry, supra note 217, at 8. 

228 See id. 229 Id. 230 2006 U.S. Customs Statistics, supra note 44. 
THE CRISIS IN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PROTECTION AND CHINA’S ROLE IN THAT CRISIS

Trade Lawyers Advisory Group 

May 2007

43 

One way in which apparel and accessories differ from some of the other categories of 

counterfeit merchandise is through public perception. It is hard to imagine any consumer who 

would choose to knowingly buy fake prescription drugs, yet many people who purchase 

counterfeit apparel and accessories are aware that they are not buying the real thing.231 In some 

cases, the consumers are more concerned about brand image than they are with quality and, 

particularly in the case of luxury items such as high-end handbags, people are under the 

impression that the knockoffs do not really have much of an effect on the brand owners because 

the legitimate merchandise carries such a hefty price tag.232

Again, China is viewed as the source of many of these counterfeit goods. In 2006, 

Customs officers in Miami discovered a container with over $1 million worth of fake sportswear, 

by brands such as Nike, Puma, Reebok, Adidas, and Tommy Hilfiger, along with counterfeit 

luxury items by Prada, Versace, Louis Vuitton, Ferragamo, and Hugo Boss.233 This shipment 

originated in China but traveled through Belize before arriving in Miami. Similarly, in that same 

year, Customs officials in Arizona seized fifteen cargo containers originating from China that 

held 135,000 pairs of fake Nike Air Jordan shoes.234 Following this seizure, members of the 

counterfeit ring attempted to bribe the officials to allow the seized goods into the country. The 

 

231 See No Trade in Fakes Supply Chain Tool Kit, supra note 176, at 11. 232 Jerry Markon, Virginia Men Face U.S. Trial in Peddling of Phony Purses, Washington Post, January 30, 2007, 

at A01 (noting that the real handbags can cost several hundred dollars to several thousand dollars, implying 

that the profit margins are extensive). 

233 Lumpkin, supra note 51. 

234 Anti-Counterfeiting and Piracy Update: Outrage of the Month – September 2006, National Chamber 

Foundation, September 2006. 
THE CRISIS IN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PROTECTION AND CHINA’S ROLE IN THAT CRISIS

Trade Lawyers Advisory Group 

May 2007

44 

counterfeiters also attempted to falsify the government records to show that the goods were reexported to Mexico, when in fact they were destined for the U.S.235 

There are numerous markets in China that are widely known to be centers for counterfeit 

apparel and luxury goods. On June 30, 2006, the Chinese government shut down Xiangyang 

Market, widely regarded as one of the largest and most popular counterfeit markets in China.236 

However, rather than curb the act of counterfeiting, this appears to have simply displaced the 

vendors, either to areas surrounding the old market or to a new underground market.237 This 

illustrates one of the main concerns foreign businesses have with regard to IP protection in China 

and problems related to effective enforcement of IP laws, which is the belief that, too often, 

administrative action such as seizures or shutting down this market do not actually result in 

decreasing counterfeit production and sales. 

F. COPYRIGHT PIRACY

Similar to counterfeit apparel and accessories, copyright piracy may not carry with it 

some of the obvious health and safety risks associated with other aspects of IP theft, but it is still 

of critical concern around the world. In the U.S., the copyright industries contribute significantly 

 

235 Id. 236 See, e.g., Goodbye Xiangyang, Australia China Connections, August 15, 2006, available at

www.chinaconnections.com.au/archives/view/?id=7&PHPSESSID=d86aa1436a32fd81b297a266f203ab3b; 

Tan Bee Leng, Shanghai’s Popular Xiang Yang Market to Be Shut Down at End of June, June 28, 2006, 

Channel NewsAsia, available at www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/eastasia/view/216194/1/.html. 

237 See Goodbye Xiangyang, Australia China Connections, August 15, 2006, available at

www.chinaconnections.com.au/archives/view/?id=7&PHPSESSID=d86aa1436a32fd81b297a266f203ab3b

(stating that “Shanghai’s famous fake market might have been closed down but others are secretly opening up 

in defiance of IP laws,” and noting there are at least ten alternative markets with the most popular being the 

Yatai Xinyang market that opened on July 12, 2006 with the main purpose of accommodating those who had 

been displaced by the closure of the Xiangyang market); see also Fake Fans Get Fix at New Markets, Shanghai 

Daily, August 8, 2006, available at 

www.shanghai.gov.cn/shanghai/node8059/City_news/userobject22ai22568.html. 
THE CRISIS IN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PROTECTION AND CHINA’S ROLE IN THAT CRISIS

Trade Lawyers Advisory Group 

May 2007

45 

to the economy. The core copyright industries238 contributed $760.49 billion to U.S. GDP in 

2004, which was 6.48 percent of total GDP, and the total copyright industries239 contributed $1.3 

trillion, or 11.09 percent of the total.240 Those numbers were expected to increase in 2005, with 

the estimated contribution of the core industries being $819.06 billion, and the total copyright 

industries contributing $1.39 trillion to U.S. GDP.241 In terms of employment, the core copyright 

industries employed 5.3 million people in 2005, which was 4.03 percent of total U.S. 

employment, while the total copyright industries employed 11.33 million people, representing 

8.49 percent of total employment.242 Additionally, the core industries generated at least $110.8 

billion in foreign sales and exports in 2005.243 Clearly, the copyright industries are a substantial 

component of the U.S. economy but, with piracy rates as high as 95 percent in certain foreign 

markets, continued growth and development is constrained.244

Pirated optical discs, which include CDs and DVDs, are a well-known problem. 

However, copyright piracy extends beyond just copied music and movies and affects most, if not 

all, forms of copyrighted material, including computer software and written publications. 

Additionally, internet piracy has rapidly increased over the past several years, with illegal 

 

238 The “core” copyright industries are defined as “those industries whose primary purpose is to create, produce, 

distribute or exhibit copyright materials. These industries include newspapers, books and periodicals, motion 

pictures, recorded music, music publishing, radio and television broadcasting, and business and entertainment 

software.” Stephen E. Siwek, Copyright Industries in the U.S. Economy: The 2006 Report, Economists 

Incorporated, 2006, at 7 [hereinafter “Copyright Industries in the U.S. Economy”].

239 The “total” copyright industries include the core industries, as well as the partial, non-dedicated support, and 

interdependent copyright industries, which incorporates all aspects of copyright materials, from transportation, 

to manufacturers of blank CDs, to retail sales of CD and DVD players. See Siwek, Copyright Industries in the 

U.S. Economy, supra note 238, at 7. 

240 Id. at 2. 

241 Id. 242 Id. at 4. 

243 Id. at 5. 

244 See IIPA Special 301 Letter to USTR, International Intellectual Property Alliance, February 12, 2007, at 2 

[hereinafter “IIPA Special 301 Letter to USTR – 2007”]. 
THE CRISIS IN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PROTECTION AND CHINA’S ROLE IN THAT CRISIS

Trade Lawyers Advisory Group 

May 2007

46 

downloading and streaming representing major problems. 245 According to the International 

Intellectual Property Alliance’s (“IIPA”) most recent conservative estimate, which does not fully 

account for internet piracy, the U.S. copyright industries lost between $30 and $35 billion in 

2005 due to global piracy. 246 Providing an alternative perspective, the Motion Picture 

Association of America (“MPA”) estimates that revenue from trade in pirated goods has now 

surpassed that of sales in illegal narcotics.247 

China has long been a center for pirated optical discs and continues to expand its reach to 

all areas of copyright piracy. The IIPA has claimed that the country’s exceptionally high levels 

of piracy present an “endemic problem” in China, with piracy rates ranging from 85-95 percent 

throughout all sectors (music, books, film, software).248 This IP theft resulted in losses to the 

U.S. copyright industries in excess of $2.6 billion in 2005.249 Serious market access restrictions 

in many copyright sectors contribute to the high levels of piracy in China as the legitimate 

products may be delayed entry or banned entirely, which creates prime opportunities for pirates 

to release illegal versions into the market.250 China’s high piracy rates and market access 

restrictions are considered to be a major bilateral trading issue that discourages foreign 

companies from making investments in the country.251 However, local Chinese businesses are 

 

245 2006 Special 301 Report: People’s Republic of China, International Intellectual Property Alliance, February 

13, 2006, at 114 [hereinafter “IIPA 2006 Special 301 Report: China”]. 246 See IIPA Special 301 Letter to USTR – 2007, supra note 244, at 21. 247 See id. at 13 (stating that estimated criminal revenue for IPR theft in 2004 was $512 billion, while revenue for 

drug trafficking was $322 billion); Stevens, supra note 21, at 20 (discussing how the exceptional profits 

associated with pirated goods have attracted the attention of organized crime). 

248 See IIPA Comments to the TPSC on China’s WTO Compliance, supra note 154, at 22. 

249 Written Comments to USTR Regarding China’s WTO Compliance, International Intellectual Property Alliance, 

September 21, 2006, at 3. 

250 See, e.g., Motion Picture Association’s Submission to USTR Regarding 2007 National Trade Estimate, 

November 8, 2006, at Asia-Pacific 23 [hereinafter “MPA Submission for 2007 NTE”]. 251 See Foreign Infringement of Intellectual Property Rights, supra note 37, at 36.
THE CRISIS IN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PROTECTION AND CHINA’S ROLE IN THAT CRISIS

Trade Lawyers Advisory Group 

May 2007

47 

starting to appreciate the losses associated with copyright piracy as they also suffer from the 

proliferation of pirated products.252 For instance, the MPA estimated that the Chinese film 

industry lost $2.7 billion in 2005 as a result of global film piracy.253

The information below outlines some of the major copyright sectors that are affected by 

piracy and explains the problems they face, particularly in China. 

1. Film and Music

Copyright piracy heavily affects both the film and music industries through the hardcopy 

sales of infringing CDs and DVDs, as well as increasing volumes of illegally downloaded 

movies and sound recordings. The recording industry estimates that at least one in every three 

CDs purchased in 2005 was an illegal copy, with a total of 1.2 billion illegal CDs sold during 

that year.254 This resulted in $4.5 billion worth of global traffic in physical pirated music.255 

Likewise, the worldwide motion picture industry estimated global lost sales of $18.2 

billion in 2005 as a result of piracy.256 The U.S. industries’ share of that total loss was estimated 

 

252 See, e.g., IIPA Comments to the TPSC on China’s WTO Compliance, supra note 154, at 9 n.21 (stating that the 

Center for American Economic Studies under the Institute of World Economics and Politics of the Chinese 

Academy for Social Sciences conducted a study that demonstrated the substantial impact global film piracy 

had on the local Chinese film industry and also expressed that few in the local industry felt it would improve 

any time soon). 

253 See Who Piracy Hurts: Economies, Motion Picture Association of America, available at

www.mpaa.org/piracy_Economies.asp. 254 See Recording Industry 2006 Piracy Report: Protecting Creativity in Music, International Federation of the 

Phonographic Industry, 2006, at 4 [hereinafter “Recording Industry 2006 Piracy Report”]. 255 See id. at 4. This estimated number of $4.5 billion is based on the pirate prices and does not account for 

internet piracy. Id. 

256 See L.E.K, The Cost of Movie Piracy, Motion Picture Association of America, 2005, at 4, available at 

www.mpaa.org/2006_05_03leksumm.pdf. The MPA states that its loss calculations are based on the number 

of legitimate units that would have been purchased if the pirate products were not available. Id. at 13. 
THE CRISIS IN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PROTECTION AND CHINA’S ROLE IN THAT CRISIS

Trade Lawyers Advisory Group 

May 2007

48 

at $6.1 billion, with 80 percent of the losses incurred abroad and 20 percent incurred at home.257 

Given that 60 percent of all movies fail to recoup their investments based solely on their 

domestic release,258 international sales are crucial to the health of the industry, which employs 

around 750,000 American workers.259 

“Camcording” is still considered to be the biggest source of film piracy, with an 

estimated 90 percent of all pirated films originating from a camcorder in a movie theater.260 The 

pirates can then reproduce the infringing copies in large volumes and distribute the movies 

within hours of their debut, and sometimes even before the official release. As movies are often 

“rolled out,” or released in different countries on different days, pirates may get a camcorder into 

an earlier release and then distribute the illegal versions in other countries before the movie 

officially arrives.261 This happened with the recent release of Spider-Man 3, which starting 

premiering in countries such as Tokyo and London in mid-April but was not officially released 

until early May.262 Two weeks before the movie was set to premier in the U.S., pirated DVDs 

 

257 See 2005 U.S. Piracy Fact Sheet, Motion Picture Association of America, available at

www.mpaa.org/USPiracyFactSheet.pdf. 

258 See Who Piracy Hurts: Entertainment Industry, Motion Picture Association of America, at 

www.mpaa.org/piracy_EntInd.asp. 259 See Who Piracy Hurts: Economies, Motion Picture Association of America, at www.mpaa.org/piracy_

Economies.asp (stating that more than 350,000 people are directly employed by the motion picture industry 

and 400,000 people are indirectly employed as drivers, food personnel, carpenters, etc.). According to an 

economic analysis of the impact of piracy on the motion picture industry, piracy costs these U.S. workers $5.5 

billion in lost earnings annually. If not for piracy, there would also be the creation of 141,000 additional jobs 

in this industry and an additional $837 million in tax revenues for the government. See Stephen E. Siwek, The 

True Cost of Motion Picture Piracy to the U.S. Economy, Institute for Policy Innovation, September 2006, at 5, 

8. 260 2005 U.S. Piracy Fact Sheet, Motion Picture Association of America, at www.mpaa.org/USPiracy

FactSheet.pdf.; MPA Submission for 2007 NTE, supra note 250. 

261 See MPA Submission for 2007 NTE, supra note 250 (providing the example of a person with a camcorder who 

was caught in the U.S. and admitted that someone in Asia had offered him $2,000 to record the movie while it 

was still showing in theaters). 

262 See Reuters, Chinese Pirates Beat Spider-Man to the Punch, NYTimes.Com, April 24, 2007, available at

www.nytimes.com/reuters/arts/entertainment-china-piracy-spiderman.html?_r=1&oref=slogin; see also
THE CRISIS IN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PROTECTION AND CHINA’S ROLE IN THAT CRISIS

Trade Lawyers Advisory Group 

May 2007

49 

were already for sale in China, complete with a Chinese language warning against pirating, for 

just over $1.263

These illegal versions can also easily be uploaded onto the internet and distributed 

anywhere in the world. Accordingly, the internet is considered a huge threat that is greatly 

exacerbating the problem of copyright piracy.264 The IIPA states that “the unprecedented growth 

of the Internet and increasing availability of broadband connections, coupled with the absence of 

adequate copyright laws and enforcement in the online environment in many countries, has 

effectively turned the Internet into a highly efficient network for distribution of infringing 

copyright materials.”265 

The effects of this relatively new distribution method are evident in a survey taken in ten 

of the largest markets, which found that an estimated 20 billion songs were illegally downloaded 

in 2006 alone.266 As for films, the ITC estimated in 2005 that between 400,000 and 600,000 

movies were illegally downloaded on a daily basis.267 In addition, the development of the 

internet, as well as other advancing technologies, allow pirates to switch production from large 

factories to smaller, more mobile venues that are harder to police.268

 Worldwide Release Info, available at http://spiderman3.sonypictures.com/international/ and 

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0413300/releaseinfo. 263 See Reuters, Chinese Pirates Beat Spider-Man to the Punch, NYTimes.Com, April 24, 2007, available at

www.nytimes.com/reuters/arts/entertainment-china-piracy-spiderman.html?_r=1&oref=slogin. 

264 See, e.g., id. (stating that the internet “has emerged as the fastest growing threat to the filmed entertainment 

industry.”) 

265 IIPA Special 301 Letter to USTR – 2007, supra note 244, at 5. 

266 Id. 267 Foreign Infringement of Intellectual Property Rights, supra note 37, at 42. 

268 See IIPA Special 301 Letter to USTR – 2007, supra note 244, at 11. The report provides the example of 

“burning” technology that allows pirates to easily replicate large quantities of copyright material for 

commercial sale but requires only a very small investment. Id. at 11-12. Another report notes that new mobile 
THE CRISIS IN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PROTECTION AND CHINA’S ROLE IN THAT CRISIS

Trade Lawyers Advisory Group 

May 2007

50 

Both the film and music sectors agree that China is a major concern.269 In fact, China is 

considered to be the largest physical market for pirated goods, meaning that it has the highest 

piracy rates for hard copies of CDs and DVDs. Specifically, reports estimate that 95 percent of 

DVDs for sale in China are pirated, along with 85 percent of all CDs.270 The music industry 

estimates that over 350 million pirated CDs were sold in China in 2005, with an estimated piracy 

value of $410 million,271 while the film industry reports that revenues from U.S. movie releases 

in China have declined by almost a quarter over the past ten years as a result of these high levels 

of piracy.272 The film industry also reports that DVDs of U.S. films are some of the most highlyexported pirated products from China.273 

Heading into 2007, IIPA identified China, Russia, Thailand, Indonesia, and Nigeria as 

key “trouble spots” for optical disc piracy.274 The four countries other than China had a 

combined optical disc production capacity of 1.810 billion discs per year in 2006.275 At the same 

time, China, by itself, was thought to be capable of producing at least 5.187 billion discs 

 phone technology allows for phone-to-phone transfer of downloaded songs. See Recording Industry 2006 

Piracy Report, supra note 254, at 5. 

269 See, e.g., Recording Industry 2006 Piracy Report, supra note 254, at 3 (listing China has one of the industry’s 

top ten priority countries). 270 See IIPA Comments to TPSC on China’s WTO Compliance, supra note 154, at 22; Recording Industry 2006 

Piracy Report, supra note 254, at 13. 

271 Recording Industry 2006 Piracy Report, supra note 254, at 11. The music industry also notes the high levels 

of infringement at karaoke bars in China, with over 100,000 known establishments and yet very few legally 

obtain the rights to the songs they use. See Goodbye Xiangyang, Australia China Connections, August 15, 

2006. 272 See MPA Submission for 2007 NTE, supra note 250. 

273 See id. 274 See IIPA Special 301 Letter to USTR – 2007, supra note 244, at 9. 275 See id. at 9-11. 
THE CRISIS IN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PROTECTION AND CHINA’S ROLE IN THAT CRISIS

Trade Lawyers Advisory Group 

May 2007

51 

annually. 276 These numbers have increased compared to 2005 when IIPA estimated total 

Chinese production capacity at 4.8 billion discs per year.277 Increasing production capabilities 

are adding to the piracy problem as there is significant global overcapacity for optical discs.278 

Just prior to completion of this report, the largest crackdown on optical discs in China’s 

history occurred in the Southern province of Guangdong.279 Working in cooperation with the 

MPA, officials seized over 1.8 million optical discs on March 17, 2007.280 In addition to the 

infringing CDs and DVDs, officials seized thirty production machines and arrested thirteen 

people. The confiscated optical discs included works by numerous MPA member companies, 

“as well as every Chinese film released to date this year, and many US, South Korean and 

Japanese animated and television series titles.”281

While physical piracy clearly still remains strong in China, internet piracy has been 

growing phenomenally in recent years, which increases the country’s threat to copyright 

industries. In 2005, China added 10 million new broadband lines, making it the second largest 

broadband market in the world behind the U.S.282 While these broadband lines provide high-

 

276 See id. at 9. According to another report, most production lines are interchangeable, meaning they can easily 

switch production between DVDs, CDs and other forms of optical discs. IIPA Comments to the TPSC on 

China’s WTO Compliance, supra note 154, at 25. 277 See IIPA Special 301 Letter to USTR – 2007, supra note 244, at 9. 278 See Recording Industry 2006 Piracy Report, supra note 254, at 4 (explaining that in 2005, there was demand 

for 20 billion optical discs but there was global production capacity of 60 billion units). As industry groups 

and law enforcement officials attempt to crack down on the proliferation of optical discs, numerous raids and 

seizures are taking place throughout the world, with both the music and film industries reporting that over 80 

million optical discs were seized in 2005. See 2005 U.S. Piracy Fact Sheet, Motion Picture Association of 

America; Recording Industry 2006 Piracy Report, supra note 254, at 4. 

279 See New Rulings Designed to Snare IPR Pirates, Xinhua, April 6, 2007, available at

http://english.ipr.gov.cn/ipr/en/info/Article.jsp?a_no=67243&col_no=925&dir=200704. 280 See Newsletter Regarding IPR (April 2, 2007), China Daily, April 3, 2007, available at

http://english.ipr.gov.cn/ipr/en/info/Article.jsp?a_no=66358&col_no=882&dir=200704. 281 Id. 282 Recording Industry 2006 Piracy Report, supra note 254, at 13. 
THE CRISIS IN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PROTECTION AND CHINA’S ROLE IN THAT CRISIS

Trade Lawyers Advisory Group 

May 2007

52 

speed digital connections that allow for efficient transfer of information and, thus, create the 

possibility of increased dissemination of legal copyright materials, they also create the possibility 

for increased worldwide dissemination of illegal copyright materials.283 The IIPA reports that 

there are now hundreds of websites based in China that contain illegal copyright content.284

An important aspect to the piracy problem in China is its restrictive market access 

regulations. The film and music sectors agree that China’s exceptionally high levels of piracy 

are directly related to the country’s market access restrictions. The music industry claims that 

censorship regulations often delay a recording’s release, which allows pirated versions to appear 

in the market before the legal product.285 The film industry has additional barriers as it faces 

quantitative restrictions, as well as content restrictions, when trying to get its products into 

China. For instance, each year the government allows a maximum of only 20 foreign revenue 

sharing films into the country.286 Additionally, the MPA reports that there is a government 

monopoly on film importation and distribution in China, which dictates what movies are allowed 

into the country and when they will be released.287 These restrictions provide pirates with the 

opportunity and the financial incentive to distribute unedited versions of songs and films where 

the legitimate product is either delayed in its release due to bureaucratic obstacles or banned 

entirely. 

 

283 See IIPA Special 301 Letter to USTR – 2007, supra note 244, at 5. 284 See IIPA Comments to the TPSC on China’s WTO Compliance, supra note 154, at 23. 

285 See Recording Industry 2006 Piracy Report, supra note 254, at 13. 286 MPA Submission for 2007 NTE, supra note 250, at Asia-Pacific 16. 287 See id. at Asia-Pacific 23. 
THE CRISIS IN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PROTECTION AND CHINA’S ROLE IN THAT CRISIS

Trade Lawyers Advisory Group 

May 2007

53 

2. Software

Microsoft launched its new Windows Vista operating system in late January 2007 after 

spending a reported $6 billion getting it ready for the market, which included investing heavily in 

anti-piracy features.288 The retail price for the software is several hundred dollars, yet even 

before the program was available in legitimate stores, pirated copies were being sold in China for 

less than ten dollars.289 A basic Chinese version of the licensed software sells for $295, but 

pirated copies are available for between $1.30 and $4, depending on the location, while a pirated 

copy of the English version was a bit more at $7.290 Similarly, illegal copies showed up on the 

streets of Latin America just days after the launch. In Sao Paulo, Brazil, a pirated version of 

Vista’s Ultimate edition could be found for 15 reals, or about $7.20, while the official version 

retailed for 989 reals.291 

This recent example of mainstream software piracy helps to illustrate the magnitude of 

the problem. There is an estimated worldwide software piracy rate of 35 percent, but when 

broken down on a regional or individual level, those rates differ greatly.292 Central/Eastern 

Europe is the worst regional offender with a rate of 69 percent, followed closely by Latin 

 

288 See Kathleen E. McLaughlin, Pirated Vista Beats Microsoft to China’s PCs, The San Francisco Chronicle, 

January 31, 2007, available at www.sfgate.com; Reuters, Pirates Pounce on New Windows Vista, Los Angeles 

Times, February 7, 2007, available at www.latimes.com. 289 See McLaughlin, supra note 288. 

290 See id. 

291 See Reuters, Pirates Pounce on New Windows Vista, Los Angeles Times, February 7, 2007, available at

www.latimes.com. 292 See Third Annual BSA and IDC Global Software Piracy Study, BSA and IDC, May 2006, at 1. This study 

covers “all packaged software that runs on personal computers, including desktops, laptops and ultra-portables. 

This includes operating systems, systems software such as databases and security packages, business 

applications and consumer applications such as PC games, personal finance and reference software. This study 

does not include other types of software such as that which runs on servers or mainframes or software sold as a 

service.” Id. 
THE CRISIS IN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PROTECTION AND CHINA’S ROLE IN THAT CRISIS

Trade Lawyers Advisory Group 

May 2007

54 

America at 68 percent.293 On an individual basis, Vietnam and Zimbabwe had the highest piracy 

rates in 2005 at 90 percent, followed by Indonesia at 87 percent, and China and Pakistan both at 

86 percent.294 In contrast, the U.S. maintains the lowest software piracy rate at 21 percent, 

followed by New Zealand at 23 percent, and Austria at 26 percent.295 According to these 

statistics, the Business Software Alliance (“BSA”) estimates that the U.S. lost about $6.9 billion 

in 2005 as a result of software piracy.296 This number has been increasing steadily, from $6.5 

billion in 2003 and $6.6 billion in 2004.297 

In 2003, China, at 92 percent, was at the top of the list of countries with the highest 

software piracy rates.298 The Chinese government has taken steps to reduce the levels of piracy 

and, as a result, China’s piracy rate declined first to 90 percent in 2004 and then to 86 percent in 

2005.299 While it has made some progress, software piracy is clearly still a serious problem in 

China. The BSA estimates that Chinese software piracy alone cost U.S. businesses almost $1.6 

 

293 Third Annual BSA and IDC Global Software Piracy Study, supra note 292, at 2, Figure 1. 

294 Id. at 4, Table 1. 

295 Id. 296 See id. at 8, Table 2. The economic consequences of this piracy extend well beyond the direct consequences of 

lost sales. An economic impact analysis performed in 2005 concluded that a ten percent decrease in software 

piracy in the U.S., from 21 percent to 11 percent, would generate more than 100,000 new high-wage jobs and 

inject nearly $125 billion into the economy, which in turn could result in an additional $21 billion in tax 

revenues. This study considered the significant impact the information technology sector has on the economy 

and examined the total economic impact of lower piracy rates. Accordingly, the estimate for the additional 

contribution to the economy goes beyond the increased sales revenues companies would incur with decreased 

piracy and incorporates such factors as the new job growth and corresponding increases in consumer spending, 

as well as the increased spending by governments, educational institutions and businesses who would invest in 

new hardware, software and services being provided by the prospering IT sector. See Expanding The Frontiers 

of Our Digital Future: Reducing Software Piracy to Accelerate Global IT Benefits, BSA and IDC, December 

2005, at 12, available at www.bsa.org/idcstudy/pdfs/White_Paper.pdf (providing the methodology for this 

study). 

297 See Third Annual BSA and IDC Global Software Piracy Study, supra note 292, at 13, Table 3. 

298 See id. at 4, Table 1. China shared this top spot with Vietnam, which also had a piracy rate of 92 percent. Id. 299 See id. 
THE CRISIS IN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PROTECTION AND CHINA’S ROLE IN THAT CRISIS

Trade Lawyers Advisory Group 

May 2007

55 

billion in 2005, with corporate end user piracy representing the largest problem.300 Moreover, 

while the government has recently taken concerted steps to curb software piracy, such as by 

requiring that new PCs come equipped with licensed software, the BSA estimates that as much 

as 70 percent of the software installed on the government’s own machines remains illegal.301

In addition to business software, entertainment software, such as video games, is also 

being stolen and copied. The Entertainment Software Association estimates that global piracy 

cost the U.S. entertainment software industry $3.0 billion in 2004.302 China is considered to be 

the primary producer of cartridge-based entertainment software, with much of the production 

being exported around the world.303 China also had an estimated 250,000 internet cafes in 2005, 

with only about one percent using licensed entertainment software products.304

3. Publications 

There are generally considered to be three main forms of piracy affecting the publishing 

industry: illegal photocopying, internet piracy, and print piracy. U.S. book publishers estimate 

that, as a result of such piracy, they lost $582.5 million in 2006.305

 

300 See Written Comments of BSA Regarding USTR’s Special Provincial Review of IPR Protection in China, 

Business Software Alliance, June 30, 2006. 

301 See McLaughlin, supra note 288. 302 See Intellectual Property: Anti-Piracy FAQ, Entertainment Software Association, available at

www.theesa.com/ip/anti_piracy_faq.php. This total cost of $3 billion does not include losses attributable to 

internet piracy. Id. 303 See Intellectual Property: IP Issues Map – China, Entertainment Software Association, available at

www.theesa.com/ip/anti_piracy_map.php (indicating that pirated entertainment software originating in China 

had been seized in the Middle East, Europe, North America, and South America). 304 IIPA Comments to TPSC on China’s WTO Compliance, supra note 154, at 27. 

305 See Publishers and Other Copyright Industries, Submit Annual Review of Global Intellectual Property 

Protection to the USTR, Association of American Publishers, February 13, 2007, available at 

www.publishers.org/press/releases.cfm?PressReleaseArticleID=371. 
THE CRISIS IN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PROTECTION AND CHINA’S ROLE IN THAT CRISIS

Trade Lawyers Advisory Group 

May 2007

56 

The largest problem facing this sector of the copyright industry is illegal photocopying, 

which mainly targets academic materials. Many pirates in this area operate highly sophisticated 

operations near, and sometimes on, university campuses.306 They copy entire textbooks and use 

digital scanners to create covers that are often such good quality they are difficult to differentiate 

from the legitimate product.307 The most advanced operations have stock lists of materials 

available, keep warehouses filled with merchandise, and use bar codes to organize inventory.308 

It is estimated that just about every Chinese university has one of these “textbook 

centers” on campus, and some are even run by the schools themselves. 309 This rampant 

infringement of intellectual property rights affects both foreign and Chinese right-holders alike, 

as pirates act without their authorization and deprive them of compensation.310

Print piracy is the second form of copyright infringement facing the publishing industry. 

This generally occurs either through print overruns, where an entity has a license to run a certain 

amount of copies and produces beyond the specified amount, or through outright piracy where an 

entity prints copies without ever obtaining a license to do so.311 This is particularly prevalent in 

countries that have a large printing capacity, such as China and India.312 The pirates produce 

 

306 See Trade With China, Hearing Before the Trade Subcommittee of the House Ways and Means Committee, 

110th Cong., 1st Sess. (February 15, 2007) (testimony of the Honorable Patricia S. Schroeder, President and 

Chief Executive Officer, Association of American Publishers, Inc.) [hereinafter “Schroeder Testimony”]; IIPA 

Special 301 Letter to USTR – 2007, supra note 244, at 16. 

307 See Types of Piracy in Overseas Markets – Problems Faced by the Publishing Industry, Association of 

American Publishers, available at www.publishers.org/antipiracy/article.cfm?AntiPiracyArticleID=2; see also 

IIPA Written Comments to USTR Regarding Special Provincial Review of IPR Protection in China, July 14, 

2006 at 1-3. 

308 See Schroeder Testimony, supra note 306. 

309 See id. 

310 See IIPA Comments to the TPSC on China’s WTO Compliance, supra note 154, at 26. 311 See Schroeder Testimony, supra note 306. 312 See IIPA Special 301 Letter to USTR – 2007, supra note 244, at 16. 
THE CRISIS IN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PROTECTION AND CHINA’S ROLE IN THAT CRISIS

Trade Lawyers Advisory Group 

May 2007

57 

illegal copies of current publications but also perform unauthorized translations.313 This practice 

offends not only the original publisher but also the local companies that may have legitimate 

licenses to produce or translate the publication.314

The last form of copyright infringement that plagues the publishing industry is internet 

piracy, which is the fastest growing problem that the industry faces.315 Books and journals can 

now be scanned into a computer and uploaded onto the internet to be distributed around the 

world with just a few clicks of the mouse.316 As mentioned above with regard to film and music 

piracy, China is the fastest growing internet market and there are increasing reports of websites 

that offer books for free download. In addition to this distribution of scanned materials, there is 

a growing problem in China with abuse of licenses for online academic journals.317

In her testimony before the Subcommittee on Trade, the President of the Association of 

American Publishers (“AAP”) told the committee members that street vendors are regularly seen 

selling illegal copies of books right outside the Beijing International Book Fair.318 Additionally, 

similar to the film and music industry, the U.S. publishing industry believes that market access 

restrictions in China have a direct impact on piracy levels. According to the AAP, foreign 

publishers are not allowed to import or distribute their own materials in the Chinese market, with 

such responsibilities often assigned to State-owned enterprises. 319 These restrictions create 

 

313 See Schroeder Testimony, supra note 306. 314 See IIPA Comments to the TPSC on China’s WTO Compliance, supra note 154, at 26. 

315 See Schroeder Testimony, supra note 306. 316 See IIPA Comments to the TPSC on China’s WTO Compliance, supra note 154, at 27. 

317 See id. 318 See Schroeder Testimony, supra note 306.

319 See id. 
THE CRISIS IN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PROTECTION AND CHINA’S ROLE IN THAT CRISIS

Trade Lawyers Advisory Group 

May 2007

58 

additional costs and delay arrival of foreign materials, which are factors that provide the 

incentive and opportunity for counterfeiting. 

G. LINKS TO ORGANIZED CRIME

Counterfeiting and piracy are clearly enormous problems in the world today. IP theft 

affects just about everything that is made and results in economic losses as well as serious health 

and safety concerns. However, the effects of IP theft extend beyond these immediate 

consequences as there are increasing reports linking counterfeiting and piracy to organized 

crime. 320 The revenues that legitimate businesses lose are instead going to fund human 

trafficking, drug operations, and even terrorism.321 IP theft is considered an attractive option 

because of the high profits involved and the relatively low levels of risk, particularly in countries 

where prosecution is lacking and fines are low.322

Government agencies and law enforcement organizations have been able to trace the 

funds used to finance various terrorist activities. For instance, the FBI has apparently gathered 

“strong evidence” that terrorists financed the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center by selling 

counterfeit apparel, such as trademark-infringing t-shirts, from a store in New York City.323 It is 

 

320 See, e.g., Intellectual Property: Source of innovation, creativity, growth and progress, supra note 33, at 14; 

The Negative Consequences of International Intellectual Property Theft, supra note 2, at 14-35. 

321 See Stephens, supra note 21. 322 See Intellectual Property Crimes: Are Proceeds from Counterfeited Goods Funding Terrorism, Hearing 

Before the House Committee on International Relations, 108th Cong., 1st Sess., 6 (July 16, 2003) (Testimony 

of the Honorable Tom Lantos, Representative in Congress from the State of California); Intellectual Property: 

Source of innovation, creativity, growth and progress, supra note 33, at 14; The Negative Consequences of 

International Intellectual Property Theft, supra note 2, at 23-24. 

323 See The Negative Consequences of International Intellectual Property Theft, supra note 2, at 20; see also

Counterfeiting and Organized Crime, Union des Fabricants, 2003, at 14. 
THE CRISIS IN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PROTECTION AND CHINA’S ROLE IN THAT CRISIS

Trade Lawyers Advisory Group 

May 2007

59 

also alleged that the group accused of the 2004 Madrid train bombings funded some of their 

activities by selling pirated CDs.324

Following the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, governments and organizations 

around the world significantly increased their focus on intellectual property crimes.325 Tracing 

terrorist funding became an even higher priority and counterfeiting was considered to be one 

possible source, along with drug trafficking, credit card fraud, and bulk currency smuggling.326 

In an article printed in U.S. Customs Today, just a little over a year after the September 11 

attacks, the author states: 

The new link between commercial-scale piracy and counterfeiting 

has redirected public attention in 2002, and law enforcement 

agencies like Customs and Interpol are going after organized crime 

syndicates in charge of what was too often viewed as a ‘victimless 

crime.’ September 11 changed the way Americans look at the 

world. It also changed the way American law enforcement looks 

at Intellectual Property Crimes.327 

When evaluating the extent of the problem that IP theft poses, these extended 

ramifications cannot be overlooked. 

 

324 Reuters, Counterfeit Goods are Linked to Terror Groups, International Herald Tribune, February 12, 2007. 

325 See, e.g., Millar, supra note 8 (discussing the U.S. government’s joint task force called Operation Green Quest 

that was created on October 25, 2001, designed to link funds to terrorist activities, and Interpol’s establishment 

of a Group of Experts on Intellectual Property Crime not long after the September 11 attacks); Intellectual 

Property Crimes: Are Proceeds from Counterfeited Goods Funding Terrorism, Hearing Before the House 

Committee on International Relations, 108th Cong., 1st Sess., 25 (July 16, 2003) (Testimony of the Honorable 

Tom Lantos, Representative in Congress from the State of California). 

326 Dean Boyd, Operation Green Quest Targets Terrorist Finances, U.S. Customs Today, November 2001. 327 Millar, supra note 8. 
THE CRISIS IN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PROTECTION AND CHINA’S ROLE IN THAT CRISIS

Trade Lawyers Advisory Group 

May 2007

60 

H. CUSTOMS SEIZURES OF COUNTERFEIT AND PIRATED GOODS; TRADE 

FLOWS OF SELECTED CATEGORIES OF GOODS

In trying to understand the severity of the problem of counterfeit and pirated goods, one 

can look at government statistics on items like number of border seizures and source of the 

seizures. One can also look at trade flows to see if there are large reported flows of imports into 

the United States of categories of goods where IP problems are known to exist. One can also 

look at U.S. exports to see if trade flow trends suggest possible displacement of U.S. exports. 

Because there are many reasons behind changing trade flows and because, obviously, not all 

imports involve products with IP violations, trade data are only of some help in understanding 

the size of the problem. Nonetheless, the data are provided below and in Appendix 2 to this 

report.328

Between 1990 and 2006, U.S. imports from China and exports to China expanded much 

more rapidly than U.S. imports from all countries and U.S. exports to all countries. Table 1 

below shows the data. 

 

328 The trade data have been compiled by MBG Information Services from U.S. government import and export 

data. 
THE CRISIS IN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PROTECTION AND CHINA’S ROLE IN THAT CRISIS

Trade Lawyers Advisory Group 

May 2007

61 

TABLE 1: US Goods Trade: Census Basis

While large increases in trade would suggest that there could be corresponding increases 

in counterfeit and pirated goods without a worsening of the level of illegal activity, in fact, the 

seizures by U.S. Customs for the period 2001-2006 shows the value of seizures of Chinese 

products at the U.S. border increasing twice as fast as the rate of growth of overall imports from 

China, with the effect that China went from being 46.0 percent of total seizures in 2001 to 81.0 

US Exports US Imports US Balance US Exports US Imports US Balance US Exports US Imports US Balance 

-- World -- -- World -- -- World -- -- China -- -- China -- -- China -- -- World less China -- 

 

 $ MILLIONS $ MILLIONS $ MILLIONS $ MILLIONS $ MILLIONS $ MILLIONS $ MILLIONS $ MILLIONS $ MILLIONS

1990 $392,976 $495,260 -$102,284 $4,807 $15,224 -$10,417 $388,168 $480,036 -$91,867

1991 421,854 488,123 -66,269 6,287 18,976 -12,689 415,567 469,147 -53,580

1992 447,471 531,297 -83,826 7,470 25,676 -18,206 440,001 505,622 -65,620

1993 464,858 580,469 -115,610 8,767 31,535 -22,768 456,091 548,934 -92,843

1994 512,626 663,830 -151,204 9,282 38,781 -29,499 503,345 625,049 -121,704

1995 582,120 743,505 -161,386 11,748 45,555 -33,807 570,371 697,950 -127,579

1996 622,827 791,315 -168,488 11,978 51,495 -39,517 610,849 739,819 -128,970

1997 687,598 870,213 -182,615 12,805 62,552 -49,747 674,793 807,661 -132,868

1998 680,474 913,885 -233,411 14,258 71,156 -56,898 666,216 842,729 -176,513

1999 692,821 1,024,766 -331,945 13,118 81,786 -68,668 679,703 942,980 -263,277

2000 780,419 1,216,888 -436,469 16,253 100,063 -83,810 764,166 1,116,825 -352,659

2001 729,100 1,140,999 -411,899 19,182 102,278 -83,096 709,918 1,038,721 -328,803

2002 693,103 1,161,366 -468,263 22,128 125,192 -103,065 670,975 1,036,174 -365,198

2003 724,771 1,257,121 -532,350 28,368 152,436 -124,068 696,403 1,104,685 -408,282

2004 818,775 1,469,704 -650,930 34,744 196,682 -161,938 784,031 1,273,022 -488,992

2005 905,978 1,673,455 -767,477 41,925 243,470 -201,545 864,052 1,429,984 -565,932

2006 1,037,143 1,855,119 -817,976 55,224 287,773 -232,549 981,919 1,567,346 -585,428

Percent Increases 1990-2006 Percent Increases 1990-2006 Percent Increases 1990-2006

164% 275% 700% 1049% 1790% 2132% 153% 227% 537% 

SOURCE: US DOC, CENSUS 
THE CRISIS IN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PROTECTION AND CHINA’S ROLE IN THAT CRISIS

Trade Lawyers Advisory Group 

May 2007

62 

percent in 2006. The data for the United States, EU and Japanese border seizures of goods for IP 

violations are shown in Table 2, below. 

TABLE 2: Counterfeit Seizure Statistics: U.S., E.U, Japan

 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 

United States 

 Total Seizures (Quantity) 3,691 3,244 3,586 5,793 6,500 7,255 8,022 14,675 

 Total Seizures ($ Value) 98,501,594 45,327,526 57,438,680 98,990,341 94,019,227 138,767,885 93,234,510 155,369,236 

 % from China (by value) UN* UN 46.0 49.0 66.0 63.0 69.0 81.0 

European Union 

 Total Registered Cases 4,694 6,253 5,056 7,553 10,709 22,311 26,704 UN 

 Percentage from China UN 8.0 18.0 15.0 18.0 30.0 38.0 UN 

 

 Total Items Seized 25,285,844 67,724,431 94,421,497 84,951,039 92,218,700 103,546,179 75,733,387 UN 

 Percentage from China UN UN UN UN 60.0 54.0 64.0 UN 

Japan 

 Total Seizures UN UN 2,812 6,978 7,412 9,143 13,467 13,316** 

 Percentage from China UN UN 7.2 7.9 22.0 36.7 46.6 40.3 

SOURCE: U.S. Customs Seizure Statistics; EC Taxation and Customs Union Seizure Statistics; Japan Customs Seizure Statistics. A more detailed summary of these 

seizure statistics is located in Appendix 1, Tables 2-4. 

* UN = Unknown 

** Japan's seizure statistics for 2006 only cover January through September. 

Data from the European Union show China’s share of the total registered seizure cases 

growing from 8.0 percent in 2000 to 38.0 percent in 2005 (from 500 cases in 2000 to 10,147 in 

2005). A similar pattern is available for Japan, where seizures of products from China grew 

from 7.2 percent in 2001 (202 seizures) to 40.3 percent in 2006 (5,366 seizures). Table 2 of 

Appendix 1 provides a detailed breakout of the data reported by the Japanese government 

showing the type of IP violation found in the seizures as well as the type of products seized. 

The copyright industry is one of the few industries that estimates losses and levels of 

piracy affecting its various sectors. As IP thieves have long targeted this industry, along with 

luxury and apparel goods, it provides one of the best historical accounts of the problem. Table 3, 
THE CRISIS IN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PROTECTION AND CHINA’S ROLE IN THAT CRISIS

Trade Lawyers Advisory Group 

May 2007

63 

below, illustrates that some sectors, such as motion pictures and business software, have 

generally believed the levels of piracy were well above 75 percent in China, dating all the way 

back to 1995. The sound recording sector, however, has experienced a significant increase in the 

level of piracy over the past ten years. 

TABLE 3 

PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA 

Estimated Levels of Copyright Piracy: 1995-2006 

Industry 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 

Motion Pictures 100% 85% 75% 90% 90% 90% 88% 91% 95% 95% 93% NA 

Sound Recordings / 

Musical 

Compositions 

54% 53% 56% 56% 90% 85% 90% 90% 90% 85% 85% 85% 

Business Software 

Applications 96% 95% 96% 95% 91% 93% 92% 92% 92% 90% 86% 82% 

Entertainment 

Software 99% 97% 96% 95% 95% 99% 92% 96% 96% 90% 92% NA 

SOURCE: Figures for 1995-2000 are from IIPA 2001 Special 301 Report: People’s Republic of China, International Intellectual Property Alliance (IIPA); figures for 

2001 are from IIPA 2002 Special 301 Report: People’s Republic of China, International Intellectual Property Alliance (IIPA); figures for 2002-2006 are 

from IIPA 2007 Special 301 Report: People’s Republic of China, International Intellectual Property Alliance (IIPA). 

Despite the relatively stable levels of piracy in the motion picture and business software 

sectors, the losses incurred as a result of piracy have been substantial throughout the period. 
THE CRISIS IN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PROTECTION AND CHINA’S ROLE IN THAT CRISIS

Trade Lawyers Advisory Group 

May 2007

64 

TABLE 4 

PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA 

Estimated Trade Losses Due to Copyright Piracy: 1995-2006 

(in millions of U.S. dollars) 

Industry 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 

Motion 

Pictures 124.0 120.0 120.0 120.0 120.0 120.0 160.0 168.0 178.0 280.0 244.0 NA 

Sound 

Recordings/ 

Musical 

Compositions 

300.0 176.8 150.0 80.0 70.0 70.0 47.0 48.0 286.0 202.9 204.0 206.0 

Business 

Software 

Applications 

488.0 507.5 987.9 808.4 437.2 658.7 1140.2 1,637.3 1,787.0 1,488.0 1,554.0 1,949.0 

Entertainment 

Software 1,286.0 1,380.0 1,409.4 1,420.1 1,382.5 NA 455.0 NA 568.2 510.0 589.9 NA 

Totals 2,198.0 2184.3 2667.3 2428.5 2009.7 848.7 1802.2 1853.3 2819.2 2480.9 2591.9 2155.0 

SOURCE: Figures for 1995-2000 are from IIPA 2001 Special 301 Report: People’s Republic of China, International Intellectual Property Alliance (IIPA); figures for 

2001 are from IIPA 2002 Special 301 Report: People’s Republic of China, International Intellectual Property Alliance (IIPA); figures for 2002-2006 are 

from IIPA 2007 Special 301 Report: People’s Republic of China, International Intellectual Property Alliance (IIPA). 

Trade flow statistics provide an additional means of examining the impact of IP theft on 

various industries/goods and the effect of increasing levels of counterfeit and pirated goods 

entering the stream of commerce. Multiple data sets providing import and export statistics for 

products that are known to be the subject of IP infringement are attached as Appendix 2.329 

While it is not possible to know the exact cause of the changes in trade flows, there are some 

interesting trends that correspond to known counterfeiting and piracy problems of U.S. 

producers. For instance, the trade data show that U.S. exports of computer software declined by 

50.2 percent between 2000 and 2005. This figure corresponds to the IIPA’s estimate that the 

 

329 The data sets include U.S. export and import statistics and relevant trade balances. The list of goods used for 

this analysis was generated by reviewing information from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the United States 

International Trade Commission, and U.S. industry submissions to the United States Trade Representative for 

the 2007 National Trade Estimate. These sources provided specific examples of U.S. goods that are known to 

be affected by IP theft. 
THE CRISIS IN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PROTECTION AND CHINA’S ROLE IN THAT CRISIS

Trade Lawyers Advisory Group 

May 2007

65 

business software industry’s losses due to copyright piracy more than doubled over the same 

period.330 

Counterfeiting is becoming an increasing problem for the auto parts industry and a 

review of the trade data shows that the U.S. moved from having a trade surplus of over $3 billion 

in this area in 2000 to a trade deficit of over $9.6 billion in 2006. At the same time, U.S imports 

of Chinese auto parts increased by over 500 percent, from $440 million in 2000 to $2.7 billion in 

2006. While much of the trade reflects legitimate products, some portion likely reflects the 

growing problem of counterfeiting and pirated goods. 

Additionally, a review of the statistics for foam footwear shows that the total U.S. trade 

deficit has more than doubled over the past six years, while its trade deficit with China has more 

than tripled. While, again, much of this increased trade will have been of legitimate goods, 

footwear accounted for the largest percentage of counterfeit goods that U.S. Customs officials 

seized at the border in 2006, both in terms of the total goods (41 percent by value was footwear) 

and the total originating in China (49 percent by value was footwear).331 

The data show similar trends of shifting trade balances or dramatically-increasing deficits 

corresponding to increasing Chinese imports for, inter alia, personal care products, air 

conditioners and electrical chords. Those are all products where concern has been raised about 

IP theft. 

 

330 See IIPA 2001 Special 301 Report: People’s Republic of China, International Intellectual Property Alliance 

(IIPA); IIPA 2002 Special 301 Report: People’s Republic of China, International Intellectual Property 

Alliance (IIPA); and IIPA 2007 Special 301 Report: People’s Republic of China, International Intellectual 

Property Alliance (IIPA). All IIPA Special 301 submissions made to USTR available at 

www.iipa.com/countryreports.html. 331 See 2006 U.S. Customs Statistics, supra note 44. 
THE CRISIS IN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PROTECTION AND CHINA’S ROLE IN THAT CRISIS

Trade Lawyers Advisory Group 

May 2007

66 

II. THE DEVELOPMENT OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS IN CHINA

A. INTRODUCTION

On December 11, 2001 China became a member of the World Trade Organization and 

with its membership assumed obligations under the WTO Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual 

Property (“TRIPS”) Agreement. Despite China’s membership in the WTO and the 

accompanying requirement to comply with the TRIPS Agreement, China is generally considered 

as having one of the world’s highest rates of intellectual property theft. As China has worked to 

bring its laws into compliance with substantive standards, the focus both within China and by its 

trading partners has been on enforcement and education of all levels of society on the role of 

intellectual property. 

The first step towards the effective enforcement of IPR is implementing TRIPS – 

“complying intellectual property legislation, including the procedural, remedial rules and 

institutional rules in place....The second step should go further to operational and institutional 

issues, to make the laws ‘workable’. To make amendments to China’s intellectual property laws 

was not easy, but to put these amendments into effect in society is much more difficult.”332 So 

while there have been substantial improvements over time in China’s IPR laws, this is sometimes 

overshadowed because China’s “enforcement of intellectual property laws may well be described 

as unsatisfactory if not dismal or in crisis.”333

Putting China’s contemporary attitude toward the enforcement of intellectual property 

rights in a historical context may help to explain some of the difficulties China has had in 

 

332 Jianqiang Nie, The Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights in China, London, England: Cameron May, 

2006, at 217. 333 Id. 
THE CRISIS IN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PROTECTION AND CHINA’S ROLE IN THAT CRISIS

Trade Lawyers Advisory Group 

May 2007

67 

comporting its legal and societal codes with the modern demands for intellectual property 

protection. This section examines the historical development of China’s IP laws with a focus on 

the effect of Chinese history and culture on the development of IP laws. This historical review 

provides some background on China’s persistent struggle with enforcing IP rights, demonstrating 

the problem’s longevity in the country and the challenges China and its trading partners are 

likely to continue to face in the years ahead. 

Specifically, this section discusses the first attempts to introduce IP law in China. Next, 

this section examines the development of IP laws in China after the Cultural Revolution, with an 

analysis of some of the first and more important laws passed at the time. A recurring theme 

throughout this section and China’s history is the influence and external pressure by China’s 

trading partners on China to adopt and enforce better IP laws. This section then looks at U.S. 

pressure over the last several decades on China to improve IPR protection. Finally, this section 

addresses China’s accession to the WTO with an analysis of the commitments made by China 

and the changes to China’s IP laws before and after accession. 

B. EARLY ATTEMPTS TO INTRODUCE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW IN 

CHINA

Historically, China was known as a nation of innovation and creativeness. However, due 

to historical, cultural, economic, and political factors, China eventually fell behind its trading 

partners. In the 17th and 18th centuries, Western governments began to view patent and copyright 

law as a means of promoting research and development by rewarding those responsible with 

monopolies on their creations.334 According to William Alford, this shift never occurred in 

 

334 William P. Alford, To Steal a Book is an Elegant Offense: Intellectual Property Law in Chinese Civilization, 

Stanford California: Stanford University Press, 1995, at 18. 
THE CRISIS IN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PROTECTION AND CHINA’S ROLE IN THAT CRISIS

Trade Lawyers Advisory Group 

May 2007

68 

China, where Confucian culture put more “emphasis on personal development, in contrast to 

personal gain,” and where the individual was important, but primarily for his or her contribution 

to society.335 When examining the evolution of China’s IPR laws, it is important to note that 

China has a “culture deeply embedded with traditions completely antithetical to the patenting of 

inventions and to the granting of property rights.”336 However, over the past century, China has 

been under pressure to develop IP laws according to Western notions of intellectual property 

rights. Due in part to philosophical and cultural differences, China has consistently struggled to 

embrace intellectual property rights and to develop the necessary structure to enforce those 

rights. 

Intellectual Property law was first introduced in China in the latter part of the 19th century 

through trade agreements with Japan, Great Britain and the United States. These trade 

agreements were imposed on the Qing Dynasty after trade wars stemming from the inability of 

foreign merchants to enter the Chinese market.337 The wars and the agreements that followed 

resulted in numerous Chinese trade concessions to foreign powers and greater influence over 

China’s domestic policies.338 Perhaps the most famous of such wars was the Opium War (1839-

42).339

 

335 John R. Allison and Lianlian Lin, The Evolution of Chinese Attitudes Toward Property Rights in Invention and 

Discovery, 20 U. PA. J. Int’l Econ. L. 735, 737 (1999), citing, Alford, supra note 334, at 10. 

336 Id. 337 Id. 338 Id. 

339 The Opium War started after China condemned and outlawed the importation of opium. At the time, British 

traders were buying opium in India and using it to barter with Chinese merchants. After a Chinese leader 

seized and destroyed a load of opium on a British cargo ship, the British government declared war on China 

and won easily. As part of the settlement, Britain gained more influence in China and Hong Kong was ceded 

to the British. See id. 
THE CRISIS IN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PROTECTION AND CHINA’S ROLE IN THAT CRISIS

Trade Lawyers Advisory Group 

May 2007

69 

At the end of the 19th century, foreign economic involvement in China increased, as did 

the level of trade, making the protection of intellectual property more important.340 There was 

also an increasing awareness of property rights amongst Western traders, who found that existing 

IP protection in China applied only to Chinese guilds, was localized, and unavailable to 

foreigners.341 Meanwhile, the Chinese government’s interest in protecting intellectual property 

“remained focused on the control of ideas and the maintenance of order, rather than on the 

protection of private property interests or the nurturing of a marketplace of ideas.”342 

China’s first trademark and copyright laws were introduced following the commercial 

treaties negotiated at the end of the Boxer Rebellion (1900).343 Neither law was effectively 

implemented, and it would be another two decades before China passed laws protecting foreign 

rights as outlined in the treaties and envisioned by the foreign powers.344 After revolution in 

1911, the last imperial dynasty collapsed. In 1912, under the new Republic, China adopted its 

first patent law. However, the law only applied to Chinese nationals. 345 The law was amended 

and extended to American patent holders in 1923, but, like the first copyright and trademark 

laws, it failed to provide meaningful protection due to ineffective implementation.346 

 

340 Prior to the Opium War, and for the first few decades thereafter, “[i]ssues of intellectual property were not of 

consequence in Chinese economic and legal interaction with the West....as trade was confined to items such as 

opium, tea, and raw silk, sold as bulk commodities, rather than under brand names.” See Alford, supra note 

334, at 33-34. 

341 After the formation of the Paris Convention in 1883, and the Berne Convention in 1886, there was increasing 

international awareness of intellectual property rights and an expectation amongst traders that trademarks 

registered at home would be protected in countries abroad, including China, although China was not a 

signatory to the Conventions. See Alford, supra note 334, at 34-35.

342 Alford, supra note 334, at 47-8. 343 Allison and Lin, supra note 335, at 747; see also Nie, supra note 332, at 179.

344 Alford, supra note 334, at 41. 345 Allison and Lin, supra note 335, at 747. 346 Id. 
THE CRISIS IN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PROTECTION AND CHINA’S ROLE IN THAT CRISIS

Trade Lawyers Advisory Group 

May 2007

70 

Another attempt to develop intellectual property rights in China was started in 1928 with 

the passage of a copyright law, followed by a trademark law in 1930, and a patent law in 1932.347 

However, these laws too failed to fully establish intellectual property protection in China. 

“[F]undamentally, these laws failed to achieve their stated objectives because they presumed a 

legal structure, and indeed, a legal consciousness, that did not exist in China and, most likely, 

could not have flourished there at that time.”348 The failure of the treaty powers to provide the 

technical assistance to train Chinese officials and the failure to educate the Chinese population 

on the importance of intellectual property rights have been identified as factors in the failure of 

these early laws to be properly implemented or enforced.349

Apart from the essentially self-serving advice provided by a small 

core of British, Japanese, American and other foreign advisors 

largely involved in legislative drafting and general legal 

counseling, it appears that the treaty powers made no substantial 

efforts to show the Chinese government why intellectual property 

law might be of benefit to China, to assist in the training of 

Chinese officials with responsibility in this field, or to educate the 

Chinese populace as to its rationale.350

C. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW IN CHINA SINCE THE LATE 1940S

In 1949, the Chinese Communist Party came to power and invalidated all Republican law 

and modeled a new legal system on the USSR.351 The Soviet socialist model comported with 

longstanding Confucian traditions, as the fundamental rationale behind both systems was that 

inventions and creations draw heavily from society’s “preexisting repository of knowledge” and 

 

347 Alford, supra note 334, at 34. 348 Id. at 53. 

349 Id. at 49. 350 Id. 351 Id. at 56; see also Allison and Lin, supra note 335, at 749.
THE CRISIS IN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PROTECTION AND CHINA’S ROLE IN THAT CRISIS

Trade Lawyers Advisory Group 

May 2007

71 

thus inherently belonged to society. Neither system believed that the creation of ideas 

established private ownership interests and both believed in the importance of controlling the 

dissemination of information and ideas, with control remaining in the hands of a few, but for the 

benefit of society as a whole.352

The early regulation of intellectual property law in the People’s Republic of China was in 

the Provisional Regulations on the Protection of Invention Rights and Patent Rights of August 

11, 1950. The structure of rights was similar to the Soviet system, with two tracks, including a 

“Certificate of Invention” and a “Certificate of Patent.”353 Unlike the Soviet system, which was 

crafted to attract foreign investment from Western multinational enterprises, the Chinese system 

focused on Chinese intellectuals and aimed to give them enough rights to stimulate innovation 

that would contribute to the national reconstruction.354 

During the 1950s, ‘60s, and ‘70s, very few patents were issued in China. By 1958, the 

patent law had produced only six invention certificates and four patents, with no patents or 

invention certificates issued between 1958 and 1963.355 In 1962, the Communist leadership 

rejected the use of material incentives to encourage creative and inventive efforts and, a year 

 

352 Alford, supra note 334, at 57; Allison and Lin, supra note 335, at 749. 

353 Nie, supra note 332, at 179; see also Alford, supra note 334, at 57-58. A Certificate of Invention gave the 

State the right to exploit and disseminate the invention and the inventor the right to monetary rewards based on 

savings realized from their invention and the right to hold an honorable certificate. Id. With a Certificate of 

Patent the patentee enjoyed the right of exploitation and was given the option of transferring the patent right or 

allowing others to exploit the invention, waiving his patent rights, or converting the patent right to the right of 

invention. Nie, supra note 332, at 179. However, the Certificate of Patent was only available to inventors of 

products invented out of the employment of a state-owned enterprise and to foreign nationals inventing on their 

own in China. Allison and Lin, supra note 335, at 750. But even the few inventions that were eligible for a 

Certificate of Patent could be subject to state confiscation or transferred to a Certificate of Invention if the 

government determined that the invention “concerned national security, or ‘affected the welfare of the great 

majority of the people.’” Id. 

354 Alford, supra note 334, at 58; see Allison and Lin, supra note 335, at 750. 355 Allison and Lin, supra note 335, at 750. 
THE CRISIS IN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PROTECTION AND CHINA’S ROLE IN THAT CRISIS

Trade Lawyers Advisory Group 

May 2007

72 

later, Article 23 of the 1963 Regulations on Awards for Inventions made it so that all inventions 

would belong to the State and there would be no monopoly on inventions.356

 During the Cultural Revolution (1966-76), IP development in China came to a halt as 

“scientists, inventors, creators, and intellectuals in general...were considered a subversive 

element” and forced to abandon their careers in favor of agricultural labor.357

D. PRESSURE ON CHINA TO DEVELOP INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAWS 

AFTER THE CULTURAL REVOLUTION

As China emerged from the Cultural Revolution, the new Chinese leaders recognized 

what China had lost over the previous decade and saw the need for China to develop a modern 

economy. The leadership understood that the development of such an economy required 

scientific and technological advancement. Although this required the government to relinquish 

some control over the socialist economy and develop laws to protect individual property rights, 

many leaders regarded an economy based at least partly on market principles as essential for 

China’s development. The Chinese leadership introduced the “Four Modernizations,” a program 

for “China to reach world-class strength in agriculture, industry, science and technology, by the 

end of the century.”358 Under the encouragement of Deng Xiapong, IP laws were designed to: 

soothe foreign fears and encourage foreign investment to bring with it foreign technology; 

stimulate domestic research and scientific growth; encourage the exchange of ideas among 

 

356 See Nie, supra note 332, at 179; Allison and Lin, supra note 335, at 750. 

357 Allison and Lin, supra note 335, at 752. 358 Nie, supra note 332, at 181. 
THE CRISIS IN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PROTECTION AND CHINA’S ROLE IN THAT CRISIS

Trade Lawyers Advisory Group 

May 2007

73 

Chinese scientists; and bring China into international organizations such as the United Nations’ 

WIPO, where membership brought side-benefits for the country’s development.359

The State Science and Technology Commission was reestablished in 1978 to oversee the 

‘“general policy for scientific and technological development’ [and] was directed to work up 

long-range policy on inventions” and, later, for trademarks and copyrights.360 In the late 1970s 

and early 1980s, China “enacted a large body of law and implemented regulations with the aim 

of creating a legal system that would support an economy based on market incentives while 

retaining the basic principles of socialism.”361 This modernization program importantly arose 

from within China, a hopeful sign for future implementation and enforcement needs of both 

Chinese businesses and of businesses around the world. 

While the Chinese leadership began working to implement stronger IP laws to attract 

technology and help facilitate development in China, Chinese integration with the international 

community also increased the external pressure on the Chinese government to improve IPR 

protection. For example, in 1979, China and the United States established diplomatic relations 

and later that year, signed a trade agreement.362 Because of the importance of intellectual 

property protection to U.S. interests, this first trade agreement following normalization of 

relations contained intellectual property provisions. Specifically, the signing of the 1979 SinoU.S. Trade Agreement was conditioned on China “recogniz[ing] the importance of effective 

 

359 Allison and Lin, supra note 335, at 753-4; see also Alford, supra note 334, at 69. 360 Alford, supra note 334, at 66. 

361 Allison and Lin, supra note 335, at 753. 

362 See Agreement on Trade Relations Between The United States of America and The People’s Republic of 

China, July 7, 1979, 18 Int’l Legal Materials 1041 [hereinafter “1979 Sino-U.S. Trade Agreement”]. 
THE CRISIS IN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PROTECTION AND CHINA’S ROLE IN THAT CRISIS

Trade Lawyers Advisory Group 

May 2007

74 

protection of patents, trademarks and copyrights.”363 The Agreement also provided that each 

Party “shall take appropriate measures, under its laws and regulations and with due regard to 

international practice, to ensure ...... the other Party protection of copyrights equivalent to the 

copyright protection correspondingly accorded by the other party.”364 The 1979 Agreement, 

combined with China’s desire to develop and integrate its economy with the international 

community, initiated an overhaul of China’s IP laws and commitments. 

China’s efforts resulted in a series of laws and regulations adopted over the next decade, 

including the 1982 Trademark Law (Trademark Law), the 1984 Patent Law (Patent Law), the 

1990 Copyright Law (Copyright Law), the 1991 Computer Software Protection Regulation 

(Software Protection Regulation), the 1993 Law Against Unfair Competition (Unfair 

Competition Law), and the 1995 Regulations for Customs Protection of Intellectual Property 

(Customs Regulations). 365 China also joined many of the important international treaties 

pertaining to the protection of intellectual property, including the Convention Establishing the 

World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO Convention) 366 in 1980, the Paris Convention 

 

363 See 1979 Sino-U.S. Trade Agreement, supra note 362; see also Deli Yang and Peter Clarke, Globalisation and 

Intellectual Property in China, Technovation, May 2005, citing Zheng, C., The World Trade Organization and 

TRIPS, Publishing House of the People’s University of China, Beijing (1996).

364 See 1979 Sino-U.S. Trade Agreement, supra note 362, Art. VI. 

365 Naigan Zhang, Intellectual Property Law Enforcement in China: Trade Issues, Policies and Practices, 8 

Fordham Intell. Prop. Media & Ent. L.J. 63, 63-64 (1997-1998). 

366 See WIPO Notification No. 110, Convention Establishing the World Intellectual Property Organization, 

Accession by the People’s Republic of China (March 4, 1980) (effective June 3, 1980), available at 

http://www.wipo.int/edocs/notdocs/en/convention/treaty_convention_110.html. 
THE CRISIS IN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PROTECTION AND CHINA’S ROLE IN THAT CRISIS

Trade Lawyers Advisory Group 

May 2007

75 

for the Protection of Industrial Property (Paris Convention) 367 in 1985, and the Madrid 

Agreement for the International Registration of Marks (Madrid Agreement)368 in 1989.369

1. 1982 Trademark Law

Similar to the 1963 Trademark Regulations, the new Trademark Law emphasized the use 

of trademarks to control product quality.370 According to Article 1, the purpose of the Law was 

to provide for exclusive trademark rights and encourage the production of high quality goods for 

consumers and for “promoting the development of [the] socialist commodity economy.” 371 

Alford opined that the first purpose, “protecting the exclusive right to use a trademark,” was, for 

the most part, created only for the contribution that right might make to promoting the socialist 

economy.372 While granting some rights, the Trademark Law, like the Patent Law, also denied 

certain rights. The Law gave no protection to service marks, collective marks, certification 

marks, defensive marks, and trademarks that were deemed as “having the nature of 

discrimination against any nationality,” “having the nature of exaggeration and deceit in 

 

367 See Paris Notification No. 114, Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property, Accession by the 

People’s Republic of China (December 19, 1984) (effective March 19, 1985), available at 

http://www.wipo.int/edocs/notdocs/en/paris/treaty_paris_114.html. 368 See Madrid (Marks) Notification No. 41, Madrid Agreement Concerning the International Registration of 

Marks, Accession by the People’s Republic of China (July 4, 1989) (effective October 4, 1989), available at 

http://www.wipo.int/edocs/notdocs/en/madrid-gp/treaty_madrid_gp_41.html. 369 Later, as discussed in Section II-E, China joined the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and 

Artistic Works (Berne Convention) in 1992, the Convention for the Protection of Producers of Phonograms 

Against Unauthorized Duplication of Their Phonograms (Geneva Convention) in 1993, and the Patent 

Cooperation Treaty (PCT) in 1994. 

370 See Mark Sidel, Copyright, Trademark and Patent Law in the People’s Republic of China, 21 Tex. Int’l L.J. 

259, 271 (1985-1986). “Article 1 of the 1963 Trademark Regulations provided that the Regulations should 

strengthen ‘trademark control and guarantee and improve the quality of products,’” citing 1963 Trademark 

Regulations, translated in 62 Pat. & Trademark Rev. 249 (1964). 371 Trademark Law of the People’s Republic of China (Adopted at the 24th Session of the Standing Committee of 

the Fifth National People’s Congress on August 23, 1982), available at www.chinatoday.com/law/a02.htm

[hereinafter “1982 Trademark Law”] (The Chinese version of the law can be found in Appendix 3). 372 See Alford, supra note 334, at 75. 
THE CRISIS IN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PROTECTION AND CHINA’S ROLE IN THAT CRISIS

Trade Lawyers Advisory Group 

May 2007

76 

advertising goods,” and “detrimental to socialist morals or customs or having other unhealthy 

influences.”373

Articles 31 and 34 of the Law provided that where there is a violation the “local 

administrative authorities for industry and commerce” will call for the infringer to cease, and 

rectify the situation, and would “circulate a notice of criticism or impose a fine.” 374 If a party is 

not satisfied with the decision of an administrative authority, the party “may institute 

proceedings with the people’s court.”375 As Alford pointed out, the remedy provisions in the 

Law proved problematic by relying too much on the administrative side, despite the provision 

allowing access to the courts, and they were also vague, making it unclear how to bring actions, 

what administrative or judicial actions were available, and how to enforce those actions.376 

Additionally, the remedies provided by the law were viewed as not being substantial enough to 

deter the offensive behavior.377 Finally, foreigners also could not directly complain to a local 

trademark authority, but, rather, had to go through a trademark agent.378

 

373 1982 Trademark Law, supra note 371, Art. 8. See Alford, supra note 334, at 75. 374 1982 Trademark Law, supra note 371, Arts. 31 and 34. Violations under Article 31 pertain to the use of a 

trademark with goods of poor quality and Article 34 pertains to the use of an unregistered trademark. Article 

33 addresses the punishment for selling, without a registered trademark, goods prescribed by the state as 

requiring a trademark. The Article provides that the “local administrative authorities for industry and 

commerce shall order him to file an application for registration within a specified period, and may, in addition, 

impose a fine. Id. 375 Id. at Art. 36. 

376 See Alford, supra note 334, at 76. 377 See id. 378 1982 Trademark Law, supra note 371, Art. 10. 
THE CRISIS IN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PROTECTION AND CHINA’S ROLE IN THAT CRISIS

Trade Lawyers Advisory Group 

May 2007

77 

2. 1984 Patent Law379

The Patent Law allowed for patenting of “inventions-creations,” which included 

inventions, utility models (“petty inventions”), and designs. 380 Article 45 provided that an 

invention patent had a duration of fifteen years and five years for a utility model or design, with 

a provision for a single three-year renewable period.381 Under Article 25 of the Patent Law there 

were, however, many important limitations as to what could be patented. 382 Additionally, 

excluded from patentability was anything “contrary to the laws of the state or social morality or 

that are detrimental to public interest.”383 

On its face, the Patent Law appeared to provide foreigners with greater privileges because 

Chinese subjects could only apply for patents if they invented the item on their own or while 

working at a non-state entity, which at the time, was not common.384 However, as applied, 

foreigners were often at a disadvantage. For instance, although Article 25 applied to foreigners 

and Chinese equally, the exclusion of patent coverage to chemical, pharmaceutical, and 

alimentary inventions disproportionately affected foreign patent holders, as, more often than not, 

 

379 See Tables 1 and 2 in Appendix 8 containing the total number of patent applications and patents granted in 

China from 1985-2006. 

380 Patent Law of the People’s Republic of China, Arts. 1 and 2 (entered into force April 1, 1985), translated in 24 

I.L.M. 295 (1985) [hereinafter “1984 Patent Law”] (The Chinese version of the law can be found in Appendix 

3). 

381 Id., Art. 45. 382 Id. at Art. 25. Article 25 provided that no patent shall be granted for: “Scientific discoveries”; “Rules and 

methods of mental activities”; “Methods for the diagnosis or for the treatment of diseases”; “Food, beverage 

and flavorings”; “Pharmaceutical products and substances obtained by means of a chemical process”; “Animal 

and plant varieties”; and “Substances obtained by means of nuclear transformation.” However, “processes 

used in producing” food, beverages, flavoring, pharmaceutical products, chemical substances and animal and 

plant varieties could be granted a patent. Id. Additionally, under the exception for “rules and methods of 

mental activities,” computer software could not be patented unless bundled with a computer. See Sidel, supra

note 370, at 283-4. 

383 1984 Patent Law, supra note 380, Art. 5. 384 Id. at Art. 6; see Allison and Lin, supra note 335, at 755. 
THE CRISIS IN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PROTECTION AND CHINA’S ROLE IN THAT CRISIS

Trade Lawyers Advisory Group 

May 2007

78 

foreigners already held patents for such products.385 Additionally, patent protection for such 

products is more valuable to the rights holder, as the underlying technology for these products is 

easily discernable and copied.386 

An additional weakness of the Patent Law was that it provided very few remedies for the 

patentee to protect the limited rights that the law granted. Article 60 provided that when a 

patentee believes his patent has been infringed, he may request the administrative authority to 

handle the matter or may institute legal proceeding in the people’s court.387 Where there is an 

infringement and “the circumstances are serious, any person directly responsible shall be 

prosecuted for his criminal liability.”388 However, as the Patent Law provided that certain acts 

did not constitute infringement of the patent right, it would seem that “the Patent Law of 1984 

had far more to say about the rights being provided than the means through which individuals 

might vindicate them.”389 Additionally, since remedies were almost all limited to administrative 

or criminal remedies, decisions were kept with the government, allowing for few civil remedies, 

and not allowing for remedial actions to be in the hands of the patentees.390

 

385 Alford, supra note 334, at 72. 386 Id. 

387 1984 Patent Law, supra note 380, Art. 60. 388 Id. at Art. 63. 

389 Alford, supra note 334, at 72. Article 62 provided that the following acts should not be deemed infringement: 

the use or sale of a product made by the patent holder or with the patent holder’s permission; the use or sale of 

a patented product without knowledge that it was made and sold without the patent holders authorization; 

continued production or use of a product or process by another person, when that person has made, used, or 

made preparations to make or use the product before the patent holder’s date of filing; use of the patent by 

foreign transport temporarily passing through Chinese territory in accordance with an international agreement 

or on the basis of reciprocity; and use of the patent solely for purposes of scientific research. See 1984 Patent 

Law, supra note 380, Art. 62. 

390 See id. at 73. 
THE CRISIS IN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PROTECTION AND CHINA’S ROLE IN THAT CRISIS

Trade Lawyers Advisory Group 

May 2007

79 

3. 1990 Copyright Law

After a controversial and complicated debate over whether copyrights were strictly a 

private right, relevant only to the protection of private interests or were “relevant to public 

interests” requiring administration by a government agency, China passed the 1990 Copyright 

Law. 391 The law provided that an administrative authority would be responsible for the 

nationwide administration of copyrights and would have the ability to levy fines.392 The Law did 

not provide detailed rules for civil procedures and remedies, and provided no provisions on 

criminal penalty.393 Additionally, the law suffered from dual and sometimes competing purposes 

since it granted authors copyright protection, but, like the Trademark Law, only with the purpose 

of encouraging works that would help advance the aims of the Communist Party.394

Similar to the Patent Law, the Copyright Law tried to placate the demands of the 

international marketplace by giving foreigners, in some circumstances, more rights than their 

Chinese counterparts. Under Article 27, “remuneration for the exploitation of works shall be 

established by the copyright administration department under the State Council.... [or] [w]here 

otherwise agreed to in a contract, remuneration may also be paid in accordance with the terms of 

the said contract.”395 Thus, while the Chinese were not allowed to determine their royalties, 

 

391 Copyright Law of the People’s Republic of China (adopted at the Fifteenth Session of the Standing Committee 

of the Seventh National People’s Congress on September 7, 1990) available at 

http://www.chinaconsulatesf.org/eng/kj/wjfg/t43948.htm [hereinafter “1990 Copyright Law”] (The Chinese 

version of the law can be found in Appendix 3); see also Nie, supra note 332, at 185. 

392 Additionally, Article 8 provided that [t]he Copyright administration department of the People’s Government of 

each province, autonomous region and municipality directly under the Central Government shall be 

responsible for the administration of copyright in its administrative areas. See 1990 Copyright Law, supra note 

391, Arts. 8 and 46. 

393 Id. at Arts. 45-50; see Nie, supra note 332, at 185. 

394 1990 Copyright Law, supra note 391, Art. 1; see Nie, supra note 332, at 184. 

395 1990 Copyright Law, supra note 391. 
THE CRISIS IN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PROTECTION AND CHINA’S ROLE IN THAT CRISIS

Trade Lawyers Advisory Group 

May 2007

80 

foreigners were given the right to negotiate contracts for their royalties.396 However, foreigners’ 

rights were diminished by Article 2 that denied foreigners protection unless their works were 

published in China first or had more extensive rights by a bilateral or international agreement. 397 

Finally, the foreign exchange regime limited the amount of royalties a foreigner was allowed to 

take out of the country.398

4. 1991 Regulations for Computer Software Protection 

The Regulations for the Protection of Computer Software were similar to the Patent, 

Copyright, and Trademark Laws in that “a seemingly broad statement of rights is subject to a 

variety of qualifications.”399 The regulations provided that copyright holders had the following 

rights: (1) right of publication; (2) right of authorship; (3) right of use; (4) right of licensing use 

and receiving remuneration; and (5) right of transfer.400 Any software published prior to the 

issuance of the Regulation was presumed to already be in the public domain.401 However, under 

Article 13, the regulations contained language about “national and public security interests” that 

limited the scope of the rights that the regulations granted, without clearly defining “national and 

public security interests.” 402 Under Article 24, registration of software was considered a 

“prerequisite for administrative treatment of rights disputes or for lawsuits.”403 Additionally, to 

seek the enforcement of rights, software developers were required to provide key proprietary 

 

396 Alford, supra note 334, at 79.

397 1990 Copyright Law, supra note 391, Art. 2. 

398 Alford, supra note 334, at 80. 

399 Id.

400 See Regulations for Computer Software Protection, Art. 9 (promulgated on June 4, 1991, effective October 2, 

1991) [hereinafter “1991 Regulations for Computer Software”]. 

401 Alford, supra note 334, at 81; see id. 402 See 1991 Regulations for Computer Software, supra note 400, Art. 13. 403 See id. at Art. 24. 
THE CRISIS IN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PROTECTION AND CHINA’S ROLE IN THAT CRISIS

Trade Lawyers Advisory Group 

May 2007

81 

data to a government Ministry in a “registration process that is far more exacting than that of 

many nations, particularly in view of the regulations’ liberal invocation of the national 

interest.”404

E. THE UNITED STATES INCREASES PRESSURE ON CHINA TO IMPROVE IPR

PROTECTION

In the late 1980s, the United States and China began holding discussions on methods to 

improve China’s protection of IPR. The discussions covered laws on copyright, patent, 

trademark, trade secrets, and unfair competition, as well as the enforcement of those laws.405 

However, progress was slow. In order to address problems with the then existing Chinese laws, 

regulations and enforcement efforts, on April 26, 1991, USTR, pursuant to the Special 301 

provisions of the 1988 Trade Act, identified China as a Priority Foreign Country. 406 USTR 

commented that: 

China is our only major trading partner to offer neither product 

patent protection for pharmaceutical and other chemicals, nor 

 

404 Alford, supra note 334, at 81. 405 1995 National Trade Estimate Report on Foreign Trade Barriers, United States Trade Representative, at 54 

[hereinafter “National Trade Estimate 1995”]. 

406 Pursuant to Section 182 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended by the 

Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988 and the Uruguay Round 

Agreements Act (enacted in 1994) (“Special 301”), under Special 301 

provisions, USTR must identify those countries that deny adequate and effective 

protection for IPR or deny fair and equitable market access for persons that rely 

on intellectual property protection. Countries that have the onerous or egregious 

acts, policies, or practices and whose acts, policies, or practices have the greatest 

adverse impact (actual or potential) on the relevant U.S. products must be 

designated as “Priority Foreign Countries. 

Priority Foreign Countries are potentially subject to an investigation 

under the Section 301 provisions of the Trade Act of 1974. USTR may not 

designate a country as a Priority Foreign Country if it is entering into good faith 

negotiations or making significant progress in bilateral or multilateral 

negotiations to provide adequate and effective protection of IPR. 

See Background on Special 301, United States Trade Representative, available at 

http://www.ustr.gov/assets/Document_Library/Reports_Publications/2006/2006_Special_301_Review/asset_u

pload_file324_9334.pdf. 
THE CRISIS IN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PROTECTION AND CHINA’S ROLE IN THAT CRISIS

Trade Lawyers Advisory Group 

May 2007

82 

copyright protection for U.S. works. In addition, trademarks are 

granted to the first registrant in China, regardless of the original 

owner. Trade secrets are not adequately protected in China. As a 

result, piracy of all forms of intellectual property is widespread in 

China, accounting for significant losses to U.S. industries.407

Accordingly, on May 26, 1991, USTR initiated an investigation on China’s intellectual 

property rights practices.408 The investigation was resolved when the United States and China 

signed the 1992 Memorandum of Understanding (“MOU”) on Intellectual Property Rights.409 

This MOU was the first bilateral IP agreement between the U.S. and China that strictly focused 

on China’s legislation. The MOU required China to revise its Patent Law to: (1) cover patented 

subject matter on all chemical inventions, whether products or processes; (2) extend the term of 

protection for patents of invention to twenty years from the date of filing the patent 

application;410 and (3) limit the use of compulsory licenses.411 Additionally, China was required 

to accede to the Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works 412 (Berne 

Convention) and the Convention for the Protection of Producers of Phonograms Against 

 

407 Fact Sheet: Special 301 on Intellectual Property, Office of the United States Trade Representative, April 26, 

1991, available at USTR Reading Room. 408 See Background on Special 301, supra note 406. 

409 See Memorandum of Understanding Between the Government of the People’s Republic of China and the 

Government of the United States of America on the Protection of Intellectual Property Rights, January 7, 1992, 

available at http://tcc.export.gov/trade_agreements/all_trade_agreements/exp_005362.asp [hereinafter “1992 

Memorandum of Understanding”]. 410 Under Article 1 of the MOU, the U.S. agreed that if it became a party to an international convention that 

required a twenty year patent term, it would amend its laws to satisfy that obligation. In 1995, following the 

conclusion of the Uruguay Round, to comply with the implementing legislation for the WTO (The Uruguay 

Round Agreements Act), the U.S. changed its patent term to twenty years. See Changes to Implement 20-Year 

Patent Term and Provisional Applications, 60 Fed. Reg. 20195 (June 8, 1995) (to be codified at 37 C.F.R. pts. 

1 and 3). 411 See 1992 Memorandum of Understanding, supra note 409, at Article 2; see also Zhang, supra note 365, at 73. 

412 See Berne Notification No. 140, Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works, 

Accession by the People’s Republic of China (July 15, 1992) (effective October 15, 1992), available at 

http://www.wipo.int/edocs/notdocs/en/berne/treaty_berne_140.html. 
THE CRISIS IN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PROTECTION AND CHINA’S ROLE IN THAT CRISIS

Trade Lawyers Advisory Group 

May 2007

83 

Unauthorized Duplication of Their Phonograms413 (Geneva Convention), and issue regulations 

that would put China in compliance with those conventions and with the MOU.414 In 1994, 

China also acceded to the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT).415

China viewed itself as having fully implemented the MOU after passing the 1992 

Revision of Patent Law, the 1992 Implementing International Copyright Treaties Provisions, the 

1993 Law Against Unfair Competition and completed accession to the Berne and Geneva 

Conventions.416 However, the U.S. had ongoing concerns about China’s ability/willingness to 

enforce the new laws and regulations, particularly copyright provisions. The “short history of 

copyright law in China, the lack of Chinese officials with experience in the enforcement of 

copyright law, and the general ignorance of copyright law among many Chinese” contributed to 

the difficulty China experienced in enforcing these new laws, especially with respect to 

foreigners.417 In 1994, USTR commended China’s progress in implementing the MOU, but 

noted that China’s enforcement of IPR laws and regulations was “sporadic at best and virtually 

non-existent with regard to copyrighted works.”418

In June 1994, the U.S. initiated a second Special 301 investigation that led to eight 

months of negotiations. On February 26, 1995, the U.S. and China reached the Agreement 

Regarding Intellectual Property Rights (“IPR Agreement”), which included an Annex entitled 

 

413 See Phonograms Notification No. 50, Convention for the Protection of Producers of Phonograms Against 

Unauthorized Duplication of Their Phonograms, Accession by the People’s Republic of China (January 30, 

1993) (effective April 30, 1993), available at http://www.wipo.int/edocs/notdocs/en/phonograms/

treaty_phonograms_50.html. 414 See 1992 Memorandum of Understanding, supra note 409, at Article 3; see also Zhang, supra note 365, at 73. 

415 Zhang, supra note 365, at 64-65. 416 Id. at 73. 

417 Id. 

418 2004 National Trade Estimate Report on Foreign Trade Barriers, United States Trade Representative, at 51 

[hereinafter “National Trade Estimate 2004”]. 
THE CRISIS IN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PROTECTION AND CHINA’S ROLE IN THAT CRISIS

Trade Lawyers Advisory Group 

May 2007

84 

“Action Plan for Effective Protection and Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights.”419 The 

1995 IPR Agreement required China to establish a nationwide administrative IPR enforcement 

structure and provide market access for audiovisual products, computer software, and for books 

and periodicals. 420 The IPR enforcement structure included: (1) a state council working 

conference on intellectual property rights and sub-central working conferences, (2) enforcement 

task forces, (3) a special enforcement period, (4) enforcement efforts in specific fields, (5) 

enforcement directly through administrative agencies and departments, (6) additional 

administrative actions, (7) customs enforcement, (8) establishment of copyright verification 

systems, (9) administrative and regulatory matters, and (10) training and education programs to 

improve the environment for intellectual property.421

Feeling that China was not doing enough to enforce the 1995 IPR Agreement, a year later 

the United States threatened to impose tariffs on Chinese exports. To avoid this, the U.S. and 

China signed the 1996 IPR Accord.422 The 1996 IPR Accord included a “Report,” outlining 

what China had done and what needed to be done in order to fully implement the 1995 IPR 

Agreement.423 The Accord also included an “Access Accord” which allowed for the opening of 

 

419 See People’s Republic of China Intellectual Property Rights Memorandum of Understanding – Action Plan for 

Effective Protection and Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights, February 26, 1995, available at

http://tcc.export.gov/trade_agreements/all_trade_agreements/exp_005363.asp [hereinafter “1995 Memorandum 

of Understanding”]. 

420 See id. 421 See id. at Annex I; see also Zhang, supra note 365, at 75. 

422 See People’s Republic of China Implementation of the 1995 Intellectual Property Rights Agreement – 1996 

(June 17, 1996), available at http://tcc.export.gov/trade_agreements/all_trade_agreements/exp_005361.asp. 423 See id. 
THE CRISIS IN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PROTECTION AND CHINA’S ROLE IN THAT CRISIS

Trade Lawyers Advisory Group 

May 2007

85 

the Chinese market for American cultural products, but was subject to Chinese censorship 

requirements.424

To prepare for accession to the WTO, in the late 1990s, the U.S. and other trading 

partners continued to urge China to further strengthen its IPR laws. For its part, China continued 

with reform efforts and began drafting revisions to its trademark, patent, and copyright laws, and 

established the State Intellectual Property Office (“SIPO”).425 

F. CHINA’S ACCESSION TO THE WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION (“WTO”)

AND COMPLIANCE WITH LEGAL REQUIREMENTS OF THE WTO TRIPS

AGREEMENT

At the same time that China was involved in bilateral negotiations with the U.S. about the 

adequacy of its intellectual property laws and enforcement, China was also pursuing accession to 

the GATT and then the World Trade Organization. For many members of the WTO, an 

important multilateral issue for China being able to accede to the WTO was its ability to be fully 

in compliance with the TRIPS Agreement at the time of accession.426 To be in a position to 

 

424 See id.

425 Although China envisioned that SIPO would coordinate China’s IP enforcement efforts by merging the patent, 

trademark and copyright offices under one authority, this has not occurred. Indeed, China’s IP issues and 

enforcement is handled by a complex bureaucratic web of various agencies. Currently, although SIPO has a 

policy making role in trademarks, patents, and copyrights, SIPO’s activities are primarily focused on granting 

patents and registering semiconductor layout designs. See Protecting Your Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) 

in China: A Practical Guide for U.S. Companies, Office of China Economic Area, Export.gov, January 2003, 

available at http://www.mac.doc.gov/China/IPRNEW.html. “The China Trademark Office (CTMO) and 

National Copyright Administration of China (NCAC) remain separate bodies, while still another entity, the 

Ministry of Commerce (MOFCOM), administers technology transfer issues.” Facing the China Challenge: 

Using an Intellectual Property Strategy to Capture Global Advantage, The Boston Consulting Group, 

September 20, 2004, at 8, available at http://www.bcg.com/publications/publications_search_results.jsp?

PUBID=1217. 426 See generally Report of the Working Party on the Accession of China, WT/MIN(01)/3 (10 November 2001), at 

paras. 251-305 (regarding China's intellectual property rights commitments); see also, Terence P. Stewart, Law 

Offices of Stewart and Stewart, Accession of the People’s Republic of China to the Word Trade Organization: 

Baseline of Commitments, Initial Implementation and Implications for U.S.-PRC Trade Relations and U.S. 

Security Interests: A Report and Selected Annexes Prepared for the U.S.-China Security Review Commission 
THE CRISIS IN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PROTECTION AND CHINA’S ROLE IN THAT CRISIS

Trade Lawyers Advisory Group 

May 2007

86 

accept the terms of the Chinese Protocol on Accession, including its commitment to full 

implementation of the TRIPS Agreement at the time of accession, China revised its IP laws 

before accession,427 making “comprehensive revisions to the laws and regulations regarding IPR 

protection and their legal interpretation.”428 

By the end of 2001, China had amended its patent, trademark, and copyright laws and 

had amended regulations for patent law, computer software protection, and the protection of 

layout designs of integrated circuits.429 After accession, China issued regulations for trademark 

and copyright laws, implementing rules and judicial interpretations in the patent, trademark, and 

copyright areas, and regulations and implementing rules for integrated circuits, computer 

software, and pharmaceuticals.430 

Among the assumed obligations of the WTO TRIPS Agreement, China agreed to: 

• set minimum standards of protection for copyrights and neighboring rights, 

trademarks, geographical indications, industrial designs, patents, integrated-circuit 

layout designs and undisclosed information; 

• set minimum standards for the enforcement of intellectual property rights in 

administrative and civil actions; 

• set minimum standards, with regard to copyright piracy and trademark counterfeiting, 

for the enforcement of intellectual property rights in criminal actions and actions at 

the border; and 

 by the Law Offices of Stewart and Stewart, Transnational Publishers (2002). (The book provides a table 

containing all of China’s TRIPS commitments, which is provided in Annex 5 of this report.) 

427 See Table 1 of Appendix Table 3 for a list of relevant laws with effective dates and dates of amendment, See 

also, Tables 1-3 in Appendix 4, which contains the changes in enforcement measures from the laws passed in 

the 1990s and the laws passed between 2000 and 2001. 

428 White Paper on China’s Intellectual Property Rights in 2005, State Intellectual Property Office (SIPO), 

available at: http://www.sipo.gov.cn/sipo_English/ndbg/bps/200605/t20060509_99488.htm [hereinafter “2005 

Chinese White Paper”]. 

429 2006 National Trade Estimate Report on Foreign Trade Barriers, United States Trade Representative, at 115 

[hereinafter “Nation Trade Estimate 2006”]. 430 Id.
THE CRISIS IN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PROTECTION AND CHINA’S ROLE IN THAT CRISIS

Trade Lawyers Advisory Group 

May 2007

87 

• provide other WTO Members national and MFN treatment with respect to protection 

and enforcement of intellectual property rights.431

Articles 41-61 of the TRIPS Agreement specifically address the enforcement of 

intellectual property rights. These Articles include detailed provisions on administrative, civil, 

criminal and border enforcement measures designed to protect the owners of intellectual property 

rights.432 An important aspect of China’s treaty obligations under the Protocol and TRIPS 

Agreement related to enforcement provisions addressing procedural, remedial, and institutional 

mechanisms for the enforcement of intellectual property rights.433 

During the Working Party, members expressed concern with respect to China’s 

enforcement of IPR.434 Specifically, they called on China to increase its enforcement efforts, 

ensure the vigorous enforcement of laws by taking action against manufacturing facilities, 

markets, and retail shops.435 Additionally, they urged that civil actions should be made easier 

and the calculation of damages should not be based on the infringer’s profits, which requires 

evidence of actual sales, and that criminal prosecution should be more accessible by a lowering 

of criminal thresholds, which were seldom met.436 

As required in China’s Protocol of Accession, in 2002 China submitted to the Council for 

Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, a Review of Legislation that outlined the 

 

431 See 2005 Report to Congress on China’s WTO Compliance, United States Trade Representative, December 11, 

2005, at 63. 

432 In particular, TRIPS articles 41 (general obligations) and 61 (criminal procedures) mandate effective 

enforcement of IPR. 433 Nie, supra note 332, at 191. 

434 See generally Report of the Working Party on the Accession of China, supra note 426, at paras. 287-304. 435 Id. at paras. 287-288. 436 Id. at paras. 289, 297, and 304. 
THE CRISIS IN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PROTECTION AND CHINA’S ROLE IN THAT CRISIS

Trade Lawyers Advisory Group 

May 2007

88 

major changes to its intellectual property laws in the years preceding accession.437 The Chinese 

delegation reported to the Council that after major amendments to the related laws and 

regulations “the legislation for IPR protection in China has been greatly improved and has 

achieved full compliance with the TRIPS Agreement of the WTO.” 438 With respect to 

enforcement, the delegation of China reported that, in addition to the changes in legislation, 

“priorities have also been given to the issues related with IPR protection like the sharpening of 

the awareness of IPR protection among the general public and the strengthening of the 

enforcement of IPR laws and regulations so as to ensure an effective IPR legal system on the 

national scale.”439

1. Amendments to the Copyright Law

During China’s accession to the WTO, members of the Working Party expressed concern 

that the 1990 Copyright Law was not consistent with the TRIPS Agreements. 440 Specifically, 

members noted “the need to clarify the rights of performers and producers....[and that] 

improvements were needed with respect to enforcement of copyright to provide expressly for 

provisional measures to preserve evidence, including documentary evidence and for remedies 

sufficient to deter further infringements.”441 Recognizing that China’s Copyright Law still had 

differences with the TRIPS Agreement, China committed to clarifying the compensation system 

 

437 Review of Legislation, China, IP/Q/CHN/1, IP/Q2/CHN/1, IP/Q3/CHN/1, IP/Q4/CHN/1 (December 10, 2002) 

[hereinafter “Review of Legislation”]. 

438 Id. at 3. 

439 Id. at 4. 

440 For a full listing of the amendments made to China’s Copyright Law, see Transitional Review Mechanism of 

China – Communication from China, IP/C/W/382 (16 September 2002). 441 Report of the Working Party on the Accession of China, supra note 426, at para. 258. 
THE CRISIS IN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PROTECTION AND CHINA’S ROLE IN THAT CRISIS

Trade Lawyers Advisory Group 

May 2007

89 

for use of copyright material, “increasing the legitimate compensation amount and strengthening 

the measures against infringing activities.”442 

In 2002, the Chinese government reported that the revised Copyright Law443 “extends the 

scope of protection, clearly defines the right of performers and producers, adds the provisional 

measures of property and evidence preservation, stipulates the amount of statutory damages and 

enhances the administrative sanction on the infringements that harm the public interests.”444 

With respect to enforcement, Article 49 states that copyright owners or rights holders 

may apply to the People’s Court for injunctions forcing infringers to desist and preserve property 

for litigation purposes, so long as the petitioner holds reasonable evidence that infringement has 

occurred or is about to occur and that delay would cause irreparable damage to their interests.445 

Article 50 allows for the preservation of property before litigation is instigated, so long as there 

is a demonstrable risk that evidence will be lost or hard to obtain in the future.446 

Under Article 48, the People’s Court has the authority, “according to the specific 

circumstances of an infringement,” to order damages of no more than RMB 500,000 ($61,000) 

“when the right’s holders actual loss or the infringer’s income from the infringement cannot be 

ascertained.”447 For copyright infringements that harm the public interest, “apart from civil 

liabilities that the infringer shall bear, the copyright administrative authorities have the right to 

 

442 Id. at para. 259. 443 See Table 1 in Appendix 4, showing the amendments to China’s Copyright Law from 1990-2001. 

444 Review of Legislation, supra note 437, at 3. 

445 Main Dedicated Intellectual Property Under Laws and Regulations Notified Under Article 63.2 of the 

Agreement: Copyright Law of the People’s Republic of China (September 7, 2990, amended October 27, 2001)

IP/N1/CHN/C/1 (8 July 2002). 

446 Id. 447 Transitional Review Mechanism of China – Communication from China, supra note 440, at para. 7. 
THE CRISIS IN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PROTECTION AND CHINA’S ROLE IN THAT CRISIS

Trade Lawyers Advisory Group 

May 2007

90 

order the infringer to desist from infringing acts, to confiscate the infringer’s income from the 

infringement, to confiscate and destroy the infringing reproduction, and have the infringer 

fined.” 448 This Article also provides that under “serious” circumstances, the administrative 

authority can confiscate the materials and equipment used in production of the infringing 

articles.449 

2. Amendments to the Trademark Law

Working Party members were concerned that China’s Trademark Law did not provide for 

national treatment to foreign owners of trademarks, required foreign owners to use designated 

trademark agents, and was inconsistent with TRIPS for not allowing certain signs as eligible for 

protection.450 Additionally, they said that the Law “should provide that a non-distinctive mark 

could qualify for registration when it has acquired distinctiveness based on use” and the law 

should be clarified so that “actual use of a mark was not required before a party could file to 

register a mark.”451 

China recognized that the trademark law did not meet the requirements of the TRIPS 

Agreement and the Paris Convention and committed to the Working Party that, before accession, 

amendments would be made to the following aspects: 

to include the trademark registration of three-dimensional symbols, 

combination of colours, alphabets and figures; to add the content 

of collective trademark and certification trademark (including 

geographical indications; to introduce official symbol protection; 

to protect well-known trademarks; to include priority rights; to 

 

448 Id. at para. 8. 

449 Id. 450 Report of the Working Party on the Accession of China, supra note 426, at para. 261. 451 Id. 
THE CRISIS IN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PROTECTION AND CHINA’S ROLE IN THAT CRISIS

Trade Lawyers Advisory Group 

May 2007

91 

modify the existing trademark right confirmation system and offer 

interested parties the opportunity for judicial review concerning the 

confirmation of trademark rights; to crack down on all serious 

infringements; and to improve the system for providing damages 

for trademark infringement.452

After the Trademark Law453 was amended, China reported to the WTO that the Law 

“specifically provides for the protection of geographic indications and well-known trademarks, 

expands the scope of eligible subject matter of a trademark, stipulates the right of priority, adds 

judicial review to administrative decisions relating to trademark registration and strengthens the 

cracking down on trademark infringement.” 454 As required by Article 15 of the Trips 

Agreement, letters, numbers, shapes and colors are eligible of registration.455 With respect to 

enforcement, the ability to investigate and punish infringing acts was increased, by giving the 

authorities the right to inquire, consult, investigate on site, sequester, and seize.456 

The amended Implementing Regulations of Trademark Law stipulate that the 

infringement of exclusive rights of a registered trademark carries a fine no more than three times 

the amount of the infringing value, and where no value is available, the amount of the fine shall 

be no more than RMB 100,000 ($12,200).457 

 

452 Id. 

453 See Table 2 in Appendix 4, showing the amendments to China’s Trademark Law from 1982-2001. 

454 Review of Legislation, supra note 437, at 3. 

455 Id. at 8. 456 Transitional Review Mechanism of China – Communication from China, supra note 440, at para. 21. 457 Id. 
THE CRISIS IN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PROTECTION AND CHINA’S ROLE IN THAT CRISIS

Trade Lawyers Advisory Group 

May 2007

92 

3. Amendments to the Patent Law 

The primary concern for the Working Party was the lack of clarity in the “subject matter 

that would be subject to compulsory licensing” under the Patent Law.458 China responded to this 

concern by committing to amendments to the Implementing Rules of the Patent Law to ensure 

that use without proper authorization would only be permitted if: (1) there had been efforts to 

obtain permission on reasonable commercial terms and adequate compensation, which could be 

waived for national or extreme emergencies; (2) in such a case, the rights holder would receive 

payment of adequate remuneration; (3) authorization for use would be predominantly for the 

domestic market; and (4) for semi-conductors technology, the scope and duration would only be 

for non-commercial use or to “remedy a practice determined after judicial or administrative 

process to be anti-competitive.”459

China’s amended Patent Law460 gave new criteria for calculating infringement damages, 

and affirmed the right of patent applicants and owners to institute litigation against any 

administrative determination before a court. With respect to enforcement, “[t]he revised Patent 

Law sets the conditions for granting compulsory licenses, and adds the provision of judicial 

review for the administrative decisions regarding patent of utility model and design.”461

 

458 Report of the Working Party on the Accession of China, supra note 426, at para. 274. 

459 Id. at para. 275. 460 See Table 3 in Appendix 4, showing the amendments to China’s Patent Law from 1984-2000. 461 Review of Legislation, supra note 437, at 3. 
THE CRISIS IN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PROTECTION AND CHINA’S ROLE IN THAT CRISIS

Trade Lawyers Advisory Group 

May 2007

93 

III. AN OVERVIEW OF ENFORCEMENT MEASURES IN CHINA AND CHINA’S EFFORTS 

TO IMPROVE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ENFORCEMENT

While Chinese IPR laws have a “sound legal framework providing ‘black letter law’ 

protection to IPR, the real issue lies with enforcement of those rights.”462 In that regard, recent 

reviews of IPR enforcement in China by U.S. Congressional groups, the U.S. and foreign 

governments, trade associations, scholars, and independent groups provide a consistent picture of 

the array of factors that undermine IPR enforcement in China. These factors include: an overly 

bureaucratic enforcement structure; lack of coordination among the main enforcement agencies; 

China’s reliance on administrative measures rather than criminal sanctions to combat IPR 

infringement; corruption and local government protection; the limited resources available to, and 

lack of training of, enforcement officials; and inadequate understanding and education by the 

public of the economic and social impact of IPR theft. 

IPR enforcement in China is a complicated system of overlapping bodies at the local, 

provincial and national administrative levels, with the State Intellectual Property Organization 

(“SIPO”) exercising little control over local and provincial bodies.463 The large number of 

enforcement authorities include: SIPO for patents and layout designs of integrated circuits; State 

Administration for Industry and Commerce (“SAIC”) and its Trademark Office for trade marks; 

the State General Administration of Quality Supervision, Inspection and Quarantine (“AQSIQ”), 

for geographical indications registration and administration; National Copyright Administration 

(“NCA”) for copyright; State Drug Administration for protected medicines; Ministry of 

Commerce (“MOFCOM”) for administrative protection of agriculture-related chemicals; and the 

 

462 China FTA – Need for Progress on Intellectual Property Rights, Australian Chamber of Commerce and 

Industry, January 2006, at 5, available at www.acci.asn.au. 

463 Id. See supra note 425, explaining that SIPO was established for the purpose of coordinating China’s IPR 

enforcement efforts by merging the patent, trademark, and copyright offices under one authority. 
THE CRISIS IN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PROTECTION AND CHINA’S ROLE IN THAT CRISIS

Trade Lawyers Advisory Group 

May 2007

94 

Ministry of Agriculture and the State Forestry Administration for the protection of new plant 

varieties.464 Border enforcement is carried out by China Customs, and SAIC is in charge of 

enforcement of laws against unfair competition, including the protection of trade secrets.465 The 

State Press and Publications Administration and the Ministry of Public Security also play a role 

in enforcement. 466 Chinese authorities lack the high level of coordination and training needed to 

investigate and prosecute IPR infringements that this complex system requires.467 The problems 

associated with a lack of coordination among the various levels of government agencies are 

compounded by different agencies using different standards to determine criminal conduct.468 

A. ENFORCEMENT MECHANISMS

Three principal avenues exist for enforcing IPR in China. They are administrative, civil, 

and criminal enforcement mechanisms. Administrative enforcement mechanisms are used in the 

majority of cases, with criminal enforcement being the least common avenue for recourse.469

1. Administrative Enforcement

Intellectual property rights in China are enforced through either administrative action or 

judicial measures, with the latter including civil actions and criminal prosecutions. Both the 

administrative agencies and the judicial system have the legal competence to address intellectual 

property disputes.470 The law allows the administrative authorities to administer and enforce 

 

464 Trade Policy Review: China, Report by the Secretariat, WT/TPR/S161 (28 February 2006), at para. 304 

[hereinafter “Trade Policy Review”]. 

465 Id. at para 303. 

466 Id. at para 304. 467 National Trade Estimate 2006, supra note 429, at 128. 

468 Id.

469 See Appendix 9 for Chinese IPR enforcement statistics from 1998-2005. 470 Nie, supra note 332, at 217. 
THE CRISIS IN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PROTECTION AND CHINA’S ROLE IN THAT CRISIS

Trade Lawyers Advisory Group 

May 2007

95 

IPRs.471 The administrative enforcement system in China was designed in part in response to 

concerns by foreign parties about the “slowness and inefficiency” of the Chinese court system to 

handle IP matters. 472 Nearly every intellectual property right has its own administrative 

agency, 473 resulting in diverse coverage that includes patents, trademarks, copyrights, trade 

secrets, bio-engineering, and customs procedures. Where infringement occurs, the rights holder 

may either bring a lawsuit to the court or file a complaint with the governing administrative 

bodies.474 If the administrative action does not produce a satisfactory result, the administrative 

authority will usually refer the case to the judicial system where it becomes subject to civil 

law.475 The remedies available to the administrative body(ies) include preliminary injunctions 

and fines.476

According to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”), the benefits of the 

administrative process are that it is rapid, local, inexpensive, does not require formal legal 

representation, and that injunctions are available.477 Administrative action often takes place 

within two days of filing a complaint.478 Administrative actions – particularly raids by the local 

authorities – are easier and faster than civil or criminal suits, and are often used in cases of clear 

infringement or pure counterfeiting. 479 However, the system still suffers from a lack of 

 

471 Id. 472 Electronic Industries Alliance/China Alliance, Protecting Intellectual Property Rights in China, 2006 at 19. 473 Elaine T. Wu, United States Patent and Trademark Office, Intellectual Property Section, The Changing 

Environment for Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights in China, December 14, 2006, at 5. 474 Transitional Review Mechanism of China, Communication from China, IP/C/W/384 (11 October 2002) at 4. 475 Trade Policy Review, supra note 464, at para 305. 

476 Transitional Review Mechanism of China, Communication from China, IP/C/W/384 (11 October 2002) at 4. 477 Wu, supra note 473, at 5. 

478 Protecting Intellectual Property Rights in China, Electronic Industries Alliance/China Alliance, 2006, at 19. 

479 Best Practices: Intellectual Property Protection in China, The US-China Business Council, available at

http://www.uschina.org/info/ipr/ipr-best-practices.html. 
THE CRISIS IN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PROTECTION AND CHINA’S ROLE IN THAT CRISIS

Trade Lawyers Advisory Group 

May 2007

96 

transparency, persistent local protectionism, limited geographic jurisdiction, and penalties that 

are too low to serve as a deterrent.480 Due to the opaque nature of the Chinese administrative 

enforcement system, it is difficult for outside parties to determine the actual outcome of these 

cases and thus evaluate the system’s effectiveness.481 

The decentralization of power in China allows for “local protectionism,” giving local 

governments very little incentive to protect foreign IPR, as doing so often brings no “immediate 

benefits to the region” or the local economy.482 Enforcement authorities are directly managed 

and compensated by local governments, and not the federal government; thus, they are more 

likely to follow the interests of the local politicians.483 Often, local governments rely on profits 

derived from counterfeit goods and thus are unwilling to enforce laws if doing so would 

jeopardize a major employer or a large source of revenue.484 In some cases, counterfeiting 

markets account for as much as 26 percent of municipal tax revenues and provide, directly or 

indirectly, employment to tens of millions of people. 485 Due to the local governments’ 

dependence on these illegal enterprises to provide them with funding for many necessities, 

including education and health care, local enforcement authorities must consider the real 

 

480 Wu, supra note 473, at 5. 481 2006 Report to Congress, U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission (USCC), 109th Cong., 2d 

Sess. 38 (November 2006) [hereinafter “USCC 2006 Report to Congress”]. 482 Randal S. Alexander, Comment, China’s Struggle to Maintain Economic Viability While Enforcing 

International and Domestic Intellectual Property Rights, 4 J. Marshall Rev. Intell. Prop. L 608, 617-8 (2005). 

483 China FTA – Need for Progress on Intellectual Property Rights, Australian Chamber of Commerce and 

Industry, January 2006, at 7, available at www.acci.asn.au. 484 U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission, Hearing on Intellectual Property Rights Issues and 

Counterfeit Goods, testimony of Daniel C. K. Chow, June 8, 2006 [hereinafter “Chow Testimony”]. In some 

cases, the protectionism and corruption is deeply imbedded in the region, with local government officials 

financing and establishing the wholesale counterfeit distribution channels that serve Chinese and export 

markets. Id. at 4. 485 Id. at 6. 
THE CRISIS IN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PROTECTION AND CHINA’S ROLE IN THAT CRISIS

Trade Lawyers Advisory Group 

May 2007

97 

economic consequences to their regions from enforcement actions.486 Thus, while the central 

government has taken significant steps to reform IPR laws, many local authorities lack the 

incentive to enforce these laws.487 Moreover, China would “need to expend significant resources 

and political capital to deal with the massive economic and social problems that would likely 

arise” from greater counterfeiting enforcement.488

Critics of administrative enforcement argue that it carries penalties that are too low to act 

as a sufficient deterrent.489 Article 48 of the Copyright Law provides that compensation for 

infringement will be according to the actual loss of the right owner or, if the actual loss is 

difficult to determine, then according to the unlawful income.490 If neither can be determined, 

the people’s court will decide on compensation not to exceed RMB 500,000 ($61,000).491 The 

infringer is also responsible for expenses to the right owner for preventing the infringement.492 

Article 36 of the Implementation of the Copyright Law states that for any infringement which 

also “prejudices the social or public interests,” a fine of not more than RMB 100,000 ($12,200) 

may be imposed by the administrative department for copyright.493 The Patent Law provides 

that the administrative authority may confiscate the illegal earnings of the infringer, impose a 

fine of no more than three times the illegal earnings and, if there are no illegal earnings, a fine of 

 

486 Id. 

487 Alexander, supra note 482, at 617. 488 Chow Testimony, supra note 484, at 6. 

489 China FTA – Need for Progress on Intellectual Property Rights, Australian Chamber of Commerce and 

Industry, January 2006, at 6, available at www.acci.asn.au. 490 Main Dedicated Intellectual Property Laws and Regulations Notified Under Article 63.2 of the Agreement, 

Copyright Law of the People’s Republic of China, IP/N/1/CHN/C/1 (8 July 2002). 

491 Id.

492 Id.

493 Main Dedicated Intellectual Property Laws and Regulations Notified Under Article 63.2 of the Agreement, 

Regulations for the Implementation of the Copyright Law of the People’s Republic of China, IP/N/1/CHN/C/3 

(13 October 2003). 
THE CRISIS IN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PROTECTION AND CHINA’S ROLE IN THAT CRISIS

Trade Lawyers Advisory Group 

May 2007

98 

no more than RMB 50,000 ($6,100).494 Article 42 of the Regulations for the Implementation of 

the Trademark Law states that fines “shall be not more than 20% of the volume of the illegal 

business or not more than two times the profit illegally earned.”495

In 2004, the average fine for an administrative judgment was only $620.496 According to 

USTR, Chinese data indicates that 99 percent of copyright and trademark cases in 2004 were 

channeled into the administrative system, resulting in fines that were too low to be an effective 

deterrent and therefore considered by many counterfeiters as simply a cost of doing business.497

Critics argue that administrative fines are low because they are assessed based on the 

value of the counterfeit or pirated goods and not the genuine article.498 The low level of fines 

also prevents enforcement officials from getting to the source of pirated and counterfeit goods 

because retailers have no incentive to provide the authorities with information to prosecute the 

producers.499 Additionally, when people are caught selling pirated or counterfeit goods, they are 

only charged for goods that the authorities can prove they had the intent to sell; simply keeping 

 

494 Main Dedicated Intellectual Property Laws and Regulations Notified Under Article 63.2 of the Agreement, 

Patent Law of the People’s Republic of China, IP/N/1/CHN/I/1 (8 July 2002). 

495 Main Dedicated Intellectual Property Laws and Regulations Notified Under Article 63.2 of the Agreement, 

Regulations for the Implementation of the Trademark Law of the People’s Republic of China, IP/N/1/CHN/T/2 

(13 October 2003). 

496 Tim Browning, Office of Enforcement, United States Patent and Trademark Office, “Protecting and Enforcing 

Your Intellectual Property in China,” Presentation to Conference on Intellectual Property in the Global 

Marketplace (July 18, 2006). 

497 2006 Special 301 Report, United States Trade Representative, April 28, 2006, at 18, available at 

http://www.ustr.gov/Document_Library/Reports_Publications/2006/2006_Special_301_Review/Section_Index

.html [hereinafter “2006 Special 301 Report”]. 

498 National Trade Estimate 2006, supra note 429, at 126. 

499 2005 Report to Congress on China’s WTO Compliance, supra note 431, at 68. 
THE CRISIS IN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PROTECTION AND CHINA’S ROLE IN THAT CRISIS

Trade Lawyers Advisory Group 

May 2007

99 

goods at a warehouse has not been sufficient to show that the infringer had the intent to sell the 

goods.500

The weaknesses in the administrative enforcement mechanism are compounded by the 

reluctance of administrative authorities to forward administrative cases to the Ministry of Public 

Security for criminal investigation.501 Of the 51,851 administrative cases in 2004 involving 

trademark infringement and counterfeiting, only 96 of those cases were referred for criminal 

prosecution.502 Of the total cases, only 5,494 (10.6 percent) involved foreign rights holders.503 

Similarly, there were 9,691 copyright infringement cases, but only 102 of those cases were 

referred for criminal prosecution, and only 158 involved a foreign rights holder.504 Thus, only 

approximately 0.2 percent of administrative trademark cases and 1 percent of administrative 

copyright cases were transferred for criminal prosecution.505 Statistics in 2001 are similar, with 

the transfer rates from administrative to criminal prosecution only 0.2 percent for trademark 

cases and 1.5 percent for copyright cases.506 While there is some indication that the number of 

 

500 National Trade Estimate 2006, supra note 429, at 126. Recently, in Shanghai Changning District Court, the 

Court found a distributor of counterfeit golf clubs guilty of “attempt” based primarily on the amount of 

inventory the distributor had in his possession. Officials seized 1,755 counterfeit golf clubs, with a value of 

RMB4.7 million ($570,000). The defendant was sentenced to 18 months in jail and a fine of RMB 30,000 

($3,700) See Prison Sentences for Counterfeit Golf Equipment Dealers, TaylorMade-adidas Golf, November 

16, 2006, available at www.tmag.com/media/pressreleases/2006/111606_counter.htm. 

501 National Trade Estimate 2006, supra note 429, at 126. 502 Transitional Review Mechanism of China, Communication from China, IP/C/W/460 (11 November 2005) at 2. 

503 Thomas Snyder, United States Patent and Trademark Office, “Protecting and Enforcing Your Intellectual 

Property in China,” Presentation at Conference on Intellectual Property in the Global Marketplace (July 18, 

2006). 

504 Id. 505 National Trade Estimate 2006, supra note 429, at 126. 506 Id. 
THE CRISIS IN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PROTECTION AND CHINA’S ROLE IN THAT CRISIS

Trade Lawyers Advisory Group 

May 2007

100 

criminal prosecutions is increasing, the lack of transparency in the Chinese system makes it 

difficult to measure the improvement or even confirm its existence.507 

a. Customs Enforcement 

Customs enforcement is relatively inexpensive and effective for halting goods entering or 

leaving China. However, it is most beneficial when officials can accurately identify the imports’ 

port of origin, which often proves difficult in practice.508 Additional challenges include high 

storage charges incurred from confiscations and the limited percentage of goods able to be 

regularly inspected by customs officials.509

Enforcement of IPR at the border is governed by Customs regulations and administered 

by China Customs. Different enforcement procedures apply depending on whether the IPR has 

been filed or recorded at Customs beforehand. If recorded, “Customs can seize the goods at the 

border and inform the right-holder in writing if it is found that the goods infringe the holder's 

IPRs.”510 In this case, the “right-holder must provide an application letter requesting that the 

goods be detained, along with a guarantee, within three days of receipt of the notice from 

Customs.”511 If the IPR is not recorded, then the right-holder must apply to Customs with 

specified documentation.512 The WTO’s 2006 Trade Policy Review of China notes that Customs 

 

507 Id.

508 Wu, supra note 473, at 8. 

509 Id.

510 Trade Policy Review, supra note 464, at para. 310. 511 Id. at para. 310. 512 Id. at para. 311. 
THE CRISIS IN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PROTECTION AND CHINA’S ROLE IN THAT CRISIS

Trade Lawyers Advisory Group 

May 2007

101 

has been increasingly active in seizures and investigations of infringing goods, with the number 

of investigated cases rising from 330 in 2001, to 569 in 2002, 756 in 2003, and 1,051 in 2004.513

2. Criminal Enforcement

Criminal prosecution is possible in certain cases.514 Under the Criminal Law,515 there are 

seven specific types of IPR infringement regarded as criminal acts, including: counterfeiting 

registered trade marks;516 selling goods bearing counterfeited registered trade marks;517 illegally 

producing and selling representations of registered trademarks; 518 forging another person’s 

patent; 519 copyright infringement; 520 selling infringing reproductions; 521 and infringing 

commercial secrets.522 Criminal offenses for IPR infringement carry a maximum prison sentence 

of up to seven years and/or monetary fines.523 One apparent loophole in China’s Criminal Law 

is that while criminal liability exists under the Code for sales of counterfeit goods within China, 

such liability does not appear to extend to goods sold abroad.524

 

513 Id. at para. 311. It is relevant to note that China amended its Foreign Trade Law in 2004 following its 

accession to the WTO. This amendment eliminated the state monopoly on trading rights, thus eliminating 

counterfeiters’ need to locate a complicit state-owned trading company and making it easier to export 

counterfeit goods. Accordingly, there is a greater need for strong Customs enforcement. See Chow 

Testimony, supra note 484, at 7.

514 For a comparison of IPR criminal thresholds and punishment for the United States, Canada, Australia, and 

Japan, see Tables 1, 2, 3, and 4 in Appendix 7. 515 See Appendix 3 for excerpts of the Criminal Law of the People’s Republic of China. 

516 Criminal Law of the People’s Republic of China § 7: Crimes of Infringing on Intellectual Property Rights 

(adopted July 1, 1979, revised March 14, 1997), at Article 213, available at http://www.cecc.gov/

pages/newLaws/criminalLawENG.php. 

517 Id. at Article 214. 518 Id. at Article 215. 

519 Id. at Article 216. 

520 Id. at Article 217. 521 Id. at Article 218. 

522 Id. at Article 219. 523 Trade Policy Review, supra note 464, at para. 308. 524 Chow Testimony, supra note 484, at 7. 
THE CRISIS IN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PROTECTION AND CHINA’S ROLE IN THAT CRISIS

Trade Lawyers Advisory Group 

May 2007

102 

Investigators, prosecutors, and injured parties have the right to seek criminal enforcement 

measures. Deterrent damages in criminal cases include fines and imprisonment, as well as the 

possibility of being subject to civil damages.525 While criminal enforcement is potentially more 

cost-effective than civil litigation, high liability thresholds make cases difficult to pursue and 

problems exist in the process of referring administrative cases to criminal prosecutors, such that 

few cases actually enter criminal proceedings.526 In 2004, only 96 cases were referred for 

criminal prosecution. 527 The U.S. has consistently criticized China for its high criminal 

thresholds and, in November 2006, informed China that it would be filing a formal request for 

WTO consultations.528 This request was subsequently delayed after China requested they hold 

bilateral discussions.529 However, in April 2007, the U.S. followed through with its concerns 

and filed a request for consultations at the WTO.530

The pace of prosecution for Criminal enforcement has also been identified as potentially 

problematic: in 2005, China’s Public Security Bureau initiated 2,991 IP criminal cases, involving 

over 5,000 suspects, but only 261 cases were concluded, with 2,661 still making their way 

through the system.531 However, Xiao Yang, Chief Justice of the Supreme People’s Court, 

 

525 Browning, supra note 496. 526 Id. 527 Id. 

528 2007 National Trade Estimate Report on Foreign Trade Barriers, United States Trade Representative, at 108 

[hereinafter “National Trade Estimate 2007”]. 

529 Id. 

530 See China – Measures Affecting the Protection and Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights, Request for 

Consultations by the United States, WT/DS362/1, IP/D/26, G/L/819 (16 April 2007). The U.S. also filed a 

request for consultations with regard to China’s market access restrictions facing the book publishing and film 

industries, which are also viewed to play a significant role in the high levels of piracy in China. See China – 

Measures Affecting Trading Rights and Distribution Services for Certain Publications and Audiovisual 

Entertainment Products, Request for Consultations by the United States, WT/DS363/1, G/L/820, S/L/287 (16 

April 2007). 531 Snyder, supra note 503. 
THE CRISIS IN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PROTECTION AND CHINA’S ROLE IN THAT CRISIS

Trade Lawyers Advisory Group 

May 2007

103 

announced in March 2007 that the court system in 2006 had concluded 2,277 IPR criminal cases, 

including counterfeiting and piracy, and sentenced 3,508 criminals.532

Criminal prosecution for an IP case still requires coordination among a relatively large 

number of agencies at all levels of government.533 As with administrative and civil enforcement 

procedures, there is a lack of detailed information regarding the outcome of criminal cases, 

making it difficult to assess the efficacy of the enforcement system. China’s response to the 

pressure from the U.S. and other WTO members for better utilization of criminal remedies has 

been to repeat its position that its “combination of administrative, civil and criminal enforcement 

is increasingly effective.”534

As mentioned above, the number of administrative cases referred for criminal prosecution 

remains small, with almost no improvement. In fact, the number of cases referred for criminal 

prosecution has barely kept pace with the growth in the total number of administrative IPR cases 

in China. The procedures for transferring cases from administrative to judicial proceedings 

remain vague and rarely workable. 535 According to the Stipulations on Transferring the 

Suspected Criminal Cases,536administrative authorities are required to transfer a case when there 

 

532 People’s Court and the Supreme People’s Procuratorate: Press Hard on IPR Crimes, State Intellectual 

Property Office (SIPO), March 26, 2007, available at http://www.sipo.gov.cn/sipo_English/

npc/200703/t20070326_147298.htm. 533 National Trade Estimate 2006, supra note 429, at 126. “Other obstacles in the area of criminal enforcement 

include, for example, the lack of criminal liability for certain acts of copyright infringement, the profit motive 

requirement in copyright cases, the requirement of identical trademarks in counterfeiting cases and the absence 

of minimum, proportionate sentences and clear standards for initiation of police investigations in cases where 

there is a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity.” National Trade Estimate 2007, supra note 528, at 108. 534 2007 Trade Policy Agenda and 2006 Annual Report of the President of the United States on the Trade 

Agreements Program, United States Trade Representative, March 2007, at 162, available at

http://www.ustr.gov/Document_Library/Reports_Publications/2007/2007_Trade_Policy_Agenda/Section_Inde

x.html [hereinafter “2007 Trade Policy Agenda”]. 

535 Nie, supra note 332, at 242. 

536 Stipulations on Transferring the Suspected Criminal Cases to the Public Security Office by the Administrative 

Enforcement Authorities (State Council, July 9, 2001). 
THE CRISIS IN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PROTECTION AND CHINA’S ROLE IN THAT CRISIS

Trade Lawyers Advisory Group 

May 2007

104 

is suspicion of crime.537 Similarly, Article 54 of the Trademark Law states that “[w]here a crime 

is suspected to have been committed, the case shall be promptly turned over to the judicial 

department to be dealt with in accordance of the law.” However, the Copyright Law and Patent 

Law have no such analogous provisions. Reasons for the lack of cases transferred to judicial 

departments include: the ambiguous language in China’s Criminal Law such as, “large amount of 

sale,” “huge,” “especially large,” “serious circumstances,” “very serious circumstances,” “heavy 

losses,” and “special serious results”; wide differences in the criteria for determining criminal 

liability for a group of people versus an individual; various criminal provisions in the IPR laws 

are overlapping and confusing; and “discrepancies among an act which constitutes a criminal 

offence, a civil infringement, and an act which constitutes a violation of intellectual property 

administrative regulations, is nuanced and difficult to operate.”538

a. Supreme People’s Court’s Judicial Interpretations on 

Criminal Enforcement 

In 2004, the Supreme People’s Court issued a Judicial Interpretation (“First Judicial 

Interpretation”) that clarified and expanded the scope of criminal enforcement of IPR 

infringement.539 The First Judicial Interpretation lowered the threshold for criminal prosecution 

of IPR infringement, which is determined based on the value of the infringing products or illegal 

 

537 Nie, supra note 332, at 237. 538 Id. at 242. 

539 See Judicial Interpretations by the Supreme People’s Court and the Supreme People’s Procuratorate on Several 

Issues of Concrete Application of Laws in Handling Criminal Cases of Infringing Intellectual Property, 

December 21, 2004, available at http://english.ipr.gov.cn/ipr/en/info/Article.jsp?a_no=2038&col_no=121&

dir=200603 [hereinafter “Judicial Interpretation I”] (English translation attached in Appendix 3). A second 

Judicial Interpretation was issued on April 5, 2007. Judicial Interpretations by the Supreme People’s Court and 

the Supreme People’s Procuratorate on Several Issues of Concrete Application of Laws in Handling Criminal 

Cases of Infringing Intellectual Property II, [hereinafter “Judicial Interpretation II”] (Chinese version attached 

in Appendix 3; draft English version available at http://ipdragon.blogspot.com/2007/04/draft-judicial

-interpretation-several.html). 
THE CRISIS IN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PROTECTION AND CHINA’S ROLE IN THAT CRISIS

Trade Lawyers Advisory Group 

May 2007

105 

gains from the infringement.540 According to official Chinese statistics, in the first year with the 

new thresholds, 3,567 cases concerning the manufacture of fake products and illegal sales of 

pirated products went to criminal courts, an increase of 28 percent.541 In addition to reducing 

these minimum thresholds, the First Judicial Interpretation established new guidelines to 

facilitate the transfer of administrative and customs cases for criminal investigation, as well as 

fair trade regulations and new provisions addressing online copyright piracy, accomplice 

liability, and the import and export of infringing goods.542 It also provides that if a “unit,” as 

opposed to an individual, commits any of the crimes stipulated in Articles 213 through 219 of the 

Criminal Law, the criteria used to establish criminal liability for the unit is three times higher 

than that of the individual. 543 For instance, if the individual is criminalized for selling 10,000 

pirated copies, the threshold for criminal liability for the unit is 30,000 pirated copies. 

Despite the above-mentioned reforms, challenges remain in the criminal enforcement 

process. For example, questions remain regarding the methodology used to value seized goods 

(and therefore the application of the minimum thresholds), how to determine whether piracy 

activity has generated a profit, and whether merchants were aware that goods in a transaction 

were counterfeit. 544 The 2004 reforms also eliminated a “three strikes rule” that required 

criminal prosecution for repeat offenders.545 According to Pei Xianding, senior judge at China’s 

 

540 Judicial Interpretation I, supra note 539. 541 See Wider Net for IPR Pirates, Xinhua, April 6, 2007, available at http://english.ipr.gov.cn/ipr/en/info/

Article.jsp?a_no=67243&col_no=925&dir=200704. 542 USCC 2006 Report to Congress, supra note 481, at 39. 

543 Judicial Interpretation I, supra note 539. 544 USCC 2006 Report to Congress, supra note 481, at 39. 545 Id. 
THE CRISIS IN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PROTECTION AND CHINA’S ROLE IN THAT CRISIS

Trade Lawyers Advisory Group 

May 2007

106 

Supreme People’s Court, further reductions to the threshold for criminal prosecution would 

require amendments by the National People’s Congress to the relevant laws.546

On April 5, 2007, the Supreme People’s Court and the Supreme People’s Procuratorate 

issued “Several Issues of Concrete Application of Laws in Handling Criminal Cases of 

Infringing Intellectual Property II” (“Second Judicial Interpretation”).547 The Second Judicial 

Interpretation lowered the criminal threshold for copyright material and lowered the threshold for 

when the level of infringement calls for harsher penalties. Additionally, inter alia, the Second 

Judicial Interpretation contains clarifications for: lowering the threshold for how “units” will be 

sentenced under Articles 213-219 of the Criminal Code such that they are now the same as the 

individual level; the circumstances for when suspended sentences will not apply; defining the 

term “reproduction and distribution” as “reproduction and/or distribution”; allowing for the 

promotion of infringing products to constitute distribution; and assessing fines for IP crimes.548

i. Trademarks

With respect to trademarks, the First Judicial Interpretation lowered the threshold for 

illegal business from RMB 100,000 ($12,200) to RMB 50,000 ($6,100) and the threshold for 

illegal gains was reduced to RMB 30,000 ($3,700).549 The maximum punishment is three years 

and a fine. If the “circumstances are especially serious” the maximum sentence is seven years, 

 

546 Id. 

547 See Wider Net for IPR Pirates, supra note 541; see also New Interpretation Issued to Enhance Criminal 

Prosecution, NTD Patent & Trademark Agency Ltd., April 6, 2007, available at 

http://www.chinantd.com/news.php?language=en&channel=53&id=1333. 

548 See Wider Net for IPR Pirates, supra note 541; see also New Interpretation Issued to Enhance Criminal 

Prosecution, NTD Patent & Trademark Agency Ltd., April 6, 2007, available at 

http://www.chinantd.com/news.php?language=en&channel=53&id=1333. 

549 Snyder, supra note 503; see also Table 1 in Appendix 6, outlining Chinese criminal thresholds for Trademark 

infringement according to Articles 213-214 of the Criminal Law and Judicial Interpretations. 
THE CRISIS IN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PROTECTION AND CHINA’S ROLE IN THAT CRISIS

Trade Lawyers Advisory Group 

May 2007

107 

but not less than three years. The First Judicial Interpretation states that “circumstances are 

especially serious,” when: the illegal business volume is more than RMB 250,000 ($30,500) or 

the illegal gains are more than RMB 150,000 ($18,300); and, when forging more than two 

registered trademarks, the amount of illegal business volume is more than RMB 150,000 

($18,300) or illegal gains are more than RMB 100,000 ($12,200). The First Judicial 

Interpretation also allowed for the criminal enforcement of selling commodities bearing a 

registered trademark, when the value of sales is more than RMB 250,000 ($30,500).550 

By comparison, under U.S. law, the maximum sentence for someone intentionally 

trafficking or attempting to traffic counterfeit marks is $2,000,000 and 10 years in prison.551 If 

the infringer is other than an individual, the maximum fine is $5,000,000. If there is a second 

offense, the maximum sentence for the individual is $5,000,000 and 20 years and $15,000,000 

for infringers that are not individuals. 

ii. Copyrights 

Similarly, the threshold for criminal prosecution for copyright violations was lowered by 

the First Judicial Interpretation from the reproduction and distribution of 5,000 copies to 1,000 

copies.552 The threshold for criminal prosecution in copyright cases, where “there are other 

serious circumstances,” was also reduced to RMB 50,000 ($6,100) in business volume. In 

criminal cases, where it is considered that “the amount of illegal gains is relatively large,” the 

 

550 Judicial Interpretation I, supra note 539. The Second Judicial Interpretation specifically addresses copyrights 

and does not address trademarks. See Judicial Interpretation II, supra note 539. 

551 18 USC §2320. 

552 Snyder, supra note 503; see also Table 2 in Appendix 6, outlining Chinese criminal thresholds for Copyright 

infringement according to Articles 217-218 of the Criminal Law and Judicial Interpretations. 
THE CRISIS IN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PROTECTION AND CHINA’S ROLE IN THAT CRISIS

Trade Lawyers Advisory Group 

May 2007

108 

threshold was decreased to RMB 30,000 ($3,700).553 The maximum sentence is not more than 3 

years and a fine.554 Crimes, where “there are other especially serious circumstances” or “the 

amount of illegal gains is huge,” carry a sentence of 3 to 7 years and are defined as having illegal 

gains greater than RMB 150,000 ($18,300), illegal business volume greater than RMB 250,000 

($30,500) or more than 5,000 illegal copies.555

As mentioned above, the Second Judicial Interpretation further lowered the threshold for 

criminal prosecution in copyright cases.556 The new rules, effective immediately, lower the 

minimum threshold for criminal prosecution from 1,000 copies to 500 copies.557

By comparison, under U.S. law, a person will face criminal liability if the infringement 

was committed either for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain, by the 

reproduction or distribution of one or more copies which have a value of more than $1,000, or by 

making a commercial work accessible to the public, via the internet, if the person knew or should 

have known that the work was a commercial work.558 The maximum sentences vary slightly, but 

acts committed either for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain carry the 

maximum sentence of 5 years plus a fine if 10 copies are distributed or only one copy with a 

value of $2,500.559 A second offense raises the maximum punishment to ten years plus a fine.560 

For sentencing purposes, U.S. law allows for the retail value of the good to be used.561

 

553 Judicial Interpretation I, supra note 539. 554 Id.

555 Id. 556 See Wider Net for IPR Pirates, supra note 541. 

557 Id. 558 17 USC §506. 

559 18 USC §2319. 
THE CRISIS IN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PROTECTION AND CHINA’S ROLE IN THAT CRISIS

Trade Lawyers Advisory Group 

May 2007

109 

iii. Patents562

The First Judicial Interpretation provides that criminal enforcement will be used when the 

illegal business volume is more than RMB 200,000 ($24,400) or the illegal gains are more than 

RMB 100,000 ($12,200), if infringement has caused direct economic loss of more than RMB 

500,000 ($61,000), or, if counterfeiting more than two patents, the amount of illegal business 

volume is more than RMB 100,000 ($12,200) or illegal gains are more than RMB 50,000 

($6,100).563 The maximum penalty is 3 years in jail and a fine.564

3. Civil Enforcement 

In recent years, the increase in civil actions has primarily been by Chinese rightsholders.565 From January to November, 2005, there were 11,468 civil cases.566 Of these cases, 

5,240 were copyright, 2,491 were patent, and 1,482 were trademark cases.567 Only five percent 

of these cases involved foreign rights holders.568 In 2007, Xiao Yang, Chief Justice of China’s 

Supreme People’s Court, reported to the National People’s Congress that in 2006 there were 

14,056 civil cases, with total fines reaching RMB 2.71 billion ($330 million).569 Of these cases, 

 560 18 USC §2319. 

561 See United States v. Steele, 785 F.2d 743 (9th Cir. 1986). 562 U.S. law does not provide for criminal sanctions for the infringement of patents. 563 Judicial Interpretation I, supra note 539. 

564 See Table 3 in Appendix 6, outlining Chinese criminal thresholds for Patent infringement according to Article 

216 of the Criminal Law and Judicial Interpretations. 

565 2006 National Trade Estimate, supra note 429, at 128. 

566 Snyder, supra note 503. 567 Id. 

568 USCC 2006 Report to Congress, supra note 481, at 39. 

569 See The Reports from SPC & SPP: Strengthen the Judicial Protection of IPR in China, April 6, 2007, available 

at http://english.ipr.gov.cn/ipr/en/info/Article.jsp?a_no=67282&col_no=934&dir=200704.
THE CRISIS IN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PROTECTION AND CHINA’S ROLE IN THAT CRISIS

Trade Lawyers Advisory Group 

May 2007

110 

5,751 were copyright cases, 2,378 were trademark cases, 2,378 were patent cases, and 1,188 

were unfair competition cases.570

Civil suits are often pursued in cases of “look-alike” infringement or in complex cases 

when administrative authorities are unable to make a determination of infringement. 571 

Litigation can take up to two years, and infringers can halt a civil suit for patent infringement by 

filing an administrative challenge to the patent with SIPO.572

Civil enforcement measures (which can be heard by a specialized judiciary that is 

supposed to be specifically trained in IPR issues) can result in monetary damages (though they 

are often minimal) and injunctive relief, and provide rights of appeal and nationwide 

enforcement jurisdiction.573 However, high litigation costs and a lack of judicial independence 

in many jurisdictions limits the attractiveness of this legal avenue, as do the difficulties plaintiffs 

often face in collecting on civil damages.574 Finally, with patent cases, “where enforcement 

through civil litigation is of particular importance, a single case still takes several years to 

complete, rendering the damages provisions adopted to comply with China’s TRIPS Agreement 

obligations less meaningful.”575

 

570 See id.

571 Best Practices: Intellectual Property Protection in China, supra note 479. 572 Id.

573 Wu, supra note 473, at 6. 574 Id. 575 National Trade Estimate 2006, supra note 429, at 128. 
THE CRISIS IN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PROTECTION AND CHINA’S ROLE IN THAT CRISIS

Trade Lawyers Advisory Group 

May 2007

111 

B. STRUCTURAL OVERVIEW OF ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES

The complex set of ministries involved in China’s copyright and anti-counterfeiting 

enforcement efforts are discussed below. Also included are diagrams further illustrating this 

intricate enforcement structure.576

1. Anti-Counterfeit Enforcement 

Two principal administrative enforcement bureaucracies in China hold anti-counterfeit 

enforcement power: the Administration for Industry and Commerce (AIC) and the Quality 

Technical Supervision Bureau (QTSB).577 The jurisdiction of both agencies extends to the 

county level, with the AIC’s jurisdiction extending to the village and township level.578 Both 

agencies have the right to levy fines as well as confiscate, destroy, and auction counterfeit 

goods.579

The two agencies, however, differ in important respects. The QTSB is primarily a 

technical bureaucracy in which higher-level education is necessary to perform inspection and 

analysis of product quality, measurement, and standards, and enforcement agents must pass an 

employment examination. 580 This has led to QTSB personnel having a reputation for being 

more educated, professional, and less prone to corruption.581 QTSB’s broad responsibilities 

include regulating the formulation and implementation of national and local standards and 

measurements and protecting consumers through the supervision of national and local product 

 

576 See infra Figures 1 and 2. 577 Andrew C. Mertha, Assistant Professor, Department of Political Science, Washington University, St. Louis, 

“Testimony to the US-China Economic and Security Review Commission Hearing on Intellectual Property 

Rights Issues and Imported Counterfeit Goods” (June 8, 2006), at 3 [hereinafter “Mertha Testimony”]. 578 Id. at 3. 

579 Id. 580 Id. 581 Id. 
THE CRISIS IN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PROTECTION AND CHINA’S ROLE IN THAT CRISIS

Trade Lawyers Advisory Group 

May 2007

112 

quality standards. 582 Around 1994, the QTSB began to directly focus on combating the 

production and sale of counterfeit goods.583

The AIC’s responsibilities cover a range of administrative, managerial, and regulatory 

duties, including collecting enterprise registration and management fees as well as responsibility 

for closing down enterprises violating trademarks.584 Registration and management fees have 

been an important source of extra-budgetary income for local AIC offices, creating a conflict 

with enforcement responsibilities.585

Some commentators believe that competition between the two agencies over the 

enforcement portfolio has led to an increase in anti-counterfeiting enforcement and that this 

competitive environment facilitates a greater focus on enforcement due to the revenue 

opportunities from levying large fines.586 

2. Copyright and other IPR Enforcement 

China has implemented an organizational restructuring of many IPR-related agencies and 

offices. Beginning in March 1998, the Patent Office was incorporated into the State Intellectual 

Property Bureau, the Trademark Office is under the authority of the State Administration for 

Industry and Commerce, and local Copyright departments are housed within the State 

Administration for Press and Publications. 587 The majority of IPR enforcement efforts are 

 

582 Mertha Testimony, supra note 577, at 4. 583 Id. 

584 Id. at 3. 585 Id. 

586 Id. at 4. 

587 National Working Group for IPR Protection, Related Organizations In China, Ministry of Commerce of the 

People’s Republic of China. http://english.ipr.gov.cn/en/services/ser_organizations.shtml. 
THE CRISIS IN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PROTECTION AND CHINA’S ROLE IN THAT CRISIS

Trade Lawyers Advisory Group 

May 2007

113 

carried out by local personnel in cooperation with local Public Security Bureau officers. 

Additionally, specialized intellectual property courts have been established in key cities and 

provinces to settle IPR disputes.588

The National Copyright Administration is staffed by technical specialists and legal 

officials, but according to some commentators, the copyright enforcement apparatus is 

inadequately staffed and funded and overly dependent on other agencies that host provincial and 

lower-level Copyright Departments.589

At the provincial level, the Provincial Press and Publications Administration makes all 

decisions regarding personnel, budgetary, and additional ad-hoc resources allocated to provincial 

Copyright Departments.590 This has led to low resource allocation – in 1999, China had only 200 

people engaged in full-time administrative copyright work.591

Below the provincial level, corresponding units of the Press and Publications 

Administration and Copyright Department are merged within and subsumed under the 

bureaucracy headed by the Ministry of Culture, which manages a wide range of responsibilities, 

including press, publications, copyright, and other competing administrative agencies (i.e., radio, 

film, television, sports).592

 

588 White Paper on IPR Protection, Embassy of the People’s Republic of China, April 21, 2005, available at

http://www.china-embassy.org/eng/xw/t192663.htm. 589 Mertha Testimony, supra note 577, at 2. 

590 Id. 591 Id. 592 Id. at 3. 
THE CRISIS IN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PROTECTION AND CHINA’S ROLE IN THAT CRISIS

Trade Lawyers Advisory Group 

May 2007

114 

For all the above reasons, China’s copyright enforcement system is much less effective 

than the anti-counterfeit apparatus.593

 

593 Id. at 2. 
THE CRISIS IN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PROTECTION AND CHINA’S ROLE IN THAT CRISIS

Trade Lawyers Advisory Group 

May 2007

115 

China’s Complex IPR Enforcement Bureaucracies594

 

594 Id. at 10-12. 
THE CRISIS IN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PROTECTION AND CHINA’S ROLE IN THAT CRISIS

Trade Lawyers Advisory Group 

May 2007

116 
THE CRISIS IN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PROTECTION AND CHINA’S ROLE IN THAT CRISIS

Trade Lawyers Advisory Group 

May 2007

117 
THE CRISIS IN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PROTECTION AND CHINA’S ROLE IN THAT CRISIS

Trade Lawyers Advisory Group 

May 2007

118 

C. CHINA’S EFFORTS TO IMPROVE ITS IPR REGIME HAVE SHOWN 

INCREMENTAL IMPROVEMENTS 

As part of the World Trade Organization’s (WTO) Trade Policy Review of China in 

2006, the Chinese government submitted a report that, inter alia, describes the steps taken to 

strengthen its IPR regime, while acknowledging the challenges it continues to face. The Chinese 

government believes it has worked strenuously to comply with its WTO TRIPS obligations and, 

despite less-than-perfect results, has worked hard to strengthen and improve IPR enforcement. 

The report states that: 

China has made significant progress in IPR protection particularly in building the 

IPR-related legal system and raising the consciousness of the general public for 

IPR protection. However, the Chinese Government is fully aware that like in all 

other countries the protection of intellectual property rights is constrained by the 

level of economic development and other conditions in reality. IPR protection in 

China cannot be perfected overnight. The Chinese Government is determined to 

continue its persistent and strenuous efforts to achieve that goal.595

1. China’s 2006 Action Plan on IPR Protection

In March 2006, the National IPR Protection Working Group Office, in conjunction with 

other relevant departments, released “China’s Action Plan on IPR Protection.” The plan covered 

four major IP areas: trademark, copyright, patent, and import and export.596 The Action Plan 

involved the IPR protection plans and arrangements of eleven departments including: the 

Ministry of Public Security; Ministry of Information Industry; Ministry of Commerce; Ministry 

of Culture; Customs General Administration; State Administration of Industry and Commerce; 

Administration of Quality Inspection; Supervision and Quarantine; Copyright Bureau; State 

 

595 Trade Policy Review, supra note 464, at para 66. 

596 “China’s Action Plan on IPR Protection 2006,” People’s Daily Online, April 30, 2006, available at

http://english.people.com.cn/200604/30/eng20060430_262334.html. 
THE CRISIS IN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PROTECTION AND CHINA’S ROLE IN THAT CRISIS

Trade Lawyers Advisory Group 

May 2007

119 

Food and Drug Administration; State Intellectual Property Office; and Legislative Affairs Office 

of the State Council.597

The Action Plan addressed nine reform areas: legislation; law enforcement; mechanism 

building; propaganda; training and education; international communication and cooperation; 

promoting business self discipline; services to right holders; and subject research.598 According 

to the Action Plan, China would draft, formulate and revise seventeen laws, regulations, rules 

and measures relating to trademark, copyright, patent and customs protection, and draft, improve 

and revise six judicial interpretations. 599 The IPR law enforcement efforts included seven 

dedicated campaigns, eight regular enforcement initiatives, and twenty specific measures.600

The Action Plan called for establishing an enforcement mechanism with twelve 

components, including a service center for reporting IPR violations and publishing law 

enforcement statistics.601 The plan also stated that seven approaches and thirty-nine measures 

would be adopted to raise public awareness of IPR protection, and twenty-one IPR training 

programs would be organized under the Project of Training Thousands of IPR Personnel.602

The Action Plan also pledged international cooperation, facilitated through nineteen 

exchange and cooperation activities, seven of which would be between China and the United 

States. 603 “With a view to improving enterprises’ consciousness and awareness of IPR 

 

597 Id. 

598 Id.

599 Id. 600 Id.

601 China’s Action Plan on IPR Protection 2006, supra note 596. 602 Id. 603 Id.
THE CRISIS IN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PROTECTION AND CHINA’S ROLE IN THAT CRISIS

Trade Lawyers Advisory Group 

May 2007

120 

protection,” three initiatives were to be launched, including a conference on enterprise IPR 

protection and proprietary innovation. 604 The Plan additionally called for twelve specific 

measures covering nine areas to be established to better serve rights holders, and 

countermeasure-oriented research to be conducted in five fields.605

On April 6, 2007 China released “China’s Action Plan on IPR Protection 2007.”606 The 

Action Plan identified 276 measures in 10 areas, including: legislation, enforcement; trials; 

institutional building; publicity; training and education; international exchange and cooperation; 

advancing IPR protection in businesses; services to right-holders; and thematic studies. 607 

Authorities will draft or revise 14 laws, regulations, rules and administrative measures on 

trademark, copyright, and customs protection, in addition to seven judicial interpretations and 

guidelines.608

With respect to enforcement, there will be 14 campaigns, including, inter alia, special 

crackdowns on piracy of textbooks and teaching supplements; cyber infringements; street 

vendors and booths selling audiovisual products; protection of Olympic logos; false use of 

famous brand trademarks; special enforcement checks to protect geographical indications for 

certain food products; and continued special actions against unauthorized computer software 

preloading.609 The Action Plan also contains eleven day-to-day enforcement measures, which 

 

604 Id. 605 Id.

606 “China’s Action Plan on IPR Protection 2007,” National Working Group for IPR Protection, April 4, 2007, 

available at http://english.ipr.gov.cn/ipr/en/info/Article.jsp?a_no=67391&col_no=925&dir=200704. 

607 Id. 608 Id.

609 Id.
THE CRISIS IN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PROTECTION AND CHINA’S ROLE IN THAT CRISIS

Trade Lawyers Advisory Group 

May 2007

121 

include, inter alia, continuing clampdowns at exhibitions and fairs, high incidence areas and 

sectors, and in wholesale and retail commodity markets.610

2. China’s Progress Pursuant to Action Plans 

In 2006, the Ministry of Commerce (MOFCOM) set up fifty service centers in cities 

throughout China to facilitate IPR infringement complaints.611 By the end of November 2006, 

the fifty centers had received 1,014 complaints, transferred 657 to law enforcement departments, 

and resolved 286.612 The law enforcement departments have investigated and settled a number 

of major cases based on evidence provided by the centers. 

 To facilitate filing complaints, China has established a hotline number and a new website 

(described further below), www.ipr.gov.cn.613 Another important step taken by the government 

is the issuance of the Circular on the Transfer of Susceptible Criminal Offences by 

Administrative Organs for Law Enforcement and the subsequent release of three further Circulars 

by the Ministry of Public Security addressing the accelerated transfer of IPR infringement cases 

from administrative to criminal enforcement.614

The Chinese government reports that administrative enforcement has been further 

enhanced by the use of special enforcement campaigns. The 2006 Action Plan noted seven 

dedicated campaigns against IPR theft, including “Mountain Eagle,” “Sunshine,” and “Blue 

 

610 Id. 611 Transitional Review Under Section 18 of the Protocol on the Accession of The People’s Republic of China, 

World Trade Organization (WTO), IP/C/43, at para. 7 (November 21, 2006). 

612 286 Complaints, State Intellectual Property Office (SIPO), January 18, 2007, available at

http://www.sipo.gov.cn/sipo_English/specialtopic/number/200701/t20070118_127826.htm. 

613 Transitional Review Under Section 18 of the Protocol on the Accession of The People’s Republic of China, 

supra note 611, at para. 7. 614 Id. 
THE CRISIS IN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PROTECTION AND CHINA’S ROLE IN THAT CRISIS

Trade Lawyers Advisory Group 

May 2007

122 

Sky.”615 The “Mountain Eagle” campaign was designed to toughen trademark protection and 

statistics indicate that, by the end of 2006, nearly 3,000 cases had been accepted and over 2,300 

cases had been closed with more than 3,600 suspects arrested.616 The 2006-2007 “Sunshine 

Campaign,” focused on audiovisual (AV) IPR violations, resulted in more than 2,200 audiovisual 

units (i.e., DVDs) inspected, of which 66 units or booths were banned; 219,998 copies of illegal 

AV products were confiscated and 23 persons were transferred for further investigation.617 

“Blue Sky” is a one-year campaign to protect IPR at trade shows, with a special focus on raising 

awareness for trademark, copyright, and patent protection.618 China has also begun to employ 

new strategies at trade shows, also part of the Action Plan, to monitor and punish entities that 

display illegal products.619 Another campaign, entitled “Hawk Action,” was a clampdown on 

IPR infringement that lasted from November 2004 to December 2005, during which time 3,534 

cases of IP infringement were reported and investigated, with 3,149 cases closed and 5,981 

counterfeiters apprehended.620 

 

615 China’s Action Plan on IPR Protection 2006, supra note 596. 

616 National Working Group for IPR Protection, Mountain Eagle Campaign II Shows Effects, Ministry of 

Commerce of the People’s Republic of China, March 16, 2007, available at http://english.ipr.gov.cn/ipr. 

617 National Working Group for IPR Protection, Sunshine Campaign I in Qingdao Fights Against Pirated AV 

Products, Ministry of Commerce of the People’s Republic of China, July 14, 2006, available at

http://english.ipr.gov.cn/ipr/en/info/Article.jsp?a_no=7734&col_no=886&dir=200607. 

618 China’s Action Plan on IPR Protection 2006, supra note 596. 

619 Erin Ennis and Robert Alaimo, China’s 2006 IPR Review, China Business Review (March-April 2007), 

available at http://www.chinabusinessreview.com/public/0703/ipr.html; 2007 Trade Policy Agenda, supra note 

534, at 159, available at http://www.ustr.gov/Document_Library/Reports_Publications/2007/2007_Trade

_Policy_Agenda/Section_Index.html. 

620 National Working Group for IPR Protection, Achievement on IPR Protection in the State Council’s Special 

Campaign, Ministry of Commerce of the People’s Republic of China, April 5, 2006, available at

http://english.ipr.gov.cn/ipr/en/info/Article.jsp?a_no=3031&col_no=888&dir=200604. 
THE CRISIS IN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PROTECTION AND CHINA’S ROLE IN THAT CRISIS

Trade Lawyers Advisory Group 

May 2007

123 

In 2007, China announced that it had launched a “spring campaign” against illegal and 

pirated publications, including pornography, which will last until May.621 This was on top of a 

100-day nationwide fall campaign against pirated audio and video products and computer 

software.622 Finally, in March 2007, the government announced its largest crackdown, with 

more than 1.81 million pirated CDs and DVDs seized in the Guangdong Province.623

To buttress enforcement at the local level, “some provinces had promulgated local 

administrative regulations to strengthen IPR protection, encourage innovation and counter IPR 

infringement activities.”624 The State Council is requiring local governments at all levels to 

include IPR protection as an important agenda item in their overall economic development plans 

and include a training program for local officials.625 

In early 2007, SIPO released the patent statistics for 2006 that show that: 

local intellectual property offices handled a total of 1,270 patent 

disputes with 973 cases closed, of which 1,227 were patent 

infringement disputes with 952 cases closed, and 43 other patent 

disputes with 21 closed. 33 cases of counterfeiting patents and 933 

cases of working off patents were investigated; 20,475 law 

enforcers were dispatched; 7,780 business sites and 2,968,249 

goods were inspected; 12 cases were transferred to public security 

organs and 35 cases were transferred from other departments; and 

 

621 China Launches “Spring Campaign” Against Pirated Publications, Xinhua, April 6, 2007, available at

http://english.ipr.gov.cn/ipr/en/info/Article.jsp?a_no=67276&col_no=1046&dir=200704. 

622 Id. 623 Wider Net For IPR Pirates, supra note 541. 

624 Transitional Review Under Section 18 of the Protocol on the Accession of The People’s Republic of China, 

supra note 611, at para. 56. 625 Id. 
THE CRISIS IN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PROTECTION AND CHINA’S ROLE IN THAT CRISIS

Trade Lawyers Advisory Group 

May 2007

124 

IP offices cooperated with other law enforcement departments on 

469 cases.626

SIPO has declared 2007 “a key year to complete the formulation of the state IP strategy 

and speed up the construction of a powerful IP office.”627 SIPO has laid out the following 10 

components of its work plan: completion and initial implementation of the state IP strategy; 

moving forward with revisions to the Patent Law; implementation of the 11th Five Year Plan for 

the development of IP activity; enhancing capabilities in patent examination and constructing a 

patent information system; expanding awareness of IP protection in society, with 2007 the “year 

of IP culture;” building up financial and human resources; and deeper international cooperation 

and exchange (including international conventions).628

The Chinese government recently announced a framework to “explore new progress in 

international cooperation.” 629 The goal is for China to “be more active in promulgating 

international regulations and standards in the IP field, rather than merely accepting or following 

international routine.” 630 China seeks international cooperation to help the country adopt 

international standards and regulations and plans to strengthen relations with the World 

Intellectual Property Organization (“WIPO”), the International Union for the Protection of New 

Varieties of Plants (“UPOV”), and the WTO.631 As part of its WIPO commitments, China has 

 

626 National Working Group for IPR Protection, SIPO: Statistics on Patent Law Enforcement in 2006 Released, 

Ministry of Commerce of the People’s Republic of China, March 16, 2007, available at

http://english.ipr.gov.cn/ipr/en/info/Article.jsp?a_no=61664&col_no=925&dir=200703. 627 SIPO Printed and Distributed Its Work Priorities for 2007, State Intellectual Property Office (SIPO), March 1, 

2007, available at http://www.sipo.gov.cn/sipo_English/gfxx/zyhd/200703/t20070301_141588.htm. 

628 Id. 629 To Explore New Progress in International Cooperation, State Intellectual Property Office (SIPO), October 9, 

2006, available at http://www.sipo.gov.cn/sipo_English/specialtopic/200610/t20061009_112223.htm. 630 Id. 631 Id. 
THE CRISIS IN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PROTECTION AND CHINA’S ROLE IN THAT CRISIS

Trade Lawyers Advisory Group 

May 2007

125 

agreed to verify that all computers used by the government and state-owned enterprises are 

loaded with legal software.632 China is also considering hosting the Asia-Pacific International 

Symposium on Gene Resources.633

3. New IPR Website

A significant development toward greater transparency of China’s IPR enforcement 

efforts has been MOFCOM’s launch of an IPR protection website, www.ipr.gov.cn, designed to 

introduce domestic and international readers to China’s laws, rules, policies, and measures 

concerning IPR protection and to enhance public awareness of IPR generally.634 The website 

provides one-stop access to IPR-related news, policies, documents, laws and regulations, 

information about IPR legal proceedings, and government ministries involved in IPR 

administration and enforcement. 

4. Progress in the Province of Jiangsu 

The province of Jiangsu in particular has been commended for taking positive steps in its 

protection of IPR. In 2002, the Vice Minister of Culture recognized the province for its antipiracy efforts and noted that authorities on different levels were working together to crack down 

on illegal products.635 These efforts were helping to make Jiangsu “one of China’s major 

distribution places for legitimate audio-visual products.”636

 

632 Ennis and Alaimo, supra note 619; 2007 Trade Policy Agenda, supra note 534, at 159. 633 To Explore New Progress in International Cooperation, supra note 629. 634 China Launches IPR Protection Website, People’s Daily Online, April 30, 2006, available at 

http://english.people.com.cn/200604/30/eng20060430_262285.html. 635 See Speech at the Coordination Center for the National Action Against Illegal Audio-visual Products, 

Delivered by Mr. Zhao Weisui, Vice Minister of Culture, August 13, 2002, Nianjing, China, available at

http://av.ccnt.com.cn/pbc/index4.1.htm?lm=004&id=003. 636 Id. 
THE CRISIS IN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PROTECTION AND CHINA’S ROLE IN THAT CRISIS

Trade Lawyers Advisory Group 

May 2007

126 

Foreign associations have also recognized Jiangsu for its multi-level efforts and 

willingness to collaborate on enforcement initiatives. For instance, the Business Software 

Alliance notes that Jiangsu was one of the provinces that responded positively to its request for 

enforcement actions against illegal software,637 and a joint statement by the U.S. Chamber of 

Commerce and the American Chamber of Commerce–China (AmCham-China) states that 

Jiangsu’s government has been willing to work with them toward improving IPR protection.638 

The U.S. Chamber and AmCham-China feel they have established a good relationship with 

provincial authorities and party leaders in Jiangsu. Together, they have put on IP enforcement 

seminars for the region and plan on having additional workshops in the future. This willingness 

to cooperate is particularly notable given that other provinces have resisted similar outreach 

efforts.639

The province’s initiatives also extend beyond cooperation, as Jiangsu seeks to be a leader 

in the field of IP enforcement and to set a good example for other provinces.640 Jiangsu appears 

to have embraced the importance of IP rights and aims not only to protect those rights but to 

develop them. To that end, in 2004, the Science and Technology Department of Jiangsu 

University established the Jiangsu University Intellectual Property Right Research Institute 

which focuses on four key aspects of IP rights: creation, protection, utilization, and personnel 

cultivation.641 The Institute has research groups set up for IP management, IP laws and IP 

 

637 See Written Comments Regarding Special Provincial Review of IPR Protection in China, Business Software 

Alliance, June 30, 2006. 

638 Joint Submission in Support of USTR Special Provincial Review of IPR Protection in China, U.S. Chamber of 

Commerce and American Chamber of Commerce-China, July 14, 2006, at 6-7. 

639 See id. at 4 (noting the officials in Guangdong province have resisted some IP enforcement initiatives). 640 See id. at 6. 641 Bao Xinyan, Jiangsu Works Out IPR Scheme, China Daily, August 6, 2004. 
THE CRISIS IN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PROTECTION AND CHINA’S ROLE IN THAT CRISIS

Trade Lawyers Advisory Group 

May 2007

127 

information, and encourages local enterprises to incorporate IPR strategies into their 

development plans.642

In March 2007, the Vice Governor of Jiangsu Province, Mr. Jiuhan Zhang, gave a speech 

at the “Global Forum on Intellectual Property Rights Protection and Innovation.” In that speech 

he discussed priorities for the province, which include strengthening coordination and 

cooperation among other provinces and cities and increasing public supervision of illegal 

activities. Mr. Zhang noted that Jiangsu was also attempting to facilitate three shifts in IPR 

enforcement, specifically: (1) a shift of focus from the provincial level to the city level; (2) a 

shift from enforcement by a single agency or locality to joint enforcement; and (3) a shift from 

passively accepting complaints to proactive supervision and regulation.643 This outlook and 

awareness with regard to IPR seems to set this province apart from others, and observers have 

noted that Jiangsu has the “political will...to make IPR enforcement a top priority, creating a 

great example for other provinces from an IP protection perspective.”644

5. Other Key Recent Developments 

Below is a sampling of other key initiatives and developments that have been touted by 

the Chinese government in the past few months as important signs of progress: 

 

642 See id.

643 Speech Delivered by Mr. Jiuhan Zhang, Vice Governor of Jiangsu Province, at the Global Forum on 

Intellectual Property Rights Protection and Innovation, March 28, 2007 (Chinese text is attached in Appendix 

12). 

644 Joint Submission in Support of USTR Special Provincial Review of IPR Protection in China, U.S. Chamber of 

Commerce and American Chamber of Commerce-China, July 14, 2006, at 9. 
THE CRISIS IN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PROTECTION AND CHINA’S ROLE IN THAT CRISIS

Trade Lawyers Advisory Group 

May 2007

128 

 Enhanced Transparency: In April 2007, Chinese officials announced plans to allow 

envoys of foreign governments and representatives of international organizations to 

attend IPR trials and to publicize trial information through the media.645 

 Enhanced Penalties for Violators: In January 2007, China’s Supreme People’s 

Court issued a notice ordering stricter penalties for violators of IPR.646 Under the 

order, all illegal gains and manufacturing tools of violators are to be confiscated and 

pirated products destroyed, and courts are urged to impose fines large enough to strip 

violators of their ability to resume production.647

 Protection of Brand Names: In January 2007, MOFCOM issued “Measures for 

Evaluation and Protection of Brand Names,” indicating that it will ban the 

importation of any good it finds to be encroaching upon the intellectual property of 

brands and causing damage to the order of Chinese foreign trade.648 If a brand-name 

enterprise faces unjustifiable competition or dispute over its domain name, 

MOFCOM, in cooperation with other relevant administrative departments, will 

handle the case according to applicable law, protect the brand name as assessed by 

MOFCOM, and impose a fine.649 

 Judicial and Prosecutorial Efforts: In January 2007, Xiao Yang, Chief Justice of 

the Supreme People’s Court, disclosed that, since 2001, courts throughout China have 

 

645 Foreigners able to sit in on Chinese IPR trials, Xinhua, April 5, 2007, available at

http://english.ipr.gov.cn/ipr/en/info/Article.jsp?a_no=66983&col_no=925&dir=200704. 646 China to Impose Stricter Penalties for IPR Violations, People’s Daily Online, January 19, 2007, available at 

http://english.people.com.cn/200701/17/eng20070117_341867.html. 647 Id.

648 Ministry of Commerce: ‘Special protection’ of Brand IP, State Intellectual Property Office (SIPO), January 12, 

2007, at http://www.sipo.gov.cn/sipo_English/gfxx/zyhd/200701/t20070112_126782.htm. 649 Id. 
THE CRISIS IN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PROTECTION AND CHINA’S ROLE IN THAT CRISIS

Trade Lawyers Advisory Group 

May 2007

129 

accepted more than 60,000 cases involving IP and that further efforts were underway 

to ensure that IP cases are handled in an appropriate manner.650 In March 2007, a 

senior prosecutor of the Supreme People’s Procuratorate announced that his office 

had apprehended 3,729 suspects allegedly manufacturing or selling counterfeit goods, 

or violating trademark, copyright, or trade secret rights, and prosecuted 3,634 of 

them.651

 Applicability of International Law: At a national conference on IPR-related 

litigation in January 2007, a senior judicial official indicated that international IPR 

law would take precedence in domestic trials even when differing from domestic 

laws.652 The official further noted that while Chinese IPR laws are typically in line 

with international law, in the case of divergence, China will give priority to 

international conventions that directly apply to domestic IPR cases.653 

 Adoption of WIPO Conventions: In December 2006, the NPC Standing Committee 

passed two decisions allowing for China’s adoption of the WIPO Copyright 

Convention and the WIPO Show and Recorded Product Convention, indicating that 

 

650 Supreme Court: More than 60,000 Cases Involving China IP Heard in 6 Years, State Intellectual Property 

Office (SIPO), January 11, 2007, available at http://www.sipo.gov.cn/sipo_English/gfxx/zyhd/200701

/t20070111_126644.htm. 651 People’s Court and the Supreme People’s Procuratorate: Press Hard on IPR Crimes, State Intellectual 

Property Office (SIPO), March 26, 2007, available at http://www.sipo.gov.cn/sipo_English/

npc/200703/t20070326_147298.htm. 652 International Laws Applied in Local IPR Cases in China, Ministry of Commerce, People’s Republic of China, 

January 19, 2007, available at http://english.mofcom.gov.cn/aarticle/counselorsreport/europereport/200701/

20070104292275.html. 653 Id. 
THE CRISIS IN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PROTECTION AND CHINA’S ROLE IN THAT CRISIS

Trade Lawyers Advisory Group 

May 2007

130 

China is working to upgrade Internet copyright protection throughout the country as 

well as strengthen cooperation with the international community.654 

 Royalty Payments on Music: Beginning in 2007, China’s radio and television 

stations will be required to pay royalties on broadcast music. According to a National 

Copyright Administration official, a set of fee collection methods and standards will 

be officially promulgated in the coming year.655

 Online Copyright Protection: The National Copyright Administration (NCA), the 

Motion Picture Association of America, the Business Software Alliance, the 

Association of American Publishers, and the British Publishers Association have 

signed a Memorandum of Understanding on the Establishment of Coordination 

Mechanism for Online Copyright Protection (MOU).656 Under the MOU, American 

and British trade groups will provide lists to the NCA of priority items to protect and 

the NCA will investigate reported cases of piracy and keep in regular contact with the 

trade groups regarding progress.657 

6. Assessment of Enforcement Challenges 

As reviewed in previous sections, there is both a global IP crisis and China is a major 

source of the IP infringement. The Chinese government has been pressured by many to improve 

enforcement through a series of changes to laws, regulations, and action programs. China has 

been working to improve both the IP rights of IP holders and the enforcement process. At the 

 

654 NPC Standing Committee Approved Two Conventions of WIPO, State Intellectual Property Office (SIPO), 

January 9, 2007, http://www.sipo.gov.cn/sipo_English/gfxx/zyhd/200701/t20070109_126503.htm. 

655 Chinese Radio, TV Stations to Pay Music Royalties, China View, December 19, 2006, available at

http://news.jongo.com/articles/06/1219/818/ODE4JmGnWS1q.html. 

656 Jacqui Cheng, China Signs Agreement to Crack Down on Piracy, Ars Technica LLC, December 15, 2006, 

available at http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20061215-8430.html. 657 Id. 
THE CRISIS IN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PROTECTION AND CHINA’S ROLE IN THAT CRISIS

Trade Lawyers Advisory Group 

May 2007

131 

same time, China’s leaders have typically been slow to acknowledge publicly the scope of the 

country’s IPR enforcement problems. For example, following the Strategic Economic Dialogue 

meetings between the United States and China in December 2006, Vice Premier Wu Yi stated 

that “China will continue to enforce IPR protection with a responsible attitude” and “will 

continue to fulfill its responsibility in IPR protection in the international system, to closely 

cooperate with international organizations and other countries so as to promote the establishment 

of an IPR protection system and improved business environment in China.”658

Similarly, the Congressional Executive Commission on China (CECC) reported that 

Chinese officials have “characterized the government’s IPR enforcement efforts as effective, or 

downplayed the seriousness of IPR issues.”659 In November 2005, the head of China’s WTO 

delegation responded to American, Japanese, and Swiss inquiries under Article 63 of the TRIPS 

Agreement that the blame placed on China for being a top producer and exporter of counterfeit 

automotive parts was groundless. 660 A MOFCOM analyst stated that the U.S. government 

exaggerates IPR issues due to its fear of China’s surging exports.661 One senior Chinese official 

stated that IPR infringement in China is “not that serious” when compared to international 

standards and viewed in proportion to China’s total exports.662 

 

658 Wu Yi: China Will Continue to Enforce IPR Protection, State Intellectual Property Office (SIPO), December 

25, 2006, available at http://www.sipo.gov.cn/sipo_English/default.htm. 659 2006 Annual Report, Congressional-Executive Commission on China (CECC), 109th Cong., 2d Sess., Ch. 

VII(d): Commercial Rule of Law and the Impact of the WTO (September 20, 2006), available at

http://www.cecc.gov/pages/annualRpt/annualRpt06/CommercialRuleofLaw.php?PHPSESSID=a87e917d2409c

771152ee2e81766c895#30a [hereinafter “CECC 2006 Annual Report”]. 

660 Transitional Review Under Section 18 of the Protocol on the Accession of the People's Republic of China:

Report to the General Council by the Chair, World Trade Organization (WTO), IP/C/39, at para. 8 (November 

21, 2005). 

661 CECC 2006 Annual Report, supra note 659, at 146. 662 Id. (quoting Gong Zheng, deputy director of the General Administration of Customs). 
THE CRISIS IN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PROTECTION AND CHINA’S ROLE IN THAT CRISIS

Trade Lawyers Advisory Group 

May 2007

132 

Most recently, in response to the U.S. announcement that it was filing two WTO cases 

against China on IPR matters, a MOFCOM spokesman stated that “the Chinese government has 

always been firm in protecting intellectual property rights and has attained well-known 

achievements.”663 The Commissioner of SIPO indicated that in filing these cases “the United 

States has ignored the Chinese government’s immense efforts and great achievements in 

strengthening IPR protection and tightening enforcement of its copyright laws.”664

In the final analysis, China’s trading partners acknowledge that China has taken many 

positive steps to improve IP rights and enforcement. Unfortunately, the breadth and depth of IP 

violations within China are confounding the ability of innovative societies to obtain the returns 

from innovation. China’s trading partners expect and need significant progress in reducing the 

level of piracy and counterfeiting. Some Chinese officials remain frustrated by overall levels of 

piracy and have urged authorities across the country to wage an “all around war” against 

piracy.665 The crisis in China and globally cannot subside until the “all around war” is waged in 

China and in other countries with similar alarming infringement patterns. 

IV. MULTILATERAL, BILATERAL, AND PRIVATE SECTOR MONITORING OF CHINA’S 

IPR REGIME AND THE TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE PROVIDED TO IMPROVE 

ENFORCEMENT

Given all the revisions to China’s IP laws and regulations over the past two decades and 

the significant global interest in having China achieve a more effective IP system, there are 

numerous perspectives on China’s progress. To improve IP enforcement in China, governments, 

 

663 China Expresses Regret, Dissatisfaction over U.S. Complaints at WTO, Ministry of Commerce, April 10, 2007, 

available at http://english.mofcom.gov.cn/aarticle/newsrelease/commonnews/200704/20070404553955.html. 664 US Move to File Trade Cases Against China ‘not wise’, State Intellectual Property Office (SIPO), April 13, 

2007, available at http://www.sipo.gov.cn/sipo_English/gfxx/default.htm. 

665 Shanglin Luan, Officials ‘Not Optimistic’ About Fight Against Piracy, Xinhua News Agency, August 19, 2006, 

available at http://english.gov.cn/2006-08/19/content_365953.htm. 
THE CRISIS IN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PROTECTION AND CHINA’S ROLE IN THAT CRISIS

Trade Lawyers Advisory Group 

May 2007

133 

nongovernmental organizations, and members of the private sector have been working with 

China at the multilateral level through the World Trade Organization (“WTO”) and the World 

Intellectual Property Office (“WIPO”); at the regional level through ASEAN and APEC; and/or 

at the bilateral level through consultation and working groups, to provide technical assistance 

and encourage China to strictly enforce its IPR laws. The following discussion highlights some 

of the main reports by multilateral organizations, governments, and business associations that are 

monitoring China’s enforcement efforts. This section then looks at programs that have provided 

technical assistance to China. 

A. WTO SECRETARIAT COMMENTS ON CONTINUING HIGH LEVELS OF IPR

INFRINGEMENT AND INADEQUATE IPR ENFORCEMENT IN CHINA

Pursuant to Article 18.1 of the Protocol of Accession, China agreed to undergo an 

evaluation under the Trade Review Mechanism (TRM) every year for eight years, beginning a 

year after accession, with a final review in the tenth year.666 The purpose of the TRM is to allow 

members to review China’s implementation of its WTO commitments. It also gives members an 

opportunity to submit comments and questions to China regarding issues of concern. According 

to the Protocol, China is required to notify the Council for Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual 

Property Rights of: 

(a) amendments to Copyright, Trademark and Patent Law, as well 

as relevant implementing rules covering different areas of the 

TRIPS Agreement bringing all such measures into full 

compliance with and full application of the TRIPS Agreement 

and the protection of undisclosed information; and 

(b) enhanced IPR enforcement efforts through the application of 

more effective administrative sanctions as described in the 

Report. 

 

666 Accession of the People’s Republic of China, Protocol on Accession, WT/L/432 (10 November 2001). 
THE CRISIS IN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PROTECTION AND CHINA’S ROLE IN THAT CRISIS

Trade Lawyers Advisory Group 

May 2007

134 

Additionally, the WTO recently conducted its first Trade Policy Review (“TPR”) of 

China. TPRs are conducted by the Trade Policy Review Body and are a thorough examination 

of a country’s trade policies. The WTO Secretariat’s TPR report provides a compilation of 

factual material and review of members’ views about China’s trade policy, including China’s 

IPR regime. 

The TPR report notes that China made major revisions to its IPR laws in recent years, 

including the Patent Law (2000), the Trademark Law (2001), and the Copyright law (2001), and 

established an “extensive and complex framework” to administer and enforce IPR. 667 

Notwithstanding China’s efforts to enact IPR laws that comply with its TRIPS obligations, the 

rate of IPR infringement continues to be high and the level of enforcement of IPR continues to 

be inadequate. China's efforts in the area of IPR enforcement have fallen short of its 

commitments as viewed by other members. The Secretariat’s TPR report states: 

The main problems identified by China's major trading partners 

include: lack of coordination among the main enforcement 

agencies; local protectionism and corruption; inadequate 

deterrence provided by the system of administrative, civil, and 

criminal penalties; and a lack of sufficient training of personnel.668

The Secretariat’s report notes that enforcement of IPR in China is “complex with a large 

number of responsible authorities.” 669 “The number of cases settled through administrative 

 

667 Trade Policy Review, supra note 464, at para. 272. 

668 Id. at para. 303. 669 Id. at para. 304. The “responsible authorities” are: “the SIPO for patents and layout designs of integrated 

circuits; the SAIC and its Trademark Office for trademarks and, along with the AQSIQ, for geographical 

indications registration and administration; the National Copyright Administration for copyright; the State 

Drug Administration for protected medicines; MOFCOM (previously the State Economic and Trade 

Commission) for administrative protection of agriculture-related chemicals; and the Ministry of Agriculture 

and the State Forestry Administration for the protection of new plant varieties. Enforcement at the border is 

carried out by Customs, while the SAIC is in charge of enforcement of laws against unfair competition, 
THE CRISIS IN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PROTECTION AND CHINA’S ROLE IN THAT CRISIS

Trade Lawyers Advisory Group 

May 2007

135 

means remains high, although an increasing number of cases, especially for copyright, are being 

transferred to the courts.”670 Despite China’s IPR enforcement efforts, the Secretariat concludes 

that a high level of IPR infringement continues and IPR enforcement efforts to date have been 

inadequate, noting specifically the problems faced on a local level where: 

[i]t appears that enforcement remains weak and infringement of 

intellectual property rights widespread. In addition to inadequate 

deterrents provided through the prosecution system, it is also 

claimed that "local protectionism" is a major cause of IPR 

infringement. Local protectionism may be the result of 

discretionary actions that give preference to local traders and 

producers, and of local corruption, which may provide local 

manufacturers or traders of counterfeit goods advance notice of 

police raids; there is also concern that regional administrative 

agencies lack sufficient knowledge and training in IPR 

enforcement.671

1. Article 63.3 Request

In 2005, pursuant to Article 63.3 of the TRIPS Agreement, the U.S., with Japan and 

Switzerland, requested that China provide enforcement data and “clarifications regarding 

specific cases of IPR enforcement that China has identified for the years 2001 through 2004.”672 

The purpose of the request was for the U.S. to “obtain a more complete picture of China’s 

intellectual property enforcement efforts” and a “better understanding of such key features of 

IPR cases in China as the legal basis on which they have been decided and the remedies actually 

 including the protection of trade secrets. In addition, other government agencies such as the State Press and 

Publication Administration and the Ministry of Public Security are also involved in enforcement.” Id. 670 Id. at para. 303. 671 Id. at para. 313. 

672 Request for Information Pursuant to Article 63.3 of the TRIPS Agreement, IP/C/W/461 (November 14, 2005). 

Specifically the U.S. requested clarification of cases discussed by China from 2001-2004, with the following 

details of the cases: Legal Basis; Remedies, Provisional Measures, and Repeat Infringers; Location, Year, and 

Competent Authority; Transfer of Cases to Criminal Authorities; Nationals of Other Members/Countries; 

Product. 
THE CRISIS IN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PROTECTION AND CHINA’S ROLE IN THAT CRISIS

Trade Lawyers Advisory Group 

May 2007

136 

imposed on infringers.”673 Thus far, the United States believes that China has not satisfied the 

Members’ request completely. In 2007, USTR stated that China has only provided limited 

information in response to the Article 63.3 request, “hampering the United States’ ability to 

evaluate whether China is taking all necessary steps to address the rampant IPR infringement 

found throughout China.”674

B. THE UNITED STATES: MONITORING CHINA’S PROGRESS WITH THE 

SPECIAL 301 REVIEWS, COMPLIANCE REPORTS AND THROUGH THE 

JOINT COMMISSION ON COMMERCE AND TRADE

In its 2005 WTO compliance report, the U.S. Trade Representative’s Office commented 

that generally China has done a satisfactory job with respect to amending its IPR laws to comply 

with the TRIPS Agreement and bringing its laws into line with international norms in most key 

areas, although noting that some improvements (e.g., Internet copyright protection) are still 

needed.675 In the 2006 “Special 301”676 report, however, USTR stated that China “remains a top 

intellectual property enforcement priority” and “does not provide American copyright materials, 

inventions, brands, and trade secrets the intellectual property protection and enforcement to 

which they are entitled.” 677 USTR warned that given the “limited progress by China in 

 

673 See USTR Pursues WTO Process to Probe IPR Enforcement in China, USTR Press Release (October 26, 

2005), available at www.ustr.gov; see also Request for Information Pursuant to Article 63.3 of the TRIPS 

Agreement, IP/C/W/461 (November 14, 2005). 

674 National Trade Estimate 2007, supra note 528, at 107. 

675 See 2005 Report to Congress on China’s WTO Compliance, supra note 431, at 63. 676 Since the late 1980s, the U.S. has used the “Special 301” to conduct annual reviews of the adequacy and 

effectiveness of intellectual property rights in foreign countries. Today, 86 countries are reviewed, including 

China. As discussed above, the U.S. has been using the Special 301 mechanism, and the threat of 

investigations, since the early 1990s to pressure China to pursue reforms in its IPR regime. See Section II-E. 

In 2006, USTR determined that China would remain on the Priority Watch List, where it was elevated to the 

year before, and remain subject to Section 306 monitoring. See 2006 Special 301 Report, supra note 497. 677 2006 Special 301 Report, supra note 497. 
THE CRISIS IN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PROTECTION AND CHINA’S ROLE IN THAT CRISIS

Trade Lawyers Advisory Group 

May 2007

137 

addressing certain deficiencies in IPR protection and enforcement, the United States will step up 

consideration of its WTO dispute settlement options.”678

The 2006 Special 301 Report contains particular criticism of China’s inability to crack 

down on piracy at the local level. USTR examined the lack of IPR protection at the local level 

by focusing on provinces considered to be “hot spots.”679 In the four hot spots identified in the 

report, USTR noted that there appears to be “an acute need for authorities to more effectively 

establish and sustain proactive, deterrent IPR enforcement.”680 To follow up on this theme, 

USTR said that the 2007 Special 301 Report will contain a special provincial review to examine 

the “adequacy and effectiveness of IPR protection and enforcement at the provincial 

level...spotlight[ing] strengths, weaknesses, and inconsistencies in and among specific 

jurisdictions...”681 USTR also expressed concern about complaints from U.S. industries of the 

possibility “that laws or policies in a variety of fields might be misused to favor domestic over 

foreign IPR.”682 USTR concluded that despite China’s efforts, and particularly the efforts of 

President Hu Jintao and Vice Premier Wu Yi, “the reality of IPR enforcement in China continues 

to lag far behind the commitment made by China’s government at the Joint Commission on 

Commerce and Trade (JCCT) in 2004, and renewed in 2005 and 2006, to achieve a significant 

reduction in IPR infringement throughout China.”683 

 

678 Id. 679 Enforcement across China was characterized as inconsistent. As part of the 2006 Special 301 Report and to 

encourage Chinese efforts to increase attention to certain “hot spots,” USTR looked at four of these “hot 

spots”: Guandong Province, Beijing City, Zhejiang Province, and Fujian Province. 680 2006 Special 301 Report, supra note 497. 

681 Id. 682 Id. 683 Id.
THE CRISIS IN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PROTECTION AND CHINA’S ROLE IN THAT CRISIS

Trade Lawyers Advisory Group 

May 2007

138 

Since 2004, USTR has used the JCCT as the primary means for the U.S. to secure from 

China specific commitments for increasing IPR enforcement and action plans to implement those 

commitments. The annual JCCT meetings provide the U.S. and China with a vehicle to discuss 

ongoing IPR issues and problems, a mechanism for China to make certain commitments, and a 

means for the U.S. to monitor and ensure that China faithfully implements those commitments. 

The JCCT was initially established in 1983 as a forum for bilateral trade issues and to 

promote commercial relations. In 2004, the JCCT became a prominent feature in the U.S.-China 

trade dialogue and is now co-chaired by two cabinet level officials from the U.S., viz., the 

Secretary of Commerce and the U.S. Trade Representative, and China’s representative is the 

Vice-Premier responsible for foreign trade. 684 The JCCT consists of ten working groups, 

including an IPR group, which was established in 2004. 

For the 2004 JCCT meeting, IPR enforcement was the primary issue on the agenda. At 

the meeting, China announced an action plan with six major commitments to increased 

enforcement in the country. The commitments included: (1) to significantly reduce the levels of 

IPR infringement; (2) to promulgate a judicial interpretation to increase penalties for IPR 

violations by the end of 2004 by expanding the range of violations subject to criminal 

investigation, criminalizing online piracy and the import, export, storage, and distribution of 

pirated and counterfeit products; (3) to increase pressure on IPR violators by conducting nationwide enforcement actions and increasing enforcement actions at customs; (4) to help protect online works by ratifying and implementing the WIPO Internet-related treaties; (5) to begin a 

 

684 USTR is a cabinet level administration office, but unlike the Secretary of Commerce, the USTR is not a 

Secretary of an Executive Department. 
THE CRISIS IN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PROTECTION AND CHINA’S ROLE IN THAT CRISIS

Trade Lawyers Advisory Group 

May 2007

139 

national IPR education campaign; and (6) to expand the ban on the use of pirated software at all 

levels of government.685

1. China’s Compliance with 2004 JCCT Commitments

In the 2005 Special 301 Review, USTR announced the results of an out-of-cycle 

review.686 This out-of-cycle review was conducted to evaluate the implementation of China’s 

2004 commitments made at the JCCT meeting. These commitments were again evaluated as 

part of the 2006 Special 301 Report. China’s compliance with commitments made at the JCCT 

meetings in 2004, 2005, and 2006 are examined individually below. 

a. To significantly reduce the level of IPR infringement

In 2005, USTR reported that infringement levels remain unacceptably high, and, 

according to industry submissions in the out-of-cycle review, infringement levels are at 90 

percent and above for nearly every form of intellectual property.687 Overall piracy rates were not 

found to have declined since China’s WTO accession and, in some sectors, they had increased.688 

According to industry submissions, internet piracy was quickly becoming the biggest threat to 

the copyright industry.689 Trademark counterfeiting remained a problem, with the value of 

Chinese counterfeits seized by the U.S. increasing by 47 percent from 2004 to 2005.690 Based 

 

685 2004 Special 301 Report, United States Trade Representative, 12-13, available at 

http://www.ustr.gov/Document_Library/Reports_Publications/2004/2004_Special_301/Section_Index.html. 686 Out-of-Cycle Reviews are reviews that may be conducted at any time and are used to evaluate changes and 

developments in particular countries. 687 2005 Special 301 Report, supra note 12. 

688 Id.

689 Id.

690 Id.
THE CRISIS IN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PROTECTION AND CHINA’S ROLE IN THAT CRISIS

Trade Lawyers Advisory Group 

May 2007

140 

on these findings, USTR recommended China “[u]ndertake additional aggressive action to 

significantly reduce IPR infringement levels.”691

In 2006, USTR reported that, despite the increase in cases in Chinese courts, overall 

piracy and counterfeiting levels in China remained high and were affecting products from a wide 

range of industries.692 Industry sources estimated that there had been little or no improvement, 

with levels of piracy at 85 to 93 percent.693 USTR also reported that China’s share of IPR 

infringing products seized at the U.S. border had increased from 63 percent in 2004 to 69 percent 

in 2005, while the total value of the goods decreased from $87.2 million in 2004 to $63.9 million 

in 2005.694

At the third elevated meeting of the JCCT in April, 2006, the USTR reported that there 

has been progress in China’s efforts to significantly reduce IPR infringement, but that the U.S. 

does not consider China to have fully met its 2004 JCCT commitment. 

b. To promulgate a Judicial Interpretation to increase 

penalties and expand the range of violations subject to 

criminal investigation

As discussed above, in 2004 the Supreme People’s Court and Supreme People’s 

Procuratorate issued a new Judicial Interpretation that helped clarify and expand the scope of 

criminal enforcement.695 USTR commended the improvements, commenting that the issuance of 

the Judicial Interpretation and the provisions it contains signal “top government and judicial 

 

691 Id.

692 2006 Special 301 Report, supra note 497. 

693 Id.

694 Id.

695 See discussion regarding Judicial Interpretations supra Section III.A.2.a.
THE CRISIS IN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PROTECTION AND CHINA’S ROLE IN THAT CRISIS

Trade Lawyers Advisory Group 

May 2007

141 

level willingness to commit to addressing counterfeiting and piracy problems.”696 However, 

USTR complained that the provisions did not go far enough and that efforts were “hampered by 

institutional differences and the need to accommodate competing domestic interests.”697

Noted improvements included: lower criminal thresholds, accomplice liability to 

importers, exporters, and others; a broadening of goods included in sales calculations; a lower 

standard for defining what “for profit” was; and an expansion of the law defining what 

constituted an infringing trademark.698 However, USTR also found many deficiencies, such as 

changes that actually weakened the enforcement measures. The Judicial Interpretation removed 

special liability for repeat offenders (three strikes rule), dealers in counterfeit products that 

threaten public safety, and infringers of well known trademarks.699 It also continued to allow 

the criminal threshold to be based on the value of the infringing good and not the price of the 

legitimate good.700 Copyright infringement was criminalized, including online piracy, but only if 

undertaken to make a profit. 701 Some acts, such as the export of infringing goods or the 

unauthorized rental, translation, public performance, broadcasting, adaptation, and bootlegging 

of performances were not criminalized. This is true even if the infringement is on a commercial 

scale.702

In the 2006 Special 301 Report, USTR stated that the biggest problem with enforcement 

in China remained the “toothless administrative enforcement and underutilization of criminal 

 

696 2005 Special 301 Report, supra note 12. 697 Id.

698 Id. 699 Id.

700 Id. 701 2005 Special 301 Report, supra note 12. 702 Id.
THE CRISIS IN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PROTECTION AND CHINA’S ROLE IN THAT CRISIS

Trade Lawyers Advisory Group 

May 2007

142 

remedies.”703 The purpose of the Judicial Interpretation was to help China impose more criminal 

penalties on a wider range of counterfeiting and piracy activities. However, it is difficult to 

determine what effect the Judicial Interpretation has had. USTR found very few reports of 

criminal prosecution in copyrights cases, but an increase in criminal trademark prosecutions.704 

Due to the lack of transparency in the Chinese system, it is difficult to determine whether the 

increased prosecutions resulted in actual convictions or what penalties, if any, were imposed.705 

With respect to the 2004 Judicial Interpretation, in 2006, USTR concluded: 

China’s high thresholds for criminal activity (i.e, the minimum 

values or volumes required to initiate criminal prosecution) 

continue to be a major reason for the lack of an effective criminal 

deterrent... the mandated thresholds remain so high that they make 

it impossible as a matter of law to prosecute many commercial 

infringers, especially at the retail level...[and] the problem is made 

worse by China’s reliance on values of infringing products, rather 

than genuine products, as the default rule for determining whether 

threshold values are met. China has thus maintained a legal “safe 

harbor” that protects a large group of commercial infringers and 

operates to deprive the criminal enforcement authorities of needed 

information regarding the sources of counterfeit and pirated 

goods.706 

c. To increase pressure on IPR violators by conducting 

nation-wide enforcement actions and increase actions at 

Customs

In August 2004, the Chinese government announced a year-long national crack down on 

IPR infringements. 707 The campaign focused on sectors where trademark counterfeiting and 

 

703 2006 Special 301 Report, supra note 497. 704 2005 Special 301 Report, supra note 12. 

705 Id. 706 2006 Special 301 Report, supra note 497. 707 2005 Special 301 Report, supra note 12. 
THE CRISIS IN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PROTECTION AND CHINA’S ROLE IN THAT CRISIS

Trade Lawyers Advisory Group 

May 2007

143 

copyright infringement are concentrated, including “import and export activities, trade fairs and 

exhibitions, distribution and wholesale markets, brand name processing and publishing.” 708 

USTR found that the crackdown had led to an increase in the number of seizures, but that the 

seized goods often found their way back into the market and many of the cases were brought by 

administrative authorities, resulting in low fines that provide for very little deterrence.709 USTR 

reported that infringers regarded these fines as simply the price of doing business.710 Again, 

USTR complained that there was a deficiency in the administrative enforcement mechanism. 

Their concern was compounded by Chinese government statistics showing that between 2001 

and 2004, there was a decrease in the number of cases that were transferred from administrative 

authorities to the Ministry of Public Security for criminal investigation.711

To address the sheer volume of infringing products leaving China, China’s General 

Administration of Customs issued new regulations and implementing rules to increase border 

enforcement and “make it easier for rights holders to secure effective enforcement at the 

border.”712 The new regulations “extend the term of IPR recordations from seven to ten years, 

and lower the cap on the security bonds required from rights holders seeking the seizure of 

allegedly infringing goods.” 713 However, “the new rules no longer expressly authorize customs 

authorities to levy administrative fines on companies engaged in trading counterfeit or pirated 

 

708 Id.

709 Id. 710 Id.

711 Id. 712 2005 Special 301 Report, supra note 12; see also Rules of the Customs of People’s Republic of China for 

Implementing the Regulations of People’s Republic of China on Customs Protection of Intellectual Property 

Rights (Adopted at the Executive Meeting of the General Administration of Customs on April 22, 2004, 

promulgated by Decree No. 114 of the General Administration of Customs on May 25, 2004, and effective as 

of July 1, 2004), available at http://english.ipr.gov.cn/ipr/en/info/Article.jsp?a_no=2068&col_no=121&dir

=200603. 713 2005 Special 301 Report, supra note 12. 
THE CRISIS IN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PROTECTION AND CHINA’S ROLE IN THAT CRISIS

Trade Lawyers Advisory Group 

May 2007

144 

goods and reduce the fines that Customs authorities can impose from 100 percent to 30 percent 

of the value of the goods.”714 Additionally, the measures do not cover the transfer of cases from 

administrative to criminal prosecution. 715 Nor do they authorize nationwide bonding to cover all 

of China’s ports. 716 Finally, the regulations continue to allow for the auction rather than the 

destruction of seized goods.717

In 2006, USTR again expressed its concerns for the 2004 customs regulations and 

implementing rules. These two pieces of legislation were intended to “strengthen border 

enforcement and to make it easier for rights holders to secure effective enforcement at the 

border” but there are still weaknesses. In particular, the rules 

impose a deadline of only three days for a right holder to apply for 

seizure of suspected infringing good held by Chinese 

customs...[and] disposal of confiscated goods remains a problem 

under the implementing rules, which appear to mandate auction, 

rather than destruction, of infringing goods not purchased by the 

right holder or used for public welfare.718

In April 2007, the General Administration of Customs of China published a notice 

regarding the auction of infringing goods that are confiscated by Customs.719 The notice called 

for Customs to strictly adhere with the regulations in Article 27 of the “Regulations of the 

People’s Republic of China Governing Customs Protection of Intellectual Property Rights.”720 

 

714 Id.

715 Id. 716 Id. 717 Id.

718 2006 Special 301 Report, supra note 497. 

719 See General Administration of Customs Regulates Auction of Infringing Goods, NTD Patent & Trademark 

Agency Ltd., April 5, 2007, available at http://www.chinantd.com/news.php?language=en&channel

=53&id=1332. 720 See id. 
THE CRISIS IN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PROTECTION AND CHINA’S ROLE IN THAT CRISIS

Trade Lawyers Advisory Group 

May 2007

145 

The notice states that before auction, the “infringing features on the goods and packages should 

be entirely eliminated ...[and if they] cannot be entirely eliminated, the goods should be 

destroyed.”721 Additionally, before the goods are auctioned, Customs should ask the opinion of 

the right holders.722

d. To protect copyright works on the internet by ratifying 

and implementing the WIPO internet-related treaties 

China is facing increasing internet piracy. A review of Chinese regulations and 

implementing rules reveals loopholes which permits some piracy to evade enforcement efforts. 

Still, USTR has commented that “China’s current regulations, implementing rules and judicial 

interpretations do increasingly address copyright issues related to the Internet.”723 In 2004, 

China made a JCCT commitment to accede to WIPO Internet Treaties, which includes the WIPO 

Copyright Treaty and the WIPO Performance and Phonography Treaty.724 In 2006, a legislative 

package was submitted to the National People’s Congress for China to join the WIPO Internet 

Treaties.725 However, USTR expressed concern regarding the draft regulations and asked that 

China address USTR’s concerns before finalizing implementing measures.726

USTR gave detailed examples of their concerns, which included the following: 

• The draft only provides legal protections and remedies relating to 

technological protection measures (TPMs) that prevent or restrict the 

making available to the public of a work (e.g., passwords). It provides 

 

721 See id. 722 See id.

723 2005 Special 301 Report, supra note 12. 724 Id.

725 The WIPO Internet Treaties include the Copyright Treaty (WCT) and Performance and Phonography Treaty 

(WPPT). 726 2006 Special 301 Report, supra note 497. 
THE CRISIS IN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PROTECTION AND CHINA’S ROLE IN THAT CRISIS

Trade Lawyers Advisory Group 

May 2007

146 

neither legal protections nor remedies to prevent circumvention of copycontrol TPMs. Its exception to protection against circumvention remains 

overbroad. Without such protections and remedies, the United States is 

concerned that China will not provide effective protection against 

copyright infringement on the Internet. 

• The United States has concerns about several broad limitations on rights. 

These provisions should be reconsidered in the light of the tests for 

limitations and exceptions to copyright prescribed by the WIPO Internet 

Treaties and TRIPS. 

• The notice and take down measures for a copyright holder appear overly 

burdensome and rigid. As the Internet becomes a more popular means for 

distributing copyrighted material such as music, it is critical that these 

regulations include effective and efficient means of notifying Internet 

service providers and taking down infringing material.727 

At the 2006 JCCT meeting, the U.S. pledged that it would provide China with additional 

technical assistance to help China fully implement the WIPO Internet Treaties.728 On March 9, 

2007, China finally acceded to both the WIPO Copyright Treaty and the WIPO Performance and 

Phonography Treaty, thus completing its 2004 JCCT commitment to join the WIPO Internet 

Treaties.729 In the 2007 National Trade Estimate, USTR commended China for issuing new 

regulations that meet the requirements of the WIPO Internet Treaties, but commented that “more 

work is needed at both the national level and the provincial level to meet the challenges of 

Internet Piracy and fully implement the WIPO Internet treaties.”730

e. To begin IPR education campaign

To fulfill its education commitment, in 2004 China launched a campaign that included 

television programs, published inserts in English language newspapers, and special reports on 

 

727 Id. 

728 National Trade Estimate 2007, supra note 528, at 107. 

729 See The List of Recent Notifications, available on the WIPO Website, http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/. 730 National Trade Estimate 2007, supra note 528, at 107. 
THE CRISIS IN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PROTECTION AND CHINA’S ROLE IN THAT CRISIS

Trade Lawyers Advisory Group 

May 2007

147 

specific IP efforts that were published in IPR trade journals.731 For example, SIPO introduced a 

television program called Intellectual Fortune and began publishing an English-language insert 

dedicated to intellectual property in China Daily, an English-language paper.732 Additionally, in 

2005, an anti-piracy concert was broadcast on television with an estimated viewing audience of 

500 million people.733 In 2005, USTR commented that it is still too early to know what the longterm implications of the Chinese campaign will be.734

China’s 2007 Action Plan on IPR Protection includes seventy-four publicity measures to 

“reinforce education among the public, improving society-wide awareness on the respect for and 

protection of IPR.”735 These events include large-scale destructions of pirated materials, “on-site 

information services for law-related publicity programs of IPR, a “publicity campaign featuring 

‘anti-counterfeiting’ and ‘anti piracy,’” a publicity campaign entitled “Enjoy the Music, Respect 

Artistic Creation,” and an online campaign using a cartoon series to promote IPR awareness 

entitled “A Networked World and A Copyright-Friendly China.”736

f. To expand the ban on pirated software in government 

offices 

At the 2004 JCCT meeting, Vice Premier WU Yi made a commitment that the Chinese 

government would be free of pirated software.737 Government institutions at all levels would use 

 

731 2005 Special 301 Report, supra note 12. 732 Id.

733 Id. 734 2006 Special 301 Report, supra note 497. 

735 See China’s Action Plan on IPR Protection 2007, supra note 606. 736 See id. 737 2005 Special 301 Report, supra note 12. 
THE CRISIS IN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PROTECTION AND CHINA’S ROLE IN THAT CRISIS

Trade Lawyers Advisory Group 

May 2007

148 

only legal software.738 In 2005 USTR found that several local governments, provinces, and 

municipalities had instituted measures requiring only legal software, but that China had not 

satisfied its commitment that all levels of government would use only legal software.739 

In 2006 submissions to USTR, members of the industry claimed that government 

purchases were not high enough for them to conclude that all software purchased by the 

government was legal.740 At the 2006 JCCT meeting China committed to ensure that legitimate 

software is used in Chinese enterprises “and to take up issues of government and enterprise 

software asset management in the JCCT IPR Working Group.”741 Just before the April 2006 

JCCT meeting China issued rules requiring computers to come pre-installed with licensed 

operating system software.742 In 2007, USTR reported that China’s implementation of these 

rules had been successful, with U.S. industry pleased with the initial results.743

2. Additional JCCT commitments and concerns

At the 2005 JCCT meeting, China committed to take aggressive action against movie 

piracy, with an emphasis on enforcing the piracy of titles not yet authorized for distribution.744 

Rights holders reported to USTR that there had been only limited improvement in the piracy of 

pre-release titles, but that there had been some improvement in Shanghai, one of four selected 

cities for the crackdown, but not the three other major cities.745 USTR commented that part of 

 

738 Id.

739 Id. 740 2006 Special 301 Report, supra note 497. 

741 National Trade Estimate 2007, supra note 528, at 107. 742 Id. 

743 Id. 744 2006 Special 301 Report, supra note 497. 745 Id. 
THE CRISIS IN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PROTECTION AND CHINA’S ROLE IN THAT CRISIS

Trade Lawyers Advisory Group 

May 2007

149 

the reason for the high rate of piracy in China was due to the delays in regulatory approval for 

legitimate films, which allowed pirated goods to hit the market first.746 This was also true for 

video games and books.747 In 2007, USTR again raised this issue as an “exacerbating factor” 

which also raised WTO concerns as the “restrictions inadvertently help to ensure that infringing 

products continue to dominate those sectors within China.”748

Additionally, China agreed to increase the overall number of criminal prosecutions for 

IPR violations relative to the number of IPR administrative cases, but, for 2006, there was no 

sign that there had been a shift to criminal prosecutions.749 Figures reported by China indicate 

that the absolute number of criminal cases had risen, but USTR was not provided with the 

administrative numbers which would indicate whether there had indeed been a shift to criminal 

prosecutions.750 Additionally, industry groups reported that the percentage of cases transferred 

remained small.751 

In addition to specific actions to implement or strengthen past commitments, at the 2006 

JCCT meeting, the U.S. secured more commitments from China. 752 These commitments 

included an agreement between the two countries to work together to combat infringing goods at 

trade fairs and major consumer markets such as the Silk Road.753 They also agreed to increase 

 

746 Id. 747 National Trade Estimate 2007, supra note 528, at 106. 748 Id. See infra Section V.A. for information regarding recent U.S. requests for consultations filed at WTO. 

749 2006 Special 301 Report, supra note 497. 750 Id.

751 Id. 752 National Trade Estimate 2007, supra note 528, at 107. 753 Id.
THE CRISIS IN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PROTECTION AND CHINA’S ROLE IN THAT CRISIS

Trade Lawyers Advisory Group 

May 2007

150 

cooperation between respective enforcement and customs officials.754 In the 2007 National 

Trade Estimate, USTR stated that “China has made some progress in implementing its April 

2006 JCCT commitments, but it has been slower than in the past.”755

USTR has also expressed specific concerns it has received from U.S. industries. Rights 

holders complained that Chinese patent law was narrow in scope and that it was not possible to 

patent transgenic plants and animals.756 There was also a lack of clarity in the laws for generic 

drug patents, contributing to the “continued growth of counterfeit drugs, with corresponding 

health and safety issues.” 757 There were also concerns about “unfair commercial use of 

undisclosed test and other data” submitted by pharmaceutical companies seeking market 

approval.758

C. EUROPEAN UNION: MONITORING CHINESE ENFORCEMENT

China is now the European Union’s first priority in terms of intellectual property 

enforcement worldwide. The EU Chamber of Commerce reported in its 2006 Business 

Confidence Survey of China that weak IPR protection was still one of the key challenges of 

doing business in China, with only 9 percent of respondents commenting that they had never 

experienced problems in China and 67 percent stating that present laws for IP enforcement in 

 

754 Id. 755 Id. 

756 2006 Special 301 Report, supra note 497. 757 Id. 758 Id.
THE CRISIS IN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PROTECTION AND CHINA’S ROLE IN THAT CRISIS

Trade Lawyers Advisory Group 

May 2007

151 

China do not act as an effective deterrent.759 “Despite all the efforts taken to improve the 

situation, IP violations in [China] have been growing in recent years.”760

While the European Commission (“EC”) recognized the progress made by China and 

noted that China “made noticeable improvements to its framework of laws and regulations, the 

lack of effective IPR enforcement is the main problem.” 761 The European Commission 

considered the main inadequacies in China’s IP system to be: weak deterrence for infringers, 

lack of cooperation between and within enforcement agencies, difficulty for rights holders to 

initiate and proceed with a case, lack of financial and human resources for administrative 

enforcement, and lack of enforcement at the local level combined with local protectionism.762 

On a recent visit to China, Peter Mandelson, the EU Trade Commissioner, commented that there 

is no “substitute for enforcement of Chinese anti-counterfeiting laws on the ground, including 

lower criminal thresholds for offenders, action to clean up street markets and the guarantee of 

royalty payments and fair conditions for technology transfer.” 763 Mandelson continued by 

saying that “creativity is Europe’s comparative advantage and counterfeiting is a drain on our 

competitiveness in the Chinese market.”764 

A recent study by the European Commission stated that “[t]he adequate protection of 

intellectual property rights such as patents, copyrights and trademarks is central to the exercise of 

 

759 EU, China Co-operate on Illegal Trade, EurActiv.com, September 19, 2006, available at

http://www.euractiv.com/en/trade/eu-china-opperate-illegal-trade/article-157971. 

760 Intellectual Property Rights: Current Situation & Future Perspective, European Commission, July 25, 2006, 

available at http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2006/july/tradoc_129426.pdf. 761 Id.

762 Id. 763 Mandelson Visits Chinese State Intellectual Property Office; Urges Tougher Chinese Action on 

Counterfeiting, Technology Transfers, Payments of Royalties, European Commission, November 8, 2006, 

available at http://ec.europa.eu/trade/issues/sectoral/intell_property/pr081106_en.htm. 764 Id. 
THE CRISIS IN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PROTECTION AND CHINA’S ROLE IN THAT CRISIS

Trade Lawyers Advisory Group 

May 2007

152 

Europe’s comparative advantage in innovation, design and high-value production.” 765 The 

Commission accused China of “industrial policies that limit market access by non-Chinese origin 

goods and that aim to extract technology and IP from foreign rights-holders and support the 

development of Chinese industries.”766 Perhaps the biggest issue for the EU was the methods 

used by the Chinese companies to acquire foreign technology.767 The EU claimed that Chinese 

practices and policies “highlight China’s national interest in and priority of achieving 

technological independence in the shortest possible time... [and] have encouraged the fierce 

acquisition of foreign technology through various strategies.”768

D. BUSINESSES CONTINUE TO FACE HIGH LEVELS OF IPR INFRINGEMENT 

IN CHINA

The American Chamber of Commerce in China (AmCham) issued its 2006 White Paper 

in which it, inter alia, provided an overview of the IPR experience of American businesses in 

China. In short, AmCham found that there has not been any notable improvement in the IPR 

environment in China. 

 

765 Global Europe: EU-China Trade and Investment Competition and Partnership, European Commission, 

October 2006, available at http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2006/november/tradoc_131234.pdf. 

766 Id. 767 The methods noted by the EC include: 

 (1). Open Standards: Chinese companies obtain free and unlimited access to open standards documentation but 

refuse or are forbidden to pay reasonable royalties on patents attached to the standard in question (i.e. essential 

patents); (2). Forced disclosure of secret data: government authorities request excessive amounts of data to be 

provided by foreign businesses in the form of questionnaires that must be completed prior to receiving formal 

authorisation to market or license their products, build a factory,...;(3). Joint ventures & Government 

Procurement: government authorities initiate calls for tenders for projects which request advanced levels of 

technological resources. Projects are allocated to foreign companies, which must enter in a joint venture 

partnership or technology transfer. The Chinese JV partner benefits from its technology and technological 

know-how long after the project expiry. Once the project is finalised, government authorities can launch 

similar projects at a larger scale by assigning the Chinese JV partner. It is worth noting that the third form 

slightly differs from the first two as it involves a one time payment for assimilating the technology, though 

agreements do not generally transfer IP rights to the Chinese JV partner. Intellectual Property Rights: Current 

Situation & Future Perspective, European Commission, July 25, 2006, available at

http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2006/july/tradoc_129426.pdf. 768 Id.
THE CRISIS IN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PROTECTION AND CHINA’S ROLE IN THAT CRISIS

Trade Lawyers Advisory Group 

May 2007

153 

Five years after China’s accession to the WTO, American 

businesses confronting IPR enforcement issues in China are 

shifting their focus from the symptomatic to the systematic. 

Across industries, American companies have concluded that the 

returns on case-by-case adjudication (whether through 

administrative, civil or criminal channels) are insufficient to 

change the overall environment, and confidence in existing IPR 

enforcement mechanisms remains low: a consensus is emerging 

that reform is necessary at the most fundamental level.769

The White Paper reported that 55 percent of American companies surveyed were 

“negatively affected by IPR violations” and that 41 percent said that “counterfeits of their 

products increased.”770 With respect to IPR enforcement, AmCham reported that “generally 

speaking, administrative enforcement is ineffective.”771 Among AmCham’s findings: 

• In administrative actions, only 51% of surveyed companies 

were satisfied with the degree of cooperation from Chinese 

officials; 

• System of transferring administrative cases to criminal courts 

does not operate smoothly; 

• In court actions, less than half of surveyed companies were 

satisfied with the degree of cooperation from Chinese court 

officials; 

• Despite lowered thresholds for criminal liability, overall 

criminal prosecution remained low; 

• Only 22% of surveyed companies believe the 2004 Judicial 

Interpretation of Threshold for Criminal Liability will benefit 

IPR protection either moderately or greatly; 

• IPR enforcement in civil courts is hampered because 

“gathering evidence is difficult; damages amounts are too low; 

and judgments are problematic to enforce.”772

 

769 AmCham White Paper 2006, supra note 60, at 34. 

770 Id. 771 Id. at 36. 772 Id.
THE CRISIS IN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PROTECTION AND CHINA’S ROLE IN THAT CRISIS

Trade Lawyers Advisory Group 

May 2007

154 

Notwithstanding these less-than-optimistic findings, AmCham reported that 

“{n}onetheless, American businesses generally agree that awareness of IPR issues has increased 

in China and that the Chinese government is making efforts in this area such as in the formation 

of the Leading Group that has been coordinating the Chinese government’s IPR campaign.”773

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce had similar findings in its 2006 annual report on 

China’s WTO Implementation and Other Issues of Importance to American Business in the U.S.-

China Commercial Relationship.

774 While recognizing that significant IPR protection and 

enforcement efforts were underway in China, the Chamber nonetheless observed that “China has 

fallen short of commitments to effectively protect IPR, both with respect to its obligations under 

the WTO Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights Agreement 

(TRIPS Agreement), as well as China’s many JCCT commitments on IPR protection and 

enforcement.”775 The Chamber found that since its 2005 report, the IPR climate in China had not 

significantly improved for its members due to the lack of adequate deterrence of intellectual 

property theft in the marketplace and, if anything, “the climate has worsened, as more and more 

small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) complain of the dramatic impact of counterfeits on 

their businesses worldwide.”776

However, the Chamber commended the actions of the Chinese government during the 

2004-2006 period, for improving legislation on IPR protections and increasing the number of 

 

773 Id. at 34. 774 U.S. Chamber of Commerce Report: China’s WTO Implementation and Other Issues of Importance to 

American Business in the U.S.-China Commercial Relationship, U.S. Chamber China WTO Implementation 

Working Group, Publication # 0497, September 2006, available at www.uschamber.com/

publications/reports/050913_china.htm. 775 Id. at 16. 776 Id. at 15. 
THE CRISIS IN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PROTECTION AND CHINA’S ROLE IN THAT CRISIS

Trade Lawyers Advisory Group 

May 2007

155 

criminal cases taken against trademark counterfeiters. Recent statistics on enforcement actions 

from January-June, 2006, suggested that police actions against pirates and counterfeiters were up 

and that a high number of raids were undertaken by the local Administration for Industry & 

Commerce (AIC), but that the number of raids had decreased since 2005, and the number of IP 

cases transferred from administrative to the criminal system had also decreased.777

While China has made many commitments in the past several years, the Chamber 

questioned whether the 2006 Action Plan, like previous plans, would be fully implemented. 

However, the Chamber believed that certain initiatives in the 2006 Action Plan “underscored the 

central government’s commitment to improve protection and enforcement, and create a basis for 

optimism that the Chinese government will continue to achieve progress in IPR protection.”778 

The initiatives cited by the Chamber were: 

• 50 IPR Infringement Reporting Centers that allow IP owners to report 

enforcement complaints; 

• the pre-loading of legal operating system software on all computers 

manufactured in or imported into China; 

• providing the government with sufficient funds to purchase only computers 

with pre-loaded, legal software; 

• the signing of agreements with Chinese computer manufacturers to purchase 

U.S. operating system software.779

The Chamber cited the following as concerns requiring particular attention: strengthening 

criminal, administrative, and civil enforcement; adopting additional measures to permit 

transparent monitoring and verification of enforcement efforts and their impact; and that the 

Chinese government commit the funds necessary to fulfill commitments made at the JCCT, 

 

777 Id. at 17. 778 Id. at 18. 779 Id.
THE CRISIS IN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PROTECTION AND CHINA’S ROLE IN THAT CRISIS

Trade Lawyers Advisory Group 

May 2007

156 

including money to ensure the government is able to fulfill its commitment to purchases of legal 

software, as well as the funds for training and monitoring the enforcement of that commitment at 

all levels of government.780

In 2006 the European Commission published the results of a survey on the experiences of 

EU businesses with IPR enforcement outside the EU in 2005. The survey identified China as the 

main priority, with Chinese products accounting for two-thirds of all counterfeit goods seized at 

the EU border.781 The purpose of this survey was not to “black list” particular countries but to 

focus the Commission’s technical assistance programs on priority countries.782 The Enforcement 

Survey was based on questionnaires that asked for infringements suffered, measures undertaken 

against such infringements, and how local authorities responded to the complaints.783

The Survey indicated that IPR enforcement remains weak. While the Chinese legal 

system was adequate to protect IPR, enforcement and use of the legal system remained 

inadequate. The main weaknesses pointed out by participants were: local protectionism, 

corruption, poor coordination between the levels of government, inadequately trained judges, 

lack of criminal prosecution, extended censorship review which allows pirates access to 

exclusive distribution of newly-released titles, inadequate customs inspection of counterfeit 

goods, administrative penalties that are to low to serve as a deterrent, the length of procedures, 

 

780 Id. at 19. 

781 Intellectual Property: EU Business Survey Identifies Target Countries in Fight Against Counterfeiting, 

European Commission, October 5, 2006, available at http://ec.europa.eu/trade/issues/sectoral/intell_property/

pr051006_en.htm. 

782 Id. 783 Intellectual Property: Enforcement Survey 2006, European Commission, available at

http://ec.europa.eu/trade/issues/sectoral/intell_property/survey2006_en.htm. The Enforcement Survey was 

given to rights-holders, associations, EU Delegations, and the Embassies of EU member states, and was made 

available on the web to any interested party. 
THE CRISIS IN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PROTECTION AND CHINA’S ROLE IN THAT CRISIS

Trade Lawyers Advisory Group 

May 2007

157 

the insufficient implementation of TRIPS into the domestic legal system, and the low perception 

of IP in the population.784

E. TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE INITIATIVES TO HELP CHINA IMPROVE 

ENFORCEMENT

Article 67 of the TRIPS Agreement provides that in “order to facilitate the 

implementation of this Agreement, developed country members shall provide, on request and on 

mutually agreed terms and conditions, technical and financial cooperation in favour of 

developing and least-developed country Members.” 785 Assistance programs should help leastdeveloped countries prepare laws and regulations on IPR protection and enforcement, as well as 

provide support “regarding the establishment or reinforcement of domestic offices and agencies 

relevant to these matters, including the training of personnel.”786 IP-related technical assistance 

provided to developing countries is described in the following broad descriptions: 

• General and specialized training for human resource 

development; 

• Advice on IP policy/legal reforms and assistance in preparing 

draft laws; 

• Support for modernizing IPR administration (including 

automation) and collective management systems; and 

• International patent co-operation and information services 

(including search and examination) to facilitate IPR 

administration and promote local innovation and creativity.787

 

784 Intellectual Property: Enforcement Survey: China, European Commission, October 2006, at 9, available at

http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2006/october/tradoc_130388.pdf. 

785 TRIPS Agreement, supra note 128, Article 67. 786 Id.

787 Tom Pengelly, Technical Assistance for the Formulation and Implementation of Intellectual Property Policy in 

Developing Countries and Transition Economies, International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development, 

Issue Paper 11(2005). 
THE CRISIS IN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PROTECTION AND CHINA’S ROLE IN THAT CRISIS

Trade Lawyers Advisory Group 

May 2007

158 

Pursuant to Article 67, WTO Member states have provided China with various forms of 

technical assistance in efforts to strengthen its IPR regime. The section below highlights those 

efforts as well as other government programs that promote capacity building with trading 

partners. In addition to government assistance, various organizations and members of the private 

sector have also contributed assistance to the development of China’s IPR regime. 

1. Government Programs

a. United States

In the 2006 Report to Congress on China’s WTO Compliance, USTR gave the following 

description of the technical assistance in IPR provided by the U.S. to China: 

As in prior years, the United States worked with central and local 

government officials in China in 2006 in a determined and 

sustained effort to improve China’s IPR enforcement, with a 

particular emphasis on the need for dramatically increased 

utilization of criminal remedies. A variety of U.S. agencies held 

regular bilateral discussions with their Chinese counterparts and 

have conducted numerous technical assistance programs for central 

and local government officials on TRIPS Agreement rules, 

enforcement methods and rule of law issues.788

Following China’s accession to the WTO, the United States increased the amount of 

technical assistance designed to promote and assist China in fulfilling its WTO commitments. 

“Since 2001, the U.S. government has conducted well over 50 training programs involving 

Chinese government officials.” 789 In November 2006, Undersecretary of Commerce for 

Intellectual Property, Jon Dudas, stated that, generally, China has been receptive to U.S. 

 

788 2006 Report to Congress on China’s WTO Compliance, supra note 57, at 77. 

789 Bush Administration Strategy for Targeting Organized Piracy: Accomplishments and Initiatives, Office of the 

U.S. IPR Coordinator, June 2006, at 9, available at http://www.stopfakes.gov/pdf/

STOPsheet_0606.pdf [hereinafter “STOP Accomplishments and Initiatives”]. 
THE CRISIS IN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PROTECTION AND CHINA’S ROLE IN THAT CRISIS

Trade Lawyers Advisory Group 

May 2007

159 

proposals for increased capacity building for IPR enforcement and that Chinese officials 

continue to seek advice from the U.S. on how to improve its IPR situation.790 The U.S. has 

provided additional U.S. IPR officers who are stationed in China.791

Additionally, the U.S. has coordinated with other governments to provide China with 

needed technical assistance. At the bilateral level, the U.S. has been working more closely with 

the European Union, allowing for increased coordination and information-sharing on many IPR 

issues in China, and at the regional level with members of the Asia-Pacific Economic 

Cooperation Forum (APEC). 

Similarly, in 2005, the Justice Department held bilateral discussions with China on 

criminal IP enforcement and hopes to establish a “bilateral law enforcement experts group to 

improve operational cooperation and coordination in joint and cross-border investigations.”792

The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) is responsible for coordinating 

U.S. efforts to reduce IP theft from American IPR holders. Accordingly,: 

The USPTO provides a variety of IP enforcement training and 

technical assistance activities. The programs are designed to foster 

respect for IP, encourage governmental and right holders’ efforts to 

combat infringement, and promote best practices in the 

enforcement of IPR. Our technical assistance and capacity 

building initiatives grew out of a desire to promote IP protection 

and assist developing countries in meeting their obligations under 

 

790 Dudas Says China Cooperative on IPR, But Results Still Lacking, Inside US-China Trade, November 29, 2006. 

791 Id. 792 STOP Accomplishments and Initiatives, supra note 789, at 5. 
THE CRISIS IN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PROTECTION AND CHINA’S ROLE IN THAT CRISIS

Trade Lawyers Advisory Group 

May 2007

160 

the WTO’s Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights 

(TRIPS) Agreement.793

Under the American Inventors Protectors Act of 1999, USPTO’s duties include advising 

the President, through the Secretary of Commerce, and all Federal agencies, on national and 

international IP policy issues, including IP protection in other countries. USPTO is authorized to 

provide guidance, conduct programs and studies, and otherwise interact with foreign IP offices 

and international intergovernmental organizations on IPR issues.794 The USPTO’s Offices of 

International Relations and Enforcement are authorized by Congress to: 

• Work with Congress to implement international IP treaties; 

• Provide technical assistance to foreign governments that are 

looking to develop or improve their IP laws and systems; 

• Train foreign IP officials on IP enforcement; 

• Advise the Department of State and the Office of the U.S. 

Trade Representative (USTR) on drafting/reviewing of IP 

sections in bilateral investment treaties and trade agreements; 

• Advise USTR on intellectual property issues in the World 

Trade Organization (WTO); and 

• Work with USTR and industry on the annual review of IP 

protection and enforcement under the Special 301 provisions of 

the Trade Act of 1974.795

The Department of State chairs the Intellectual Property Rights Training Coordination 

Group, which is comprised of U.S. agencies and members of the private sector.796 The goal of 

 

793 Statement of Stephen M Pinko, Deputy Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Deputy 

Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office Before the Committee on the Judiciary 

Subcommittee on Intellectual Property, United States Senate, May 25, 2005. 

794 Id. 795 Id. 796 Members include: U.S. Department of State; U.S. Department of Commerce, International Trade 

Administration, Commercial Law Development; U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Overseas Prosecutorial 

Development Assistance & Training Criminal Division, Computer Crime and Intellectual Property Section 

Criminal Division; U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Bureau of Customs & Border Protection; Federal 

Bureau of Investigation; U.S. Agency for International Development; Office of the U.S. Trade Representative; 

U.S. Patent and Trademark Office; Copyright Office of the Library of Congress; Coalition for Intellectual 
THE CRISIS IN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PROTECTION AND CHINA’S ROLE IN THAT CRISIS

Trade Lawyers Advisory Group 

May 2007

161 

the group is to prioritize program proposals and to ensure that training and assistance projects 

respond to the needs of foreign officials and policy makers from developing and least-developed 

countries of the WTO. In order to coordinate their efforts, share information, and plan IPR 

training, training providers from the private and public sector maintain the Intellectual Property 

Rights Training Program Database. The database is maintained by U.S. Government agencies 

and industry associations that provide technical assistance related to the protection of IPR. Table 

2 in Appendix 10 gives descriptions of the reported projects provided to China in 2006. 

As a member of the IPR Training Coordination Group, interagency efforts by the U.S. 

Justice Department (DOJ) are also included on the IPR Training Program Database. An 

additional program coordinated by the Justice Department is the deployment of an IP law 

enforcement coordinator to Asia. Based in Thailand, the IP law enforcement coordinator works 

with “prosecutors in the Department’s Computer Crime and Intellectual Property Section and 

Office of International Affairs to oversee IP law enforcement training and assist U.S.-based 

enforcement efforts in the region.”797 DOJ continues to provide trainers and technical assistance 

to prosecutors, investigators, judges and IP experts. 798 For instance, in September 2005, 

Commerce Secretary Gutierrez unveiled the expanded Global Intellectual Property Rights 

Academy, a program for foreign judges and enforcement officials that is administered by the 

 Property Rights (CIPR); Interactive Digital Software Association (IDSA); International Anti-Counterfeiting 

Coalition (IACC); International Intellectual Property Alliance (IIPA); International Intellectual Property 

Institute (IIPI); Pharmaceutical Research & Manufacturers of America (PhRMA). 797 STOP Accomplishments and Initiatives, supra note 789, at 5. 

798 Id. 
THE CRISIS IN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PROTECTION AND CHINA’S ROLE IN THAT CRISIS

Trade Lawyers Advisory Group 

May 2007

162 

USPTO.799 The Academy offers courses in general IPR issues, as well as courses focused on a 

variety of specialized IPR topics.800 

According to a recent report, the U.S. government is planning an expansion of the IP 

attaché program.801 This program supports IP experts at American embassies to “work with 

local government officials to improve IP laws and enforcement procedures.” 802 Similarly, 

embassy personnel will be trained so that they are the first responders to IPR issues and are able 

to “identify problems abroad and assist rights holders before fakes enter the market and the 

supply chain.” 803 

Another method used by the U.S. government to help combat the increase in IPR 

violations is the use of technical assistance programs for U.S. businesses based in China and 

domestic businesses with IPR exposure in China. For example, in November 2005, Secretary 

Gutierrez announced the China Intellectual Property Rights Advisory Program. This program is 

coordinated by the Department of Commerce in cooperation with the American Bar Association, 

the National Association of Manufacturers, and the American Chamber of Commerce in China, 

to provide free legal consultations on IPR matters to small- and medium-sized U.S. businesses.804 

According to the American Bar Association, the International IPR Advisory Program seeks to:805

 

799 Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez Unveils Initiatives to Fight Intellectual Property Theft, U.S. Department 

of Commerce Press Release, September 21, 2005, available at http://www.commerce.gov/opa/press/Secretary_

Gutierrez/2005_Releases/September/09-21-05%20IPR%20initiatives.htm. 800 In 2006, 24 sessions were planned in Alexandria, Virginia, with all expenses for foreign officials paid by 

USPTO. 

801 STOP Accomplishments and Initiatives, supra note 789, at 2. 802 Id. 

803 Id. 804 Id. 805 The International IPR Advisory Program also has programs for Brazil, Russia, India, Egypt, and Thailand. 
THE CRISIS IN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PROTECTION AND CHINA’S ROLE IN THAT CRISIS

Trade Lawyers Advisory Group 

May 2007

163 

 Help American businesses understand the steps they must 

take to develop an intellectual property protection strategy for 

the Chinese market; 

 Help U.S. companies facing IPR disputes abroad pursue 

resolution to their problems; and 

 Reinforce the message that it is essential for U.S. companies 

to take action to enforce their IPR in accordance with foreign 

civil, administrative, and criminal laws and that failing to act 

can have devastating consequences for future businesses.806

Other programs for U.S. businesses include the creation of “IP Toolkits,” 807 a 

downloadable booklet that guides businesses through securing and enforcing their rights in key 

markets, including China, and the establishment of a legal hotline to counsel businesses on how 

to protect IPR, how best to resolve problems, refer matters to a trade compliance officer, monitor 

the case, and give advice on next steps. A similar program, the IPR Case Referral Mechanism 

(CRM), facilitates the submission of IPR cases by U.S. companies through China’s Ministry of 

Commerce (MOFCOM) to the relevant Chinese agencies. The interagency group reviews cases 

where there are complaints that the Chinese government failed to provide adequate protection to 

U.S. businesses. After an internal review of the complaint, the CRM will send approved cases to 

the Chinese government to facilitate a resolution.808

In October 2004, the Strategy Targeting Organized Piracy (STOP!) was announced. This 

is a U.S. government-wide effort to “stop fakes at the U.S. border and, to empower U.S. 

businesses to secure and enforce their intellectual property rights in overseas markets, to expose 

 

806 International IPR Advisory Program, American Bar Association Section of International Law, available at

http://www.abanet.org/intlaw/intlproj/iprprogram.html. 807 Export.gov, a website managed by the International Trade Administration that brings together resources from 

across the U.S. Government to assist American businesses in planning their international sales strategies and 

succeed in today’s global marketplace also has available Protecting Your Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) in 

China: A Practical Guide for U.S. Companies, at www.mac.doc.gov/China/Docs/BusinessGuides/

IntellectualPropertyRights.htm. 808 STOP Accomplishments and Initiatives, supra note 789, at 2. 
THE CRISIS IN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PROTECTION AND CHINA’S ROLE IN THAT CRISIS

Trade Lawyers Advisory Group 

May 2007

164 

international counterfeiters and pirates, to keep global supply chains free of infringing goods, to 

dismantle criminal enterprises that steal U.S. intellectual property and to reach out to likeminded U.S. trading partners in order to build an international coalition to stop counterfeiting 

and piracy worldwide.”809 The STOP initiative provides a hotline for U.S. businesses to call to 

obtain information on how to secure their patents, copyright and trademarks, and to enforce these 

rights in the U.S. and abroad. Another component of the STOP initiative is the No-Trade-inFakes program, a joint program with the Department of Commerce and the private sector to 

develop a “set of guidelines and a corporate compliance program that participating companies 

will use to ensure their supply chains and retail networks are free of counterfeit or pirated 

goods.”810

Using U.S. government agencies, international organizations, and the resources and 

expertise of private industry, the U.S. provides an array of assistance to help developing and 

transition countries participate fully in the WTO and implement their current and future 

obligations under trade agreements. 811 The U.S. Agency for International Development 

(USAID) maintains the Trade Capacity Building (TCB) Database,812 which “provides some of 

 

809 2006 Report to Congress on China’s WTO Compliance, supra note 57, at 77-78. 

810 Statement of Stephen M Pinko, Deputy Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Deputy 

Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office Before the Committee on the Judiciary 

Subcommittee on Intellectual Property, United States Senate, May 25, 2005. 

811 Coordination of TCB activities is led by the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) and strengthened 

by the resources and technical expertise of the following agencies: the U.S. Agency for International 

Development (USAID); the Millennium Challenge Corporation; the U.S. Trade and Development Agency 

(USTDA); the Department of Agriculture, Energy, Interior, Justice, Labor, State, and Transportation; the 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA); U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) of the Department for 

Homeland Security; the Commercial Law Development Program, International Trade Administration (ITA), 

U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO), and the National Institute of Standards and Technology of the 

Department of Commerce; the Food and Drug Administration (FDA); the Federal Trade Commission (FTC); 

U.S. Export-Import Bank; and the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service. 

812 The Trade Capacity Building Database is the result of a 2001 U.S. Government survey of its technical 

assistance programs and activities that promote trade-related capacity building in developing countries and 
THE CRISIS IN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PROTECTION AND CHINA’S ROLE IN THAT CRISIS

Trade Lawyers Advisory Group 

May 2007

165 

the most comprehensive data on IP technical assistance programmes” in support of developing 

and transition economies.813

The database gives access to survey data on funding and activity descriptions, which may 

be sorted according to country or region, agency or funding source, and TCB Category.814 

Among the many TCB categories are specific WTO agreements, including the TRIPS 

Agreement. Table 1 shows the total TCB funds spent, the sum of TCB monies provided in 

technical assistance for all WTO Agreements, and monies specifically provided for the TRIPS 

Agreement. Table 2 shows the same details, but only with respect to funds provided to China.815 

These tables show that, in 2006, of all TCB funds allocated to technical assistance with WTO 

Agreements, 23 percent of the funds were allocated to TRIPS programs. In terms of China, this 

number was even greater with one third of the funds dedicated to TRIPS. 

 transition economies around the world. The Survey was sent to all major federal government departments and 

agencies that provide trade capacity building assistance. From this survey and subsequent surveys, the 

database was generated with the purpose of fostering coordination among private donors, U.S. government 

providers, and U.S. industry regarding efforts to improve trade capacity projects. 

813 Pengelly, supra note 787. 

814 A full listing of all the TCB Categories and their definitions is available at http://qesdb.usaid.gov/

tcb/definition.html; for the methodology on how the database is compiled and limitations, see 

http://qesdb.usaid.gov/tcb/method.html. 

815 See Table 1 in Appendix 10 for project descriptions and allocation of funds for TRIPS-specific TCB assistance 

projects provided to China from 2002 to 2006. 
THE CRISIS IN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PROTECTION AND CHINA’S ROLE IN THAT CRISIS

Trade Lawyers Advisory Group 

May 2007

166 

Table 1 

Total Trade Capacity Building (TCB) Assistance To All Recipients 

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 

Total TCB Funds 1 637.8 760.1 921.2 1,345.3 1395.9 

Total TCB Funds: 

“All Agreements”2

36,325,261 35,088,900 25,012,669 19,858,920 26,447,766 

Total TCB Funds: 

TRIPS Agreement 

6,215,359 7,027,824 4,708,533 1,526,357 6,240,808 

% Allocated to 

TRIPS 

17% 19% 18% 7% 23% 

1 (US $ Millions) This includes all TCB Categories – WTO Related Support and other capacity 

building projects by the U.S. Government. 

2 (This does not include funds spent on “WTO Awareness and Accession”) 

Table 2 

U.S. Trade Capacity Building (TCB) Assistance to China 

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 

Total TCB Funds 

to China 

2,950,742 1,730,670 5,476,457 2,613,840 3,174,673 

Total TCB Funds: 

All Agreements 

64,723 94,200 108,250 54,016 1,200,045 

Total TCB Funds: 

TRIPS Agreement 

62,723 -- -- -- 400,812 

% Allocated to 

TRIPS 

9.6% -- -- -- 33.3% 

b. European Union

Since the mid 1990’s, the EU has provided technical assistance to China to support 

economic reforms with a “particular focus on training and institutional capacity-building.”816 

IPR-related technical assistance programs funded by the European Union are managed and 

 

816 Bilateral Trade Relations: China, European Commission, available at http://ec.europa.eu/trade/issues/bilateral/

countries/china/index_en.htm (last updated March 7, 2007). 
THE CRISIS IN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PROTECTION AND CHINA’S ROLE IN THAT CRISIS

Trade Lawyers Advisory Group 

May 2007

167 

implemented by the EU Delegation in China under the EU-China Trade Project (EUCTP). 

Currently, the IP technical assistance programs are “taken in the framework of a global trade 

assistance program called ‘Support to China’s Integration into the World Trading System.’”817 

The EUCTP programs are in cooperation with various Chinese government entities: Ministry of 

Commerce (MOFCOM), Ministry of Finance, General Administration of Customs (GAC), State 

Council, Ministry of Justice (MOJ), National Development and Research Council (NDRC), 

Ministry of Agriculture (MOA), China Administration Civil Aviation (CACC), State Food and 

Drug Administration (SFDA), General Administration of Quality Supervision, Inspection and 

Quarantine (AQSIQ), State Intellectual Property Office (SIPO), Trademark Office (TMO), 

National Copyright Administration of China (NCAC), and Supreme People’s Court (SPP).818

Today, EU technical assistance programs dedicated to IPR typically focus on: 

• Completing the legal framework to make the IP laws in the 

countries/regions concerned in line with, at least, the minimum 

TRIPS requirements; 

• Facilitating the implementation of international IP obligations, 

in particular those resulting from bilateral and multilateral 

agreements; 

• Improving the administration of IPR, including supporting the 

establishment of reinforcement of the competent domestic 

offices and agencies and the training of staff; 

• Improving the enforcement of IPR, and in particular fighting 

against infringements thereof; 

• Raising awareness in the country/region about the importance 

of IPR for the economic development.819

 

817 IPR in China, European Commission, October 2, 2006, available at http://ec.europa.eu/trade/issues/

sectoral/intell_property/ipr_china_en.htm. 818 Technical Cooperation Activities: Information From Members, European Communities, IP/C/W/476/Add.5 

(13 December 2006) at 3. 

819 Intellectual Property: Objectives and Content, European Commission, August 3, 2006, available at

http://ec.europa.eu/trade/issues/sectoral/intell_property/pr030806a_en.htm. 
THE CRISIS IN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PROTECTION AND CHINA’S ROLE IN THAT CRISIS

Trade Lawyers Advisory Group 

May 2007

168 

The EU expects to adopt a new program in 2007, IP II, which will primarily be devoted to IPR 

enforcement. 

Among the recent IP activities implemented under the EUCTP was the Comparative 

Study on the EU and Chinese Legislation Protecting Intellectual Property Rights and its 

Enforcement.820 This study was done by EU and Chinese experts under the framework of the 

EU Trade Related Technical Assistance to China.821 The comparative study of EU and Chinese 

law was done so that the EU and China could gain a better “understanding of the specific 

conditions under which their respective laws and regulations are implemented.”822 The parties 

intended for the study to be used as a base for further discussions and negotiations on the 

perceived limitations of China’s IPR enforcement system, and for Chinese consideration of 

amendments to the “fundamental laws and regulations” concerning that system.823

In November of 2006 Peter Mandelson, the EU Trade Commissioner, participated in the 

signing of a joint memorandum between the European Chamber of Commerce in China and the 

Chinese Ministry of Commerce (MOFCOM) in which the European Commission agreed to 

provide technical assistance to the 50 Intellectual Property Complaint Centers established earlier 

in the year by the Chinese government.824 As mentioned earlier, these Complaint Centers are to 

offer practical assistance for companies in identifying and addressing cases of intellectual 

property theft. 

 

820 Study is available at http://www.euchinawto.org/en/view_cmpt03.asp?iID=101. 821 Table 3 in Appendix 10 contains a full listing of EU technical assistance programs dedicated to IPR and China. 

822 The Legislation Protecting Intellectual Property Rights and its Enforcement in the European Union and the 

People’s Republic of China: A Comparative Study, EU-China Trade Project, December 2005. 823 Id. 

824 Mandelson Visits Chinese State Intellectual Property Office: urges tougher Chinese action on counterfeiting, 

technology transfers, payment of royalties, European Commission, November 8, 2006, available at 

http://ec.europa.eu/trade/issues/sectoral/intell_property/pr081106_en.htm.
THE CRISIS IN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PROTECTION AND CHINA’S ROLE IN THAT CRISIS

Trade Lawyers Advisory Group 

May 2007

169 

Similar to the U.S., the EU has also produced a “Guidebook on Enforcement of 

Intellectual Property Rights.”825 However, in addition to raising awareness of “the impacts and 

the risks of piracy, counterfeiting and other violations of intellectual property rights,” the 

Guidebook should “inform Community right holders doing business in problematic countries 

about the risks incurred and assist them in their reaction against infringement of their rights” and 

is “intended to assist the least developed countries’ public authorities in their efforts to comply 

with their obligations under Part II of the TRIPS Agreement to put into place systems and 

procedures for the effective enforcement of intellectual property rights.”826

At the 2005 EU-US Summit, leaders issued a statement that they were “committed to 

effectively combating piracy and counterfeiting at home and abroad” and composed a working 

group of officials representing lead agencies and services from both administrations to “identify 

the areas and modalities for joint action.”827 At the following EU-US Summit in Vienna in June 

2006, the leaders of the European Union and the United States issued the EU-US Action Strategy 

for the Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights. The governments decided to: 

• Strengthen IPR enforcement internationally through 

coordinated and/or complementary technical assistance 

cooperation and capacity building programmes, including 

addressing the issue of public awareness; 

• Share information with each other and with industry on 

training opportunities and programmes; 

 

825 Michael Blakeney, Guidebook on Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights, Queen Mary Intellectual 

Property Research Institute, available at http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2005/april/tradoc_122641.pdf. 826 Intellectual Property Enforcement Guidebook, European Commission, April 18, 2005, available at

http://ec.europa.eu/trade/issues/sectoral/intell_property/guidebook.htm. 827 See United States and European Union Launch Action Strategy for the Enforcement of Intellectual Property 

Rights, U.S. Secretary of Commerce Carlos Gutierrez, press release, June 20, 2006, available at

http://www.commerce.gov/opa/press/Secretary_Gutierrez/2006_Releases/June/20_US-EU_IPR_Strategy_

rls.htm. 
THE CRISIS IN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PROTECTION AND CHINA’S ROLE IN THAT CRISIS

Trade Lawyers Advisory Group 

May 2007

170 

• Launch joint activity in capacity building programs in select 

key countries; and 

• Identify ways to increase private sector participation and 

support.828

c. Japan

There are many Japanese organizations and agencies providing technical assistance to 

China, including: Japan International Cooperation Agency; Japan External Trade Organization; 

Customs Intellectual Property Information Center; The Association for Overseas Technical 

Scholarship; The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan; Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry 

of Japan; Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry of Japan; and the Ministry of Finance Japan. 

The agencies provide programs for the Chinese government and the private sector. 829 

Additionally, the Japanese Patent Office (JPO) cooperates with SIPO on human resources 

development programs.830 

Representatives from JPO meet with representatives of SIPO once a year to provide SIPO 

with information about Japan’s IP strategies and measures and to discuss how examination 

processes are conducted. JPO also helps develop human resources by accepting trainees.831 

Additionally, the JPO works with the Korean and Chinese governments to coordinate meetings 

among their patent offices.832 This is commonly known as the Trilateral Policy Dialogue. The 

meetings are used to exchange information about common issues, as well as global issues, in 

 

828 Intellectual Property: Links to Other Key Providers of IPR Technical Assistance, European Commission, 

August 3, 2006, available at http://ec.europa.eu/trade/issues/sectoral/intell_property/pr030806c_en.htm. 829 A full listing of programs from Japanese agencies and ministries for the past five years is provided on Table 4 

in Annex 10. 830 International IP-related Activities in the Asia-Pacific Region, Japanese Patent Office, available at

http://www.jpo.go.jp/torikumi_e/kokusai_e/asia_ip_e/apip_4e.htm. 831 Id. 832 Id.
THE CRISIS IN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PROTECTION AND CHINA’S ROLE IN THAT CRISIS

Trade Lawyers Advisory Group 

May 2007

171 

intellectual property, and for the development of assistance programs for the ASEAN nations.833 

In 2005, JPO held an enforcement seminar in China, aimed at “developing human resources 

engaged in IPR enforcement and supporting relevant enlightenment and dissemination of IPR 

systems in China.”834

d. Australia 

Australia fulfils its Article 67 technical cooperation commitments at the bilateral, 

regional, and multilateral levels by focusing on developing countries located primarily in the 

Asia-Pacific region. At the regional level, Australia works closely with the APEC Secretariat 

and the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation Intellectual Property Rights Expert’s Group (APECIPEG).835 Australian Government agencies that are chiefly involved in IPR are IP Australia, the 

Australian Agency for International Development (AusAID), the Department of Foreign Affairs 

and Trade (DFAT), and the Attorney-General’s Department (AGD). 

Recent bilateral Activities with China on enforcement have included: visits from the 

Commissioner of SIPO for the exchange of IP-related information; a visit of Chinese IP experts 

from both the national and provincial IP offices to discuss IP administration and enforcement 

issues; and a visit from officials of the Office of the National Working Party on IPR Protection, 

where several Australian agencies provided information on, and answered questions about IP 

protection and enforcement in Australia.836 

 

833 Id.

834 Technical Cooperation Activities: Information From Members, Japan, IP/C/W/476/Add.1 (3 October 2006) at 

4. 

835 Technical Cooperation Activities: Information from Members, Australia, IP/C/W/455/Add.1 (7 October 2005) 

at 1. 836 Id.
THE CRISIS IN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PROTECTION AND CHINA’S ROLE IN THAT CRISIS

Trade Lawyers Advisory Group 

May 2007

172 

e. Canada 

Canada has a number of technical cooperation activities at the bilateral, regional, and 

multilateral levels, with bilateral efforts mainly focused on the Latin American, Caribbean and 

Asia-Pacific regions.837 Regional activities are generally undertaken in the context of (APECIPEG), with multilateral activities in close collaboration with the World Intellectual Property 

Organization (WIPO). 838 Canadian activities are primarily administered by the Canadian 

Intellectual Property Office (CIPO), the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA), 

Health Canada (HC) and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP), with institutional help 

from the Center of Trade Policy and Law (CTPL), the McGill University Faculty of Law and the 

Institute of Comparative Law, and the Quaker International Affairs Programme.839

With respect to bilateral activities, CIPO, in partnership with WIPO, offers to developing 

country Members a one-week Executive Workshop on Application of Management Techniques 

in the Delivery of Intellectual Property Services. In 2005, China participated in this course. The 

course is targeted to senior-level officials and has the following objectives: 

1. to enhance knowledge and skills in the area of management 

techniques in the delivery of intellectual property services, with 

a view to improving the capacity of intellectual property 

officials; 

2. to provide participants with firsthand experience of the nature 

and scope of Canada’s IP expertise, products and services; and 

3. to provide a forum for the exchange of ideas and experiences 

with officials from the other IP offices.840

 

837 Technical Cooperation Activities: Information from Members, Canada, IP/C/W/476/Add.7 10 November 

2006) at 1. 

838 Id. 839 Id. 840 Id. at 1-2. 
THE CRISIS IN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PROTECTION AND CHINA’S ROLE IN THAT CRISIS

Trade Lawyers Advisory Group 

May 2007

173 

2. Activities by International and Regional Institutions to Improve 

IPR Enforcement 

a. World Trade Organization

Generally, the technical assistance supported by the WTO is delegated to the World 

Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) under the WTO-WIPO Co-operation Agreement. 

Most of what the WTO does in terms of assistance is to explain the rights and obligations under 

the TRIPS Agreement to Member countries and observers. The Secretariat will also provide 

advice to Members and observers regarding specific technical questions about the TRIPS 

Agreement. Additionally, as explained above, under the TRIPS Agreement, developed WTO 

Member countries have an obligation, upon request, to provide technical assistance to leastdeveloped and developing countries. According to annual submissions to the WTO TRIPS 

Council, developed countries such as the European Union and its member states, the United 

States, Japan, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Norway, and Switzerland provide such 

assistance. 

b. World Intellectual Property Organization (“WIPO”)

WIPO is a specialized United Nations agency responsible for intellectual property 

protection and promotion, and for creating a balanced international IP system that rewards 

creativity while helping protect public interests. According to the agreement between WIPO and 

the WTO, which entered into force on January 1, 1996, WIPO will provide TRIPS-related legal 

technical assistance specifically focused on the implementation of the TRIPS Agreement in 

response to requests received by developing countries and least-developed countries.841

 

841 Technical Cooperation Activities: Information From Other Intergovernmental Organizations: World 

Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), IP/C/W/478/Add.3 (18 October 2006) at para. 4. 
THE CRISIS IN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PROTECTION AND CHINA’S ROLE IN THAT CRISIS

Trade Lawyers Advisory Group 

May 2007

174 

WIPO’s overall objective is to promote effective protection and use of IPRs among 

member states. WIPO’s philosophy for its technical assistance program is that every recipient 

should be encouraged to develop an IP culture appropriate to that country’s needs.842 This 

should include a national IP strategy, the most suitable national infrastructure, and the 

development of a nation-wide perception of IP as a powerful tool for economic, social, and 

cultural development.843 WIPO has the largest amount of funds at its disposable for assistance 

programs dedicated to developing and transition economies.844

WIPO’s primary areas of technical assistance are in: legislative advice (providing 

expertise and financial assistance for developing national and regional IP institutions); human 

resource development and training; institutional development and automation; and 

enforcement.845 WIPO consults with member states to individually tailor each program with the 

intention that these programs achieve sustainable results. 846 As more developing countries 

complete necessary legal reforms required in implementing the TRIPS Agreement, other 

international IP treaties, and bilateral and multilateral agreements, enforcement is likely to play a 

more important role within WIPO’s technical cooperation programs.847

In the current Medium-Term Plan for WIPO Program Activities, WIPO states that the 

main objective of the plan is to further the maintenance and development of respect for 

 

842 Pengelly, supra note 787, at 20. 

843 Id. 844 Id. at 21. 

845 Id. 846 Id. 847 Id. at 18. 
THE CRISIS IN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PROTECTION AND CHINA’S ROLE IN THAT CRISIS

Trade Lawyers Advisory Group 

May 2007

175 

intellectual property throughout the world. 848 This means that any erosion of the existing 

protection should be prevented, and as protection increases “enforcement, should be simpler, 

cheaper, and more secure.”849 “WIPO seeks to continually enhance its role as the leading 

international organization, and the UN specialized agency, responsible for initiatives in respect 

of effective international cooperation in the area of IP.”850

By request of the Council for TRIPS, WIPO, along with other intergovernmental 

organizations that are observers to the Council, provides information on its technical and 

financial contributions to technical assistance programs related to the implementation of the 

TRIPS Agreement.851 According to WIPO’s submission to the WTO in October 2006, technical 

assistance provided to China included legislative advice exclusively on copyright and related 

rights to prepare new or update existing laws for compliance with current international 

standards.852 Additionally, WIPO organized a regional conference in China on “Certain Topical 

Issues in Regard to Intellectual Property for Asian Countries.”853

c. Asian-Pacific Economic Cooperation Forum (“APEC”)

APEC is an intergovernmental group of 21 member countries in the Asia-Pacific region.

854 Using non-binding commitments, APEC helps promote and facilitate economic growth, 

 

848 Medium-Term Plan for WIPO Program activities – Vision and Strategic Direction of WIPO, World Intellectual 

Property Organization (WIPO), available at http://wipo.int/about-wipo/en/dgo/pub487.htm (this Medium Term 

Plan for WIPO highlights the four year period from 2006-2009). 

849 Id. 850 Id. 851 Technical Cooperation Activities: Information From Other Intergovernmental Organizations: World 

Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), IP/C/W/478/Add.3 (18 October 2006) at para. 1. 852 Id. at para. 12. 

853 Id. at para. 66. 854 APEC’s 21 members include: Australia; Brunei Darussalam; Canada; Chile; People’s Republic of China; Hong 

Kong, China; Indonesia; Japan; Republic of Korea; Malaysia; Mexico; New Zealand; Papua New Guinea; 
THE CRISIS IN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PROTECTION AND CHINA’S ROLE IN THAT CRISIS

Trade Lawyers Advisory Group 

May 2007

176 

cooperation, and trade and investment in the region. For the past several years, APEC 

conferences have increasingly addressed IP rights and the need for strong IPR protection and 

enforcement. The APEC Sub-Committee on Customs Procedures (SCCP) reports to the APEC 

Committee on Trade and Investment (CTI). SCCP is responsible for enforcement matters, and to 

help educate APEC members of other members’ enforcement strategies, SCCP recently released 

to the CTI the Intellectual Property Rights Enforcement Strategies Report.855 This Report, 

compiled by Australia and intended as a reference tool for customs administrations and 

businesses in the APEC region, is an inventory of IPR enforcement activities of all APEC 

members.856

During the 2006 APEC meeting in Ha Noi, Vietnam, APEC members reaffirmed the 

commitments made in Santiago in 2004. In Santiago, Chile members recognized the importance 

of improved protection and enforcement of IPR and agreed on the need to build on APEC’s 

Comprehensive Strategy on Intellectual Property Rights and help “reduce piracy, trade in 

counterfeit goods and online piracy, and increase cooperation and capacity building.”857 Among 

APEC’s capacity building measures outlined in the 2006 Ha Noi Action Plan858 are measures 

 Peru; The Republic of the Philippines; The Russian Federation; Singapore; Chinese Taipei; Thailand; United 

States of America; Viet Nam.

855 Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) Enforcement Strategies, Sub-Committee on Customs Procedures, AsiaPacific Economic Cooperation, September 2006, available at http://www.apec.org/apec/apec_groups/

committees/committee_on_trade/subcommittee_on_customs.MedialibDownload.v1.html?url=/etc/medialib/ape

c_media_library/downloads/committees/cti/pubs/2006.Par.0012.File.v1.1.

856 Id. 857 Id.

858 The Ha Noi action plan gives specific action to the Bogor Goals, which were agreed to in 1994, and to the 

Busan Roadmap, a 2005 agreement that highlights important areas where it is believed that APEC needs to 

accelerate progress. See Table 5 in Appendix 10 for specific program descriptions under the Action Plan. 
THE CRISIS IN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PROTECTION AND CHINA’S ROLE IN THAT CRISIS

Trade Lawyers Advisory Group 

May 2007

177 

that address counterfeit medicines, customs enforcement, public awareness, and securing supply 

chains against counterfeit and pirated goods.859

With respect to IPR, the key deliverables outlined in the Ha Noi Action Plan were: 

• “Complete additional Model Guidelines on Effective IPR 

Public Awareness Campaign and Model Guidelines on 

Keeping Supply Chains against Counterfeit and Pirated 

Goods.” 

• “Inclusion in Leaders’ Declaration of statement urging 

government entities not to use illegal software and other 

content on their computer systems and networks, especially as 

it pertains to Internet usage.” 

• “Complete exchange of information on IPR enforcement points 

of contact and IPR websites and apply the APEC Effective 

Practices for Regulations Related to Optical Disc 

Production.”860

To encourage members to strengthen IPR protection and enforcement regimes, in the Joint 

Statement from Ha Noi, ministers reaffirmed their support for the APEC Anti-Counterfeiting and 

Piracy Initiative. This Initiative, first proposed in Korea in 2005, suggested work in four areas 

toward combating counterfeiting and piracy, including: reducing the volume of trade in 

counterfeit and pirated goods; reducing online piracy; increasing cooperation to stop piracy and 

counterfeiting; increasing capacity building to strengthen anti-counterfeit and piracy 

enforcement.861

 

859 Joint Statement, The Eighteenth APEC Ministerial Meeting, Ha Noi, Viet Nam, November 15-16, 2006, 

available at http://www.apec.org/content/apec/ministerial_statements/annual_ministerial/2006_18th_apec_ 

ministerial.html. 

860 Ha Noi Action Plan to Implement the Busan Roadmap Towards the Bogor Goals (Final), APEC, 2006, at 

Annex, available at www.mofa.go.jp/policy/economy/apec/2006/action.pdf. 

861 APEC Anti-Counterfeiting and Piracy Initiative, Meeting of APEC Ministers Responsible for Trade, Jeju, 

Korea, June 2-3, 2005, available at http://www.apec.org/apec/ministerial_statements/sectoral_

ministerial/trade/2005_trade.html. 
THE CRISIS IN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PROTECTION AND CHINA’S ROLE IN THAT CRISIS

Trade Lawyers Advisory Group 

May 2007

178 

In 2006, ministers in Ha Noi also endorsed two new sets of guidelines: the Model 

Guidelines for Effective Public Awareness Campaigns on IPR and the Model Guidelines to 

Secure Supply Chains against Counterfeit and Pirated Goods.862 This was in addition to the three 

previous IPR Model Guidelines endorsed by Ministers in 2005: the Model Guidelines to Reduce 

Trade in Counterfeit and Pirated Goods, the Model Guidelines to Protect Against Unauthorized 

Copies, and the Model Guidelines to Prevent the Sale of Counterfeit Goods Over the Internet.863

The Leaders’ Declaration from Ha Noi not only requests that central government 

agencies use only legal software and other copyright materials, it asks for members to implement 

policies to prevent copyright infringement in accordance with relevant international conventions 

and domestic laws and regulations concerning copyright and related materials.864 The statement 

also calls for contractors using government funds and recipients of other government money to 

purchase only legal software or other legal copyright materials.865 Finally, the ministers asked 

that officials explore the possibility of establishing an APEC information exchange mechanism 

of IPR customs protection.866 

F. INITIATIVES BY THE PRIVATE SECTOR TO PROTECT INTELLECTUAL 

PROPERTY IN CHINA

While businesses wait for China to strengthen its enforcement mechanisms, they have 

responded by taking their own, sometimes creative, actions to protect their IPR. These actions 

have come from various business associations or other groups who have made great efforts to 

 

862 Joint Statement, The Eighteenth APEC Ministerial Meeting, Ha Noi, Viet Nam, (November 15-16, 2006), 

available at http://www.apec.org/content/apec/ministerial_statements/annual_ministerial/2006_18th_apec

_ministerial.html. 863 Id. at 8. 

864 Id. 865 Id. at 9. 866 Id. 
THE CRISIS IN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PROTECTION AND CHINA’S ROLE IN THAT CRISIS

Trade Lawyers Advisory Group 

May 2007

179 

educate people about IPR, to work cooperatively with national and local law enforcement 

officials, and to push legislative changes at the national and local levels. The groups have also 

served as a forum for businesses to share protection initiatives and their experiences with other 

members. In addition to these groups, individual companies have been successful in 

implementing creative ideas to protect their intellectual property. 

Recently, Warner Bros. Distributors set out to beat copyright infringers in China by 

releasing the DVD version of Superman Returns a full two months before the movie was 

released in the U.S.867 They also sold the DVD at prices just above the price of a pirated copy in 

order to remain competitive.868 Another film company, Twentieth Century Fox, has announced a 

similar idea.869 

Companies have also taken effective ideas and shared them with governments and law 

enforcement officials. For example, Pfizer, the pharmaceuticals producer, has been organizing 

roundtable discussions with Chinese ministries, including the State Administration for Industry 

and Commerce, State Food and Drug Administration, Ministry of Public Security, and Customs 

to find workable solutions to counteract the production of fake pharmaceuticals in China.870

A creative mechanism shared by large organizations, trade groups, and individual 

companies is the use of company websites as a place for the public to report infringing goods. 

The World Health Organization (WHO), Business Software Alliance (BSA), and GM 

 

867 Justin Chan, Out-Pirating the Pirates, Insight, December 2006, available at https://www.amchamchina.org.cn/amcham/upload/wysiwyg/OutpiratingThePirates.pdf. 

868 Id. at 22. 

869 Id. 870 Schwartz and Wong, supra note 94, at 30. 
THE CRISIS IN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PROTECTION AND CHINA’S ROLE IN THAT CRISIS

Trade Lawyers Advisory Group 

May 2007

180 

Goodwrench are examples of entities that have adopted this practice. According to the Business 

Action to Stop Counterfeiting and Piracy (BASCAP), BSA takes an additional step by offering a 

$200,000 reward for information on counterfeiting, while the Software and Information 

Industries Association (SIIA) offers up to a million dollars. Other associations, such as the 

Motor & Equipment Manufacturers Association (MEMA), the Motion Picture Association of 

America (MPAA), and the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), also offer 

rewards.871 Such actions allow private companies to monitor the flow of infringing goods, better 

understand where leaks are in their supply chain, assess what actions they can take to stop 

infringing goods, and assist law enforcement officials to seize infringing goods. 

To develop a cohesive policy on intellectual property rights and counteract its theft in the 

automotive industry, MEMA created the Brand Protection Council, a group that is open to any 

member of the Automotive Aftermarket Suppliers Association (AASA), Heavy Duty 

Manufacturers Association (HDMA), or the Original Equipment Suppliers Association (OESA). 

To specifically address the problem in China and organize a united response from members, 

MEMA also established a China Aftermarket Forum. Similarly, BASCAP, a group started by 

the International Chamber of Commerce, “unites the global business community so as to more 

efficiently identify and address intellectual property rights issues and petition for greater 

commitments by local, national and international officials in the enforcement and protection of 

intellectual property rights.” 872 BASCAP unites a range of business sectors in many countries to 

fight counterfeiting and piracy, with the aim of educating people about the ramifications of IPR 

 

871 See Report a Pirated or Counterfeit Item, at http://www.bascap.com/report_counterfeit.html. 872 BASCAP Mission, at www.iccwbo.org/bascap/id883/index.html. 
THE CRISIS IN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PROTECTION AND CHINA’S ROLE IN THAT CRISIS

Trade Lawyers Advisory Group 

May 2007

181 

theft, compelling government action, and creating a culture where intellectual property is 

respected and protected.873

In January 2007, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the Coalition Against 

Counterfeiting and Piracy (CACP)874 released a toolkit containing steps for companies to take to 

protect supply chains from counterfeiters and piracy. 875 Although recognizing the role of 

governments to create the necessary legal structure to protect trademarks and copyrights 

effectively and to enforce those laws, the Chamber states that businesses “must also do their part 

to prevent the production and sale of counterfeit products.”876 

The tool kit contains seven case studies as well as best practice guidelines for companies 

to protect their supply chains. The case studies describe what companies such as Bendix, Ford, 

Merck, New Balance, Purdue, Torys LLP, and Xerox face, and what these companies are doing 

to fight the counterfeiting and pirating of their products and to protect their supply chain.877 Ford 

is able to strictly monitor supplies coming into its factories, but, in the aftermarket, it has a fulltime staff that works undercover to monitor suppliers. Outside of the U.S., Ford hires 

investigative agencies that use informants to monitor aftermarket activities. 

To protect its products, Xerox has set-up a “Toner Phoner,” a hotline for customers to 

call and report possible illegitimate products.878 Xerox also cooperates with government and law 

 

873 See BASCAP Brochure, at www.iccwbo.org/bascap. 874 The Coalition Against Counterfeiting and Piracy is a business coalition of 225 members, led by the U.S. 

Chamber of Commerce. The CACP seeks to strengthen U.S. and international efforts in the fight against 

counterfeiting and piracy. See www.thecacp.com. 875 No Trade in Fakes Supply Chain Tool Kit, supra note 176. 

876 No Trade in Fakes Supply Chain Tool Kit, supra note 176. 877 Id. 878 Id. 
THE CRISIS IN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PROTECTION AND CHINA’S ROLE IN THAT CRISIS

Trade Lawyers Advisory Group 

May 2007

182 

enforcement through the Partnership Against Terrorism (C-TPAT), a public-private program 

focused on strengthening and improving international supply chains and U.S. border security.879 

This allows Xerox to perform inspections, audit shipments, and refine dock security standards.880 

Overseas, Xerox maintains a worldwide intelligence network and database of suppliers, black 

marketers, and supply routes.881

Other organizations are working directly with the Chinese government. The Quality 

Brands Protection Committee (QBPC) is a public-private organization comprised of 140 

multinational companies, including: Nike, Nokia, Philips, Hewlett-Packard, Intel, Johnson & 

Johnson, and the Sony Corporation.882 The organization’s vision is to “work cooperatively with 

the Chinese Central and local governments, local industry, and other organizations to make 

positive contributions to intellectual property protection.”883 QBPC holds awareness seminars 

for the Chinese public and education seminars for central and local enforcement agencies.884 

Additionally, QBPC participates in legislative reform by taking part in the process at the 

Supreme People’s Court (SPC), Supreme People’s Procuratorate (SPP) and other related 

legislative offices.885

Similar to the IP Toolkit booklet put out by the U.S. Commerce Department, the 

Electronics Industries Alliance (EIA), an alliance of several electronics trade associations, and 

 

879 Id. 880 Id. 881 Id. 882 A complete listing of membership is available at http://www.qbpc.org.cn/. 

883 See Quality Brands Protection Committee Fact Sheet, at http://www.qbpc.org.cn/en/about/about/factsheet. 884 See id. 885 See id.
THE CRISIS IN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PROTECTION AND CHINA’S ROLE IN THAT CRISIS

Trade Lawyers Advisory Group 

May 2007

183 

China Alliance, a group of law firms, has recently put out “Protecting Intellectual Property 

Rights in China: A Best Practices Guide.”886 EIA states that: 

IPR infringement is a fact of life in many overseas markets, but the 

scale of production and the sheer breadth of the problem make 

Chinese IPR infringement a unique problem. A number of U.S. 

businesses, even those with no direct exposure to the Chinese 

market, are seeing Chinese-produced counterfeits of their products 

appear for sale in third-country markets or in the U.S.887

Accordingly, the booklet includes ten best practices for all companies in the electronics industry. 

In the past, the primary purpose of the National Electrical Manufacturers Association 

(NEMA) was to provide a forum for the standardization of electrical equipment.888 Today, one 

of the objectives of that forum is to help protect the intellectual property of NEMA members. 

NEMA does this by educating and training their members, documenting and publicizing the 

problem, and engaging in the public policy aspects of the debate. To fulfill these objectives, 

NEMA advocates improving coordination among state and national government and works with 

government agencies, customs and law enforcement, manufacturers, and other trade groups to 

find solutions. 

Another way that businesses are being proactive and working with the Chinese 

government to reduce their exposure to IP theft is to submit comments for proposed changes to 

China’s intellectual property laws. China is currently considering amendments to its patent laws 

 

886 See Protecting Intellectual Property Rights in China A Best Practices Guide, Electronics Industry Alliance and 

The China Alliance, available at http://www.eia.org/new_policy/innovation-ipr.phtml. 887 See id. 888 See About NEMA, at http://www.nema.org/about/. 
THE CRISIS IN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PROTECTION AND CHINA’S ROLE IN THAT CRISIS

Trade Lawyers Advisory Group 

May 2007

184 

that will take effect sometime after 2007. 889 The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, AmCham-China 

and AmCham-Shanghai have submitted joint comments to SIPO regarding the draft amendments 

and providing suggestions on further revisions.890 The U.S. Chamber took the additional step of 

hosting a seminar in September 2006 at which, SIPO officials and various U.S. businesses and 

legal representatives engaged in a dialogue about the draft law.891 All three associations plan to 

stay involved, providing comments and working with the Chinese government while the 

amendments remain under consideration. 

A final example of an industry group working with governments to increase enforcement 

efforts is the U.S. Golf Manufacturers Anti-Counterfeiting Working Group (“Golf Manufacturers 

Group”). 892 The Golf Manufacturers Group has worked with U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection to increase U.S. border enforcement by targeting and intercepting infringing goods 

and helping to prosecute the infringers.893 In China, the Group has cooperated with Chinese 

officials by informing local officials of factories, warehouses, and retail outlets containing 

 

889 Patent Law Roundtable with SIPO, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, available at http://www.uschamber.com/

international/regional/asia/insider. 

890 See U.S. Chamber of Commerce and American Chamber of Commerce-China and American Chamber of 

Commerce-Shanghai, Joint Submission Comments on the Draft Third Amendment to the Patent Laws of the 

People’s Republic of China, dated July 31, 2006 (September 12, 2006), available at

http://www.uschamber.com/NR/rdonlyres/efydgkijjfgxfppcuxpzltbysgwinoejnjmbetwewqjv6qf3vuvvpchnzmx

sxna2cqbr2haekf4tqr67gcbudadanqd/0607_comments_patent_law.pdf; U.S. Chamber of Commerce and 

American Chamber of Commerce-China and American Chamber of Commerce-Shanghai, Joint Submissions 

Comments on the Revised Draft (Third) Amendment to the Patent Law of the People’s Republic of China 

(March 12, 2007). For information on how obtain a copy of this latter submission see 

http://www.uschamber.com/international/regional/asia/insider. 

891 Patent Law Roundtable with SIPO, supra note 889. 

892 The U.S. Golf Manufacturers Anti-Counterfeiting Working Group is comprised of Acushnet Company, 

Callaway Gold, Cleveland Golf, Nike Golf, PING, and TaylorMade Golf Company. 

893 CBP Helping U.S. Golfers to Continue Hitting Them Straight, U.S. Customs and Border Protection Toady, 

Oct/Nov 2006, available at http://www.cbp.gov/xp/CustomsToday/2006/october_november/us_golfers.xml. 
THE CRISIS IN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PROTECTION AND CHINA’S ROLE IN THAT CRISIS

Trade Lawyers Advisory Group 

May 2007

185 

counterfeit golf equipment.894 In 2005, the Golf Manufacturers Group’s help led to a crackdown 

on golf retailers in Beijing’s Silk Market, with 100 government officials descending on the 

market and shutting down all the infringing golf equipment retail outlets in the market.895 In 

2006, again with the help of the Golf Manufacturers Group, Chinese officials conducted a threeday operation, raiding four factories and warehouses and seizing counterfeit golf equipment 

valued at $3 million.896 Recently these raids have led to criminal convictions carrying prison 

sentences and fines, with one defendant sentenced to three and a half years and fined RMB 

30,000 ($3,700).897 

V. PROACTIVE U.S. GOVERNMENT ACTION

The previous sections have laid out the immense scope of global IP theft and explained 

China’s role in the problem and the steps that have been taken by China and its trading partners 

to address China’s portion of the crisis. While the U.S. has a long history of negotiating with 

Chinese officials and putting pressure on the government in attempts to bring about changes, this 

final portion of the report looks at additional steps the U.S. either is taking or could take in an 

effort to create a better environment for American IP rights holders and those who depend on IP 

products for the products they produce. 

 

894 See Guandong Province, PRC-US Golf Manufacturers Anti-Counterfeiting Working Group Deals Another 

Blow to Counterfeit Golf Factories, Cleveland Golf, May 18, 2006, available at

http://www.clevelandgolf.com/index.php?&moid=122&function=display&oid=T007:2wie3kavs4an61gqknibe

11l&alias=press_releases&insidefile=release.html. 895 See Chinese Crackdown on Counterfeit Golf Products, The Manufacturer, November 23, 2005, available at

http://www.themanufacturer.com/us/content/3878/Chinese_crackdown_on_counterfeit_golf_products?PHPSE

SSID=fd6313a30024b3c0f4ee2409e0f1910f. 896 See Guandong Province, PRC-US Golf Manufacturers Anti-Counterfeiting Working Group Deals Another 

Blow to Counterfeit Golf Factories, Cleveland Golf, May 18, 2006, available at

http://www.clevelandgolf.com/index.php?&moid=122&function=display&oid=T007:2wie3kavs4an61gqknibe

11l&alias=press_releases&insidefile=release.html. 

897 See Prison Sentences for Counterfeit Golf Equipment Dealers, TaylorMade-adidas Golf, Press Release, 

November 16, 2006, available at http://www.tmag.com/media/pressreleases/2006/111606_counter.htm. 
THE CRISIS IN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PROTECTION AND CHINA’S ROLE IN THAT CRISIS

Trade Lawyers Advisory Group 

May 2007

186 

 First, this section provides an overview of the two requests for consultations filed by the 

U.S. in April 2007 with China in the World Trade Organization on intellectual property rights 

and market access impediments facing U.S. IPR holders in certain sectors in China’s market. 

These requests for consultations are the natural progression in the ongoing efforts of the United 

States to see that China complies fully with its WTO obligations and pertains to matters that the 

U.S. has pursued for many years to have addressed by the Chinese government. 

Next, this section considers whether there are legislative changes the U.S. should enact to 

its own IP laws to address issues that currently complicate the ability to combat IP theft or that 

place purchasers of IP goods at an artificial competitive disadvantage against competitors using 

equipment that if imported into the United States would infringe the patent rights of companies 

here and that provide a false competitive advantage to the user. 

A. WTO REQUESTS FOR CONSULTATIONS

In the WTO, where a member believes another member is not in compliance with WTO 

obligations, members will often work informally to seek a rectification of the problem. If a 

solution cannot be found or the member who is not in compliance is unable to address the matter 

for internal reasons, the member concerned with the law, regulation, administrative practice or 

government action can formally request consultations with the other member in the World Trade 

Organization under the Dispute Settlement Understanding and pursue formal dispute settlement 

if resolution is not achieved in a relatively short period of time.898 In early April of 2007, the 

U.S. filed requests for consultation with China on two matters: (1) perceived deficiencies in 

 

898 See Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes, April 15, 1994, Marrakesh 

Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization, Annex 2. 
THE CRISIS IN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PROTECTION AND CHINA’S ROLE IN THAT CRISIS

Trade Lawyers Advisory Group 

May 2007

187 

China’s IP laws, and (2) market access barriers to copyright-based industries.899 In announcing 

its intention to file the requests, the U.S. acknowledged that China had made IPR protection a 

priority and that it was actively trying to improve its IPR regime. However, according to USTR, 

while the two countries “had been able to work cooperatively and pragmatically on a range of 

IPR issues,” they had been unable “to agree on several important changes to China’s legal 

regime that we believe are required by China’s WTO commitments.”900 

The first complaint directly relates to China’s IPR laws and regulations, focusing on three 

specific aspects of the current Chinese system. The U.S. has alleged that the minimum 

quantitative threshold that must be met prior to criminal prosecution for IP infringement provides 

a safe harbor for counterfeiters and pirates, resulting in significant harm to foreign right 

holders.901 While China recently announced its intention to lower these thresholds, the existence 

of them at all allows for non-criminal IP theft.902 Additionally, this request for consultation 

addresses China’s regulations regarding disposal of confiscated counterfeit and pirated goods, 

which allow for such goods to be distributed into the market once the infringing elements (e.g., 

 

899 See China – Measures Affecting the Protection and Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights, supra note 

530; China – Measures Affecting Trading Rights and Distribution Services for Certain Publications and 

Audiovisual Entertainment Products, supra note 530. Both official requests for consultations are attached as 

Appendix 12. 

900 United States Files WTO Cases Against China Over Deficiencies in China’s Intellectual Property Rights Laws 

and Market Access Barriers to Copyright-Based Industries, USTR Press Release, April 9, 2007, available at

www.ustr.gov/Document_Library/Press_Releases/2007/April/Section_Index.html. 901 See China – Measures Affecting the Protection and Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights, supra note 

530; see also United States Files WTO Cases Against China Over Deficiencies in China’s Intellectual Property 

Rights Laws and Market Access Barriers to Copyright-Based Industries, USTR Press Release, April 9, 2007, 

available at www.ustr.gov/Document_Library/Press_Releases/2007/April/Section_Index.html; WTO Case 

Challenging Weaknesses in China’s Legal Regime for Protection and Enforcement of Copyrights and 

Trademarks, United States Trade Representative, April 2007, available at www.ustr.gov/Document_

Library/Fact_Sheets/2007/Section_Index.html. 

902 See United States Files WTO Cases Against China Over Deficiencies in China’s Intellectual Property Rights 

Laws and Market Access Barriers to Copyright-Based Industries, USTR Press Release, April 9, 2007, 

available at www.ustr.gov/Document_Library/Press_Releases/2007/April/Section_Index.html. 
THE CRISIS IN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PROTECTION AND CHINA’S ROLE IN THAT CRISIS

Trade Lawyers Advisory Group 

May 2007

188 

fake labels) have been removed. Finally, the U.S. has alleged that China’s lack of copyright 

protection for foreigners awaiting censorship approval violates WTO obligations. 903 The U.S. 

points out that Chinese works are provided immediate protection but foreigners have no right to 

complain about infringement during this waiting period. 904

The second case relates to China’s market access restrictions, which are widely viewed as 

major contributing factors to the country’s exceedingly high levels of piracy.905 As discussed 

previously in this paper, there are numerous obstacles facing the various copyright industries 

who wish to distribute their products in China.906 This request for consultation addresses the fact 

that U.S. companies must use either state-run or state-authorized organizations to get their 

products into China, which severely hinders foreigners’ market access. Specifically with respect 

to publications and home entertainment videos, this request also addresses the fact that many of 

China’s market access restrictions create significant delays and/or prohibitions with regard to 

distribution, which provide the opportunity for pirates to supply illegal copies before the 

legitimate products are allowed into the market.907 

 

903 See China – Measures Affecting the Protection and Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights, supra note 

530. 

904 See United States Files WTO Cases Against China Over Deficiencies in China’s Intellectual Property Rights 

Laws and Market Access Barriers to Copyright-Based Industries, USTR Press Release, April 9, 2007, 

available at www.ustr.gov/Document_Library/Press_Releases/2007/April/Section_Index.html.

905 See China – Measures Affecting Trading Rights and Distribution Services for Certain Publications and 

Audiovisual Entertainment Products, supra note 530; see also United States Files WTO Cases Against China 

Over Deficiencies in China’s Intellectual Property Rights Laws and Market Access Barriers to CopyrightBased Industries, USTR Press Release, April 9, 2007, available at www.ustr.gov/Document_

Library/Press_Releases/2007/April/Section_Index.html. 906 See supra Section I.F.1, 3. 

907 See United States Files WTO Cases Against China Over Deficiencies in China’s Intellectual Property Rights 

Laws and Market Access Barriers to Copyright-Based Industries, USTR Press Release, April 9, 2007, 

available at www.ustr.gov/Document_Library/Press_Releases/2007/April/Section_Index.html; see also WTO 

Case Challenging Market Access Restrictions in China on Products of Copyright-Intensive Industries, USTR, 

April 2007, available at www.ustr.gov/Document_Library/Fact_Sheets/2007/Section_Index.html. 
THE CRISIS IN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PROTECTION AND CHINA’S ROLE IN THAT CRISIS

Trade Lawyers Advisory Group 

May 2007

189 

While China reacted harshly to the requests for consultations filed by the United States, 

there has been a longstanding concern in the United States about the inability to achieve 

demonstrable improvements in IPR enforcement through the reduction in rates of piracy and the 

market access restrictions that contribute to the unbalanced trade relationship. Many requests for 

consultation result in the achievement of mutually acceptable solutions between the parties 

through negotiations. However, Chinese officials have responded to the filing of these requests 

for consultation by saying they will “fight to the end.”908 They feel that the allegations by the 

United States ignore all of the improvements China has made in strengthening its IP system.909 

Given these statements by the Chinese government, it is entirely possible that consultations will 

not result in a mutually acceptable solution and these concerns will move forward to the dispute 

settlement body for resolution. 

As long as the rate of IP theft within China and from Chinese exporters continues at the 

very high levels identified by trading partners and businesses around the world, there will be 

continuing pressure on China and continuing assistance to China to reduce drastically the IP 

theft. 

B. POTENTIAL CHANGES TO U.S. LAWS THAT COULD PROVIDE BETTER 

PROTECTION FOR INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS HOLDERS AND 

USERS OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY

Aside from applying external pressure on, and offering technical assistance to, others to 

bring about change and increase protection of intellectual property rights, policy makers should 

consider whether there are steps the United States could be taking at home to reduce levels of IP 

 

908 Richard McGregorin, China to Fight US Copyright Complaint, Financial Times, April 25, 2007 (quoting Wu 

Yi, a Chinese vice-premier). 

909 See id. 
THE CRISIS IN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PROTECTION AND CHINA’S ROLE IN THAT CRISIS

Trade Lawyers Advisory Group 

May 2007

190 

theft or mitigate the level of loss that U.S. rights holders are experiencing and the disadvantage 

businesses buying legitimate products may face in the marketplace for their products. This 

report explores two such possibilities. First, there is the question of whether a change in law in 

1999 coupled with the growing backlog of patent applications and the advent of nearly universal 

access to the internet has had some significant unintended consequences in terms of facilitating 

efforts of others to copy patented or patentable innovations and beat the U.S. inventor to market. 

Second, while IP rights and their protection have historically focused on the IPR holder, 

this paper looks at whether rights of action should exist for companies who produce products 

using manufacturing equipment which has patent(s) and compete with products produced by 

companies who are buying equipment that is a knockoff of patented machinery, placing the 

company who has bought legitimate equipment at an artificial competitive disadvantage. Where 

the purchaser of equipment is acquiring rights to a process patent, there are some rights (either 

directly or through a contract with the manufacturer) against at least the importer and, in some 

instances, the foreign manufacturer. But for many situations and for all purchasers of patented 

products that do not involve a process patent, there are no known rights to address imports of 

product produced from the knockoff equipment. 

1. Patent Reform and the 18 Month Rule 

In 1999, Congress amended a longstanding law that protected the details of a patent 

application unless and until patent protection was granted. Pursuant to that 1999 amendment, all 

applications are now made public at 18 months after the date of filing. Given that the current 

examination pendency period has grown significantly since the passage of the law and now 

averages 31 months, the reality of this “18 month rule” is that America’s innovation is available 
THE CRISIS IN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PROTECTION AND CHINA’S ROLE IN THAT CRISIS

Trade Lawyers Advisory Group 

May 2007

191 

on the internet months before it is provided patent protection. Companies across the globe are 

then able to “mine” the internet, take these now publicly available ideas and beat the inventor to 

market while the patent application is still pending in the U.S. 

Pat Choate, Director of the Manufacturing Policy Project, examines the unintended 

consequences of this law in his report entitled The Global Publication of U.S. Patent 

Applications and Select Reform Proposals, attached as Appendix 13. This analysis examines the 

reasoning behind the 1999 amendment. Mr. Choate also examines pending patent reform 

proposals and explains why the suggested changes would only further weaken the American 

patent system. After highlighting the negative implications of selected issues for U.S. inventors, 

Mr. Choate proposes three recommendations to Congress to help reduce levels of IP theft and 

strengthen the protection provided by the U.S. patent system. 

2. Inadequate Remedies for Domestic Purchasers of Patented 

Machinery 

This portion of the report examines whether there is a class of producers who may lack 

adequate protection under current U.S. law with regard to patent infringements, and considers 

whether modification to the relevant patent law would help alleviate the impact of IP theft on 

that particular class. Specifically, this section looks at a situation where manufacturing 

equipment subject to patent in the U.S. is copied in a foreign country (for our purposes in this 

report, assumed to be China) and is then sold in China to the producers of a product that is 

exported to the United States. If the manufacturing equipment itself were exported to the U.S., 

the IPR holder in the U.S. would have various rights of action against the infringing goods.910 In 

 

910 A nonexclusive licensee would also have rights, but only if the patent holder jointly initiated proceedings with 

the licensee. 
THE CRISIS IN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PROTECTION AND CHINA’S ROLE IN THAT CRISIS

Trade Lawyers Advisory Group 

May 2007

192 

certain circumstances, the IPR holder would also be able to address the importation of products 

produced off of the equipment if the patent involved covered the production process (“process 

patent”).911 However, except for certain situations involving a process patent, the user of the 

patented equipment in the United States (or in Europe or Japan or elsewhere) would have no 

recourse to the product produced off of the infringing equipment that was imported. This 

situation essentially means that companies that follow the rules and buy IP-protected production 

equipment can be driven out of business by the limited reach of U.S. patents and the lack of a 

tool to neutralize this false advantage. Although this is a potential threat to many domestic 

industries, it could be a particular threat to capital intensive industries. 

There are many industries that can be described as capital intensive, where the 

manufacturing process is extremely machinery- and technology-dependent. A table included 

below shows a variety of U.S. manufacturing sectors, based on 2002 Census information, which 

have high capital intensity ratios compared to all manufacturing. Thus, a wide spectrum of U.S. 

industries can be seriously disadvantaged if the legitimate equipment they buy and adapt to their 

own needs are knocked off overseas and sold to foreign competitors at prices dramatically lower 

than the prices U.S. companies pay to buy legitimate manufacturing equipment. 

 

911 See 19 U.S.C. § 1337(a)(1)(B) (prohibiting the importation into the United States, the sale for importation by 

the owner, importer, or consignee, of articles that infringe a valid U.S. patent or are produced by means of a 

process covered by a valid U.S. patent). Remedies available at the International Trade Commission (“ITC”) 

include: (1) Exclusion Order, allowing Customs to stop infringing goods from entering the U.S.; (2) Cease-andDesist Order, which provides for a civil penalty per day of not more than the greater of 100,000 or twice the 

domestic value of the articles is imposed in the case of violation; and (3) Forfeiture of the Goods, which allows 

Customs to seize and destroy the goods in case of repeated infringement. See 19 U.S.C. § 1337(d), (f), (g), (i). 

Remedies available at the Federal District Court include: a preliminary and/or permanent injunction; damages in 

the form of a reasonable royalty; punitive damages; an award of interest; costs as fixed by the court; and 

attorney fees. See 35 U.S.C. §§ 283-285. To initiate proceedings at either the ITC or in Federal District Court, 

the producer must either have an exclusive license to the patent or the original patent holder must be a party to 

the action. See 19 C.F.R. § 210.12(a)(7) (requiring every complaint in an intellectual property based claim to 

include “a showing that at least one complainant is the owner or exclusive licensee of the subject intellectual 

property”). 
THE CRISIS IN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PROTECTION AND CHINA’S ROLE IN THAT CRISIS

Trade Lawyers Advisory Group 

May 2007

193 

Capital Expenditures for Selected U.S. Manufacturing Sectors 

 Millions of Dollars CapEx as a % of NAICS code 

Industry 

Value 

added 

Total 

cost of 

materials 

Total value 

of shipments 

Total capital 

expenditures 

Total 

value 

Total 

cost 

Value 

Added 

333511 Industrial mold 

manufacturing 3,780 1,633 5,431 569 

 

10.5 

 

34.8 

 

15.0 

334413 Semiconductor and related 

device manufacturing 44,821 16,546 61,471 4,783 

 

7.8 

 

28.9 

 

10.7 

3344 Semiconductor and other 

electronic component 

manufacturing 69,275 40,599 110,477 6,396 

 

5.8 

 

15.8 

 

9.2 

334414 Electronic capacitor 

manufacturing 734 839 1,640 125 

 

7.6 

 

14.9 

 

17.0 

322121 Paper (except newsprint) 

mills 24,159 18,203 42,199 2,665 

 

6.3 

 

14.6 

 

11.0 

336415 Guided missile and space 

vehicle propulsion unit and 

propulsion unit parts 

manufacturing 1,848 726 2,601 106 

 

4.1 

 

14.6 

 

5.7 

32512 Industrial gas 

manufacturing 3,491 2,409 5,865 348 

 

5.9 

 

14.4 

 

10.0 

32212 Paper mills 

25,511 19,808 45,164 2,768 

 

6.1 

 

14.0 

 

10.9 

334415 Electronic resistor 

manufacturing 403 220 643 29 

 

4.6 

 

13.3 

 

7.3 

325188 All other basic inorganic 

chemical manufacturing 9,397 6,634 16,084 859 

 

5.3 

 

13.0 

 

9.1 

334515 Instrument manufacturing 

for measuring and testing 

electricity and electrical 

signals 6,192 3,754 10,147 471 

 

4.6 

 

12.5 

 

7.6 

324199 All other petroleum and 

coal 

products manufacturing 640 1,244 1,896 154 

 

8.1 

 

12.4 

 

24.2 

333514 Special die and tool, die 

set, jig, and fixture 

manufacturing 4,817 2,164 6,983 268 

 

3.8 

 

12.4 

 

5.6 

333515 Cutting tool and machine 

tool 

accessory manufacturing 3,441 1,622 5,097 198 

 

3.9 

 

12.2 

 

5.7 

322291 Sanitary paper product 

manufacturing 6,025 3,525 9,559 415 

 

4.3 

 

11.8 

 

6.9 

3221 Pulp, paper, and 

paperboard mills 38,112 32,104 70,031 3,775 

 

5.4 

 

11.8 

 

9.9 

32518 Other basic inorganic 

chemical manufacturing 11,205 8,684 19,927 1,017 

 

5.1 

 

11.7 

 

9.1 
THE CRISIS IN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PROTECTION AND CHINA’S ROLE IN THAT CRISIS

Trade Lawyers Advisory Group 

May 2007

194 

 Millions of Dollars CapEx as a % of NAICS code 

Industry 

Value 

added 

Total 

cost of 

materials 

Total value 

of shipments 

Total capital 

expenditures 

Total 

value 

Total 

cost 

Value 

Added 

333295 Semiconductor machinery 

manufacturing 4,566 4,508 9,160 493 

 

5.4 

 

10.9 

 

10.8 

325131 Inorganic dye and pigment 

manufacturing 1,940 1,577 3,522 169 

 

4.8 

 

10.7 

 

8.7 

3335 Metalworking machinery 

manufacturing 16,141 9,083 25,442 906 

 

3.6 

 

10.0 

 

5.6 

32211 Pulp mills 

1,737 1,924 3,651 189 

 

5.2 

 

9.8 

 

10.9 

332991 Ball and roller bearing 

manufacturing 3,496 2,179 5,709 211 

 

3.7 

 

9.7 

 

6.0 

334511 Search, detection, 

navigation, guidance, 

aeronautical, and nautical 

systems and instrument 

manufacturing 21,211 10,171 32,305 934 

 

2.9 

 

9.2 

 

4.4 

32229 Other converted paper 

product 

manufacturing 8,354 5,669 14,020 520 

 

3.7 

 

9.2 

 

6.2 

336413 Other aircraft parts and 

auxiliary equipment 

manufacturing 13,191 7,273 20,779 650 

 

3.1 

 

8.9 

 

4.9 

325 Chemical manufacturing 

253,609 206,901 460,425 17,846 

 

3.9 

 

8.6 

 

7.0 

322213 Setup paperboard box 

manufacturing 352 287 641 24 

 

3.8 

 

8.4 

 

6.9 

334510 Electromedical and 

electrotherapeutic 

apparatus manufacturing 9,949 5,600 15,646 465 

 

3.0 

 

8.3 

 

4.7 

325193 Ethyl alcohol 

manufacturing 784 1,517 2,288 125 

 

5.5 

 

8.3 

 

16.0 

32513 Synthetic dye and pigment 

manufacturing 3,351 2,968 6,338 244 

 

3.8 

 

8.2 

 

7.3 

325192 Cyclic crude and 

intermediate 

manufacturing 1,722 3,109 4,936 252 

 

5.1 

 

8.1 

 

14.7 

322 Paper manufacturing 

75,780 78,063 153,766 6,260 

 

4.1 

 

8.0 

 

8.3 

32213 Paperboard mills 

10,864 10,371 21,217 818 

 

3.9 

 

7.9 

 

7.5 

325182 Carbon black 

manufacturing 525 512 1,034 40 

 

3.9 

 

7.8 

 

7.6 

334412 Bare printed circuit board 

manufacturing 3,548 2,872 6,426 224 

 

3.5 

 

7.8 

 

6.3 
THE CRISIS IN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PROTECTION AND CHINA’S ROLE IN THAT CRISIS

Trade Lawyers Advisory Group 

May 2007

195 

 Millions of Dollars CapEx as a % of NAICS code 

Industry 

Value 

added 

Total 

cost of 

materials 

Total value 

of shipments 

Total capital 

expenditures 

Total 

value 

Total 

cost 

Value 

Added 

3345 Navigator, measuring, 

electromedical, and control 

instruments manufacturing 57,171 34,436 92,843 2,658 

 

2.9 

 

7.7 

 

4.6 

32519 Other basic organic 

chemical 

 manufacturing 20,562 35,901 56,496 2,754 

 

4.9 

 

7.7 

 

13.4 

325181 Alkalies and chlorine 

manufacturing 1,283 1,538 2,809 118 

 

4.2 

 

7.6 

 

9.2 

325199 All other basic organic 

chemical 

manufacturing 17,522 30,839 48,290 2,347 

 

4.9 

 

7.6 

 

13.4 

33329 Other industrial machinery 

manufacturing 13,609 12,022 25,801 915 

 

3.5 

 

7.6 

 

6.7 

3251 Basic chemical 

manufacturing 45,515 64,125 109,710 4,868 

 

4.4 

 

7.6 

 

10.7 

333516 Rolling mill machinery and 

equipment manufacturing 249 239 498 18 

 

3.5 

 

7.4 

 

7.1 

334516 Analytical laboratory 

instrument 

manufacturing 5,103 3,278 8,328 238 

 

2.9 

 

7.3 

 

4.7 

3332 Industrial machinery 

manufacturing 15,687 13,938 29,882 1,001 

 

3.4 

 

7.2 

 

6.4 

322212 Folding paperboard box 

manufacturing 3,851 4,420 8,249 317 

 

3.8 

 

7.2 

 

8.2 

336412 Aircraft engine and engine 

parts manufacturing 11,674 11,597 23,539 798 

 

3.4 

 

6.9 

 

6.8 

325191 Gum and wood chemical 

manufacturing 531 436 981 30 

 

3.0 

 

6.8 

 

5.6 

3252 Resin, synthetic rubber, 

and 

artificial synthetic fibers 

and filaments 

manufacturing 22,523 37,926 60,223 2,572 

 

4.3 

 

6.8 

 

11.4 

336414 Guided missile and space 

vehicle manufacturing 6,946 5,580 12,518 364 

 

2.9 

 

6.5 

 

5.2 

324121 Asphalt paving mixture 

and 

block manufacturing 2,814 4,691 7,475 303 

 

4.1 

 

6.5 

 

10.8 

322122 Newsprint mills 

1,352 1,605 2,965 103 

 

3.5 

 

6.4 

 

7.6 

334513 Instruments and related 

products manufacturing for 

measuring, displaying, and 

controlling industrial 

process variables 

4,294 2,662 7,027 168 

 

2.4 

 

6.3 

 

3.9 
THE CRISIS IN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PROTECTION AND CHINA’S ROLE IN THAT CRISIS

Trade Lawyers Advisory Group 

May 2007

196 

 Millions of Dollars CapEx as a % of NAICS code 

Industry 

Value 

added 

Total 

cost of 

materials 

Total value 

of shipments 

Total capital 

expenditures 

Total 

value 

Total 

cost 

Value 

Added 

32412 Asphalt paving, roofing, 

and saturated materials 

manufacturing 5,344 8,162 13,424 512 

 

3.8 

 

6.3 

 

9.6 

31-33 Manufacturing (All) 1,887,793 2,025,062 3,916,137 125,536 3.2% 6.2% 6.6% 

Source: U.S. Bureau of Census, General Summary: 2002 EC02-31SG-1, 2002 Economic Census 

at Table 2 (October 2005). 

Most observers would think of semiconductors as a type of industry where there is a very 

high level of capital intensity. Semiconductors are, in fact, shown on the above table as one of 

the capital intensive industries compared to all U.S. manufacturing. One of the U.S. 

manufacturers, Micron Technology, Inc., in their 2006 10-K filing with the SEC provides an 

excellent explanation of why that is the case in the sector: 

Manufacturing 

The Company’s manufacturing facilities are located in the United States, 

Italy, Japan, Puerto Rico and Singapore. The Company’s manufacturing facilities 

generally operate 24 hours a day, 7 days per week. Semiconductor manufacturing 

is extremely capital intensive, requiring large investments in sophisticated 

facilities and equipment. Most semiconductor equipment must be replaced every 

three to five years with increasingly advanced equipment.912

In the 1980s, the U.S. faced the loss of important parts of the semiconductor industry as 

dumping of semiconductors from Japan reduced profitability for U.S. producers, leading to a 

large scale exodus of companies from the reinvestment in the next generation DRAM 

 

912 Micron Technology, Inc., 2006 United States Securities Exchange Commission Form 10-K, at 4. 
THE CRISIS IN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PROTECTION AND CHINA’S ROLE IN THAT CRISIS

Trade Lawyers Advisory Group 

May 2007

197 

semiconductors.913 So too, if semiconductor manufacturing equipment is copied and sold to 

local producers in China at prices far below the price of the equipment purchased by U.S. 

semiconductor companies for their facilities in the U.S., the underpricing capability flowing from 

the IP theft would just as certainly reduce the ability of U.S. companies to stay in the game by 

reinvesting the vast sums required to remain competitive. In Micron Technology’s case, 

depreciation and amortization charges in 2006, 2005 and 2004 were higher than $1.2 billion each 

year compared to sales of $4.4 billion to $5.27 billion, thus amounting to 24.3 percent to 27.6 

percent of sales each year. Capital expenditures were at similarly high rates, 21.8 percent to 25.9 

percent of sales.914 China has an aggressive strategy for increasing its share of the global 

semiconductor volume and, as detailed in a separate TLAG report on high technology subsidy 

programs in China, is encouraging the development of the equipment industry supplying 

semiconductor companies as well.915 Should the equipment companies base their equipment on 

reverse engineering patented equipment from the U.S., Europe, Japan or elsewhere, U.S. 

semiconductor companies may find themselves in an untenable situation. 

Similarly, on pages 5-6 of this report, an example of a machinery manufacturer in the 

textile/apparel sector was reviewed for the purpose of showing the potential adverse 

consequences flowing from IP theft to small and medium sized companies. The example was the 

Eastman Machine Company in Buffalo, New York, established 115 years ago and a 

 

913 See, e.g., 64K Dynamic Random Access Memory Components from Japan, United States International Trade 

Commission, Pub. 1862 (June 1986) (Final); Erasable Programmable Read Only Memories from Japan, 

United States International Trade Commission, Pub. 1927 (December 1986) (Final). 

914 See id. at 36, 39. 

915 See Terence P. Stewart, Esq., China’s Industrial Subsidies Study: High Technology, Trade Lawyers Advisory 

Group, 2007, at 55-57. 
THE CRISIS IN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PROTECTION AND CHINA’S ROLE IN THAT CRISIS

Trade Lawyers Advisory Group 

May 2007

198 

manufacturer of cloth-cutting machines.916 While the Chairman of the company testified about 

the disastrous effects to his company over the last seventeen years (it had to cut its work force by 

two-thirds because it is being pushed out of the market by counterfeit products) as knockoffs of 

his equipment (apparently reverse engineered and copied down to the model number) are 

produced and sold in huge quantities in China each year (more than 100,000 “Eastman-clones” 

per year), the story did not deal with the devastating effect on Eastman’s customers who are 

forced to compete with product produced with the Eastman-clones. Eastman had no recourse 

against the machines sold in China, although it would have had a remedy for machines imported 

into the United States. It is assumed that the patented products did not involve a process patent. 

Hence, neither Eastman nor it customers had any remedy against the imported apparel or other 

textile products made off of the cloth cutting machines. China is, of course, a dominant global 

exporter of many textile and apparel products. While there are no statistics on the extent of the 

knocking off of equipment in the textile and apparel sector in China, anecdotal stories like that of 

the Eastman Machine Company suggest the problem is not isolated, but rather is likely very large 

and found across an array of manufacturing sectors. 

There are no studies on this topic that have developed reliable statistics as to the full 

extent of the problems of reverse engineering and knocking off Western equipment. A 

contributing factor to this lack of data is that companies are reluctant to discuss the situation 

because of the export potential of China and other countries where IPR theft may be a significant 

threat. Nonetheless, the focus within China on developing their own equipment suppliers, the 

broad array of pirated products found within China and of Chinese origin around the world, and 

 

916 Statement of Robert Stevenson, Chief Executive Officer, Eastman Machine Company, Buffalo, NY, Testimony 

Before the House Ways and Means Committee, April 14, 2005. 
THE CRISIS IN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PROTECTION AND CHINA’S ROLE IN THAT CRISIS

Trade Lawyers Advisory Group 

May 2007

199 

examples of pirated equipment that have been brought forward by selected companies like the 

Eastman Machine Company, suggest that the issue should be examined by policy makers and 

remedies provided for all stakeholders, not just the IP holder. 

a. Possible Studies and Legislative Options

Because the problem is potentially enormous, policy makers should want to have studies 

undertaken by government entities and obtain the confidential cooperation of the private sector 

to determine the metes and bounds of the issue. Possibly, the U.S. International Trade 

Commission could conduct a 332 investigation, with independent fact gathering by all 

Administration agencies with a role in China and other countries with serious IP theft problems. 

Similarly, the Administration, on its own or with the encouragement of Congress, could 

have information solicited in the context of the annual special 301 process, perhaps developing a 

listing of countries where the type of problem identified above is viewed by equipment 

manufacturers and customers of such manufacturers as being of particular concern. The 

information would permit the Administration to examine options for cooperative efforts to 

eliminate the problem or concerted activity from other major trading nations with similar 

concerns. 

With regard to legislation, Congress should look at adding remedies that will give 

purchasers of patented machinery protection from products produced on knockoff equipment. 

Providing a cause of action for such purchasers against imported product believed to be produced 

with such knockoff equipment (and any domestic product so produced) should be reasonably 

straightforward, as would be an amendment to section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 to make 

imported goods made from such equipment subject to a cease and desist order. The bigger issue 
THE CRISIS IN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PROTECTION AND CHINA’S ROLE IN THAT CRISIS

Trade Lawyers Advisory Group 

May 2007

200 

may be the burden on the complaining party and how proceedings would move forward both to 

ensure an effective remedy and to minimize damage to legitimate trade. 
THE CRISIS IN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PROTECTION AND CHINA’S ROLE IN THAT CRISIS

Trade Lawyers Advisory Group 

May 2007 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

SOURCES - 1

$1.3 Million in Counterfeit Toner Cartridges Confiscated, Xerox, April 12, 2004, available at

http://www.xerox.com/go/xrx/template/inv_rel_newsroom.jsp?app=Newsroom&ed_name=NR_2004Apri

l12_Counterfeit_Cartridges&format=article&view=newsrelease&Xcntry=USA&Xlang=en_US. 

1963 Trademark Regulations, translated in 62 Pat. & Trademark Rev. 249 (1964). 

1995 National Trade Estimate Report on Foreign Trade Barriers, United States Trade Representative. 

2004 National Trade Estimate Report on Foreign Trade Barriers, United States Trade Representative. 

2004 Special 301 Report, United States Trade Representative, available at http://www.ustr.gov/

Document_Library/Reports_Publications/2004/2004_Special_301/Section_Index.html.

2005 Report to Congress on China’s WTO Compliance, United States Trade Representative, December 

11, 2005. 

2005 Special 301 Report, United States Trade Representative, 2005. 

2005 U.S. Piracy Fact Sheet, Motion Picture Association of America, available at

www.mpaa.org/USPiracyFactSheet.pdf. 

2006 Annual Report, Congressional-Executive Commission on China (CECC), 109th Cong., 2d Sess., Ch. 

VII(d): Commercial Rule of Law and the Impact of the WTO (September 20, 2006), available at

http://www.cecc.gov/pages/annualRpt/annualRpt06/CommercialRuleofLaw.php?PHPSESSID=a87e917d2409c7

71152ee2e81766c895#30a. 

2006 National Trade Estimate Report on Foreign Trade Barriers, United States Trade Representative. 

2006 Report to Congress on China’s WTO Compliance, United States Trade Representative, December 

11, 2006. 

2006 Report to Congress, U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission (USCC), 109th Cong., 

2d Sess. (November 2006). 

2006 Special 301 Report, United States Trade Representative, April 28, 2006, available at 

http://www.ustr.gov/Document_Library/Reports_Publications/2006/2006_Special_301_Review/Section_Index.html. 

2006 Special 301 Report: People’s Republic of China, International Intellectual Property Alliance, 

February 13, 2006. 

2007 National Trade Estimate Report on Foreign Trade Barriers, United States Trade Representative. 

2007 Trade Policy Agenda and 2006 Annual Report of the President of the United States on the Trade 

Agreements Program, United States Trade Representative, March 2007, available at

http://www.ustr.gov/Document_Library/Reports_Publications/2007/2007_Trade_Policy_Agenda/Section_Index.html. 

286 Complaints, State Intellectual Property Office (SIPO), January 18, 2007, available at

http://www.sipo.gov.cn/sipo_English/specialtopic/number/200701/t20070118_127826.htm. 

64K Dynamic Random Access Memory Components from Japan, United States International Trade 

Commission, Pub. 1862 (June 1986) (Final).
THE CRISIS IN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PROTECTION AND CHINA’S ROLE IN THAT CRISIS

Trade Lawyers Advisory Group 

May 2007 

SOURCES - 2

A Serious Problem for Everyone, European Commission Taxation and Customs Union, available at

http://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/customs/customs_controls/counterfeit_piracy/combating/index_en.htm. 

About NEMA, at http://www.nema.org/about/. 

Accession of the People’s Republic of China, Protocol on Accession, WT/L/432 (10 November 2001). 

Agreement on Trade Relations Between The United States of America and The People’s Republic of 

China, July 7, 1979, 18 Int’l Legal Materials 1041. 

Agreement on Trade-Related Intellectual Property Rights, April 15, 1994, Marrakesh Agreement 

Establishing the World Trade Organization, Annex 1C. 

Andrew C. Mertha, Assistant Professor, Department of Political Science, Washington University, St. 

Louis, “Testimony to the US-China Economic and Security Review Commission Hearing on Intellectual 

Property Rights Issues and Imported Counterfeit Goods” (June 8, 2006). 

Andrew Noyes, Business Groups Release New Tools to Combat Piracy, National Journals Technology 

Daily PM Edition, January 24, 2007, available at http://www.thetruecosts.org/portal/truecosts/

news/default (Weekly Clip Report January 26-29). 

Anti-Counterfeiting and Piracy Update – Counterfeit Pharmaceuticals: Coming to a medicine cabinet 

near you, National Chamber Foundation, January 2007. 

Anti-Counterfeiting and Piracy Update: Outrage of the Month – September 2006, National Chamber 

Foundation, September 2006. 

Anti-Counterfeiting Operations, Underwriters Laboratories Inc., available at www.ul.com/ace/index.html. 

APEC Anti-Counterfeiting and Piracy Initiative, Meeting of Apec Ministers Responsible for Trade, Jeju, 

Korea, June 2-3, 2005, available at http://www.apec.org/apec/ministerial_statements/sectoral_ministerial/trade

/2005_trade.html. 

Background on Special 301, United States Trade Representative, available at http://www.ustr.gov/assets/

Document_Library/Reports_Publications/2006/2006_Special_301_Reviewasset_upload_file324_9334.pdf. 

Bao Xinyan, Jiangsu Works Out IPR Scheme, China Daily, August 6, 2004. 

BASCAP Brochure, at www.iccwbo.org/bascap. 

BASCAP Mission, at www.iccwbo.org/bascap/id883/index.html. 

Berne Notification No. 140, Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works, 

Accession by the People’s Republic of China (July 15, 1992) (effective October 15, 1992), available at 

http://www.wipo.int/edocs/notdocs/en/berne/treaty_berne_140.html. 

Best Practices: Intellectual Property Protection in China, The US-China Business Council, available at

http://www.uschina.org/info/ipr/ipr-best-practices.html. 

Beverley Lumpkin, Counterfeit Consumer Goods Could Present Health and Safety Risks, Associated 

Press, January 12, 2007, available at www.signonsandiego.com. 
THE CRISIS IN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PROTECTION AND CHINA’S ROLE IN THAT CRISIS

Trade Lawyers Advisory Group 

May 2007 

SOURCES - 3

Bilateral Trade Relations: China, European Commission, at http://ec.europa.eu/trade/issues/bilateral/

countries/china/index_en.htm (last updated March 7, 2007). 

Biotechnology Industry Organization’s Written Comments to State Intellectual Property Office of the 

Peoples’ Republic of China Regarding Draft Amendments to China’s Patent Law, August 28, 2006, 

available at www.bio.org/ip/letters/. 

Biotechnology Industry Organization’s Written Comments to USTR Regarding China’s WTO 

Compliance, September 18, 2006, available at www.bio.org/ip/letters/. 

Bradley Hope, Kelley Outlines Dangers of Counterfeiting, The New York Sun, February 2, 2007, 

available at www.nysun.com/pf.php?id=47938. 

Brian Schwarz and Vanessa Wong, Counterfeit Cures, Insight Magazine, The American Chamber of 

Commerce in Shanghai, October 2006. 

Bush Administration Strategy for Targeting Organized Piracy: Accomplishments and Initiatives, Office 

of the U.S. IPR Coordinator, June 2006, at 9, available at http://www.stopfakes.gov/pdf/STOPsheet_0606.pdf.

CBP Helping U.S. Golfers to Continue Hitting Them Straight, U.S. Customs and Border Protection 

Toady, Oct/Nov 2006, available at http://www.cbp.gov/xp/CustomsToday/2006/october_november/us_golfers.xml. 

Changes to Implement 20-Year Patent Term and Provisional Applications, 60 Fed. Reg. 20195 (June 8, 

1995) (to be codified at 37 C.F.R. pts. 1 and 3). 

China – Measures Affecting the Protection and Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights, Request for 

Consultations by the United States, WT/DS362/1, IP/D/26, G/L/819 (16 April 2007). 

China – Measures Affecting Trading Rights and Distribution Services for Certain Publications and 

Audiovisual Entertainment Products, Request for Consultations by the United States, WT/DS363/1, 

G/L/820, S/L/287 (16 April 2007). 

China Expresses Regret, Dissatisfaction over U.S. Complaints at WTO, Ministry of Commerce, April 10, 

2007, available at http://english.mofcom.gov.cn/aarticle/newsrelease/commonnews/200704/20070404553955.html. 

China FTA – Need for Progress on Intellectual Property Rights, Australian Chamber of Commerce and 

Industry, January 2006, available at www.acci.asn.au. 

China Launches “Spring Campaign” Against Pirated Publications, Xinhua, April 6, 2007, available at

http://english.ipr.gov.cn/ipr/en/info/Article.jsp?a_no=67276&col_no=1046&dir=200704

China Launches IPR Protection Website, People’s Daily Online, April 30, 2006, available at 

http://english.people.com.cn/200604/30/eng20060430_262285.html. 

China to Impose Stricter Penalties for IPR Violations, People’s Daily Online, January 19, 2007, available 

at http://english.people.com.cn/200701/17/eng20070117_341867.html. 

China’s Action Plan on IPR Protection 2006, People’s Daily Online, April 30, 2006, available at

http://english.people.com.cn/200604/30/eng20060430_262334.html. 
THE CRISIS IN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PROTECTION AND CHINA’S ROLE IN THAT CRISIS

Trade Lawyers Advisory Group 

May 2007 

SOURCES - 4

China’s Action Plan on IPR Protection 2007, National Working Group for IPR Protection, April 4, 2007, 

available at http://english.ipr.gov.cn/ipr/en/info/Article.jsp?a_no=67391&col_no=925&dir=200704. 

Chinese Crackdown on Counterfeit Golf Products, The Manufacturer, November 23, 2005, available at

http://www.themanufacturer.com/us/content/3878/Chinese_crackdown_on_counterfeit_golf_products?PHPSE

SSID=fd6313a30024b3c0f4ee2409e0f1910f. 

Chinese Radio, TV Stations to Pay Music Royalties, China View, December 19, 2006, available at

http://news.jongo.com/articles/06/1219/818/ODE4JmGnWS1q.html. 

Clark R. Silcox and Philmore H. Colburn, II, Counterfeit Products Present Additional Business Risks for 

Distributors and Contractors, International Association of Electrical Inspectors, May-June 2005, 

available at www.iaei.org/subscriber/magazine/05_c/silcox.htm. 

Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez Unveils Initiatives to Fight Intellectual Property Theft, U.S. 

Department of Commerce Press Release, September 21, 2005, available at http://www.commerce.

gov/opa/press/Secretary_Gutierrez/2005_Releases/September/09-21-05%20IPR%20initiatives.htm. 

Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament and the European 

Economic and Social Committee on a Customs Response to the Latest Trends in Counterfeiting and 

Piracy, Commission of the European Communities, COM(2005) 479 Final, November 10, 2005.

Copyright Law of the People’s Republic of China (adopted at the Fifteenth Session of the Standing 

Committee of the Seventh National People’s Congress on September 7, 1990) available at 

http://www.chinaconsulatesf.org/eng/kj/wjfg/t43948.htm.

Counterfeit Components, Emphasis, National Electronics Manufacturing Center of Excellence, December 

2003, available at www.empf.org/empfasis/archive/1203counterfeit.htm. 

Counterfeit Crime on the Increase, One News, January 25, 2007, available at http://tvnz.co.nz. 

Counterfeit Drugs Questions and Answers, United States Food and Drug Administration, available at

www.fda.gov/oc/initiatives/counterfeit/qa.html. 

Counterfeit Electronic Component Resources, Design Chain Associates, available at

www.designchainassociates.com/counterfeit.html.

Counterfeit Food a ‘Serious Threat’ Says EC, MeatProcess.Com, November 13, 2006, available at

www.meatprocess.com/news. 

Counterfeit Food a ‘Serious Threat’ Says EC, MeatProcess.com, November 13, 2006, available at

www.meatprocess.com/news/ng.asp?id=72010-counterfeit-ec-alcohol

Counterfeit Medicines: an Update on Estimates, International Medical Products Anti-Counterfeiting 

Taskforce (IMPACT), November 15, 2006. 

Counterfeit Parts, GM Goodwrench, available at www.gmgoodwrench.com/partsaccessories/counterfeitparts.jsp. 

Counterfeiting and Organized Crime, Union des Fabricants, 2003. 
THE CRISIS IN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PROTECTION AND CHINA’S ROLE IN THAT CRISIS

Trade Lawyers Advisory Group 

May 2007 

SOURCES - 5

Counterfeiting, CropLife International, at www.croplife.org, accessed December 4, 2006. 

Counterfeiting: Crime of the 21st Century, Babcox Publications, Inc., 2005, available at 

http://members.mema.org/source/Orders/index.cfm?section=unknown&task=3&CATEGORY=BPPUB&PRODUCT_

TYPE=SALES&PRODUCT_CODE=AA16%2D06&SKU=AA16%2D06&DESCRIPTION=Brand%20Protection&

FindSpec=&CFTOKEN=57739971&continue=1&SEARCH_TYPE=find&StartRow=1&PageNum=1&FindIn. 

Counting the Cost: The Economic Impacts of Counterfeiting and Piracy, Preliminary Findings of OECD 

Study Presented by John Dryden, Deputy Director for Science, Technology and Industry, OECD, at the 

Third Global Congress on Combating Counterfeiting and Piracy, January 30-31, 2007.

Criminal Law of the People’s Republic of China § 7: Crimes of Infringing on Intellectual Property Rights 

(adopted July 1, 1979, revised March 14, 1997), at Article 213, available at http://www.cecc.gov/pages/

newLaws/criminalLawENG.php. 

CropLife America’s Comments Regarding USTR’s Special Provincial Review of IPR Protection in China, 

July 19, 2006. 

CropLife International’s Response to OECD Industry Questionnaire, OECD Counterfeiting and Piracy 

Project.

CSA International Announces Important Consumer Safety Alert for Encore Sales “Bright Ideas” Type A 

Light Bulbs of Certain Ratings, CSA International, February 2, 2007, accessed via www.nema.org/

gov/anti-counterfeiting/news.cfm. 

David Shepardson, Phony Parts Cost Ford $1B, The Detroit News, January 22, 2007, available at

www.detnews.com. 

Dean Boyd, Operation Green Quest Targets Terrorist Finances, U.S. Customs Today, November 2001. 

Deli Yang and Peter Clarke, Globalisation and Intellectual Property in China, Technovation, May 2005. 

Dollar Tree Stores Recall Counterfeit Extension Cords Due to Shock Hazard, United States Consumer 

Product Safety Commission, August 10, 2006, available at www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06230.html, 

accessed via www.nema.org/gov/anti-counterfeiting/news.cfm.

Dr. A. O. Adede, The Political Economy of the TRIPS Agreement: Origins and History of Negotiations 

(2001), available at www.ictsd.org/dlogue/2001-07-30/Adede.pdf. 

Drug Administration Law of the People’s Republic of China, December 2001, available at

www.sfda.gov.cn/cmsweb/webportal/W45649037/A48335975.html. 

Dudas Says China Cooperative on IPR, But Results Still Lacking, Inside US-China Trade, November 29, 

2006. 

EA Cables Roots for Quality Products, Kenya Broadcasting Corporation, March 17, 2006, available at

www.kbc.co.ke/story.asp?ID=35664, accessed via www.nema.org/gov/anti-counterfeiting/news.cfm. 

Elaine T. Wu, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, Intellectual Property Section, The Changing 

Environment for Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights in China, December 14, 2006. 

Electronic Industries Alliance/China Alliance, Protecting Intellectual Property Rights in China, 2006. 
THE CRISIS IN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PROTECTION AND CHINA’S ROLE IN THAT CRISIS

Trade Lawyers Advisory Group 

May 2007 

SOURCES - 6

Emilie Reymond, Drug Counterfeiters Changing Tactics to Bypass EU Customs, InPharmatechnologist.Com, November 16, 2006. 

Erasable Programmable Read Only Memories from Japan, United States International Trade 

Commission, Pub. 1927 (December 1986) (Final). 

Erin Ennis and Robert Alaimo, China’s 2006 IPR Review, China Business Review (March-April 2007), 

available at http://www.chinabusinessreview.com/public/0703/ipr.html. 

EU Bilateral Trade With China, DG Trade Statistics, September 15, 2006. 

EU, China Co-operate on Illegal Trade, EurActiv.com, September 19, 2006, available at

http://www.euractiv.com/en/trade/eu-china-opperate-illegal-trade/article-157971. 

European Commission Taxation and Customs Union Seizure Statistics, 2005, available at

http://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/customs/customs_controls/counterfeit_piracy/statistics/index_en.htm. 

European Commission Taxation and Customs Union Seizure Statistics, 2003, available at 

http://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/customs/customs_controls/counterfeit_piracy/statistics/index_en.htm. 

European Commission Taxation and Customs Union Seizure Statistics, 2004, available at 

http://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/customs/customs_controls/counterfeit_piracy/statistics/index_en.htm. 

Expanding The Frontiers of Our Digital Future: Reducing Software Piracy to Accelerate Global IT 

Benefits, BSA and IDC, December 2005, available at www.bsa.org/idcstudy/pdfs/White_Paper.pdf. 

Exploding Cell Phones, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, TheTrueCosts.org, November 2004, available at

http://www.thetruecosts.org/portal/truecosts/getthefacts/healthandsafety.htm. 

Facing the China Challenge: Using an Intellectual Property Strategy to Capture Global Advantage, The 

Boston Consulting Group, September 20, 2004, available at http://www.bcg.com/publications/publications

_search_results.jsp?PUBID=1217.

Fact Sheet: Special 301 on Intellectual Property, Office of the United States Trade Representative, April 

26, 1991, available at USTR Reading Room. 

Facts and Figures on UL Intellectual Property Protection, Underwriters Laboratories, Inc., available at 

www.ul.com/ace/AntiCounterfeiting_Facts.pdf. 

Fake Fans Get Fix at New Markets, Shanghai Daily, August 8, 2006, available at www.shanghai.gov.cn/

shanghai/node8059/City_news/userobject22ai22568.html. 

FDA Issues Nationwide Alert on Counterfeit One Touch Basic/Profile and One Touch Ultra Blood 

Glucose Test Strips, United States Food and Drug Administration, October 13, 2006, available at

www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/NEWS/2006/NEW01490.html. 

Foreign Infringement of Intellectual Property Rights: Implications for Selected U.S. Industries, Office of 

Industries Working Paper, United States International Trade Commission, October 2005. 

Foreign Protection of Intellectual Property Rights and the Effect on U.S. Industry and Trade, United 

States International Trade Commission, Pub. 2065 (February 1988).
THE CRISIS IN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PROTECTION AND CHINA’S ROLE IN THAT CRISIS

Trade Lawyers Advisory Group 

May 2007 

SOURCES - 7

Foreigners able to sit in on Chinese IPR trials, Xinhua, April 5, 2007, available at http://english.ipr.

gov.cn/ipr/en/info/Article.jsp?a_no=66983&col_no=925&dir=200704. 

FY 2002 Top IPR Commodities Seized, United States Customs. 

FY 2003 Top IPR Commodities Seized, Department of Homeland Security, United States Customs and 

Border Protection and United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

FY 2005 Top IPR Commodities Seized, Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

FY 2006 Top IPR Commodities Seized, Department of Homeland Security, United States Customs and 

Border Protection and United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement. 

General Administration of Customs Regulates Auction of Infringing Goods, NTD Patent & Trademark 

Agency Ltd., April 5, 2007, available at http://www.chinantd.com/news.php?language=en&channel=53&id=1332.

Global Europe: EU-China Trade and Investment Competition and Partnership, European Commission, 

October 2006, available at http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2006/november/tradoc_131234.pdf. 

Global Survey on Counterfeiting and Piracy, Business Action to Stop Counterfeiting and Piracy, January 

29, 2007. 

Goodbye Xiangyang, Australia China Connections, August 15, 2006, available at

www.chinaconnections.com.au/archives/view/?id=7&PHPSESSID=d86aa1436a32fd81b297a266f203ab3b. 

Gregory Freeman, Nancy D. Sidhu and Michael Montoya, A False Bargain: The Los Angeles County 

Economic Consequences of Counterfeit Products, Los Angeles County Economic Development 

Corporation, February 2007. 

Guandong Province, PRC- US Golf Manufacturers Anti-Counterfeiting Working Group Deals Another 

Blow to Counterfeit Golf Factories, Cleveland Golf, May 18, 2006, available at http://www.clevelandgolf

.com/index.php?&moid=122&function=display&oid=T007:2wie3kavs4an61gqknibe11l&alias=press_releases

&insidefile=release.html. 

Guidelines on Controlling Free Zones in Relation to Intellectual Property Rights Infringements, World 

Customs Organization, EC0183E1a, January 12, 2005.

Ha Noi Action Plan to Implement the Busan Roadmap Towards the Bogor Goals (Final), APEC, 2006, 

available at www.mofa.go.jp/policy/economy/apec/2006/action.pdf. 

Hugh Stephens, Fake Products, Real Problems, AmCham China Brief, April 2006. 

IIPA Comments to TPSC on China’s WTO Compliance, International Intellectual Property Alliance, 

September 21, 2006. 

IIPA Special 301 Letter to USTR, International Intellectual Property Alliance, February 12, 2007. 

IIPA Written Comments to USTR Regarding Special Provincial Review of IPR Protection in China, July 

14, 2006. 
THE CRISIS IN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PROTECTION AND CHINA’S ROLE IN THAT CRISIS

Trade Lawyers Advisory Group 

May 2007 

SOURCES - 8

Inside the World of Counterfeit Drugs, Dateline NBC, June 9, 2006, available at www.msnbc.com. 

Intellectual Property Crimes: Are Proceeds from Counterfeited Goods Funding Terrorism, Hearing 

Before the House Committee on International Relations, 108th Cong., 2d Sess. (July 16, 2003) (Testimony 

of the Honorable Tom Lantos, Representative in Congress from the State of California). 

Intellectual Property Enforcement Guidebook, European Commission, April 18, 2005, available at

http://ec.europa.eu/trade/issues/sectoral/intell_property/guidebook.htm. 

Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) Enforcement Strategies, Sub-Committee on Customs Procedures, AsiaPacific Economic Cooperation, September 2006, available at http://www.apec.org/apec/apec_groups/

committees/committee_on_trade/subcommittee_on_customs.MedialibDownload.v1.html?url=/etc/mediali

b/apec_media_library/downloads/committees/cti/pubs/2006.Par.0012.File.v1.1. 

Intellectual Property Rights Issues and Imported Counterfeit Goods: Hearing Before the U.S.-China 

Economic and Security Review Commission, 109th Cong., 2d Sess. (June 7-8, 2006) (statement of Mr. 

Peter Pitts, Center for Medicine in the Public Interest). 

Intellectual Property Rights: Current Situation & Future Perspective, European Commission, July 25, 

2006, available at http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2006/july/tradoc_129426.pdf. 

Intellectual Property Violation Seizure Report, Japan Customs, 2002-2006.

Intellectual Property: Anti-Piracy FAQ, Entertainment Software Association, available at

www.theesa.com/ip/anti_piracy_faq.php. 

Intellectual Property: Enforcement Survey 2006, European Commission, available at http://ec.europa.eu/

trade/issues/sectoral/intell_property/survey2006_en.htm. 

Intellectual Property: Enforcement Survey: China, European Commission, October 2006, available at

http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2006/october/tradoc_130388.pdf 

Intellectual Property: EU Business Survey Identifies Target Countries in Fight Against Counterfeiting, 

European Commission, October 5, 2006, available at http://ec.europa.eu/trade/issues/sectoral/

intell_property/pr051006_en.htm. 

Intellectual Property: IP Issues Map – China, Entertainment Software Association, available at

www.theesa.com/ip/anti_piracy_map.php. 

Intellectual Property: Links to Other Key Providers of IPR Technical Assistance, European Commission, 

August 3, 2006, available at http://ec.europa.eu/trade/issues/sectoral/intell_property/pr030806c_en.htm. 

Intellectual Property: Objectives and Content, European Commission, August 3, 2006, available at

http://ec.europa.eu/trade/issues/sectoral/intell_property/pr030806a_en.htm. 

Intellectual Property: Source of innovation, creativity, growth and progress, International Chamber of 

Commerce, August 2005. 

International IPR Advisory Program, American Bar Association Section of International Law, available

at http://www.abanet.org/intlaw/intlproj/iprprogram.html. 
THE CRISIS IN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PROTECTION AND CHINA’S ROLE IN THAT CRISIS

Trade Lawyers Advisory Group 

May 2007 

SOURCES - 9

International IP-related Activities in the Asia-Pacific Region, Japanese Patent Office, available at

http://www.jpo.go.jp/torikumi_e/kokusai_e/asia_ip_e/apip_4e.htm. 

International Laws Applied in Local IPR Cases in China, Ministry of Commerce, People’s Republic of 

China, January 19, 2007, available at http://english.mofcom.gov.cn/aarticle/counselorsreport/europereport/

200701/20070104292275.html. 

IPR in China, European Commission, October 2, 2006, available at http://ec.europa.eu/trade/issues/

sectoral/intell_property/ipr_china_en.htm. 

Jacqui Cheng, China Signs Agreement to Crack Down on Piracy, Ars Technica LLC, December 15, 2006, 

available at http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20061215-8430.html. 

James Carbone, Watch out for Bogus RoHS Parts, Purchasing Magazine Online, May 18, 2006, available 

at www.purchasing.com/article/CA6333246.html. 

Jaroslaw Anders, U.S. Businesses Pursue Different Strategies to Fight Counterfeiters, 

USINFO.STATE.GOV, January 25, 2007. 

Jerry Markon, Virginia Men Face U.S. Trial in Peddling of Phony Purses, Washington Post, January 30, 

2007. 

Jianqiang Nie, The Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights in China, London, England: Cameron 

May, 2006. 

Jobs Killed, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Anti-Counterfeiting and Piracy Website, 2006, available at 

www.thetruecosts.org/portal/truecosts/getthefacts/jobs.html. 

John R. Allison and Lianlian Lin, The Evolution of Chinese Attitudes Toward Property Rights in 

Invention and Discovery, 20 U. PA. J. Int’l Econ. L. 735 (1999). 

Joint Statement, The Eighteenth APEC Ministerial Meeting, Ha Noi, Viet Nam, November 15-16, 2006, 

available at http://www.apec.org/content/apec/ministerial_statements/annual_ministerial/2006_18th_apec

_ministerial.html. 

Joint Submission in Support of USTR Special Provincial Review of IPR Protection in China, U.S. 

Chamber of Commerce and American Chamber of Commerce-China, July 14, 2006. 

Jonathan Watts, Drug Pirates Leave Death in Their Wake, The Guardian, December 4, 2006. 

Judicial Interpretations by the Supreme People’s Court and the Supreme People’s Procuratorate on 

Several Issues of Concrete Application of Laws in Handling Criminal Cases of Infringing Intellectual 

Property, December 21, 2004, available at http://english.ipr.gov.cn/ipr/en/info/Article.jsp?a_no=

2038&col_no=121&dir=200603 

Judicial Interpretations by the Supreme People’s Court and the Supreme People’s Procuratorate on 

Several Issues of Concrete Application of Laws in Handling Criminal Cases of Infringing Intellectual 

Property II, draft English version available at http://ipdragon.blogspot.com/2007/04/draft-judicialinterpretation-several.html. 
THE CRISIS IN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PROTECTION AND CHINA’S ROLE IN THAT CRISIS

Trade Lawyers Advisory Group 

May 2007 

SOURCES - 10

Justin Chan, Out-Pirating the Pirates, Insight, December 2006, available at https://www.amchamchina.org.cn/amcham/upload/wysiwyg/OutpiratingThePirates.pdf. 

Kathleen E. McLaughlin, Pirated Vista Beats Microsoft to China’s PCs, The San Francisco Chronicle, 

January 31, 2007, available at www.sfgate.com. 

Kathleen E. McLaughlin, U.S. calls Beijing on Piracy – Despite Washington’s Complaints, China Lags in 

Policing Intellectual Property Theft, San Francisco Chronicle, June 8, available at www.sfgate.com. 

Kathleen Millar, Financing Terror: Profits from counterfeiting goods pay for attacks, U.S. Customs 

Today, November 2002. 

Kelly Burke, Fake Power Sockets Pose Fire Risk, Sydney Morning Herald, September 25, 2006, 

available at www.smh.com.au, accessed via www.nema.org/gov/anti-counterfeiting/news.cfm. 

L.E.K, The Cost of Movie Piracy, Motion Picture Association of America, 2005, available at 

www.mpaa.org/2006_05_03leksumm.pdf. 

Louis J. Gorenc, Counterfeit Automotive Replacement Parts Entering the DOD Procurement System, 

Army AL&T Magazine, January-March 2007, available at http://asc.army.mil/pubs/alt/.

Madrid (Marks) Notification No. 41, Madrid Agreement Concerning the International Registration of 

Marks, Accession by the People’s Republic of China (July 4, 1989) (effective October 4, 1989), available 

at http://www.wipo.int/edocs/notdocs/en/madrid-gp/treaty_madrid_gp_41.html. 

Main Dedicated Intellectual Property Laws and Regulations Notified Under Article 63.2 of the 

Agreement, Copyright Law of the People’s Republic of China, IP/N/1/CHN/C/1 (8 July 2002). 

Main Dedicated Intellectual Property Laws and Regulations Notified Under Article 63.2 of the 

Agreement, Regulations for the Implementation of the Copyright Law of the People’s Republic of China, 

IP/N/1/CHN/C/3 (13 October 2003). 

Main Dedicated Intellectual Property Laws and Regulations Notified Under Article 63.2 of the 

Agreement, Patent Law of the People’s Republic of China, IP/N/1/CHN/I/1 (8 July 2002). 

Main Dedicated Intellectual Property Laws and Regulations Notified Under Article 63.2 of the 

Agreement, Regulations for the Implementation of the Trademark Law of the People’s Republic of China, 

IP/N/1/CHN/T/2 (13 October 2003). 

Main Dedicated Intellectual Property Under Laws and Regulations Notified Under Article 63.2 of the 

Agreement: Copyright Law of the People’s Republic of China (September 7, 2990, amended October 27, 

2001) IP/N1/CHN/C/1 (8 July 2002). 

Managing the Risks of Counterfeiting in the Information Technology Industry, KPMG International, 2005. 

Mandelson Visits Chinese State Intellectual Property Office; Urges Tougher Chinese Action on 

Counterfeiting, Technology Transfers, Payments of Royalties, European Commission, November 8, 2006, 

available at http://ec.europa.eu/trade/issues/sectoral/intell_property/pr081106_en.htm. 

Manny Gratz, White Paper: The Threat of Counterfeit Product Approval Marks Warrants Aggressive 

Detection and Enforcement Action, Canada Standards Association, October 2002. 
THE CRISIS IN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PROTECTION AND CHINA’S ROLE IN THAT CRISIS

Trade Lawyers Advisory Group 

May 2007 

SOURCES - 11

Mark Sidel, Copyright, Trademark and Patent Law in the People’s Republic of China, 21 Tex. Int’l L.J. 

259, 271 (1985-1986).

Marlowe Hood, Steal This Software, IEEE Spectrum, June 2005, available at www.spectrum.ieee.org/

june05/1232. 

Medium-Term Plan for WIPO Program activities – Vision and Strategic Direction of WIPO, World 

Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), available at http://wipo.int/about-wipo/en/dgo/pub487.htm. 

Memorandum of Understanding Between the Government of the People’s Republic of China and the 

Government of the United States of America on the Protection of Intellectual Property Rights, January 7, 

1992, available at http://tcc.export.gov/trade_agreements/all_trade_agreements/exp_005362.asp. 

Miami Man Arrested for Counterfeiting Prescription Drug Labels, Office of the Attorney General, 

January 26, 2007, available at http://myfloridalegal.com/newsrel.nsf/newsreleases. 

Michael Blakeney, Guidebook on Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights, Queen Mary Intellectual 

Property Research Institute, available at http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2005/april/tradoc_122641.pdf. 

Michael Pecht and Sanjay Tiku, Bogus!, IEEE Spectrum, May 2006, available at www.spectrum.ieee.org

/may06/3423. 

Michael Singer, Gray Market a Double-Edged Sword, InternetNews.Com, January 21, 2005, available at 

www.internetnews.com/bus-news/article.php/3462561. 

Micron Technology, Inc., 2006 United States Securities Exchange Commission Form 10-K. 

Ministry of Commerce: ‘Special protection’ of Brand IP, State Intellectual Property Office (SIPO), 

January 12, 2007, available at http://www.sipo.gov.cn/sipo_English/gfxx/zyhd/200701/t20070112_126782.htm. 

MPA Submission to USTR Regarding 2007 National Trade Estimate, Motion Picture Association of 

America, November 8, 2006. 

Music & Movie Piracy Takes Bite Out of Los Angeles Economy, FMQB, February 19, 2007, available at

www.fmqb.com/article.asp?id=353659. 

Naigan Zhang, Intellectual Property Law Enforcement in China: Trade Issues, Policies and Practices, 8 

Fordham Intell. Prop. Media & Ent. L.J. 63 (1997-1998). 

National Association of Manufacturers’ Recommendations on Special 301 Out of Cycle Review of China, 

February 14, 2005, available at www.nam.org. 

National Working Group for IPR Protection, Achievement on IPR Protection in the State Council’s 

Special Campaign, Ministry of Commerce of the People’s Republic of China, April 5, 2006, available at

http://english.ipr.gov.cn/ipr/en/info/Article.jsp?a_no=3031&col_no=888&dir=200604. 

National Working Group for IPR Protection, Mountain Eagle Campaign II Shows Effects, Ministry of 

Commerce of the People’s Republic of China, March 16, 2007, available at http://english.ipr.gov.cn/ipr. 

National Working Group for IPR Protection, Related Organizations In China, Ministry of Commerce of 

the People’s Republic of China, available at http://english.ipr.gov.cn/en/services/ser_organizations.shtml. 
THE CRISIS IN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PROTECTION AND CHINA’S ROLE IN THAT CRISIS

Trade Lawyers Advisory Group 

May 2007 

SOURCES - 12

National Working Group for IPR Protection, SIPO: Statistics on Patent Law Enforcement in 2006 

Released, Ministry of Commerce of the People’s Republic of China, March 16, 2007, available at

http://english.ipr.gov.cn/ipr/en/info/Article.jsp?a_no=61664&col_no=925&dir=200703. 

National Working Group for IPR Protection, Sunshine Campaign I in Qingdao Fights Against Pirated AV 

Products, Ministry of Commerce of the People’s Republic of China, July 14, 2006, available at

http://english.ipr.gov.cn/ipr/en/info/Article.jsp?a_no=7734&col_no=886&dir=200607. 

NBA Issues Warning to Basketball Fans: Beware of Counterfeit All-Star Game Merchandise, 

BusinessWire.Com, February 12, 2007. 

New Interpretation Issued to Enhance Criminal Prosecution, NTD Patent & Trademark Agency Ltd., 

April 6, 2007, available at http://www.chinantd.com/news.php?language=en&channel=53&id=1333

New Rulings Designed to Snare IPR Pirates, Xinhua, April 6, 2007, available at http://english.ipr.gov.cn/

ipr/en/info/Article.jsp?a_no=67243&col_no=925&dir=200704. 

Newsletter Regarding IPR (April 2, 2007), China Daily, April 3, 2007, available at http://english.ipr.

gov.cn/ipr/en/info/Article.jsp?a_no=66358&col_no=882&dir=200704. 

No Trade in Fakes Supply Chain Tool Kit, U.S. Chamber of Commerce Coalition Against Counterfeiting 

and Piracy, 2006.

NPC Standing Committee Approved Two Conventions of WIPO, State Intellectual Property Office (SIPO), 

January 9, 2007, http://www.sipo.gov.cn/sipo_English/gfxx/zyhd/200701/t20070109_126503.htm. 

Paris Notification No. 114, Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property, Accession by the 

People’s Republic of China (December 19, 1984) (effective March 19, 1985), available at 

http://www.wipo.int/edocs/notdocs/en/paris/treaty_paris_114.html. 

Patent Law of the People’s Republic of China (entered into force April 1, 1985), translated in 24 I.L.M. 

295 (1985). 

Patent Law Roundtable with SIPO, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, available at 

http://www.uschamber.com/international/regional/asia/insider. 

People’s Court and the Supreme People’s Procuratorate: Press Hard on IPR Crimes, State Intellectual 

Property Office (SIPO), March 26, 2007, available at http://www.sipo.gov.cn/sipo_English/npc/

200703/t20070326_147298.htm. 

People’s Republic of China Implementation of the 1995 Intellectual Property Rights Agreement – 1996 

(June 17, 1996), available at http://tcc.export.gov/trade_agreements/all_trade_agreements/exp_005361.asp 

People’s Republic of China Intellectual Property Rights Memorandum of Understanding – Action Plan 

for Effective Protection and Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights, February 26, 1995, available at

http://tcc.export.gov/trade_agreements/all_trade_agreements/exp_005363.asp
THE CRISIS IN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PROTECTION AND CHINA’S ROLE IN THAT CRISIS

Trade Lawyers Advisory Group 

May 2007 

SOURCES - 13

Phonograms Notification No. 50, Convention for the Protection of Producers of Phonograms Against 

Unauthorized Duplication of Their Phonograms, Accession by the People’s Republic of China (January 

30, 1993) (effective April 30, 1993), available at http://www.wipo.int/edocs/notdocs/en/phonograms/

treaty_phonograms_50.html. 

PhRMA Written Comments to USTR re 2007 National Trade Estimate, Pharmaceutical Research and 

Manufacturers of America, November 8, 2006. 

Piracy: Industry fights back, TheManufacturer.Com, January 2007, available at www.themanufacturer.com. 

Pirates of the 21st Century: Curse of the Black Market, Hearing Before the Oversight of Government 

Management, the Federal Workforce and the District of Columbia Subcomm. of the Comm. of 

Governmental Affairs United States Senate, 108th Cong., 2d Sess. (April 20, 2004) (Testimony of Phillip 

A. Rotman, II, Assistant Patent and Trademark Counsel, Dana Corporation). 

Prison Sentences for Counterfeit Golf Equipment Dealers, TaylorMade-adidas Golf, Press Release, 

November 16, 2006, available at http://www.tmag.com/media/pressreleases/2006/111606_counter.htm. 

Progress Report of the Department of Justice’s Task Force on Intellectual Property, United States 

Department of Justice, June 2006. 

Protecting Intellectual Property Rights in China A Best Practices Guide, Electronics Industry Alliance 

and The China Alliance, available at http://www.eia.org/new_policy/innovation-ipr.phtml.

Protecting Your Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) in China: A Practical Guide for U.S. Companies, 

Office of China Economic Area, Export.gov, January 2003, available at http://www.mac.doc.gov/

China/IPRNEW.html. 

Publishers and Other Copyright Industries, Submit Annual Review of Global Intellectual Property 

Protection to the USTR, Association of American Publishers, February 13, 2007, available at 

www.publishers.org/press/releases.cfm?PressReleaseArticleID=371. 

Quality Brands Protection Committee Fact Sheet, at http://www.qbpc.org.cn/en/about/about/factsheet. 

Randal S. Alexander, Comment, China’s Struggle to Maintain Economic Viability While Enforcing 

International and Domestic Intellectual Property Rights, 4 J. Marshall Rev. Intell. Prop. L 608 (2005). 

Ray Parry, The Great Gall of China, Counterfeit.com, last modified September 8, 2006, available at

www.counterfeit.com/main/publication/content/487.html. 

Recall Alert: CPSC, Kyocera Wireless Corp. Announce Recall of Cell Phone Batteries, United States 

Consumer Product Safety Commission, October 28, 2004, available at www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/

prerel/prhmtl05/05505.html.

Recall Alert: CPSC, Verizon Wireless Announce Recall of Counterfeit Cell Phone Batteries, United States 

Consumer Product Safety Commission, June 24, 2004, available at www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/

prhmtl04/04559.html. 

Record Year for International Patent Filings with Significant Growth from Northeast Asia, World 

Intellectual Property Organization, Press Release PR/476/2007, February 7, 2007. 
THE CRISIS IN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PROTECTION AND CHINA’S ROLE IN THAT CRISIS

Trade Lawyers Advisory Group 

May 2007 

SOURCES - 14

Recording Industry 2006 Piracy Report: Protecting Creativity in Music, International Federation of the 

Phonographic Industry, 2006. 

Regulations for Computer Software Protection (promulgated on June 4, 1991, effective October 2, 1991). 

Regulations for Implementation of the Drug Administration Law of the People’s Republic of China, 

September 2002, Article 35, available at www.sfda.gov.cn/cmsweb/webportal/W45649038/A48335997.html. 

Report a Pirated or Counterfeit Item, at http://www.bascap.com/report_counterfeit.html. 

Report of the Working Party on the Accession of China, WT/MIN(01)/3 (10 November 2001). 

Request for Information Pursuant to Article 63.3 of the TRIPS Agreement, IP/C/W/461 (November 14, 

2005). 

Residents Call For Stern Action Against Low-Quality Products Flooding Markets, The Peninsula, 

November 16, 2006, available at www.thepeninsulaqatar.com, accessed via www.nema.org/gov/anticounterfeiting/news.cfm. 

Reuters, Chinese Pirates Beat Spider-Man to the Punch, NYTimes.Com, April 24, 2007, available at

www.nytimes.com/reuters/arts/entertainment-china-piracy-spiderman.html?_r=1&oref=slogin. 

Reuters, Counterfeit Goods Are Linked to Terror Groups, International Herald Tribune, February 12, 

2007. 

Reuters, Pirates Pounce on New Windows Vista, Los Angeles Times, February 7, 2007, available at

www.latimes.com. 

Review of Legislation, China, IP/Q/CHN/1, IP/Q2/CHN/1, IP/Q3/CHN/1, IP/Q4/CHN/1 (December 10, 

2002). 

Richard McGregorin, China to Fight US Copyright Complaint, Financial Times, April 25, 2007 (quoting 

Wu Yi, a Chinese vice-premier). 

Robert Cockburn, et al., The Global Threat of Counterfeit Drugs: Why Industry and Governments Must 

Communicate the Dangers, PLoS Medicine 2(4), April 2005, available at doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0020100. 

Ron Magers, Dangerous Fakes, ABC 7 Chicago, November 14, 2006, available at http://abclocal.go.com/

wls/story?section=special_coverage&id=4761950.

Rules of the Customs of People’s Republic of China for Implementing the Regulations of People’s 

Republic of China on Customs Protection of Intellectual Property Rights (Adopted at the Executive 

Meeting of the General Administration of Customs on April 22, 2004, promulgated by Decree No. 114 of 

the General Administration of Customs on May 25, 2004, and effective as of July 1, 2004), available at 

http://english.ipr.gov.cn/ipr/en/info/Article.jsp?a_no=2068&col_no=121&dir=200603. 

SARS Media Release: International Customs Day, South African Revenue Service, January 26, 2007, 

available at www.sars.gov.za. 
THE CRISIS IN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PROTECTION AND CHINA’S ROLE IN THAT CRISIS

Trade Lawyers Advisory Group 

May 2007 

SOURCES - 15

Sativa Ross, Parts Counterfeiting, Aftermarket Business, October 1, 2004, available at 

www.aftermarketbusiness.com.

Shanglin Luan, Officials ‘Not Optimistic’ About Fight Against Piracy, Xinhua News Agency, August 19, 

2006, available at http://english.gov.cn/2006-08/19/content_365953.htm. 

SIPO Printed and Distributed Its Work Priorities for 2007, State Intellectual Property Office (SIPO), 

March 1, 2007, available at http://www.sipo.gov.cn/sipo_English/gfxx/zyhd/200703/t20070301_141588.htm. 

Special Report: Bitter Pills, BusinessWeek Online, December 18, 2006, available at 

www.businessweek.com. 

Speech at the Coordination Center for the National Action Against Illegal Audio-visual Products, 

Delivered by Mr. Zhao Weisui, Vice Minister of Culture, August 13, 2002, Nianjing, China, available at

http://av.ccnt.com.cn/pbc/index4.1.htm?lm=004&id=003. 

Speech Delivered by Mr. Jiuhan Zhang, Vice Governor of Jiangsu Province, at the Global Forum on 

Intellectual Property Rights Protection and Innovation, March 28, 2007. 

Statement of Robert Stevenson, Chief Executive Officer, Eastman Machine Company, Buffalo, NY,

Testimony Before the House Ways and Means Committee, April 14, 2005, available at

www.wtcbn.org/news/Stevenson%20Testimony.pdf.

Statement of the National Electrical Manufacturers Association at the U.S. Ambassador’s IP Roundtable, 

November 18, 2003, available at www.nema.org/gov/anti-counterfeiting/position.cfm. 

Statement of the National Electrical Manufacturers Association at the U.S. Ambassador’s IP Roundtable, 

January 13, 2005, available at www.nema.org/gov/anti-counterfeiting/position.cfm. 

Stephen E. Siwek, Copyright Industries in the U.S. Economy: The 2006 Report, Economists Incorporated, 

2006.

Stephen E. Siwek, The True Cost of Motion Picture Piracy to the U.S. Economy, Institute for Policy 

Innovation, September 2006. 

Stipulations on Transferring the Suspected Criminal Cases to the Public Security Office by the 

Administrative Enforcement Authorities (State Council, July 9, 2001). 

Submission of the International AntiCounterfeiting Coalition, Inc. to the United States Trade 

Representative Regarding Special 301 Recommendations, February 12, 2007. 

Supreme Court: More than 60,000 Cases Involving China IP Heard in 6 Years, State Intellectual Property 

Office (SIPO), January 11, 2007, available at http://www.sipo.gov.cn/sipo_English/gfxx/zyhd/200701/

t20070111_126644.htm. 

Tan Bee Leng, Shanghai’s Popular Xiang Yang Market to Be Shut Down at End of June, June 28, 2006, 

Channel NewsAsia, available at www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/eastasia/view/216194/1/.html. 

Technical Cooperation Activities: Information From Members, Australia, IP/C/W/455/Add.1 (7 October 

2005). 
THE CRISIS IN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PROTECTION AND CHINA’S ROLE IN THAT CRISIS

Trade Lawyers Advisory Group 

May 2007 

SOURCES - 16

Technical Cooperation Activities: Information From Members, Canada, IP/C/W/476/Add.7 (10 

November 2006). 

Technical Cooperation Activities: Information From Members, European Communities, 

IP/C/W/476/Add.5 (13 December 2006). 

Technical Cooperation Activities: Information From Members, Japan, IP/C/W/476/Add.1 (3 October 

2006). 

Technical Cooperation Activities: Information From Other Intergovernmental Organizations: World 

Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), IP/C/W/478/Add.3 (18 October 2006). 

Terence P. Stewart, Esq., China’s Industrial Subsidies: High Technology, Trade Lawyers Advisory 

Group, 2007. 

Terence P. Stewart, Law Offices of Stewart and Stewart, Accession of the People’s Republic of China to 

the Word Trade Organization: Baseline of Commitments, Initial Implementation and Implications for 

U.S.-PRC Trade Relations and U.S. Security Interests: A Report and Selected Annexes Prepared for the 

U.S.-China Security Review Commission by the Law Offices of Stewart and Stewart, Transnational 

Publishers (2002).

The Boot Is On The Other Foot – China Discovers the Virtues of Intellectual Property, The Economist, 

May 30, 2006. 

The Economic Impact of Counterfeiting, OECD, 1998.

The Legislation Protecting Intellectual Property Rights and its Enforcement in the European Union and 

the People’s Republic of China: A Comparative Study, EU-China Trade Project, December 2005. 

The Negative Consequences of International Intellectual Property Theft: Economic Harm, Threats to 

Public Health and Safety, and Links to Organized Crime and Terrorist Organizations, International 

AntiCounterfeiting Coalition, January 2005. 

The Reports from SPC & SPP: Strengthen the Judicial Protection of IPR in China, April 6, 2007, 

available at http://english.ipr.gov.cn/ipr/en/info/Article.jsp?a_no=67282&col_no=934&dir=200704.

The World Factbook, Central Intelligence Agency, last updated March 15, 2007, available at

https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/index.html. 

Third Annual BSA and IDC Global Software Piracy Study, BSA and IDC, May 2006. 

Thomas Mulier and Hugo Miller, China, Russia Make Most Counterfeit Goods, Group Says (Update 1), 

Bloomberg.com, January 29, 2007, available at http://www.thetruecosts.org/portal/truecosts/news/default

(Weekly Clip Report January 26-29). 

Thomas Snyder, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, “Protecting and Enforcing Your Intellectual Property 

in China,” Presentation at Conference on Intellectual Property in the Global Marketplace (July 18, 2006). 

Tim Browning, Office of Enforcement, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, “Protecting and Enforcing 

Your Intellectual Property in China,” Presentation to Conference on Intellectual Property in the Global 

Marketplace (July 18, 2006). 
THE CRISIS IN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PROTECTION AND CHINA’S ROLE IN THAT CRISIS

Trade Lawyers Advisory Group 

May 2007 

SOURCES - 17

To Explore New Progress in International Cooperation, State Intellectual Property Office (SIPO), 

October 9, 2006, available at http://www.sipo.gov.cn/sipo_English/specialtopic/200610/t20061009_112223.htm. 

Tom Nash, Counterfeit Parts: A Poor Fit For Your Shop, Motor Magazine, January 2004. 

Tom Pengelly, Technical Assistance for the Formulation and Implementation of Intellectual Property 

Policy in Developing Countries and Transition Economies, International Centre for Trade and Sustainable 

Development, Issue Paper 11(2005). 

Top 100 Brands 2006, BusinessWeek Online, available at http://bwnt.businessweek.com/brand/2006/. 

Trade Policy Review: China, Report by the Secretariat, WT/TPR/S161 (28 February 2006). 

Trade With China, Hearing Before the Trade Subcommittee of the House Ways and Means Committee, 

110th Cong., 1st Sess. (February 15, 2007) (Testimony of the Honorable Patricia S. Schroeder, President 

and Chief Executive Officer, Association of American Publishers, Inc.). 

Trademark Law of the People’s Republic of China (Adopted at the 24th Session of the Standing 

Committee of the Fifth National People’s Congress on August 23, 1982), available at 

www.chinatoday.com/law/a02.htm. 

Transitional Review Mechanism of China - Communication from China, IP/C/W/382 (16 September 2002). 

Transitional Review Mechanism of China- Communication from China, IP/C/W/460 (11 November 2005). 

Transitional Review Mechanism of China - Communication from China, IP/C/W/384 (11 October 2002). 

Transitional Review Under Section 18 of the Protocol on the Accession of The People’s Republic of 

China, World Trade Organization (WTO), IP/C/43 (November 21, 2006). 

Transitional Review Under Section 18 Of The Protocol On The Accession Of The People's Republic Of 

China: Report to the General Council by the Chair, World Trade Organization (WTO), IP/C/39 

(November 21, 2005). 

Types of Piracy in Overseas Markets – Problems Faced by the Publishing Industry, Association of 

American Publishers, available at www.publishers.org/antipiracy/article.cfm?AntiPiracyArticleID=2. 

U.S. Chamber of Commerce and American Chamber of Commerce China Joint Submission in Support of 

USTR Special Provincial Review of IPR Protection in China, July 14, 2006. 

U.S. Chamber of Commerce and American Chamber of Commerce-China and American Chamber of 

Commerce-Shanghai, Joint Submission of Comments on the Draft Third Amendment to the Patent Laws 

of China Date July 31, 2006 (September 12, 2006). 

U.S. Chamber of Commerce and American Chamber of Commerce-China and American Chamber of 

Commerce-Shanghai, Joint Submission of Comments on the Draft (Third) Amendment to the Patent Laws 

of China (March 12, 2007). 

U.S. Chamber of Commerce Report: China’s WTO Implementation and Other Issues of Importance to 

American Business in the U.S.-China Commercial Relationship, U.S. Chamber China WTO 

Implementation Working Group, Publication # 0497, September 2006, available at www.uschamber.com/

publications/reports/050913_china.htm. 
THE CRISIS IN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PROTECTION AND CHINA’S ROLE IN THAT CRISIS

Trade Lawyers Advisory Group 

May 2007 

SOURCES - 18

United States v. Steele, 785 F.2d 743 (9th Cir. 1986). 

U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission, Hearing on Intellectual Property Rights Issues 

and Counterfeit Goods, testimony of Daniel C. K. Chow, June 8, 2006. 

UL Warns of Counterfeit Fire Extinguishers, Underwriters Laboratories, February 14, 2007, available at

www.ul.com/newsroom/newsrel/nr021407.html. 

UL Warns of Liquefied Petroleum Gas and Natural Gas Hoses with Unauthorized UL Marks, 

Underwriters Laboratories, February 9, 2007, available at www.ul.com/newsroom/newsrel/nr020907.html. 

UL’s Anti-Counterfeiting Program, Underwriters Laboratories Inc., available at www.ul.com/ace/program.html. 

Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes, April 15, 1994, Marrakesh 

Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization, Annex 2. 

Underwriters Laboratories Issues Warning Over Counterfeit Sprinklers, Fire Engineering, January 26, 

2007, available at http://www.thetruecosts.org/portal/truecosts/news/default (Weekly Clip Report January 26-29). 

Underwriters Laboratories, Inc., at www.ul.com (accessed January 12, 2007). 

United States and European Union Launch Action Strategy for the Enforcement of Intellectual Property 

Rights, U.S. Secretary of Commerce Carlos Gutierrez, press release, June 20, 2006, available at

http://www.commerce.gov/opa/press/Secretary_Gutierrez/2006_Releases/June/20_US-EU_IPR_Strategy_rls.htm. 

United States Files WTO Cases Against China Over Deficiencies in China’s Intellectual Property Rights 

Laws and Market Access Barriers to Copyright-Based Industries, USTR Press Release, April 9, 2007, 

available at www.ustr.gov/Document_Library/Press_Releases/2007/April/Section_Index.html. 

United States-China Economic Relations and China’s Role in the World Economy, Hearing Before the 

House Ways and Means Committee, 109th Congress, 1st Sess., April 14, 2005 (Statement for the Record 

by National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA)). 

US Move to File Trade Cases Against China ‘not wise’, State Intellectual Property Office (SIPO), April 

13, 2007, available at http://www.sipo.gov.cn/sipo_English/gfxx/default.htm. 

USTR Pursues WTO Process to Probe IPR Enforcement in China, USTR Press Release, October 26, 

2005, available at www.ustr.gov. 

What are Counterfeiting and Piracy Costing the American Economy, National Chamber Foundation, 2005. 

White Paper 2006, The American Chamber of Commerce – The People’s Republic of China, 2006. 

White Paper on China’s Intellectual Property Rights in 2005, State Intellectual Property Office (SIPO), 

available at http://www.sipo.gov.cn/sipo_English/ndbg/bps/200605/t20060509_99488.htm 

White Paper on IPR Protection, Embassy of the People’s Republic of China, April 21, 2005, available at

http://www.china-embassy.org/eng/xw/t192663.htm. 

Who Piracy Hurts: Economies, Motion Picture Association of America, available at www.mpaa.org/

piracy_Economies.asp. 
THE CRISIS IN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PROTECTION AND CHINA’S ROLE IN THAT CRISIS

Trade Lawyers Advisory Group 

May 2007 

SOURCES - 19

Wider Net for IPR Pirates, Xinhua, April 6, 2007, available at http://english.ipr.gov.cn/ipr/en/info/

Article.jsp?a_no=67243&col_no=925&dir=200704. 

William New, Piracy, Innovation Top Developed-Country Industry Priority List, Intellectual Property 

Watch, January 26, 2007, available at www.ip-watch.com. 

William P. Alford, To Steal a Book is an Elegant Offense: Intellectual Property Law in Chinese 

Civilization, Stanford California: Stanford University Press, 1995. 

Willy Stern, Warning!, Business Week, June 10, 1996, available at www.businessweek.com/1996/

24/b34791.htm. 

WIPO Notification No. 110, Convention Establishing the World Intellectual Property Organization, 

Accession by the People’s Republic of China (March 4, 1980) (effective June 3, 1980), available at 

http://www.wipo.int/edocs/notdocs/en/convention/treaty_convention_110.html. 

Wiring Accessories – Top tips to avoid counterfeits, ASTA BEAB Certification Services, February 24, 

2007, available at www.beab.co.uk/live/NewsRel3.asp. 

World Health Organization Fact Sheet No. 275: Substandard and Counterfeit Medicines, World Health 

Organization, November 2003. 

World Health Organization Revised Fact Sheet No. 275: Counterfeit Medicines, November 14, 2006. 

Worldwide Release Info, available at http://spiderman3.sonypictures.com/international/ and http://www.imdb.

com/title/tt0413300/releaseinfo. 

Written Comments of American Forest and Paper Association Regarding USTR’s 2007 National Trade 

Estimate, November 8, 2006. 

Written Comments of BSA Regarding USTR’s Special Provincial Review of IPR Protection in China, 

Business Software Alliance, June 30, 2006. 

Written Comments of California Table Grape Commission Regarding USTR’s 2007 National Trade 

Estimate, November 8, 2006. 

Written Comments of National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) Regarding USTR’s 2007 National 

Trade Estimate, November 1, 2006. 

Written Comments of Sunkist Growers Regarding USTR’s 2007 National Trade Estimate, November 8, 2006. 

Written Comments of The Air-Conditioning and Refrigeration Institute Regarding USTR’s 2007 National 

Trade Estimate, 2006 

Written Comments of The Society of Plastics Industry, Inc Regarding USTR’s Annual Review of China’s 

WTO Compliance, September 20, 2006. 

Written Comments of The Society of Plastics Industry, Inc Regarding USTR’s 2007 National Trade 

Estimate, November 8, 2006. 
THE CRISIS IN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PROTECTION AND CHINA’S ROLE IN THAT CRISIS

Trade Lawyers Advisory Group 

May 2007 

SOURCES - 20

Written Comments Regarding Special Provincial Review of IPR Protection in China, Business Software 

Alliance, June 30, 2006. 

Written Comments to USTR Regarding China’s WTO Compliance, International Intellectual Property 

Alliance, September 21, 2006. 

WTO Case Challenging Market Access Restrictions in China on Products of Copyright-Intensive 

Industries, United States Trade Representative, April 2007, at www.ustr.gov/Document_Library/Fact

_Sheets/2007/Section_Index.html. 

Wu Yi: China Will Continue to Enforce IPR Protection, State Intellectual Property Office (SIPO), 

December 25, 2006, available at http://www.sipo.gov.cn/sipo_English/default.htm. 

Zheng, C., The World Trade Organization and TRIPS, Publishing House of the People’s University of 

China, Beijing (1996).
APPENDICES 
INDEX OF APPENDICES

NO. DESCRIPTION

1. Data Regarding the Extent of IP Theft 

- Table 1: U.S. Imports from China, 1996-2006 

- Table 2: Japanese Counterfeit Goods Seizure Statistics Summary 

- Table 3: U.S. Counterfeit Goods Seizure Statistics Summary 

- Table 4: E.U. Counterfeit Goods Seizure Statistics Summary 

- Table 5: U.S. Customs and Border Protection Graph Comparing Yearly IPR 

Seizures, 2002-2006 

2. U.S. – China Trade Flow Statistics, generated by Charles W. McMillion, Ph.D. of 

Trade Lawyers Advisory Group Associate Member MBG Information Services

3. Chinese Laws and Judicial Interpretations 

- List of Chinese laws and treaties discussed in report and information 

regarding where such laws may be accessed 

- Table 1: Current Chinese IPR Laws With Dates Promulgated/Adopted, Date 

of Effect, and Amendments 

- 1982 Trademark Law of the People’s Republic of China (Adopted at the 24th

Session of the Standing Committee of the Fifth National People’s Congress 

on August 23, 1982) (in Chinese) 

- 1984 Patent Law of the People’s Republic of China (entered into force April 

1, 1985) (in Chinese) 

- 1990 Copyright Law of the People’s Republic of China (adopted at the 

Fifteenth Session of the Standing Committee of the Seventh National 

People’s Congress on September 7, 1990) (in Chinese) 

- Excerpts of the Criminal Law of the People’s Republic of China 

- Judicial Interpretations by the Supreme People’s Court and the Supreme 

People’s Procuratorate on Several Issues of Concrete Application of Laws in 

Handling Criminal Cases of Infringing Intellectual Property (December 21, 

2004) 

- Judicial Interpretations by the Supreme People’s Court and the Supreme 

People’s Procuratorate on Several Issues of Concrete Application of Laws in 

Handling Criminal Cases of Infringing Intellectual Property II (April 5, 2007) 

(In Chinese) 

4. Amendments to Chinese IPR Laws (1982-2001) 

- Table 1: Amendments to the Enforcement Provisions in China’s Copyright 

Law (1990-2001) 

- Table 2: Amendments to the Enforcement Provisions in China’s Trademark 

Law (1982-2001) 

- Table 3: Amendments to the Enforcement Provisions in China’s Patent Law 

(1984-2000) 
5. China’s TRIPS Commitments 

6. Criminal Thresholds for IPR Infringement in China 

- Table 1: Chinese Criminal Thresholds for Trademark infringement according 

to Articles 213-214 of the Criminal Law and Judicial Interpretations 

- Table 2: Chinese Criminal Thresholds for Copyright infringement according 

to Articles 217-218 of the Criminal Law and Judicial Interpretations 

- Table 3: Chinese Criminal Thresholds for Patent infringement according to 

Article 216 of the Criminal Law and Judicial Interpretations 

7. Criminal Thresholds for IPR Infringement in Other Countries 

- Table 1: Criminal thresholds for IP infringement in the United States 

- Table 2: Criminal thresholds for IP infringement in Canada 

- Table 3: Criminal thresholds for IP infringement in Australia 

- Table 4: Criminal thresholds for IP infringement in Japan 

8. Patent Applications in China 

- Table 1: Patent Applications in China (1985-2006) 

- Table 2: Patent Applications Granted in China (1985-2006) 

9. Chinese IPR Enforcement Statistics 

10. Foreign Technical Assistance Provided to China 

- Table 1: Project Allocation of U.S. Government Trade Capacity Building 

(TCB) Assistance for TRIPS in China 

- Table 2: Intellectual Property Rights Training Program Database: Technical 

Assistance Projects Provided to China in 2006 

- Table 3: European Union: Intellectual Property Technical Assistance 

Provided to China in 2004-2006 

- Table 4: Japan: Intellectual Property Technical Assistance Provided to China 

- Table 5: Ha Noi Action Plan Digital Economy and IPR Schedule of Activities 

11. Mr. Jiuhan Zhang, Vice Governor of Jiangsu Province, speech at the Global 

Forum on Intellectual Property Rights Protection and Innovation, March 28, 2007 

(in Chinese)

12. WTO Requests for Consultations 

- China – Measures Affecting Trading Rights and Distribution Services for 

Certain Publications and Audiovisual Entertainment Products, Request for 

Consultations by the United States, WT/D363/1, G/L/820, S/L/287 (16 April 

2007) 

- China – Measures Affecting the Protection and Enforcement of Intellectual 

Property Rights, Request for Consultations by the United States, WT/D362/1, 

IP/D/26, G/L/819 (16 April 2007) 

13. The Global Publication of U.S. Patent Applications & Select Patent Reform 

Proposals, an analysis by Pat Choate of Trade Lawyers Advisory Group Associate 

Member The Manufacturing Policy 
APPENDIX 

1 
Appendix 1, Table 1

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 20

All Countries 322,594,497 413,564,652 463,636,021 530,175,784 650,390,430 486,447,859 513,936,746 521,724,084 608,547,4China 17,713,450 28,391,117 38,407,721 47,886,679 57,654,309 56,010,398 74,843,415 87,844,109 113,417,1China % 5.49% 6.86% 8.28% 9.03% 8.86% 11.51% 14.56% 16.84% 18.6

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 20

All Countries 790,469,714 862,426,346 907,647,006 1,017,435,397 1,205,339,019 1,132,635,340 1,154,810,867 1,250,096,785 1,460,160,4

China 51,209,376 61,995,926 70,815,036 81,522,281 99,580,514 102,069,326 124,795,665 151,620,144 196,159,5China % 6.48% 7.19% 7.80% 8.01% 8.26% 9.01% 10.81% 12.13% 13.4SOURCE: Data retrieved from USITC DataWeb, located at http://dataweb.usitc.gov. Imports for Consumption by First Unit of Quantity, reported in 1,000 unitsImports for Consumption by Customs Value, reported in 1,000 dollars

U.S. Imports from China: 1996-2006
Summary 1: By Exporting Country*

NOTE: Upper rows in the number of seizures and lower rows in pieces**

2002 % of Total 2003 % of Total 2004 % of Total 2005 % of Total 200

552 7.90% 1,630 22.00% 3,358 36.70% 6,278 46.60% 9

534,495 53.80% 395,265 51.20% 434,980 41.90% 448,680 40.90% 452

5,334 76.40% 4,505 60.80% 4,598 50.30% 6,045 44.90% 8

231,149 23.30% 240,393 31.20% 381,371 36.80% 458,143 41.70% 384

140 2.00% 299 4.00% 387 4.20% 365 2.70% 

54,503 5.50% 28,402 3.70% 37,840 3.60% 40,974 3.70% 33

476 6.80% 625 8.40% 423 4.60% 369 2.70% 

77,587 7.80% 58,997 7.60% 142,414 13.70% 91,223 8.30% 68

242 3.50% 199 2.70% 220 2.40% 272 2.00% 

33,825 3.40% 9,823 1.30% 13,939 1.30% 25,633 2.30% 27

23 0.30% 25 0.30% 30 0.30% 38 0.30% 

1,695 0.20% 1,009 0.10% 3,702 0.40% 2,057 0.20% 2

13 0.20% 24 0.30% 15 0.20% 15 0.10% 

4,190 0.40% 1,780 0.20% 1,316 0.10% 616 0.10% 5

1 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 2 0.00% 

200 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 14 0.00% 

40 0.60% 31 0.40% 33 0.40% 21 0.20% 

19,254 1.90% 15,871 2.10% 5,846 0.60% 3,380 0.30% 

5 0.10% 8 0.10% 26 0.30% 8 0.10% 

235 0.00% 129 0.00% 487 0.00% 446 0.00% 152 0.60% 66 0.90% 53 0.60% 54 0.40% 

35,775 1.80% 19,637 2.50% 15,102 1.50% 26,234 2.40% 3

6,978 100.00% 7,412 100.00% 9,143 100.00% 13,467 100.00% 19

992,908 100.00% 771,306 100.00% 1,036,997 100.00% 1,097,400 100.00% 979

* This table has been compiled according to exporting country, not necessarily by the country of origin.** Number of seizures and pieces reported are based on the number of import applications and international postal mails reported.SOURCE: Japan Customs

South Korea

Appendix 1, Table 2

China

Malaysia

Other Countries

Intellectual Property Violation Seizure Report

JAPAN

U.S.A.

Vietnam

Turkey

Taiwan

Philippines

Hong Kong

Thailand

Total
Summary 2: By Type of Intellectual Property*

Note: Upper rows in the number of seizures and lower rows in pieces**

2002 % of total 2003 % of total 2004 % of total 2005 % of total 2006 

7 0.10% 1 0.00% 80 0.90% 66 0.50% 2

39,200 3.90% 550 0.10% 107,600 10.40% 46,906 4.30% 67,21

0 0.00% 1 0.00% 1 0.00% 2 0.00% 0 0.00% 960 0.10% 400 0.00% 5,304 0.50% 4,89

13 0.20% 12 0.20% 39 0.40% 42 0.30% 5

41,693 4.10% 42,641 5.50% 62,794 6.10% 107,294 9.80% 58,97

6,859 98.20% 7,332 98.70% 8,922 97.40% 13,228 97.90% 19,36

611,100 60.50% 591,061 76.60% 690,749 66.60% 816,845 74.40% 784,59

108 1.50% 80 1.10% 119 1.30% 174 1.30% 19

318,751 31.50% 136,094 17.60% 174,594 16.80% 120,991 11.00% 63,54

0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 1 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 60 0.00% 

- - 0 0.00% 1 0.00% 0 0.00% - - 0 0.00% 860 0.10% 0 0.00% 

6,978 100.00% 7,412 100.00% 9,143 100.00% 13,467 100.00% 19,59

992,908 100.00% 771,306 100.00% 1,036,997 100.00% 1,097,400 100.00% 979,22

* Number of seizures and total quantities may not reconcile because some IP violations violate multiple IP rights.** Number of seizures and pieces reported are based on the number of import applications and international postal mails reported.SOURCE: Japan Customs

Appendix 1, Table 2

Intellectual Property Violation Seizure Report

JAPAN

Copyrights

Copyright-Related 

Rights

Plant Variety Protection 

Total

Patents

Utility Models

Designs

Trademarks
Summary 3: By Product Category*

Note: Upper rows in the number of seizures and lower rows in pieces**

2002 % of total 2003 % of total 2004 % of total 2005 % of total 2006 

5,547 56.10% 5,420 52.50% 6,420 50.20% 10,158 53.50% 15,3

161,213 16.20% 142,417 18.50% 164,939 15.90% 253,327 23.10% 283,2

902 9.10% 771 7.50% 1,104 8.60% 2,036 10.70% 3,2

12,843 1.30% 20,301 2.60% 63,191 6.10% 34,265 3.10% 49,4

774 7.80% 1,006 9.70% 1,122 8.80% 1,615 8.50% 2,

218,840 22.00% 259,759 33.70% 211,094 20.40% 176,862 16.10% 171,6

493 5.00% 796 7.70% 1,252 9.80% 1,108 5.80% 1,4

54,509 5.50% 29,918 3.90% 52,752 5.10% 34,344 3.10% 23,0

321 3.20% 443 4.30% 357 2.80% 475 2.50% 9

3,855 0.40% 11,054 1.40% 29,210 2.80% 25,953 2.40% 23,4

145 1.50% 250 2.40% 272 2.10% 503 2.60% 7

1,015 0.10% 1,859 0.20% 4,626 0.40% 6,691 0.60% 5,5

427 4.30% 342 3.30% 442 3.50% 472 2.50% 5

47,855 4.80% 30,607 4.00% 104,616 10.10% 77,702 7.10% 28,6

353 3.60% 241 2.30% 350 2.70% 442 2.30% 5

3,052 0.30% 2,048 0.30% 4,180 0.40% 6,131 0.60% 7,6

297 3.00% 254 2.50% 292 2.30% 351 1.80% 4

1,898 0.20% 3,675 0.50% 4,030 0.40% 6,282 0.60% 5,6

153 1.50% 158 1.50% 229 1.80% 381 2.00% 3

36,613 3.70% 15,485 2.00% 26,568 2.60% 50,861 4.60% 46,8

477 4.80% 643 6.20% 959 7.50% 1,446 7.60% 1,3

451,215 45.40% 254,183 33.00% 371,791 35.90% 424,982 38.70% 333,9

6,978 100.00% 7,412 100.00% 9,143 100.00% 13,467 100.00% 19,5

992,908 100.00% 771,306 100.00% 1,036,997 100.00% 1,097,400 100.00% 979,2

* Number of seizures and total quantities may not reconcile because some IP violations violate multiple IP rights.** Number of seizures and pieces reported are based on the number of import applications and international postal mails reported.

SOURCE: Japan Customs

Appendix 1, Table 2

Intellectual Property Violation Seizure Report

JAPAN

Stationeries

Bags

Key Holders/Cases

Clothing

Watches

Personal Accessories

Others

Total

Shoes

Belts

Cell Phones and 

Attachments

Cigarettes and Smoking 

Accessories
Summary 1: By Export Country

Value Percent Value Percent Value Percent Value Percent Value Percent 

China $26,471,834 46.0% $48,622,997 49.0% $62,468,018 66.0% $87,274,373 63.0% $63,968,416 69.0% $

Hong Kong $5,810,311 10.0% $3,959,258 4.0% $8,236,507 9.0% $7,019,670 5.0% $5,799,112 6.0% 

India $1,966,638 2.0% 

Indonesia $1,361,101 1.0% 

Italy $1,268,188 1.0%

Korea $2,845,538 5.0% $1,825,265 2.0% $3,219,268 3.0% $1,960,980 1.0% $1,418,060 2.0% 

Malaysia $721,979 <1.0% $1,331,925 1.0% 

Mexico $1,966,929 2.0% $1,018,107 <1.0% 

Pakistan $922,767 2.0% $2,362,130 2.0% $2,010,465 2.0% $1,753,154 2.0% 

Philippines $1,224,058 1.0% $1,352,021 1.0%

Russia $7,304,746 5.0% $1,377,835 1.0%

Singapore $2,751,582 5.0% 

South Africa $4,444,218 3.0%

Switzerland $1,274,645 1.0% $676,197 <1.0%

Taiwan $2,161,387 4.0% $26,507,356 27.0% $1,091,873 1.0% 

United Arab Emirates $1,240,790 2.0% $2,118,409 2.0% 

Vietnam $2,599,561 2.0% $780,644 1.0%

Others $15,234,471 26.0% $12,355,610 12.0% $12,885,860 14.0% $25,794,209 18.0% $11,692,181 13.0% 

TOTAL $57,438,680 $98,990,341 $94,019,227 $138,767,885 $93,234,510 $

SOURCE: Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Customs and Border Protection and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement

Appendix 1, Table 3

2001 2002 2003 

2004 2005

Intellectual Property Violation Seizure Report

UNITED STATES
Summary 2: By Product Category

2001 % of total 2002 % of total 2003 % of total 2004 % of total 2005 % of total 

Wearing Apparel $7,833,431 14.0% $9,294,975 9.0% $13,888,823 15.0% $51,736,651 37.0% $16,099,540 17.0% 

Footwear $3,085,028 5.0% NR NR $2,555,386 3.0% $2,048,523 1.0% $8,941,185 10.0% 

Handbags, Wallets, Backpacks $3,164,444 6.0% $2,927,194 3.0% $11,458,259 12.0% $23,189,817 17.0% $14,954,525 16.0% 

Computers, Hardware $4,074,756 7.0% NR NR NR NR $1,683,811 1.0% $4,798,852 5.0% Consumer Electronics NR NR $5,307,407 5.0% $3,779,736 4.0% $8,880,113 6.0% $8,793,700 9.0% 

Media $7,324,064 13.0% $28,396,287 29.0% $7,357,876 8.0% $5,050,269 4.0% NR NR 

Headwear NR NR $1,043,252 1.0% $1,286,198 1.0% NR NR NR NR 

Health Care NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR 

Watches and Parts $5,631,528 10.0% $3,919,331 4.0% $3,384,025 4.0% $2,543,387 2.0% $3,070,832 3.0% 

Pharmaceuticals NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR $2,094,352 2.0% 

Cigarettes $4,549,842 8.0% $37,579,894 38.0% $41,720,129 44.0% $24,161,416 17.0% $9,648,876 10.0% 

Perfumes NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR $2,713,695 3.0% 

Toys and Electronic Games $4,355,268 8.0% $2,150,847 2.0% $1,510,839 2.0% $3,971,321 3.0% $8,568,925 9.0% 

Other $17,420,319 30.0% $8,371,154 10.0% $7,077,956 7.0% $15,502,577 12.0% $13,550,028 15.0% 

Total $57,438,680 101.0% $98,990,341 101% $94,019,227 100% $138,767,885 100% $93,234,510 99% 

SOURCE: Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Customs and Border Protection and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement

NR = Not Reported (these goods may be included in the 'other' category but were not reported on their own in this year)

Appendix 1, Table 3

NOTE: Reported in domestic value and percentage of total seizures

Intellectual Property Violation Seizure Report

UNITED STATES
Summary 1: By Exporting Country (percentage of registered cases and articles seized)

Cases Articles Cases

Articles Cases

Articles Cases 

Articles Case

Afghanistan 

Algeria 

Canada 

Chile 

China 18.0% 15.0% 18.0% 60.0% 30.0% 54.0% 3

Czech Republic 4.0% 2.0%

Gambia 2.5%

Hong Kong 5.0% 5.0% 6.5% 6.0% 8.0% 3.0% 

India 2.0% 3.5% 

Malaysia 3.0% 5.0% 3.0% 3.0% 

Pakistan 3.0%

Romania 2.0%

Switzerland 

Taiwan 3.0% 2.5% 7.5%

Thailand 23.0% 43.0% 28.0% 20.0% 1

Turkey 8.0% 8.0% 6.0% 7.0% 

United Arab Emirates 2.0% 3.0% 

United States of America 3.0% 2.0% 2.0% 4.0% 

Others 36.0% 22.0% 31.0% 26.5% 26.0% 24.5% 2

TOTAL 100% Not reported 100% Not Reported 100% 100% 100% 100% 

SOURCE: European Commission Taxation and Customs Union

Appendix 1, Table 4

2001 2002 2003

Intellectual Property Violation Seizure Report

EUROPEAN UNION

2004 
Summary 2: Type of Intellectual Property as a Percentage of the Number of Cases

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Patents and Supplementary 

Protection Certificates 3.0% 1.5% 2.0% 5.0% 1.0%

Trademarks 83.0% 80.0% 83.0% 74.0% 79.0%

Designs and Models 5.0% 0.5% 1.5% 2.0% 7.0%

Copyrights and Related 

Rights 9.0% 18.0% 13.5% 14.0% 5.0%

Data Not Communicated 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 5.0% 8.0%

Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

SOURCE: European Commission Taxation and Customs Union

Appendix 1, Table 4

EUROPEAN UNION

Intellectual Property Violation Seizure Report
Summary 3: By Product Category

2001 % of total 2002 % of total 2003 % of total 2004 % of total 2

18 0.4% 13 0.2% 17 0.2% 53 0.0% 

4,106,663 4.3% 841,259 1.0% 1,489,908 1.6% 4,432,161 4.0% 5,

36 0.7% 37 0.5% 116 1.1% 214 1.0% 

26,417 0.0% 112,132 0.1% 1,009,879 1.1% 784,268 1.0% 

2,628 52.0% 4380 58.0% 5,891 55.0% 13,928 63.0% 

4,782,672 5.1% 9,243,074 10.9% 3,876,271 4.2% 7,827,951 8.0% 10,

162 3.2% 283 3.7% 200 1.9% 829 4.0% 

1,026,517 1.1% 1,763,054 2.1% 523,275 0.6% 4,225,202 4.0% 3,

28 0.6% 22 0.3% 43 0.4% 122 1.0% 

103,327 0.1% 47,184 0.1% 79,402 0.1% 793,149 1.0% 

785 15.5% 1388 18.4% 1898 17.7% 2785 12.0% 

39,737,512 42.1% 11,975,237 14.1% 32,616,560 35.4% 18,523,664 18.0% 9,

543 10.7% 572 7.6% 1098 10.3% 2201 10.0% 

746,942 0.8% 424,168 0.5% 674,327 0.7% 491,588 0.0% 

269 5.3% 261 3.5% 497 4.6% 517 2.0% 

1,565,578 1.7% 1,124,756 1.3% 12,333,868 13.4% 18,106,924 17.0% 1,

NR NR 89 1.2% 130 1.2% 316 1.0% NR NR 31,360,411 36.9% 33,244,507 36.0% 41,588,030 40.0% 32,NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR 

587 11.6% 508 6.7% 820 7.7% 1346 6.0% 

42,325,869 44.8% 28,059,765 33.0% 6,370,702 6.9% 6,773,242 7.0% 9,

5,056 100.0% 7,553 100% 10,710 100% 22,311 100% 

94,421,497 100.0% 84,951,040 100% 92,218,699 100% 103,546,179 100% 75,

SOURCE: European Commission Taxation and Customs Union

Appendix 1, Table 4

NOTE: Upper row is number of cases registered and lower number is articles seized

Intellectual Property Violation Seizure Report

EUROPEAN UNION

Foodstuff, Alcoholic and 

Other Drinks

Perfumes and Cosmetics

Clothing and Accessories

Electrical Equipment

Computer Equipment 

(hardware)

CD (audio, games, software), 

DVD, Cassettes

Watches and Jewelry

Toys and Games

NR = Not Reported (these goods may be included in the 'other' category but were not reported on their own in this year)

Cigarettes

Medicines

Other

Total

APPENDIX 

2 
 Counterfeit Concerns -- Change -- --------- Annual US Imports in 

Product HS Code Source 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 '00-'05 '06/'05 Source 2000 2001 2002 2003 

Inkjet cartridges 8443 Total $1,246 $995 $842 $863 $878 $1,030 $1,062 || -17.3% 3.1% || Total $1,707 $1,567 $1,321 $1,359 

China 43 43 28 37 27 47 54 || 9.5% 12.9% || China 4 4 7 13 

All Others 1,202 952 813 826 851 983 1,008 || -18.3% 2.6% || All Others 1,703 1,564 1,313 1,346 

Golf clubs 950631 Total 407 415 325 334 345 355 361 || -12.7% 1.5% || Total 80 87 177 201 

China 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 || -98.6% 54.3% || China 54 67 155 178 

All Others 405 413 323 332 344 355 361 || -12.3% 1.5% || All Others 25 20 22 23 

Windshields 700711 Total 386 310 294 315 286 278 243 || -28.0% -12.7% || Total 182 160 183 178 

China 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 || -70.1% -54.6% || China 2 5 3 4 

All Others 385 310 294 315 286 278 243 || -27.9% -12.7% || All Others 180 155 180 174 

Auto replacement parts: brake pads, ignition coils, sway bars 8708 Total 30,995 28,994 29,030 28,086 30,885 31,532 33,511 || 1.7% 6.3% || Total 27,986 26,411 29,310 32,348 

China 119 150 185 242 403 370 533 || 209.9% 43.9% || China 440 572 770 1,016 

All Others 30,875 28,844 28,845 27,844 30,482 31,162 32,978 || 0.9% 5.8% || All Others 27,546 25,840 28,540 31,332 

Cell phone batteries 850650 Total 120 109 115 145 179 234 280 || 95.0% 19.7% || Total 152 112 125 139 

China 1 4 2 1 1 1 4 || 34.1% 186.2% || China 3 4 7 17 

All Others 119 105 113 144 178 233 276 || 95.6% 18.7% || All Others 149 108 118 122 

Duracell Batteries 8507 Total $932 $896 $773 $723 $746 $859 $1,060 || -7.8% 23.3% || Total 2,122 1,823 1,624 1,516 

China 10 9 7 7 13 15 27 || 43.3% 87.0% || China 252 234 258 311 All Others 922 887 766 716 733 845 1,033 || -8.3% 22.2% || All Others 1,869 1,589 1,366 1,205 

Auto and truck parts 8708 Total 30,995 28,994 29,030 28,086 30,885 31,532 33,511 || 1.7% 6.3% || Total 27,986 26,411 29,310 32,348 

China 119 150 185 242 403 370 533 || 209.9% 43.9% || China 440 572 770 1,016 

All Others 30,875 28,844 28,845 27,844 30,482 31,162 32,978 || 0.9% 5.8% || All Others 27,546 25,840 28,540 31,332 

Personal care products 33 Total 3,971 4,383 4,426 4,933 5,536 6,054 6,718 || 52.4% 11.0% || Total 2,750 2,945 3,268 4,642 

China 34 38 52 69 84 117 146 || 246.2% 24.2% || China 120 170 217 234 

All Others 3,937 4,346 4,374 4,864 5,452 5,936 6,572 || 50.8% 10.7% || All Others 2,631 2,775 3,051 4,408 

Aircraft parts 880330 Total 12,962 13,529 11,993 12,290 13,393 15,164 18,170 || 17.0% 19.8% || Total 4,639 5,194 4,156 3,770 

China 208 258 253 270 311 517 722 || 148.8% 39.7% || China 32 57 53 61 

All Others 12,754 13,271 11,740 12,020 13,082 14,647 17,447 || 14.8% 19.1% || All Others 4,606 5,137 4,103 3,709 

Testing equipment 9024 Total 646 585 501 573 572 587 669 || -9.1% 13.9% || Total 109 84 86 96 

China 29 40 52 75 84 87 99 || 199.4% 14.3% || China 1 1 1 1 

All Others 617 545 449 498 488 501 570 || -18.8% 13.9% || All Others 109 83 85 95 

Electrical control equipment 8532 Total 3,467 1,890 1,706 1,696 1,813 1,452 1,736 || -58.1% 19.5% || Total 3,173 1,608 1,375 1,292 

China 38 30 14 28 75 104 162 || 169.6% 56.6% || China 37 32 34 42 All Others 3,429 1,860 1,691 1,668 1,738 1,349 1,574 || -60.7% 16.7% || All Others 3,137 1,576 1,341 1,250 

Commercial door fixtures 730830 Total $126 $123 $115 $109 $121 $148 $181 || 17.0% 22.4% || Total 232 240 258 285 

China 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 || -45.9% -1.3% || China 6 8 11 15 All Others 124 121 113 108 120 147 180 || 18.0% 22.6% || All Others 226 232 247 270 

Computer Software 852491 Total 773 531 388 356 354 385 455 || -50.2% 18.2% || Total 184 122 108 87 

China 15 7 8 19 18 19 31 || 28.7% 65.5% || China 2 2 2 4 

All Others 758 524 379 337 335 366 423 || -51.8% 15.7% || All Others 182 121 106 84 

--------- Annual US Exports in $ Millions ---------

U.S. Exports and Imports of Products Known to be Affected by IP Theft: 2000-2006

Appendix 2 
 Counterfeit Concerns -- Change -- --------- Annual US Imports in 

Product HS Code Source 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 '00-'05 '06/'05 Source 2000 2001 2002 2003 

--------- Annual US Exports in $ Millions ---------

U.S. Exports and Imports of Products Known to be Affected by IP Theft: 2000-2006

Entertainment Software (including videogame DCs and cartridges, personal computer CD-ROMs and multimedia products) 950410 Total 380 467 485 604 551 715 1,219 || 88.0% 70.5% || Total 2,073 3,417 3,717 2,429 

China 0 0 0 1 2 1 1 || 65.7% 35.1% || China 336 398 1,571 2,108 

All Others 380 466 485 604 549 714 1,218 || 88.0% 70.5% || All Others 1,737 3,019 2,145 321 

Records 852410 Total 65 63 46 47 41 29 28 || -55.8% -3.9% || Total 17 13 9 8 

China 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 || 320.7% 6.0% || China 0 0 0 0 All Others 65 62 46 47 41 28 27 || -57.0% -4.2% || All Others 17 13 9 8 

Laser Disks 852432 Total 165 180 188 209 209 252 237 || 53.3% -6.1% || Total 300 280 264 253 

China 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 || -90.5% -37.4% || China 5 6 5 5 All Others 163 180 187 208 208 252 237 || 54.6% -6.1% || All Others 294 274 259 248 

MAGN TPE,N SOUND/IM 852440 Total $118 $80 $49 $43 $50 $18 $18 || -84.5% -0.4% || Total 19 12 13 5 

China 1 2 1 1 3 0 1 || -56.5% 96.7% || China 0 0 0 0 

All Others 117 78 48 42 48 18 17 || -84.8% -2.8% || All Others 19 12 13 5 

MGN TPE,SND/IM=<4MM 852451 Total 46 37 25 32 26 20 15 || -56.9% -23.3% || Total 27 19 14 8 

China 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 || -94.0% -43.7% || China 2 3 2 1 

All Others 46 36 25 32 26 20 15 || -56.3% -23.2% || All Others 25 17 12 6 

MG TPE,S/I>4=<6.5MM 852452 Total 77 48 34 31 30 16 15 || -79.8% -5.4% || Total 13 18 10 6 

China 4 2 2 1 0 0 0 || -95.5% -55.6% || China 0 0 0 1 

All Others 73 47 32 31 29 15 15 || -78.9% -4.8% || All Others 13 18 10 6 

MG TPE,SND/IM>6.5MM 852453 Total 88 82 68 47 32 23 14 || -74.3% -38.2% || Total 75 82 95 58 

China 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 || -98.8% -63.0% || China 5 5 8 9 

All Others 86 82 67 47 32 23 14 || -73.8% -38.2% || All Others 69 76 87 49 

Textbooks, tradebooks, reference & prof'onal publications/journals 490199 Total 1,956 1,792 1,772 1,789 1,839 2,000 2,092 || 2.2% 4.6% || Total 1,570 1,626 1,647 1,726 

China 12 12 12 18 19 17 26 || 41.0% 54.9% || China 219 266 335 409 

All Others 1,944 1,780 1,760 1,771 1,820 1,983 2,066 || 2.0% 4.2% || All Others 1,352 1,360 1,312 1,317 

Table grapes (Chinese copy US packaging/sell as US goods) 80610 Total $455 $475 $494 $516 $595 $696 $664 || 53.0% -4.5% || Total 552 571 680 680 

China 11 9 8 6 21 47 35 || 323.0% -24.1% || China 0 0 0 0 All Others 444 467 486 510 574 649 629 || 46.3% -3.1% || All Others 552 571 680 680 

Fresh fruit 08 Total 3,980 4,050 4,242 4,764 5,386 6,413 6,839 || 61.1% 6.6% || Total 3,919 3,891 4,229 4,590 

China 31 39 47 51 72 138 132 || 346.6% -4.4% || China 25 32 51 62 

All Others 3,949 4,011 4,195 4,714 5,314 6,275 6,707 || 58.9% 6.9% || All Others 3,894 3,859 4,178 4,528 

Appendix 2 
 Counterfeit Concerns -- Change -- --------- Annual US Imports in 

Product HS Code Source 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 '00-'05 '06/'05 Source 2000 2001 2002 2003 

--------- Annual US Exports in $ Millions ---------

U.S. Exports and Imports of Products Known to be Affected by IP Theft: 2000-2006

Beverages 22 Total 1,707 1,792 1,767 2,003 2,265 2,305 2,697 || 35.1% 17.0% || Total 8,339 8,731 9,701 10,948 

China 3 5 7 6 9 10 18 || 277.1% 75.2% || China 16 23 29 24 

All Others 1,704 1,787 1,759 1,996 2,256 2,295 2,679 || 34.7% 16.7% || All Others 8,323 8,708 9,672 10,924 

Structural wood-based panels 441292 Total 2 3 1 1 1 1 1 || -33.0% -45.5% || Total 2 4 7 7 

China 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 || -41.2% -96.4% || China 0 0 0 0 All Others 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 || -31.9% -39.1% || All Others 2 4 7 7 

Structural wood-based panels 441820 Total 98 86 89 103 120 111 117 || 14.0% 5.2% || Total 416 460 508 523 

China 0 0 1 2 2 0 1 || 89.5% 159.2% || China 2 3 8 13 

All Others 97 85 88 101 118 111 116 || 13.8% 4.5% || All Others 414 457 501 510 

Agricultural chemical products, including glyphosate (Roundup) 38083019 Total $780 $835 $791 $646 $779 $840 $983 || 7.7% 17.0% || Total 211 268 236 305 

China 1 9 9 6 7 22 15 || 1790.5% -29.8% || China 0 0 17 48 All Others 779 826 782 640 772 818 968 || 5.1% 18.3% || All Others 211 267 219 256 

ETHYLENE,PRIMARY FORM 3901 Total 2,698 2,391 2,605 2,844 3,762 4,534 5,195 || 68.0% 14.6% || Total 1,654 1,740 1,656 2,157 

China 139 113 116 114 243 358 396 || 156.9% 10.8% || China 1 2 2 2 

All Others 2,559 2,279 2,489 2,730 3,519 4,176 4,799 || 63.2% 14.9% || All Others 1,653 1,737 1,654 2,155 

OTHR OLEFIN PRIMARY F 3902 Total 1,360 1,311 1,414 1,668 2,073 2,544 3,023 || 87.1% 18.8% || Total 310 272 318 363 

China 56 110 101 151 196 237 296 || 323.9% 25.2% || China 0 0 1 0 

All Others 1,304 1,201 1,313 1,517 1,876 2,307 2,727 || 77.0% 18.2% || All Others 310 272 318 363 

STYRENE,PRIMARY FORMS 3903 Total 867 757 785 861 1,033 1,159 1,353 || 33.6% 16.8% || Total 575 584 587 633 

China 13 8 15 20 34 46 69 || 251.7% 50.7% || China 1 1 2 5 

All Others 854 749 770 841 999 1,113 1,284 || 30.3% 15.4% || All Others 574 582 585 628 

VINYL CHLORIDE,ETC 3904 Total 1,020 1,075 1,079 1,170 1,430 1,503 1,734 || 47.3% 15.4% || Total 694 614 483 534 

China 66 118 120 116 136 136 142 || 107.1% 4.3% || China 1 3 3 3 

All Others 954 957 958 1,053 1,295 1,366 1,592 || 43.2% 16.5% || All Others 693 612 479 531 

VINYL ACETATE;O VINYL 3905 Total $474 $431 $501 $536 $613 $636 $639 || 34.4% 0.5% || Total 167 170 150 145 

China 2 3 13 12 11 12 14 || 381.2% 20.5% || China 11 10 8 4 

All Others 471 428 487 524 601 624 625 || 32.6% 0.1% || All Others 156 160 143 141 

ACRYLIC POLYMERS 3906 Total 798 817 860 846 1,038 1,253 1,358 || 57.1% 8.3% || Total 307 298 333 384 

China 20 15 23 25 36 39 56 || 100.3% 42.1% || China 0 0 0 1 

All Others 778 802 837 821 1,002 1,214 1,302 || 56.0% 7.2% || All Others 306 298 333 383 

POLYETHER,EXPOXIDE,ET 3907 Total 3,050 2,945 2,875 3,099 3,700 4,246 4,775 || 39.2% 12.5% || Total 1,141 1,048 1,119 1,327 

China 137 132 173 223 313 393 423 || 186.5% 7.6% || China 2 1 1 2 

All Others 2,913 2,813 2,702 2,876 3,387 3,853 4,352 || 32.3% 13.0% || All Others 1,140 1,047 1,118 1,325 

POLYAMIDES 3908 Total 734 615 681 749 985 1,130 1,351 || 54.1% 19.5% || Total 297 295 355 361 

China 21 22 32 44 74 88 136 || 321.2% 55.5% || China 0 0 1 1 

All Others 713 593 649 706 912 1,043 1,215 || 46.3% 16.5% || All Others 296 295 355 359 

Appendix 2 
 Counterfeit Concerns -- Change -- --------- Annual US Imports in 

Product HS Code Source 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 '00-'05 '06/'05 Source 2000 2001 2002 2003 

--------- Annual US Exports in $ Millions ---------

U.S. Exports and Imports of Products Known to be Affected by IP Theft: 2000-2006

AMINO-RESIN,PRIM F;OT 3909 Total 729 672 769 910 1,055 1,410 1,474 || 93.4% 4.5% || Total 257 241 284 304 

China 24 25 42 109 124 180 189 || 651.2% 4.9% || China 0 0 1 1 

All Others 705 647 728 801 931 1,230 1,285 || 74.5% 4.5% || All Others 257 241 283 303 

SILICONE,PRIMARY FORM 3910 Total $490 $444 $538 $578 $650 $738 $895 || 50.8% 21.3% || Total 219 196 211 222 

China 13 13 17 28 39 65 98 || 403.0% 50.0% || China 0 1 2 1 

All Others 477 431 521 551 611 673 797 || 41.2% 18.5% || All Others 219 194 210 221 

PETRO RESIN,PRIM F;OT 3911 Total 549 546 551 535 667 695 749 || 26.7% 7.7% || Total 157 156 146 154 

China 14 15 15 16 20 37 30 || 174.7% -20.5% || China 0 1 2 1 All Others 535 531 535 518 647 658 719 || 22.9% 9.3% || All Others 157 155 144 152 

CELLULOSE,OT CHEM DER 3912 Total 579 622 657 714 846 879 953 || 51.9% 8.4% || Total 217 206 226 254 

China 6 5 7 15 28 96 114 || 1630.9% 18.8% || China 0 1 3 5 

All Others 573 618 650 700 819 783 839 || 36.6% 7.2% || All Others 216 205 224 249 

OT NATURAL PRIME FORM 3913 Total 204 215 230 244 265 262 268 || 28.6% 2.2% || Total 114 208 216 192 

China 1 4 3 4 4 6 8 || 398.3% 37.3% || China 7 103 107 101 

All Others 203 212 227 240 261 257 260 || 26.5% 1.4% || All Others 108 104 109 91 

ION-EXCHANGERS 3914 Total 108 86 87 81 91 101 95 || -6.8% -6.0% || Total 172 161 176 183 

China 1 1 1 1 3 4 6 || 412.3% 27.6% || China 4 7 8 15 All Others 108 85 86 80 88 97 89 || -10.1% -7.5% || All Others 168 154 168 168 

WASTE,PARINGS,SCRAP 3915 Total $214 $273 $257 $291 $348 $453 $581 || 111.3% 28.4% || Total 154 147 160 149 

China 34 38 50 53 84 101 150 || 201.2% 49.0% || China 10 11 19 16 All Others 181 235 207 238 264 352 431 || 94.7% 22.5% || All Others 145 136 142 133 

MONOFIL,ROD,STICK,ETC 3916 Total 180 174 217 282 268 280 263 || 55.5% -6.3% || Total 326 365 363 389 

China 1 2 2 4 7 6 6 || 359.4% -1.7% || China 2 4 5 5 

All Others 179 171 215 278 262 274 256 || 53.1% -6.4% || All Others 324 361 358 384 

TUBE,PIPE,HOSES+FIT 3917 Total 985 932 955 1,087 1,197 1,366 1,610 || 38.6% 17.8% || Total 683 659 663 735 

China 7 9 9 14 23 25 22 || 242.8% -9.0% || China 15 20 37 51 

All Others 978 924 945 1,073 1,174 1,341 1,587 || 37.1% 18.3% || All Others 668 640 627 684 

FLOOR,WALL COVER 3918 Total 202 155 141 140 160 181 191 || -10.4% 5.8% || Total 333 331 370 420 

China 3 4 1 1 1 4 3 || 1.4% -8.9% || China 32 39 73 86 

All Others 198 151 139 139 158 177 188 || -10.6% 6.1% || All Others 301 292 297 334 

SELF ADHESIVE MATERIL 3919 Total 1,090 977 1,123 1,187 1,377 1,553 1,601 || 42.5% 3.0% || Total 428 408 478 511 

China 22 27 39 46 72 84 111 || 274.3% 32.3% || China 15 20 27 34 All Others 1,068 951 1,084 1,141 1,304 1,470 1,490 || 37.6% 1.4% || All Others 413 388 451 477 

PLATE,SHEET,ET,N CELL 3920 Total $2,944 $2,746 $2,720 $2,872 $3,248 $3,423 $3,653 || 16.3% 6.7% || Total 2,026 1,924 2,035 2,311 

China 53 81 97 106 141 148 173 || 177.5% 17.1% || China 59 58 73 81 All Others 2,891 2,665 2,623 2,765 3,107 3,276 3,480 || 13.3% 6.2% || All Others 1,968 1,866 1,962 2,230 

Appendix 2 
 Counterfeit Concerns -- Change -- --------- Annual US Imports in 

Product HS Code Source 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 '00-'05 '06/'05 Source 2000 2001 2002 2003 

--------- Annual US Exports in $ Millions ---------

U.S. Exports and Imports of Products Known to be Affected by IP Theft: 2000-2006

OTHR PLATE,SHEET,ETC. 3921 Total 991 936 967 1,078 1,223 1,425 1,618 || 43.8% 13.6% || Total 745 709 799 850 

China 17 23 31 44 77 87 117 || 405.3% 34.1% || China 10 12 17 23 All Others 974 913 936 1,033 1,146 1,338 1,501 || 37.4% 12.2% || All Others 735 697 782 827 

BATH,SINK,LAVATR SEAT 3922 Total 56 63 53 53 61 68 84 || 22.1% 22.1% || Total 134 127 138 155 

China 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 || -50.5% -41.9% || China 7 9 11 17 All Others 55 61 52 53 61 68 83 || 23.8% 22.7% || All Others 127 119 127 138 

BOX,BAG,CLOSURES,ETC 3923 Total 2,671 2,620 2,882 2,958 3,151 3,442 3,844 || 28.8% 11.7% || Total 2,139 2,334 2,723 3,163 

China 30 28 29 42 63 37 53 || 23.0% 41.9% || China 423 499 625 789 

All Others 2,641 2,592 2,853 2,916 3,088 3,405 3,791 || 28.9% 11.4% || All Others 1,716 1,835 2,097 2,373 

TABLEWARE,O HOUSEHOLD 3924 Total 530 572 535 543 570 603 659 || 13.9% 9.3% || Total 1,423 1,491 1,658 1,824 

China 3 5 5 4 4 7 9 || 131.7% 33.9% || China 799 860 1,025 1,149 

All Others 527 568 530 538 565 596 649 || 13.2% 9.0% || All Others 624 631 633 675 

OT BUILDERS' WARE 3925 Total $239 $209 $219 $225 $256 $307 $380 || 28.1% 23.8% || Total 786 835 987 1,140 

China 1 2 3 4 4 4 8 || 206.6% 94.2% || China 280 297 352 380 

All Others 238 207 216 221 252 302 371 || 27.1% 22.8% || All Others 506 539 635 760 

OTHER ARTICLES 3926 Total 4,386 3,960 3,487 3,385 3,768 4,063 4,367 || -7.3% 7.5% || Total 3,631 3,611 3,707 3,988 

China 43 37 38 49 58 62 85 || 44.7% 36.5% || China 1,235 1,277 1,364 1,507 

All Others 4,342 3,923 3,449 3,336 3,710 4,001 4,282 || -7.9% 7.0% || All Others 2,395 2,333 2,344 2,480 

O WORK RUBBR+PLST,ETC 8477 Total 1,265 1,106 972 967 1,113 1,296 1,390 || 2.5% 7.3% || Total 1,991 1,428 1,446 1,688 

China 22 35 68 82 104 104 103 || 371.5% -1.7% || China 5 5 7 15 

All Others 1,243 1,070 904 885 1,010 1,192 1,288 || -4.1% 8.1% || All Others 1,986 1,423 1,439 1,673 

O W INDIV FUNCTIONS 8479 Total 12,279 8,168 6,438 6,271 8,009 7,788 9,241 || -36.6% 18.7% || Total 4,811 3,764 3,073 3,240 

China 270 323 403 407 700 438 642 || 62.2% 46.6% || China 41 46 96 136 

All Others 12,008 7,845 6,036 5,863 7,310 7,350 8,599 || -38.8% 17.0% || All Others 4,770 3,718 2,978 3,104 

MOLD BOX F MET FOUNDR 8480 Total 1,028 853 772 753 867 991 981 || -3.6% -1.0% || Total 1,367 1,184 1,343 1,390 

China 11 15 28 20 21 23 23 || 106.0% 0.5% || China 25 25 30 40 All Others 1,017 838 744 733 846 968 958 || -4.8% -1.1% || All Others 1,342 1,159 1,313 1,350 

PAINTING,DRAW,COLLAGE 9701 Total $2,680 $3,237 $1,910 $1,992 $2,574 $3,316 $4,314 || 23.7% 30.1% || Total 3,682 3,591 3,324 2,601 

China 9 11 22 4 8 5 17 || -40.5% 210.4% || China 25 22 33 36 

All Others 2,671 3,226 1,888 1,988 2,565 3,311 4,297 || 24.0% 29.8% || All Others 3,657 3,570 3,291 2,565 

ORIGNL ENGRAVE,PRINTS 9702 Total 44 52 63 92 91 94 111 || 112.4% 18.1% || Total 77 74 79 87 

China 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 || 1216.5% -52.9% || China 0 0 0 1 

All Others 44 52 62 92 90 94 111 || 111.0% 18.7% || All Others 76 74 79 87 

Digital Multimeters 903031 Total 89 68 60 59 65 76 86 || -14.4% 13.2% || Total 63 49 37 47 

China 4 5 5 4 5 5 5 || 4.4% 4.0% || China 14 11 14 23 

All Others 85 63 55 55 60 72 81 || -15.4% 13.8% || All Others 48 38 23 24 

Appendix 2 
 Counterfeit Concerns -- Change -- --------- Annual US Imports in 

Product HS Code Source 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 '00-'05 '06/'05 Source 2000 2001 2002 2003 

--------- Annual US Exports in $ Millions ---------

U.S. Exports and Imports of Products Known to be Affected by IP Theft: 2000-2006

Connecting Devices for use with Modular Compressed Air Conditioning units 84159090 Total 1,189 1,105 1,196 1,097 1,014 999 1,061 || -15.9% 6.1% || Total 1,050 1,017 1,159 1,227 

China 19 13 17 23 27 19 25 || 4.4% 27.8% || China 10 14 22 35 

All Others 1,170 1,092 1,179 1,075 987 980 1,036 || -16.3% 5.7% || All Others 1,040 1,003 1,137 1,192 

PISTON ENGINS,INT COM 8407 Total 6,513 6,413 6,027 5,747 5,557 5,770 6,005 || -11.4% 4.1% || Total 9,148 7,953 8,277 8,553 

China 20 13 7 19 28 34 46 || 69.2% 36.6% || China 6 2 19 55 

All Others 6,493 6,399 6,019 5,729 5,529 5,736 5,959 || -11.7% 3.9% || All Others 9,143 7,950 8,258 8,498 

COMPRESSIONIGNITION 8408 Total 2,595 2,157 2,424 2,645 3,783 4,647 4,943 || 79.1% 6.4% || Total 1,547 1,330 1,536 2,115 

China 32 35 36 34 59 99 156 || 209.1% 57.3% || China 1 0 0 0 

All Others 2,563 2,121 2,388 2,611 3,724 4,548 4,788 || 77.4% 5.3% || All Others 1,546 1,330 1,535 2,115 

PARTS ENGNS 8407,8408 8409 Total 4,592 4,107 4,497 4,333 4,326 4,845 4,713 || 5.5% -2.7% || Total 5,075 4,562 4,861 5,263 

China 25 37 41 63 73 117 120 || 363.7% 2.3% || China 48 59 82 92 All Others 4,566 4,070 4,456 4,271 4,253 4,728 4,593 || 3.5% -2.9% || All Others 5,028 4,502 4,779 5,171 

OTHER ENGINE,MOTORS 8412 Total 515 572 571 697 751 942 1,232 || 83.1% 30.8% || Total 821 845 743 875 

China 9 17 23 24 32 40 135 || 339.1% 241.5% || China 6 6 8 12 

All Others 506 555 548 673 719 902 1,097 || 78.5% 21.5% || All Others 814 839 735 863 

OT ADP IN/OUTPUT UN 847160 Total 3,621 3,351 3,348 3,735 4,637 4,392 4,123 || 21.3% -6.1% || Total 19,915 15,793 17,374 15,893 

China 32 34 55 70 90 91 111 || 184.6% 22.5% || China 3,656 3,759 5,648 7,277 

All Others 3,589 3,317 3,293 3,665 4,547 4,301 4,012 || 19.9% -6.7% || All Others 16,259 12,034 11,725 8,616 

OT ADP STORAGE UNIT 847170 Total 4,396 3,849 3,181 3,166 3,683 4,084 4,163 || -7.1% 2.0% || Total 16,179 13,201 11,999 11,395 

China 75 65 55 69 78 75 104 || 0.0% 38.5% || China 1,208 1,325 1,709 1,728 

All Others 4,321 3,784 3,126 3,098 3,605 4,009 4,060 || -7.2% 1.3% || All Others 14,971 11,875 10,290 9,667 

RADIO TELEPHONES FOR INSTALLATION IN MOTOR VEHICLE 852520902 Total $339 $174 $101 $77 $142 $123 $71 || -63.7% -42.6% ||

852590 Total 10,111 12,349 13,794 15,556 

China 2 1 2 5 2 1 1 || -40.3% -35.4% || China 513 875 1,976 2,882 

All Others 337 172 99 72 140 122 70 || -63.9% -42.7% || All Others 9,598 11,475 11,818 12,675 

RADIO PHONES, NT MOTOR VHCL, PBLIC CELLULAR SRVCE 852520904 Total 1,120 1,224 913 870 1,412 1,771 2,377 || 58.1% 34.2% || Import detail not available 

China 2 1 1 1 2 110 58 || 5870.7% -47.9% || Import detail not available 

All Others 1,118 1,223 912 869 1,410 1,661 2,320 || 48.5% 39.7% || All Others 

TRANSMISSION APPTS INCORPORATING RECEIVERS,NESOI 852520908 Total 2,048 1,604 1,168 1,107 1,654 1,581 1,745 || -22.8% 10.3% || Import detail not available 

China 51 131 51 48 70 26 16 || -47.8% -40.5% || Import detail not available 

All Others 1,998 1,473 1,117 1,059 1,584 1,555 1,729 || -22.2% 11.2% || All Others 

Appendix 2 
 Counterfeit Concerns -- Change -- --------- Annual US Imports in 

Product HS Code Source 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 '00-'05 '06/'05 Source 2000 2001 2002 2003 

--------- Annual US Exports in $ Millions ---------

U.S. Exports and Imports of Products Known to be Affected by IP Theft: 2000-2006

L-Lysine Feed Products, Their Methods of Production and Genetic Constructs for Production 292241 Total 141 198 218 349 407 238 253 || 69.3% 6.2% || Total 31 26 22 38 

China 7 4 5 8 27 10 9 || 39.7% -12.7% || China 0 1 1 1 All Others 133 195 213 341 380 228 244 || 71.0% 7.1% || All Others 30 25 21 37 

Foam Footwear 6405909 Total 16 12 9 10 16 16 21 || 1.4% 31.3% || Total 60 40 32 45 

China 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 || 158.2% 25.6% || China 29 30 24 32 

All Others 16 12 9 10 16 16 21 || 0.7% 31.4% || All Others 31 10 8 13 

Voltage Regulators 903289 Total $2,283 $2,113 $2,082 $2,203 $2,184 $2,191 $2,355 || -4.0% 7.5% || Total 2,208 2,071 2,310 2,352 

China 20 27 43 48 49 51 83 || 154.3% 62.4% || China 20 14 33 34 All Others 2,263 2,086 2,039 2,155 2,135 2,140 2,273 || -5.4% 6.2% || All Others 2,188 2,057 2,277 2,318 

Laser Bar Code Scanners and Scan Engines 854890 Total 1,230 993 752 707 678 674 644 || -45.2% -4.5% || Total 142 162 151 176 

China 46 38 31 21 51 43 43 || -6.8% -0.4% || China 7 9 4 13 

All Others 1,184 955 721 686 627 631 601 || -46.7% -4.8% || All Others 135 153 147 163 

Laminated Floor Panels 4412 Total 235 175 173 179 222 223 249 || -5.0% 11.9% || Total 962 979 1,234 1,397 

China 1 1 0 2 3 4 6 || 398.9% 45.9% || China 30 47 103 164 

All Others 234 175 173 177 219 219 243 || -6.4% 11.2% || All Others 932 932 1,131 1,232 

SEMICON DV;L-EMT DIOD 8541 Total 5,911 4,658 4,020 4,225 5,019 5,243 6,106 || -11.3% 16.5% || Total 5,879 4,016 3,289 3,323 

China 200 226 219 233 272 241 287 || 21.0% 18.8% || China 282 239 280 309 

All Others 5,711 4,432 3,801 3,992 4,748 5,002 5,819 || -12.4% 16.3% || All Others 5,597 3,777 3,009 3,015 

INTEGRATED CIRCUITS 8542 Total 54,098 40,407 38,215 41,912 43,031 41,978 46,278 || -22.4% 10.2% || Total 42,462 26,406 22,727 21,281 

China 671 865 1,371 2,214 2,667 3,122 5,589 || 365.0% 79.0% || China 487 415 449 540 

All Others 53,427 39,541 36,844 39,698 40,364 38,856 40,688 || -27.3% 4.7% || All Others 41,975 25,991 22,277 20,741 

Zero-Mercury-Added Alkaline Batteries 850680 Total $124 $131 $106 $135 $132 $144 $157 || 15.4% 9.3% || Total 118 128 128 155 

China 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 || 119.2% -72.7% || China 39 44 51 82 

All Others 124 130 106 135 131 143 157 || 15.1% 9.7% || All Others 79 84 77 73 

Agricultural Vehicles and Components Thereof 870190 Total 1,007 997 1,149 1,135 1,430 1,726 1,851 || 71.5% 7.3% || Total 1,506 1,374 1,601 1,835 

China 3 4 6 4 10 13 7 || 311.4% -49.9% || China 6 6 9 12 All Others 1,004 993 1,142 1,131 1,419 1,713 1,845 || 70.7% 7.7% || All Others 1,500 1,368 1,592 1,823 

Power bars 210690709 Total 730 708 791 960 1,112 1,160 1,709 || 58.8% 47.4% || Total 415 510 607 734 

China 22 35 16 93 142 26 36 || 16.8% 37.9% || China 16 18 20 21 All Others 708 673 775 867 970 1,134 1,673 || 60.1% 47.6% || All Others 399 492 587 713 

Contract lenses 900130 Total 528 592 548 470 511 673 750 || 27.5% 11.3% || Total 181 187 252 317 

China 5 4 3 2 2 1 2 || -74.9% 38.9% || China 0 0 0 0 All Others 523 588 545 468 509 672 748 || 28.4% 11.3% || All Others 181 187 252 317 

Appendix 2 
 Counterfeit Concerns -- Change -- --------- Annual US Imports in 

Product HS Code Source 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 '00-'05 '06/'05 Source 2000 2001 2002 2003 

--------- Annual US Exports in $ Millions ---------

U.S. Exports and Imports of Products Known to be Affected by IP Theft: 2000-2006

Air conditioners 8415 Total 2,358 2,216 2,155 2,059 2,016 2,132 2,289 || -9.6% 7.4% || Total 1,943 1,886 2,212 2,579 

China 42 42 45 48 42 36 43 || -15.5% 22.4% || China 193 246 404 684 

All Others 2,316 2,174 2,110 2,011 1,974 2,096 2,245 || -9.5% 7.1% || All Others 1,751 1,639 1,808 1,895 

Soy sauce 210310 Total $16 $17 $17 $18 $18 $22 $22 || 44.4% -1.1% || Total 44 45 44 48 

China 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 || N/A N/A || China 7 7 7 8 

All Others 16 17 17 18 18 22 22 || 44.4% -1.2% || All Others 37 39 37 40 

Motorcycle chains 731511 Total 52 47 46 59 58 72 69 || 38.3% -4.0% || Total 139 121 128 144 

China 0 0 0 0 2 2 2 || 1020.0% -9.2% || China 14 14 15 17 

All Others 52 47 46 59 57 70 68 || 35.0% -3.9% || All Others 124 107 112 127 

Curling irons 820551 Total 25 32 33 32 39 35 40 || 39.0% 16.5% || Total 149 155 177 173 

China 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 || 560.6% -64.3% || China 74 83 108 115 

All Others 25 31 32 32 38 34 40 || 37.1% 17.9% || All Others 75 72 69 58 

Electrical cords 8544 Total 5,875 5,231 4,575 4,301 4,814 5,366 6,411 || -8.7% 19.5% || Total 9,036 8,491 8,465 8,571 

China 70 72 71 65 85 121 149 || 71.6% 23.2% || China 807 725 832 924 All Others 5,804 5,159 4,504 4,237 4,728 5,245 6,262 || -9.6% 19.4% || All Others 8,229 7,765 7,633 7,646 

Mineral water 220110 Total 15 19 12 19 20 40 61 || 169.3% 53.7% || Total 201 186 196 331 

China 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 || 69.9% -74.3% || China 0 0 0 0 All Others 15 19 12 19 20 40 61 || 169.5% 53.8% || All Others 201 186 196 331 

Distilled water 28510090 Total $44 $33 $26 $37 $55 $63 $94 || 44.1% 48.0% || Total 28 30 26 35 

China 4 3 4 6 12 14 20 || 253.3% 45.5% || China 0 0 0 0 All Others 40 30 22 31 43 49 73 || 23.4% 48.7% || All Others 28 30 26 35 

Maize seeds 100510 Total 169 201 214 165 180 177 142 || 5.0% -19.5% || Total 139 116 109 118 

China 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 || -56.2% -100.0% || China 0 0 0 0 All Others 168 201 214 165 180 177 142 || 5.1% -19.5% || All Others 139 116 109 118 

Perfume 330300 Total 489 461 463 565 682 831 963 || 69.9% 15.9% || Total 900 900 980 1,133 

China 1 1 0 1 2 5 9 || 688.8% 58.7% || China 1 2 4 8 

All Others 488 461 463 564 680 826 955 || 69.1% 15.6% || All Others 899 898 976 1,124 

Detergent 3402 Total 1,220 1,298 1,290 1,454 1,688 1,767 2,088 || 44.8% 18.2% || Total 581 599 652 593 

China 21 20 27 36 50 59 89 || 184.2% 50.4% || China 3 5 11 23 

All Others 1,199 1,278 1,263 1,418 1,638 1,708 1,999 || 42.4% 17.1% || All Others 578 594 641 571 

Sugar 17 Total 683 723 636 689 735 828 1,043 || 21.3% 26.0% || Total 1,480 1,534 1,701 1,933 

China 18 22 13 25 40 29 34 || 56.9% 18.2% || China 26 26 47 54 All Others 664 701 623 664 696 799 1,009 || 20.3% 26.3% || All Others 1,454 1,508 1,654 1,878 

Diapers 6209 Total $40 $21 $12 $9 $6 $8 $9 || -79.1% 3.8% || Total 465 547 515 533 

China 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 || N/A -100.0% || China 50 49 138 214 All Others 40 21 12 9 6 8 9 || -80.4% 10.6% || All Others 415 498 377 319 

Razors 8212 Total 308 336 343 334 333 369 355 || 19.8% -3.9% || Total 157 183 200 274 

China 10 22 51 3 1 2 1 || -84.1% -28.2% || China 11 13 33 78 

All Others 298 314 292 330 332 367 353 || 23.2% -3.8% || All Others 146 171 168 195 

Olive oil 1509 Total 6 4 7 8 10 17 16 || 172.3% -7.7% || Total 413 376 437 520 

China 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 || N/A N/A || China 0 0 0 0 All Others 6 4 7 8 10 17 16 || 172.3% -7.7% || All Others 413 376 436 520 

Appendix 2 
 Counterfeit Concerns -- Change -- --------- Annual US Imports in 

Product HS Code Source 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 '00-'05 '06/'05 Source 2000 2001 2002 2003 

--------- Annual US Exports in $ Millions ---------

U.S. Exports and Imports of Products Known to be Affected by IP Theft: 2000-2006

Baby formula 0404 Total 179 156 146 143 172 237 342 || 32.0% 44.5% || Total 169 116 128 135 

China 9 17 19 24 28 31 49 || 242.5% 57.0% || China 0 0 0 0 

All Others 170 139 127 119 144 205 293 || 20.7% 42.5% || All Others 169 116 128 135 

Toothpaste 330610 Total 148 136 131 138 156 168 182 || 13.5% 8.3% || Total 44 54 56 64 

China 2 0 0 0 1 1 2 || -27.9% 59.4% || China 5 5 3 2 All Others 146 136 131 137 155 167 180 || 14.0% 7.9% || All Others 39 49 53 61 

Air fresheners 330749 Total $64 $78 $85 $82 $104 $119 $161 || 86.4% 35.7% || Total 49 63 54 83 

China 0 0 0 1 1 2 3 || 1005.0% 19.4% || China 2 2 3 6 

All Others 64 78 85 82 103 117 159 || 83.6% 36.0% || All Others 47 61 50 77 

US Department of Commerce, China Customs, Global Trade Information Services and MBG Information Services. 

Appendix 2 
 Counterfeit Concerns

Product HS Code

Inkjet cartridges 8443Golf clubs 950631Windshields 700711Auto replacement parts: brake pads, ignition coils, sway bars 8708Cell phone batteries 850650Duracell Batteries 8507Auto and truck parts 8708Personal care products 33Aircraft parts 880330Testing equipment 9024Electrical control equipment 8532Commercial door fixtures 730830Computer Software 852491

--------- Annual US Balances in $ Millions --------- -- Change --

Source 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 '00-'05 '06/'05

Total -$462 -$573 -$479 -$497 -$779 -$848 -$1,002 || 83.7% 18.2%China 39 39 21 23 10 19 17 || -51.6% -11.7%

All Others -501 -612 -500 -520 -789 -867 -1,019 || 73.0% 17.6%

Total 327 328 148 133 96 56 23 || -82.9% -58.9%

China -53 -65 -153 -175 -218 -273 -320 || 418.3% 17.2%

All Others 380 394 300 309 314 329 343 || -13.5% 4.2%

Total 204 150 111 137 95 65 20 || -68.4% -69.8%

China -1 -5 -2 -4 -5 -6 -9 || 428.2% 50.5%

All Others 205 155 113 141 100 71 29 || -65.5% -59.1%

Total 3,009 2,583 -280 -4,262 -6,428 -9,777 -9,661 || -425.0% -1.2%

China -320 -422 -585 -774 -1,063 -1,622 -2,178 || 406.8% 34.2%

All Others 3,329 3,004 306 -3,488 -5,365 -8,154 -7,483 || -345.0% -8.2%

Total -32 -3 -10 6 28 51 67 || -261.2% 31.1%

China -2 0 -5 -16 -20 -36 -39 || 1945.1% 9.6%

All Others -30 -3 -5 22 48 87 106 || -390.7% 22.2%Total -1,190 -928 -851 -793 -1,137 -1,279 -1,325 || 7.5% 3.6%China -242 -226 -251 -304 -479 -602 -756 || 148.6% 25.5%

All Others -948 -702 -600 -489 -658 -676 -569 || -28.6% -15.8%Total 3,009 2,583 -280 -4,262 -6,428 -9,777 -9,661 || -425.0% -1.2%

China -320 -422 -585 -774 -1,063 -1,622 -2,178 || 406.8% 34.2%

All Others 3,329 3,004 306 -3,488 -5,365 -8,154 -7,483 || -345.0% -8.2%

Total 1,221 1,439 1,158 291 -321 -673 -294 || -155.2% -56.4%

China -86 -132 -164 -165 -185 -230 -273 || 168.3% 18.3%

All Others 1,307 1,571 1,323 455 -136 -443 -21 || -133.9% -95.2%

Total 8,324 8,334 7,837 8,520 9,405 10,519 12,450 || 26.4% 18.4%China 175 200 200 209 232 434 594 || 147.5% 36.8%All Others 8,148 8,134 7,637 8,311 9,172 10,085 11,857 || 23.8% 17.6%Total 536 501 415 477 469 484 546 || -9.7% 12.7%

China 28 39 51 74 82 84 96 || 199.3% 14.2%All Others 508 462 364 403 387 400 449 || -21.3% 12.4%

Total 294 282 330 404 525 39 80 || -86.6% 101.8%

China 2 -3 -20 -14 20 35 78 || 1926.5% 119.5%

All Others 292 285 350 418 505 4 2 || -98.6% -50.6%

Total -105 -117 -143 -176 -209 -201 -183 || 90.2% -8.7%

China -4 -6 -10 -14 -28 -37 -55 || 778.9% 50.6%

All Others -101 -111 -133 -161 -181 -164 -128 || 62.0% -21.9%

Total 589 409 280 269 284 316 403 || -46.4% 27.7%

China 13 6 7 15 15 16 27 || 23.0% 68.0%All Others 576 403 274 254 269 300 377 || -47.9% 25.5%

 U.S. Trade Balances for Products Known to be Affected by IP Theft: 2000-2006

Appendix 2 
 Counterfeit Concerns

Product HS Code

Entertainment Software (including videogame DCs and cartridges, personal computer CD-ROMs and multimedia products) 950410Records 852410Laser Disks 852432MAGN TPE,N SOUND/IM 852440MGN TPE,SND/IM=<4MM 852451MG TPE,S/I>4=<6.5MM 852452MG TPE,SND/IM>6.5MM 852453Textbooks, tradebooks, reference & prof'onal publications/journals 490199Table grapes (Chinese copy US packaging/sell as US goods) 80610Fresh fruit 08

--------- Annual US Balances in $ Millions --------- -- Change --

Source 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 '00-'05 '06/'05

 U.S. Trade Balances for Products Known to be Affected by IP Theft: 2000-2006Total -1,693 -2,950 -3,231 -1,824 -1,620 -1,808 -2,629 || 6.8% 45.4%China -336 -398 -1,571 -2,108 -1,957 -2,357 -3,642 || 602.4% 54.5%

All Others -1,357 -2,552 -1,660 283 337 549 1,013 || -140.4% 84.6%

Total 48 50 36 40 34 22 22 || -54.2% 1.7%

China 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 || 329.1% 5.5%

All Others 48 48 36 40 34 21 22 || -55.7% 1.6%

Total -135 -100 -76 -44 -47 -25 -36 || -81.5% 42.7%China -4 -6 -4 -5 -6 -6 -10 || 57.1% 62.4%

All Others -131 -94 -72 -40 -42 -19 -26 || -85.6% 36.2%

Total 100 68 35 38 46 15 16 || -85.2% 5.2%

China 1 2 1 1 2 0 1 || -56.5% 86.3%

All Others 99 66 35 37 44 14 15 || -85.4% 2.8%

Total 20 18 11 25 21 17 13 || -13.3% -23.0%

China -1 -2 -2 -1 -0 -0 -0 || -65.0% -75.0%

All Others 20 19 13 26 22 17 13 || -15.6% -24.0%

Total 64 30 24 25 25 13 13 || -79.8% 1.2%

China 41200 -0 0 || -101.5% -166.9%All Others 61 28 22 25 25 13 13 || -78.5% 0.4%

Total 13 1 -27 -10 -5 2 -2 || -82.5% -174.2%

China -4 -5 -7 -8 -6 -1 -1 || -67.2% -13.2%

All Others 17 6 -20 -2 1 3 -1 || -79.2% -120.3%Total 386 166 125 63 -58 21 -0 || -94.6% -101.9%

China -207 -254 -323 -391 -509 -581 -691 || 181.2% 19.0%

All Others 592 420 448 454 451 602 691 || 1.6% 14.8%Total -97 -96 -186 -164 -134 -249 -257 || 155.6% 3.3%

China 11 9 8 6 21 47 35 || 323.0% -24.1%

All Others -108 -105 -194 -170 -155 -295 -292 || 172.7% -1.1%

Total 61 159 13 174 217 588 516 || 870.0% -12.2%

China 6 7 -4 -12 -27 28 -2 || 378.6% -107.8%All Others 55 152 17 186 244 560 519 || 923.2% -7.3%

Appendix 2 
 Counterfeit Concerns

Product HS Code

Beverages 22Structural wood-based panels 441292Structural wood-based panels 441820Agricultural chemical products, including glyphosate (Roundup) 38083019ETHYLENE,PRIMARY FORM 3901OTHR OLEFIN PRIMARY F 3902STYRENE,PRIMARY FORMS 3903VINYL CHLORIDE,ETC 3904VINYL ACETATE;O VINYL 3905ACRYLIC POLYMERS 3906POLYETHER,EXPOXIDE,ET 3907POLYAMIDES 3908

--------- Annual US Balances in $ Millions --------- -- Change --

Source 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 '00-'05 '06/'05

 U.S. Trade Balances for Products Known to be Affected by IP Theft: 2000-2006Total -6,633 -6,939 -7,934 -8,945 -9,515 -10,747 -13,491 || 62.0% 25.5%China -13 -18 -22 -18 -19 -12 -91 || -7.1% 643.3%

All Others -6,620 -6,921 -7,912 -8,928 -9,497 -10,735 -13,399 || 62.2% 24.8%Total -1 -1 -6 -6 -8 -8 -8 || 1302.3% -7.9%

China 0 -0 -0 -0 -2 -2 -2 || -1636.3% -1.5%

All Others -1 -1 -6 -6 -6 -6 -6 || 731.9% -10.1%

Total -318 -375 -419 -420 -506 -597 -657 || 87.6% 10.0%

China -1 -3 -7 -11 -29 -57 -99 || 4097.3% 73.5%

All Others -317 -372 -413 -409 -477 -540 -558 || 70.4% 3.3%

Total 569 567 555 341 478 573 690 || 0.7% 20.5%China 1 8 -9 -42 -11 -17 -25 || -2133.5% 46.0%

All Others 568 558 564 383 490 590 715 || 3.9% 21.2%Total 1,044 652 948 688 1,243 1,296 1,465 || 24.1% 13.0%China 138 110 114 113 240 349 383 || 151.9% 9.8%All Others 906 541 834 575 1,003 948 1,082 || 4.6% 14.2%Total 1,050 1,039 1,096 1,305 1,621 2,021 2,490 || 92.5% 23.2%China 56 110 101 150 196 236 295 || 324.0% 25.0%All Others 994 929 995 1,154 1,425 1,785 2,195 || 79.6% 23.0%Total 292 173 198 228 195 2 241 || -99.4% 12898.0%

China 12 6 13 15 28 27 47 || 129.0% 70.9%All Others 280 167 185 213 167 -25 194 || -109.1% -863.6%

Total 326 461 596 636 738 572 804 || 75.6% 40.5%China 64 116 117 113 127 117 120 || 81.6% 2.5%All Others 262 345 479 522 611 455 684 || 74.1% 50.2%Total 307 262 350 391 441 448 425 || 46.0% -5.1%China -8 -7 5 8 7 7 8 || -179.1% 21.3%

All Others 315 268 345 383 434 441 417 || 40.0% -5.5%Total 491 519 527 462 615 772 847 || 57.2% 9.7%China 19 14 22 25 30 25 33 || 31.9% 31.4%All Others 472 504 504 437 585 747 814 || 58.2% 9.0%Total 1,909 1,897 1,756 1,772 2,201 2,039 2,374 || 6.8% 16.4%China 136 131 172 221 298 258 305 || 90.2% 17.9%All Others 1,773 1,766 1,584 1,551 1,902 1,780 2,069 || 0.4% 16.2%Total 437 320 325 389 556 690 872 || 57.8% 26.4%China 21 22 32 43 69 85 132 || 309.4% 56.0%All Others 416 298 294 346 487 605 740 || 45.3% 22.3%

Appendix 2 
 Counterfeit Concerns

Product HS Code

AMINO-RESIN,PRIM F;OT 3909SILICONE,PRIMARY FORM 3910PETRO RESIN,PRIM F;OT 3911CELLULOSE,OT CHEM DER 3912OT NATURAL PRIME FORM 3913ION-EXCHANGERS 3914WASTE,PARINGS,SCRAP 3915MONOFIL,ROD,STICK,ETC 3916TUBE,PIPE,HOSES+FIT 3917FLOOR,WALL COVER 3918SELF ADHESIVE MATERIL 3919PLATE,SHEET,ET,N CELL 3920

--------- Annual US Balances in $ Millions --------- -- Change --

Source 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 '00-'05 '06/'05

 U.S. Trade Balances for Products Known to be Affected by IP Theft: 2000-2006Total 472 431 486 606 698 1,005 1,007 || 113.0% 0.2%China 24 25 41 108 123 177 174 || 638.9% -1.7%

All Others 448 406 445 498 576 828 833 || 84.9% 0.6%Total 271 248 327 356 406 468 615 || 72.7% 31.4%China 13 12 16 26 37 64 97 || 399.2% 50.9%All Others 258 237 312 330 369 404 518 || 56.5% 28.3%Total 391 389 404 381 486 460 476 || 17.6% 3.4%China 14 14 13 15 19 31 17 || 126.4% -44.5%

All Others 378 376 391 366 467 430 459 || 13.7% 6.9%Total 362 417 430 460 565 588 655 || 62.4% 11.5%China 5 4 4 10 22 80 96 || 1433.1% 20.9%All Others 357 413 426 450 544 508 559 || 42.5% 10.0%Total 90 8 14 52 20 -16 110 || -118.3% -770.0%

China -6 -100 -104 -97 -143 -149 -36 || 2560.6% -76.0%

All Others 95 108 118 149 163 133 146 || 39.1% 10.0%Total -63 -75 -89 -101 -73 -101 -107 || 60.4% 5.8%

China -3 -6 -6 -14 -12 -15 -18 || 378.0% 16.2%

All Others -60 -69 -82 -87 -61 -86 -89 || 43.2% 4.0%

Total 60 126 97 141 187 230 201 || 285.2% -12.7%

China 24 27 31 37 68 82 74 || 245.4% -9.3%

All Others 36 99 66 104 119 148 126 || 311.5% -14.6%

Total -146 -192 -146 -107 -121 -95 -90 || -34.6% -5.5%

China -0 -2 -3 -2 -2 -9 -16 || 3194.4% 75.3%

All Others -145 -190 -143 -106 -119 -86 -74 || -40.7% -14.1%Total 302 273 292 352 351 384 507 || 27.0% 32.2%China -8 -11 -27 -37 -33 -66 -109 || 755.5% 64.4%

All Others 310 284 319 389 384 450 616 || 45.1% 37.0%Total -131 -177 -230 -280 -277 -273 -303 || 108.4% 11.1%

China -28 -36 -72 -85 -104 -107 -131 || 276.8% 22.5%

All Others -103 -141 -158 -195 -173 -166 -172 || 61.9% 3.8%

Total 662 570 645 676 788 848 807 || 28.0% -4.8%

China 7 7 12 11 24 9 -2 || 27.8% -121.7%

All Others 655 563 633 664 764 838 809 || 28.0% -3.5%

Total 918 822 685 561 572 409 421 || -55.5% 3.0%

China -5 23 24 26 29 -23 -38 || 315.3% 67.6%

All Others 923 799 661 535 543 431 459 || -53.3% 6.4%

Appendix 2 
 Counterfeit Concerns

Product HS Code

OTHR PLATE,SHEET,ETC. 3921BATH,SINK,LAVATR SEAT 3922BOX,BAG,CLOSURES,ETC 3923TABLEWARE,O HOUSEHOLD 3924OT BUILDERS' WARE 3925OTHER ARTICLES 3926O WORK RUBBR+PLST,ETC 8477O W INDIV FUNCTIONS 8479MOLD BOX F MET FOUNDR 8480PAINTING,DRAW,COLLAGE 9701ORIGNL ENGRAVE,PRINTS 9702Digital Multimeters 903031

--------- Annual US Balances in $ Millions --------- -- Change --

Source 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 '00-'05 '06/'05

 U.S. Trade Balances for Products Known to be Affected by IP Theft: 2000-2006Total 246 227 168 227 157 187 253 || -23.7% 35.0%

China 7 11 14 22 36 15 20 || 107.0% 33.8%All Others 238 216 154 206 120 172 233 || -27.7% 35.1%

Total -78 -65 -85 -102 -102 -118 -122 || 51.9% 3.2%

China -6 -7 -11 -16 -27 -33 -47 || 467.4% 40.7%

All Others -72 -57 -75 -86 -76 -85 -75 || 17.9% -11.6%

Total 532 286 159 -204 -546 -923 -1,018 || -273.3% 10.3%

China -393 -471 -597 -747 -851 -1,143 -1,381 || 191.0% 20.8%

All Others 925 757 756 543 305 220 363 || -76.2% 65.0%

Total -893 -919 -1,123 -1,282 -1,554 -1,929 -2,136 || 116.0% 10.7%

China -796 -856 -1,021 -1,144 -1,392 -1,751 -1,983 || 120.0% 13.2%

All Others -97 -64 -102 -137 -162 -178 -152 || 83.0% -14.3%

Total -547 -627 -768 -916 -1,059 -1,173 -1,152 || 114.5% -1.8%

China -279 -295 -349 -377 -427 -495 -510 || 77.5% 3.0%

All Others -268 -332 -419 -539 -632 -678 -642 || 153.1% -5.3%

Total 755 349 -220 -603 -834 -1,249 -1,291 || -265.6% 3.4%

China -1,192 -1,240 -1,325 -1,459 -1,761 -2,142 -2,281 || 79.7% 6.5%All Others 1,947 1,589 1,105 856 928 893 989 || -54.1% 10.8%

Total -726 -322 -474 -721 -678 -831 -759 || 14.5% -8.6%

China 17 30 61 67 80 70 67 || 311.4% -5.6%

All Others -743 -353 -535 -788 -758 -901 -826 || 21.3% -8.4%

Total 7,467 4,404 3,365 3,031 4,079 3,432 4,314 || -54.0% 25.7%

China 229 277 307 271 490 166 331 || -27.7% 100.1%

All Others 7,238 4,127 3,058 2,759 3,589 3,267 3,982 || -54.9% 21.9%

Total -339 -331 -571 -637 -644 -611 -825 || 80.3% 35.1%

China -14 -9 -1 -20 -33 -57 -92 || 319.1% 61.7%

All Others -325 -321 -569 -617 -611 -555 -734 || 70.4% 32.3%

Total -1,002 -355 -1,414 -609 -784 53 29 || -105.3% -45.7%

China -16 -11 -11 -32 -28 -48 -50 || 197.5% 4.0%

All Others -986 -344 -1,403 -578 -756 101 79 || -110.2% -22.0%

Total -32 -22 -17 5 -13 -30 -24 || -8.1% -19.7%

China -0 -0 -0 -1 -0 0 -1 || -276.4% -677.7%

All Others -32 -22 -17 6 -12 -30 -22 || -7.1% -24.6%

Total 26 19 23 12 -2 -1 -5 || -104.9% 257.4%

China -10 -6 -9 -19 -37 -45 -51 || 345.6% 13.1%

All Others 37 25 32 31 35 43 46 || 19.0% 5.8%

Appendix 2 
 Counterfeit Concerns

Product HS Code

Connecting Devices for use with Modular Compressed Air Conditioning units 84159090PISTON ENGINS,INT COM 8407COMPRESSIONIGNITION 8408PARTS ENGNS 8407,8408 8409OTHER ENGINE,MOTORS 8412OT ADP IN/OUTPUT UN 847160OT ADP STORAGE UNIT 847170RADIO TELEPHONES FOR INSTALLATION IN MOTOR VEHICLE 852520902RADIO PHONES, NT MOTOR VHCL, PBLIC CELLULAR SRVCE 852520904TRANSMISSION APPTS INCORPORATING RECEIVERS,NESOI 852520908

--------- Annual US Balances in $ Millions --------- -- Change --

Source 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 '00-'05 '06/'05

 U.S. Trade Balances for Products Known to be Affected by IP Theft: 2000-2006Total 193 122 85 -94 -242 -463 -573 || -340.4% 23.7%

China 9 -1 -4 -11 -22 -71 -116 || -929.1% 62.3%

All Others 184 123 88 -83 -220 -392 -457 || -312.9% 16.6%

Total -2,635 -1,540 -2,250 -2,806 -3,623 -3,638 -2,125 || 38.1% -41.6%China 14 11 -11 -36 -37 -67 -57 || -574.3% -14.4%

All Others -2,649 -1,551 -2,239 -2,770 -3,587 -3,571 -2,068 || 34.8% -42.1%Total 1,048 827 888 530 984 1,166 823 || 11.2% -29.4%

China 31 35 36 34 53 93 153 || 198.1% 64.3%All Others 1,017 792 853 496 931 1,073 670 || 5.5% -37.5%

Total -484 -454 -364 -930 -2,096 -2,462 -3,245 || 408.8% 31.8%

China -23 -22 -41 -30 -57 -94 -172 || 315.2% 84.0%

All Others -461 -432 -323 -900 -2,040 -2,369 -3,073 || 413.4% 29.7%

Total -306 -273 -172 -178 -353 -468 -417 || 53.0% -11.0%

China 3 12 15 12 3 -9 66 || -445.2% -845.4%All Others -309 -284 -187 -190 -356 -459 -483 || 48.9% 5.2%

Total -16,294 -12,442 -14,025 -12,158 -14,072 -13,289 -12,800 || -18.4% -3.7%

China -3,624 -3,725 -5,593 -7,207 -10,910 -10,902 -11,173 || 200.8% 2.5%All Others -12,670 -8,716 -8,432 -4,951 -3,162 -2,388 -1,626 || -81.2% -31.9%

Total -11,783 -9,352 -8,818 -8,228 -7,151 -6,695 -7,039 || -43.2% 5.1%

China -1,133 -1,260 -1,654 -1,659 -2,048 -2,333 -2,846 || 105.9% 22.0%All Others -10,650 -8,092 -7,164 -6,569 -5,104 -4,362 -4,193 || -59.0% -3.9%

852590 Total -4,322 -7,629 -10,317 -12,151 -16,333 -19,899 -21,380 || 360.4% 7.4%China -372 -604 -1,856 -2,797 -5,453 -9,146 -11,775 || 2359.2% 28.7%

All Others -3,950 -7,025 -8,461 -9,354 -10,880 -10,753 -9,605 || 172.2% -10.7%Balance detail not available ||Balance detail not available ||All Others ||Balance detail not available ||

Balance detail not available ||All Others ||

Appendix 2 
 Counterfeit Concerns

Product HS Code

L-Lysine Feed Products, Their Methods of Production and Genetic Constructs for Production 292241Foam Footwear 6405909Voltage Regulators 903289Laser Bar Code Scanners and Scan Engines 854890Laminated Floor Panels 4412SEMICON DV;L-EMT DIOD 8541INTEGRATED CIRCUITS 8542Zero-Mercury-Added Alkaline Batteries 850680Agricultural Vehicles and Components Thereof 870190Power bars 210690709Contract lenses 900130

--------- Annual US Balances in $ Millions --------- -- Change --

Source 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 '00-'05 '06/'05

 U.S. Trade Balances for Products Known to be Affected by IP Theft: 2000-2006Total 110 172 196 311 339 199 215 || 81.3% 7.7%China 7 3 4 7 15 4 -2 || -46.3% -144.0%All Others 103 170 193 304 324 196 216 || 90.0% 10.6%Total -46 -30 -26 -37 -41 -73 -110 || 58.6% 51.4%

China -30 -31 -25 -33 -37 -65 -111 || 117.5% 71.9%

All Others -16 1 -0 -4 -4 -8 1 || -49.3% -109.7%

Total 75 42 -227 -149 -540 -439 -381 || -683.8% -13.3%

China 0 13 11 14 5 5 19 || 950.7% 302.7%All Others 75 29 -238 -163 -545 -444 -400 || -693.4% -10.0%

Total 1,089 831 601 531 459 479 463 || -56.0% -3.4%

China 39 28 27 8 39 15 27 || -61.5% 75.6%

All Others 1,049 802 574 523 420 463 436 || -55.8% -5.9%

Total -727 -803 -1,061 -1,217 -1,958 -2,095 -2,321 || 188.1% 10.8%

China -29 -46 -103 -162 -429 -612 -976 || 1978.3% 59.3%

All Others -698 -758 -958 -1,055 -1,529 -1,482 -1,345 || 112.5% -9.3%

Total 32 642 731 902 1,123 1,350 1,557 || 4142.2% 15.4%China -82 -13 -61 -76 -164 -265 -395 || 222.8% 49.5%

All Others 114 655 792 978 1,287 1,614 1,953 || 1319.1% 21.0%Total 11,636 14,000 15,488 20,631 20,178 20,111 23,444 || 72.8% 16.6%China 184 450 921 1,674 1,746 1,843 4,089 || 899.2% 121.9%All Others 11,452 13,550 14,567 18,957 18,433 18,268 19,355 || 59.5% 5.9%Total 6 4 -22 -20 -22 13 40 || 109.5% 193.4%

China -38 -43 -51 -82 -94 -89 -88 || 132.5% -0.8%

All Others 45 47 29 62 72 102 128 || 129.2% 24.8%Total -500 -377 -452 -700 -1,014 -1,028 -648 || 105.9% -37.0%

China -3 -2 -2 -8 -8 -8 -11 || 169.0% 33.0%

All Others -496 -375 -450 -692 -1,006 -1,020 -637 || 105.5% -37.5%

Total 1,133 1,113 1,054 1,112 1,105 1,190 1,380 || 5.0% 16.0%China 11 24 5 82 149 46 32 || 321.0% -30.6%

All Others 1,122 1,089 1,049 1,029 956 1,143 1,347 || 1.9% 17.9%Total 347 404 296 153 118 264 358 || -23.8% 35.5%

China 5 4 3 2 2 1 2 || -74.9% 39.1%

All Others 342 400 292 151 116 263 356 || -23.1% 35.5%

Appendix 2 
 Counterfeit Concerns

Product HS Code

Air conditioners 8415Soy sauce 210310Motorcycle chains 731511Curling irons 820551Electrical cords 8544Mineral water 220110Distilled water 28510090Maize seeds 100510Perfume 330300Detergent 3402Sugar 17Diapers 6209Razors 8212Olive oil 1509

--------- Annual US Balances in $ Millions --------- -- Change --

Source 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 '00-'05 '06/'05

 U.S. Trade Balances for Products Known to be Affected by IP Theft: 2000-2006Total 415 330 -57 -520 -656 -874 -1,282 || -310.6% 46.6%

China -150 -205 -360 -636 -703 -884 -1,223 || 487.5% 38.3%

All Others 566 535 302 116 47 10 -59 || -98.3% -695.0%

Total -28 -28 -27 -30 -30 -27 -29 || -4.8% 7.1%

China -7 -7 -7 -8 -9 -11 -11 || 52.8% -0.6%

All Others -22 -21 -21 -22 -21 -17 -19 || -23.3% 12.1%

Total -86 -73 -81 -84 -102 -99 -118 || 13.9% 19.3%

China -14 -13 -15 -16 -20 -24 -27 || 71.0% 10.8%

All Others -72 -60 -66 -68 -82 -74 -91 || 2.8% 22.1%

Total -124 -123 -144 -141 -128 -135 -160 || 8.7% 18.5%

China -74 -81 -107 -115 -110 -113 -145 || 51.9% 28.7%

All Others -50 -41 -37 -26 -18 -22 -15 || -55.4% -33.4%Total -3,161 -3,260 -3,891 -4,270 -4,682 -5,325 -6,026 || 68.4% 13.2%China -737 -654 -762 -860 -1,167 -1,385 -1,893 || 88.0% 36.6%

All Others -2,424 -2,606 -3,129 -3,410 -3,515 -3,939 -4,133 || 62.5% 4.9%Total -186 -167 -183 -311 -300 -255 -216 || 36.9% -15.1%

China 0000 -0 0 -0 || 66.8% -367.9%

All Others -186 -167 -183 -311 -300 -255 -216 || 36.9% -15.1%

Total 12 1 -1 1 20 16 35 || 32.9% 119.7%

China 4 3 4 6 12 13 20 || 237.4% 48.8%

All Others 8 -1 -4 -5 9 3 16 || -64.7% 442.7%

Total 30 85 105 48 90 79 -18 || 167.6% -123.1%

China 000000 -0 || -55.0% -102.9%All Others 29 85 105 47 90 79 -18 || 168.9% -123.1%

Total -411 -439 -517 -567 -569 -511 -449 || 24.6% -12.2%

China 0 -1 -3 -7 -6 -2 -2 || -10230.2% 45.9%

All Others -411 -437 -513 -560 -563 -510 -447 || 24.2% -12.4%

Total 639 699 638 861 1,080 1,108 1,368 || 73.3% 23.5%

China 17 15 16 13 15 37 60 || 111.4% 63.1%All Others 622 684 622 848 1,065 1,071 1,308 || 72.3% 22.1%Total -797 -811 -1,065 -1,244 -1,255 -1,541 -1,863 || 93.2% 20.9%

China -7 -4 -34 -29 -29 -59 -69 || 687.3% 17.1%

All Others -790 -807 -1,031 -1,214 -1,226 -1,482 -1,793 || 87.6% 21.0%

Total -425 -526 -503 -524 -532 -571 -631 || 34.5% 10.4%

China -50 -49 -138 -214 -245 -290 -333 || 476.9% 14.8%

All Others -374 -477 -365 -310 -287 -281 -297 || -25.0% 5.9%

Total 151 153 143 60 78 70 5 || -53.4% -93.1%

China -1 9 18 -75 -53 -47 -53 || 3311.8% 12.7%All Others 152 143 125 135 131 117 58 || -22.8% -50.6%

Total -407 -371 -430 -512 -708 -842 -966 || 106.9% 14.7%

China -0 0 -0 -0 -0 -0 -0 || -9.3% 25.5%All Others -407 -371 -430 -512 -708 -842 -965 || 106.9% 14.7%

Appendix 2 
 Counterfeit Concerns

Product HS Code

Baby formula 0404Toothpaste 330610Air fresheners 330749

US Department of Commerce, Ch

--------- Annual US Balances in $ Millions --------- -- Change --

Source 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 '00-'05 '06/'05

 U.S. Trade Balances for Products Known to be Affected by IP Theft: 2000-2006Total 10 40 19 9 12 40 127 || 291.8% 218.0%China 9 17 19 24 28 31 49 || 242.5% 56.9%All Others 1 23 -1 -15 -16 9 78 || 731.4% 808.9%

Total 104 82 75 74 93 102 86 || -2.2% -15.6%

China -3 -4 -3 -2 -2 -2 -1 || -47.5% -29.3%

All Others 108 87 78 76 94 104 87 || -3.6% -15.8%

Total 14 15 31 -0 5 11 32 || -21.2% 176.3%

China -2 -2 -3 -5 -8 -15 -29 || 806.5% 93.5%

All Others 16 17 34 5 14 26 60 || 63.2% 129.4%

hina Customs, Global Trade Information Services and MBG Information Services.

Appendix 2 
 Counterfeit Concerns --------- Annual US Exports in $ Millions --------- -- Change -- --------- Annual US Imports i

Product HS Code Source 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 '00-'05 '06/'05 Source 2000 2001 2002 2003 

Inkjet cartridges 8443 Total $1,246 $995 $842 $863 $878 $1,030 $1,062 || -17.3% 3.1% || Total $1,707 $1,567 $1,321 $1,359 

Canada 212 163 161 183 155 196 184 || -7.6% -5.8% || Germany 587 679 552 570 

Mexico 104 64 71 58 59 66 71 || -36.7% 7.7% || Japan 398 295 209 226 Germany 110 83 82 71 69 72 69 || -34.1% -4.6% || United Kingdom 153 109 111 107 China 43 43 28 37 27 47 54 || 9.5% 12.9% || Israel 70 63 67 80 

United Kingdom 93 81 63 43 51 47 46 || -49.4% -1.3% || Switzerland 77 64 35 46 

All Others 684 561 435 471 517 602 637 || -12.0% 5.9% || China 4 4 7 13 

|| All Others 419 352 338 316 

Golf clubs 950631 Total 407 415 325 334 345 355 361 || -12.7% 1.5% || Total 80 87 177 201 

Canada 59 61 53 60 65 70 81 || 17.9% 16.4% || China 54 67 155 178 

United Kingdom 89 92 88 89 89 85 74 || -4.8% -12.8% || Japan 15 12 15 11 Korea, South 33 29 28 26 26 43 57 || 27.8% 34.4% || Taiwan 3 4 3 3 

Japan 134 147 81 78 69 51 49 || -61.4% -5.7% || Vietnam 0 0 0 0 

Netherlands 0 0 9 20 18 22 21 || 4624.2% -2.7% || Hong Kong 3 2 2 6 

China 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 || -98.6% 54.3% || All Others 4 2 2 3 

All Others 89 85 63 59 77 85 78 || -5.0% -7.6%

Windshields 700711 Total 386 310 294 315 286 278 243 || -28.0% -12.7% || Total 182 160 183 178 

Canada 267 220 203 205 189 184 162 || -31.1% -11.8% || Mexico 120 95 111 97 

Germany 23 23 23 34 23 22 25 || -4.9% 17.6% || Canada 27 24 29 36 

Mexico 65 45 49 40 32 27 17 || -58.2% -35.9% || China 2 5 3 4 

France 5 4 3 2 5 6 6 || 33.0% -8.6% || Japan 8 7 6 7 

Belgium 2 1 2 2 2 1 5 || -31.1% 317.4% || Germany 7 9 11 10 China 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 || -70.1% -54.6% || All Others 18 20 23 24 All Others 24 17 14 32 35 38 27 || 54.2% -29.0%

Auto replacement parts: brake pads, ignition coils, sway bars 8708 Total 30,995 28,994 29,030 28,086 30,885 31,532 33,511 || 1.7% 6.3% || Total 27,986 26,411 29,310 32,348 

Canada 16,598 15,333 16,508 16,391 17,975 18,371 18,074 || 10.7% -1.6% || Canada 9,373 8,640 9,704 10,606 

Mexico 7,231 6,784 6,465 5,902 6,289 6,318 7,437 || -12.6% 17.7% || Mexico 4,616 4,618 5,220 5,595 

Germany 622 704 623 603 781 843 963 || 35.4% 14.3% || Japan 7,305 6,581 6,802 7,253 

Japan 1,386 1,180 1,212 1,064 884 751 913 || -45.8% 21.6% || Germany 1,494 1,492 1,683 2,172 

Austria 943 965 822 394 333 566 686 || -39.9% 21.3% || China 440 572 770 1,016 

China 119 150 185 242 403 370 533 || 209.9% 43.9% || All Others 4,758 4,508 5,130 5,707 

All Others 4,095 3,878 3,216 3,490 4,221 4,313 4,904 || 5.3% 13.7%

Cell phone batteries 850650 Total 120 109 115 145 179 234 280 || 95.0% 19.7% || Total 152 112 125 139 

Canada 19 16 14 17 27 33 38 || 73.0% 15.3% || Japan 103 71 63 50 

Mexico 35 19 15 13 16 22 36 || -37.3% 65.8% || China 3 4 7 17 

Switzerland 1 0 0 1 1 23 33 || 2887.9% 42.6% || Israel 10 10 11 16 Ireland 6 16 24 32 23 39 25 || 521.6% -36.3% || France 6 5 10 13 

United Kingdom 6 5 5 11 15 14 20 || 128.1% 39.3% || Canada 2 1 4 3 

China 1 4 2 1 1 1 4 || 34.1% 186.2% || All Others 28 21 29 40 All Others 52 48 55 70 97 102 124 || 96.0% 22.4%

Duracell Batteries 8507 Total $932 $896 $773 $723 $746 $859 $1,060 || -7.8% 23.3% || Total 2,122 1,823 1,624 1,516 

Canada 299 295 289 299 333 382 473 || 27.6% 23.9% || China 252 234 258 311 

Mexico 185 205 182 147 142 155 194 || -16.2% 24.6% || Japan 1,022 795 588 397 

Sweden 2 3 6 7 21 26 36 || 1137.6% 36.3% || Mexico 458 418 391 371 Germany 21 27 19 19 15 26 36 || 22.5% 37.3% || Canada 42 30 28 39 

China 10 9 7 7 13 15 27 || 43.3% 87.0% || Korea, South 24 25 53 73 

All Others 414 357 271 244 222 256 295 || -38.3% 15.4% || All Others 323 321 307 325 

U.S. Exports and Imports of Products Known to be Affected by IP Theft: Top Five Markets (Plus China) 2000-2006

Appendix 2 
 Counterfeit Concerns --------- Annual US Exports in $ Millions --------- -- Change -- --------- Annual US Imports i

Product HS Code Source 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 '00-'05 '06/'05 Source 2000 2001 2002 2003 

U.S. Exports and Imports of Products Known to be Affected by IP Theft: Top Five Markets (Plus China) 2000-2006

Auto and truck parts 8708 Total 30,995 28,994 29,030 28,086 30,885 31,532 33,511 || 1.7% 6.3% || Total 27,986 26,411 29,310 32,348 

Canada 16,598 15,333 16,508 16,391 17,975 18,371 18,074 || 10.7% -1.6% || Canada 9,373 8,640 9,704 10,606 

Mexico 7,231 6,784 6,465 5,902 6,289 6,318 7,437 || -12.6% 17.7% || Mexico 4,616 4,618 5,220 5,595 

Germany 622 704 623 603 781 843 963 || 35.4% 14.3% || Japan 7,305 6,581 6,802 7,253 

Japan 1,386 1,180 1,212 1,064 884 751 913 || -45.8% 21.6% || Germany 1,494 1,492 1,683 2,172 

Austria 943 965 822 394 333 566 686 || -39.9% 21.3% || China 440 572 770 1,016 

China 119 150 185 242 403 370 533 || 209.9% 43.9% || All Others 4,758 4,508 5,130 5,707 

All Others 4,095 3,878 3,216 3,490 4,221 4,313 4,904 || 5.3% 13.7%

Personal care products 33 Total 3,971 4,383 4,426 4,933 5,536 6,054 6,718 || 52.4% 11.0% || Total 2,750 2,945 3,268 4,642 

Canada 1,007 1,064 1,211 1,333 1,491 1,600 1,783 || 58.9% 11.4% || Ireland 41 74 84 1,000 

United Kingdom 300 307 329 400 456 525 588 || 75.0% 12.0% || France 831 852 897 1,055 

Mexico 334 426 388 353 392 447 491 || 33.7% 10.0% || Canada 476 531 575 641 

Japan 320 376 366 432 505 483 434 || 50.7% -10.0% || China 120 170 217 234 

Australia 130 165 136 165 196 233 272 || 79.5% 16.5% || Italy 178 217 216 241 

China 34 38 52 69 84 117 146 || 246.2% 24.2% || All Others 1,106 1,101 1,279 1,473 

All Others 1,846 2,008 1,943 2,179 2,413 2,649 3,004 || 43.5% 13.4%

Aircraft parts 880330 Total 12,962 13,529 11,993 12,290 13,393 15,164 18,170 || 17.0% 19.8% || Total 4,639 5,194 4,156 3,770 

Japan 1,851 2,005 1,849 1,859 1,509 1,635 1,934 || -11.6% 18.2% || Japan 1,172 1,386 1,016 841 

United Kingdom 1,511 1,500 1,480 1,506 1,495 1,509 1,712 || -0.2% 13.5% || United Kingdom 899 969 758 738 

Germany 808 793 687 735 897 1,317 1,453 || 63.0% 10.3% || Canada 917 952 638 560 

Brazil 428 433 332 368 804 786 1,198 || 83.5% 52.4% || France 376 408 384 388 

Singapore 388 498 427 518 659 858 1,098 || 121.1% 28.0% || Korea, South 127 184 87 82 

China 208 258 253 270 311 517 722 || 148.8% 39.7% || China 32 57 53 61 

All Others 7,768 8,041 6,964 7,033 7,718 8,542 10,052 || 10.0% 17.7%

Testing equipment 9024 Total 646 585 501 573 572 587 669 || -9.1% 13.9% || Total 109 84 86 96 

China 29 40 52 75 84 87 99 || 199.4% 14.3% || United Kingdom 22 25 22 21 

United Kingdom 48 43 32 45 34 43 60 || -10.7% 39.5% || Germany 19 18 20 21 

Korea, South 59 42 33 42 49 51 54 || -14.0% 5.8% || Canada 6 4 6 8 

Germany 66 52 45 52 37 38 51 || -42.9% 36.9% || Japan 18 13 6 9 

Canada 38 31 29 39 39 35 46 || -7.8% 32.7% || Ireland 0 1 5 6 All Others 406 378 311 320 330 334 359 || -17.6% 7.3% || China 1 1 1 1 

|| All Others 44 23 27 30 

Electrical control equipment 8532 Total 3,467 1,890 1,706 1,696 1,813 1,452 1,736 || -58.1% 19.5% || Total 3,173 1,608 1,375 1,292 

Mexico 1,899 981 957 869 952 590 666 || -68.9% 12.9% || Mexico 688 378 288 297 

China 38 30 14 28 75 104 162 || 169.6% 56.6% || Japan 1,146 593 444 381 

Hong Kong 84 33 68 114 100 108 126 || 28.3% 16.6% || China 37 32 34 42 

Canada 368 200 133 114 119 124 125 || -66.2% 0.6% || Israel 454 169 237 231 

Netherlands 6 2 41 91 100 103 98 || 1541.8% -4.5% || Czech Republic 192 63 47 55 

All Others 1,071 644 492 481 467 423 558 || -60.5% 31.9% || All Others 657 373 326 287 

Commercial door fixtures 730830 Total $126 $123 $115 $109 $121 $148 $181 || 17.0% 22.4% || Total 232 240 258 285 

Canada 51 57 63 62 69 86 92 || 66.5% 7.3% || Canada 180 181 194 199 

Kuwait 1 1 0 0 0 1 18 || 157.8% 1116.8% || Mexico 27 31 32 32 Mexico 13 12 7 7 8 12 16 || -11.2% 36.2% || China 6 8 11 15 

Norway 3 2 1 1 2 4 4 || 77.1% 0.9% || United Kingdom 6 5 6 9 

Japan 3 2 2 2 2 2 4 || -6.4% 71.7% || Germany 2 4 3 14 

China 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 || -45.9% -1.3% || All Others 12 11 13 16 All Others 54 48 39 35 39 41 46 || -24.2% 11.2%

Appendix 2 
 Counterfeit Concerns --------- Annual US Exports in $ Millions --------- -- Change -- --------- Annual US Imports i

Product HS Code Source 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 '00-'05 '06/'05 Source 2000 2001 2002 2003 

U.S. Exports and Imports of Products Known to be Affected by IP Theft: Top Five Markets (Plus China) 2000-2006

Computer Software 852491 Total 773 531 388 356 354 385 455 || -50.2% 18.2% || Total 184 122 108 87 

Canada 253 190 143 121 109 89 80 || -64.8% -9.6% || Canada 22 19 15 10 Japan 51 35 24 26 32 32 36 || -36.6% 11.8% || Germany 18 19 14 23 

Germany 35 24 15 18 16 29 36 || -17.7% 24.7% || China 2 2 2 4 

China 15 7 8 19 18 19 31 || 28.7% 65.5% || Japan 18 11 9 4 

United Kingdom 53 37 26 16 22 26 29 || -50.9% 10.7% || United Kingdom 19 15 9 6 

All Others 366 238 173 157 157 190 242 || -48.2% 27.6% || All Others 105 57 58 40 

Entertainment Software (including videogame DCs and cartridges, personal computer CD-ROMs and multimedia products) 950410 Total 380 467 485 604 551 715 1,219 || 88.0% 70.5% || Total 2,073 3,417 3,717 2,429 

Canada 249 337 335 449 388 459 606 || 84.4% 32.2% || China 336 398 1,571 2,108 

Mexico 35 40 50 26 39 74 327 || 111.1% 342.3% || Japan 1,614 2,616 1,339 200 

Hong Kong 20 6 16 27 24 33 68 || 70.1% 103.3% || United Kingdom 31 16 15 26 

Brazil 4 4 9 4 8 14 38 || 225.2% 172.9% || Taiwan 7 4 7 13 

Chile 8 7 2 2 3 26 32 || 223.4% 21.2% || Canada 5 4 4 8 

China 0 0 0 1 2 1 1 || 65.7% 35.1% || All Others 80 380 780 74 

All Others 64 71 72 95 87 108 147 || 68.6% 36.2%

Records 852410 Total 65 63 46 47 41 29 28 || -55.8% -3.9% || Total 17 13 9 8 

Japan 22 23 17 17 16 11 9 || -46.9% -22.1% || United Kingdom 10 9 6 5 Russia 0 0 0 0 1 1 4 || 473.2% 336.0% || Czech Republic 0 0 0 0 Canada 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 || -29.9% -17.6% || Germany 2 1 1 1 

United Kingdom 8 4 4 5 3 2 2 || -77.1% -8.2% || Italy 0 0 0 1 Netherlands 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 || -61.1% 80.3% || Netherlands 0 0 0 0 

China 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 || 320.7% 6.0% || China 0 0 0 0 

All Others 31 30 20 21 18 11 9 || -64.8% -19.5% || All Others 5 1 1 1 

Laser Disks 852432 Total 165 180 188 209 209 252 237 || 53.3% -6.1% || Total 300 280 264 253 

Canada 52 51 49 67 85 99 98 || 91.9% -1.4% || Canada 88 100 90 93 Mexico 21 26 38 40 30 38 36 || 81.2% -4.9% || United Kingdom 59 47 42 40 Japan 18 26 25 33 40 48 31 || 170.1% -35.0% || Mexico 22 23 24 21 United Kingdom 13 13 11 12 10 11 14 || -14.2% 23.7% || Germany 29 18 20 18 

France 8 9 8 7 4 5 8 || -31.7% 48.6% || Netherlands 8 7 8 6 China 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 || -90.5% -37.4% || China 5 6 5 5 All Others 52 56 56 49 40 50 50 || -2.8% -0.8% || All Others 89 78 75 70 

MAGN TPE,N SOUND/IM 852440 Total $118 $80 $49 $43 $50 $18 $18 || -84.5% -0.4% || Total 19 12 13 5 

Canada 16 8 10 5 4 3 3 || -79.2% -14.6% || Australia 0 0 0 0 

India 6 1 5 14 19 1 2 || -79.1% 36.3% || Japan 2 1 3 1 Mexico 5 11 2 1 4 2 2 || -55.3% -20.0% || Canada 14 9 10 1 Korea, South 11 3 2 7 2 2 2 || -86.1% 3.1% || France 0 0 0 0 

United Kingdom 6 7 3 1 2 2 1 || -72.0% -41.2% || Germany 0 0 0 0 

China 1 2 1 1 3 0 1 || -56.5% 96.7% || China 0 0 0 0 

All Others 72 48 25 14 16 8 8 || -89.4% 7.6% || All Others 2 2 0 2 

Appendix 2 
 Counterfeit Concerns --------- Annual US Exports in $ Millions --------- -- Change -- --------- Annual US Imports i

Product HS Code Source 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 '00-'05 '06/'05 Source 2000 2001 2002 2003 

U.S. Exports and Imports of Products Known to be Affected by IP Theft: Top Five Markets (Plus China) 2000-2006

MGN TPE,SND/IM=<4MM 852451 Total 46 37 25 32 26 20 15 || -56.9% -23.3% || Total 27 19 14 8 

Russia 0 0 0 0 0 2 3 || 1148.9% 82.1% || Canada 10 9 5 3 Canada 16 14 10 10 7 5 3 || -67.4% -38.9% || United Kingdom 1 1 1 1 

Brazil 1 0 0 1 2 3 3 || 468.0% -4.6% || Japan 0 0 0 0 

Mexico 4 2 3 2 2 2 1 || -42.7% -33.4% || Mexico 6 3 2 0 

United Kingdom 2 2 2 3 2 1 1 || -68.0% 24.6% || France 0 0 0 0 

China 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 || -94.0% -43.7% || China 2 3 2 1 

All Others 23 17 10 16 12 7 3 || -69.8% -50.8% || All Others 7 4 4 2 

MG TPE,S/I>4=<6.5MM 852452 Total 77 48 34 31 30 16 15 || -79.8% -5.4% || Total 13 18 10 6 

Canada 22 18 13 11 11 7 6 || -70.0% -14.4% || Canada 6 16 8 3 

Mexico 3 4 3 1 1 1 1 || -76.3% 45.4% || France 0 0 0 0 

Korea, South 3 3 2 1 3 0 1 || -88.1% 198.4% || Hungary 0 0 0 0 Japan 16 6 3 2 1 1 1 || -95.0% -1.8% || United Kingdom 1 0 0 0 

Germany 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 || -68.9% 261.5% || Japan 1 0 0 0 China 4 2 2 1 0 0 0 || -95.5% -55.6% || China 0 0 0 1 

All Others 28 15 11 14 12 7 5 || -76.2% -18.5% || All Others 5 2 1 1 

MG TPE,SND/IM>6.5MM 852453 Total 88 82 68 47 32 23 14 || -74.3% -38.2% || Total 75 82 95 58 

Canada 41 33 27 24 17 12 6 || -71.0% -50.6% || Korea, South 13 8 30 23 Venezuela 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 || 3.5% 747.3% || Canada 25 23 15 11 Mexico 16 15 24 10 5 5 1 || -71.2% -72.0% || Peru 0 0 0 0 

Netherlands 2 0 1 2 2 1 1 || -20.1% -28.5% || Mexico 14 31 19 3 

Hong Kong 1 2 1 1 0 0 1 || -89.6% 989.3% || Argentina 0 0 1 0 

China 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 || -98.8% -63.0% || China 5 5 8 9 

All Others 26 32 15 10 9 4 4 || -83.1% -13.9% || All Others 17 15 22 12 

Textbooks, tradebooks, reference & prof'onal publications/journals 490199 Total 1,956 1,792 1,772 1,789 1,839 2,000 2,092 || 2.2% 4.6% || Total 1,570 1,626 1,647 1,726 

Canada 777 751 789 840 878 928 989 || 19.5% 6.6% || China 219 266 335 409 

United Kingdom 272 254 272 277 290 288 296 || 6.0% 2.9% || Canada 223 260 255 270 

Mexico 113 99 80 80 77 112 110 || -0.9% -2.0% || United Kingdom 318 302 267 283 Australia 116 66 70 75 78 100 108 || -13.4% 7.9% || Hong Kong 224 228 222 188 

Japan 124 129 104 98 101 93 79 || -24.6% -15.6% || Singapore 86 96 100 102 China 12 12 12 18 19 17 26 || 41.0% 54.9% || All Others 501 474 469 475 

All Others 543 481 445 402 395 461 483 || -15.1% 4.7%

Table grapes (Chinese copy US packaging/sell as US goods) 80610 Total $455 $475 $494 $516 $595 $696 $664 || 53.0% -4.5% || Total 552 571 680 680 

Canada 207 190 214 235 283 307 312 || 48.5% 1.7% || Chile 388 378 459 444 

Mexico 38 33 42 36 42 51 50 || 33.7% -2.4% || Mexico 143 178 203 226 

Hong Kong 49 72 68 59 35 44 43 || -11.3% -2.2% || Brazil 0 0 0 0 

Malaysia 16 37 38 43 54 63 40 || 298.7% -35.7% || Peru 1 2 5 4 

China 11 9 8 6 21 47 35 || 323.0% -24.1% || South Africa 15 3 6 3 

All Others 134 135 123 137 160 185 184 || 38.0% -0.4% || China 0 0 0 0 

|| All Others 6 11 7 3 

Appendix 2 
 Counterfeit Concerns --------- Annual US Exports in $ Millions --------- -- Change -- --------- Annual US Imports i

Product HS Code Source 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 '00-'05 '06/'05 Source 2000 2001 2002 2003 

U.S. Exports and Imports of Products Known to be Affected by IP Theft: Top Five Markets (Plus China) 2000-2006

Fresh fruit 08 Total 3,980 4,050 4,242 4,764 5,386 6,413 6,839 || 61.1% 6.6% || Total 3,919 3,891 4,229 4,590 

Canada 1,226 1,255 1,369 1,542 1,708 1,947 2,165 || 58.8% 11.2% || Mexico 727 735 771 907 

Japan 625 602 607 606 637 615 612 || -1.5% -0.5% || Chile 622 626 772 798 

Mexico 269 279 259 260 269 327 419 || 21.6% 28.5% || Costa Rica 487 514 484 523 

Germany 190 181 167 185 223 331 336 || 74.0% 1.5% || Guatemala 252 293 338 338 

Spain 105 113 142 197 261 317 313 || 201.1% -1.3% || Ecuador 267 278 314 307 

China 31 39 47 51 72 138 132 || 346.6% -4.4% || China 25 32 51 62 All Others 1,534 1,580 1,650 1,924 2,216 2,738 2,861 || 78.5% 4.5% || All Others 1,540 1,413 1,500 1,656 

Beverages 22 Total 1,707 1,792 1,767 2,003 2,265 2,305 2,697 || 35.1% 17.0% || Total 8,339 8,731 9,701 10,948 

Canada 410 435 397 494 540 616 700 || 50.1% 13.6% || France 1,695 1,587 1,806 2,103 

United Kingdom 202 252 281 317 428 296 422 || 46.5% 42.4% || Mexico 1,279 1,395 1,622 1,739 

Japan 225 218 240 217 249 281 307 || 25.2% 9.0% || Italy 732 777 942 1,124 

Mexico 143 163 170 188 142 147 167 || 3.2% 13.6% || United Kingdom 925 894 954 989 

Germany 80 80 79 94 110 109 128 || 35.4% 17.9% || Netherlands 830 912 1,022 1,066 

China 3 5 7 6 9 10 18 || 277.1% 75.2% || China 16 23 29 24 All Others 643 639 593 686 787 845 954 || 31.4% 12.9% || All Others 2,863 3,144 3,326 3,902 

Structural wood-based panels 441292 Total 2 3 1 1 1 1 1 || -33.0% -45.5% || Total 2 4 7 7 

Canada 0 3 1 1 0 0 0 || -34.1% -10.5% || Thailand 0 1 3 4 

Mexico 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 || 87.0% -24.4% || China 0 0 0 0 

Cayman Islands 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 || -65.2% -71.3% || Malaysia 0 0 0 0 

Indonesia 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 || N/A N/A || Taiwan 0 0 0 0 

China 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 || -41.2% -96.4% || Brazil 1 1 3 1 

All Others 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 || -57.3% -98.4% || All Others 1 1 1 1 

Structural wood-based panels 441820 Total 98 86 89 103 120 111 117 || 14.0% 5.2% || Total 416 460 508 523 

Canada 55 53 58 65 78 72 70 || 31.5% -2.7% || Canada 208 226 243 254 

Japan 14 12 11 12 10 9 7 || -40.0% -20.8% || China 2 3 8 13 

Bahamas 4 3 3 3 3 5 6 || 17.3% 37.9% || Brazil 34 48 55 47 Mexico 4 4 3 2 4 5 6 || 17.1% 24.1% || Chile 21 32 39 38 Ireland 0 1 2 1 1 1 2 || 205.4% 50.1% || Mexico 42 38 37 37 

China 0 0 1 2 2 0 1 || 89.5% 159.2% || All Others 110 114 126 134 

All Others 20 13 12 18 22 19 24 || -2.2% 26.7%

Agricultural chemical products, including glyphosate (Roundup) 38083019 Total $780 $835 $791 $646 $779 $840 $983 || 7.7% 17.0% || Total 211 268 236 305 

Canada 298 357 340 287 322 367 468 || 23.1% 27.5% || Canada 53 42 14 14 

Brazil 105 98 97 78 120 136 132 || 29.3% -3.0% || France 17 20 14 31 Mexico 41 57 20 25 44 35 76 || -15.8% 118.1% || China 0 0 17 48 

France 28 46 71 83 76 53 64 || 91.4% 19.6% || Israel 6 3 3 7 

Belgium 39 57 30 30 34 26 32 || -32.4% 20.6% || Germany 19 35 53 70 

China 1 9 9 6 7 22 15 || 1790.5% -29.8% || All Others 115 168 135 134 

All Others 268 211 224 138 176 201 197 || -24.8% -2.3%

ETHYLENE,PRIMARY FORM 3901 Total 2,698 2,391 2,605 2,844 3,762 4,534 5,195 || 68.0% 14.6% || Total 1,654 1,740 1,656 2,157 

Mexico 635 592 590 734 942 1,194 1,312 || 88.1% 9.9% || Canada 1,499 1,581 1,502 1,950 

Canada 612 612 579 717 855 1,034 1,237 || 69.0% 19.7% || Thailand 23 25 11 29 

China 139 113 116 114 243 358 396 || 156.9% 10.8% || Brazil 8 3 11 22 

Belgium 225 179 236 253 291 392 370 || 74.0% -5.6% || Germany 20 18 22 26 Colombia 60 40 48 60 92 98 133 || 62.8% 35.6% || Japan 26 35 37 39 

All Others 1,027 856 1,035 966 1,339 1,458 1,746 || 42.0% 19.8% || China 1 2 2 2 

|| All Others 77 76 72 89 

Appendix 2 
 Counterfeit Concerns --------- Annual US Exports in $ Millions --------- -- Change -- --------- Annual US Imports i

Product HS Code Source 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 '00-'05 '06/'05 Source 2000 2001 2002 2003 

U.S. Exports and Imports of Products Known to be Affected by IP Theft: Top Five Markets (Plus China) 2000-2006

OTHR OLEFIN PRIMARY F 3902 Total 1,360 1,311 1,414 1,668 2,073 2,544 3,023 || 87.1% 18.8% || Total 310 272 318 363 

Mexico 356 338 386 430 548 808 1,003 || 126.8% 24.2% || Canada 206 178 210 223 

Canada 449 383 441 537 657 765 803 || 70.5% 5.0% || Japan 56 45 50 57 

China 56 110 101 151 196 237 296 || 323.9% 25.2% || Germany 17 17 17 19 

Belgium 69 58 81 74 89 101 110 || 46.2% 8.2% || Netherlands 2 2 13 15 Israel 25 37 23 35 73 39 80 || 54.3% 106.9% || Belgium 8 8 6 10 All Others 404 384 381 441 509 594 731 || 46.9% 23.0% || China 0 0 1 0 

|| All Others 20 22 22 39 

STYRENE,PRIMARY FORMS 3903 Total 867 757 785 861 1,033 1,159 1,353 || 33.6% 16.8% || Total 575 584 587 633 

Mexico 276 234 257 280 341 379 484 || 37.3% 27.8% || Mexico 121 156 153 129 

Canada 310 296 295 323 379 391 405 || 26.0% 3.4% || Canada 158 131 134 137 

Belgium 29 24 30 32 38 60 76 || 104.4% 26.9% || Korea, South 69 55 63 64 

China 13 8 15 20 34 46 69 || 251.7% 50.7% || Bahamas 53 67 64 84 

Japan 25 24 22 22 31 40 47 || 60.0% 17.0% || Taiwan 39 40 46 52 

All Others 214 172 166 183 210 244 273 || 13.8% 12.1% || China 1 1 2 5 

|| All Others 135 133 127 162 

VINYL CHLORIDE,ETC 3904 Total 1,020 1,075 1,079 1,170 1,430 1,503 1,734 || 47.3% 15.4% || Total 694 614 483 534 

Canada 393 356 379 414 491 566 626 || 44.0% 10.6% || Canada 196 276 181 203 Mexico 98 99 109 114 131 164 184 || 68.0% 12.0% || Japan 197 158 112 115 

China 66 118 120 116 136 136 142 || 107.1% 4.3% || Germany 51 43 51 74 

Netherlands 41 37 36 47 56 56 71 || 38.7% 25.9% || Colombia 13 5 7 22 

Japan 56 53 41 47 74 67 63 || 19.0% -5.4% || Italy 40 29 37 35 All Others 367 411 393 431 543 513 648 || 39.9% 26.3% || China 1 3 3 3 

|| All Others 197 101 90 83 

VINYL ACETATE;O VINYL 3905 Total $474 $431 $501 $536 $613 $636 $639 || 34.4% 0.5% || Total 167 170 150 145 

Belgium 126 113 120 149 131 148 135 || 17.4% -8.7% || Germany 59 61 53 43 

Canada 46 42 51 57 60 69 77 || 49.9% 11.4% || Canada 27 28 24 32 

Mexico 62 57 55 55 71 63 61 || 1.2% -3.1% || Taiwan 15 12 9 15 Singapore 40 38 45 47 49 46 54 || 15.0% 17.6% || Japan 28 23 27 22 

Germany 13 20 24 20 33 29 43 || 115.9% 48.9% || Belgium 4 5 1 2 

China 2 3 13 12 11 12 14 || 381.2% 20.5% || China 11 10 8 4 

All Others 184 158 193 196 257 270 256 || 46.9% -5.3% || All Others 23 30 28 26 

ACRYLIC POLYMERS 3906 Total 798 817 860 846 1,038 1,253 1,358 || 57.1% 8.3% || Total 307 298 333 384 

Canada 205 222 242 250 286 309 293 || 50.9% -5.3% || Canada 91 93 103 116 Mexico 155 133 148 147 190 228 255 || 46.7% 11.9% || Japan 64 64 75 82 

Brazil 49 45 49 47 57 76 94 || 53.2% 24.4% || Germany 45 35 39 55 

Belgium 29 42 39 28 29 46 63 || 61.5% 36.6% || United Kingdom 37 31 40 43 

Germany 17 22 20 16 26 45 60 || 158.9% 34.5% || France 10 15 22 24 

China 20 15 23 25 36 39 56 || 100.3% 42.1% || China 0 0 0 1 

All Others 322 338 339 332 413 510 536 || 58.1% 5.1% || All Others 59 59 56 63 

POLYETHER,EXPOXIDE,ET 3907 Total 3,050 2,945 2,875 3,099 3,700 4,246 4,775 || 39.2% 12.5% || Total 1,141 1,048 1,119 1,327 

Mexico 457 434 486 572 589 804 918 || 76.1% 14.1% || Canada 451 412 407 390 

Canada 743 662 662 647 704 829 894 || 11.6% 7.8% || Mexico 76 67 65 134 

China 137 132 173 223 313 393 423 || 186.5% 7.6% || Thailand 39 54 67 115 

Korea, South 121 110 124 129 167 223 278 || 84.5% 24.4% || Japan 171 137 115 122 Japan 201 218 180 156 230 248 254 || 23.5% 2.4% || Korea, South 54 48 71 74 

All Others 1,391 1,389 1,249 1,373 1,697 1,748 2,008 || 25.6% 14.9% || China 2 1 1 2 

|| All Others 349 329 393 488 

Appendix 2 
 Counterfeit Concerns --------- Annual US Exports in $ Millions --------- -- Change -- --------- Annual US Imports i

Product HS Code Source 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 '00-'05 '06/'05 Source 2000 2001 2002 2003 

U.S. Exports and Imports of Products Known to be Affected by IP Theft: Top Five Markets (Plus China) 2000-2006

POLYAMIDES 3908 Total 734 615 681 749 985 1,130 1,351 || 54.1% 19.5% || Total 297 295 355 361 

Canada 165 157 159 161 182 231 219 || 39.7% -5.3% || Canada 125 116 135 117 

Mexico 75 109 99 102 160 165 204 || 120.7% 23.2% || Germany 57 58 63 64 

China 21 22 32 44 74 88 136 || 321.2% 55.5% || France 16 28 32 37 

Japan 88 53 76 69 80 97 131 || 10.4% 34.8% || Japan 36 37 45 45 

Belgium 55 49 49 62 83 78 116 || 42.4% 49.2% || Netherlands 10 10 11 13 

All Others 330 225 265 311 406 472 545 || 42.9% 15.6% || China 0 0 1 1 

|| All Others 52 46 69 83 

AMINO-RESIN,PRIM F;OT 3909 Total 729 672 769 910 1,055 1,410 1,474 || 93.4% 4.5% || Total 257 241 284 304 

Canada 279 232 254 299 352 484 465 || 73.6% -3.9% || Canada 104 116 113 115 

Mexico 91 103 109 140 162 200 234 || 119.1% 16.5% || Germany 52 38 54 59 

China 24 25 42 109 124 180 189 || 651.2% 4.9% || Japan 26 19 21 26 

Brazil 23 24 25 28 54 70 87 || 207.1% 25.3% || Belgium 15 5 9 6 

Japan 41 32 36 31 35 45 61 || 9.6% 37.5% || United Kingdom 8 12 18 17 

All Others 271 256 304 303 327 431 438 || 59.0% 1.6% || China 0 0 1 1 

|| All Others 50 52 69 79 

SILICONE,PRIMARY FORM 3910 Total $490 $444 $538 $578 $650 $738 $895 || 50.8% 21.3% || Total 219 196 211 222 

Belgium 44 44 71 75 84 78 103 || 79.8% 31.8% || Germany 102 83 107 109 

China 13 13 17 28 39 65 98 || 403.0% 50.0% || Japan 63 55 58 64 

Japan 40 32 52 61 44 76 97 || 89.0% 28.1% || Thailand 0 0 0 0 

Canada 74 62 72 70 77 87 87 || 16.4% 0.8% || Canada 20 17 14 15 

Korea, South 29 26 32 40 50 58 69 || 102.2% 18.6% || France 12 8 7 9 

All Others 290 267 294 305 356 374 441 || 29.0% 17.9% || China 0 1 2 1 

|| All Others 22 32 23 24 

PETRO RESIN,PRIM F;OT 3911 Total 549 546 551 535 667 695 749 || 26.7% 7.7% || Total 157 156 146 154 

Belgium 94 79 76 64 95 88 104 || -6.8% 18.3% || United Kingdom 43 45 30 33 

Canada 78 142 156 142 129 112 94 || 43.7% -15.9% || Japan 31 26 28 33 Mexico 50 49 35 40 54 58 88 || 14.6% 52.0% || Germany 28 25 25 33 

Netherlands 20 31 41 48 61 61 83 || 200.5% 35.1% || Canada 15 14 13 12 

Japan 41 45 39 39 60 72 75 || 75.0% 3.5% || Korea, South 3 3 3 3 

China 14 15 15 16 20 37 30 || 174.7% -20.5% || China 0 1 2 1 

All Others 251 185 189 187 248 267 276 || 6.3% 3.4% || All Others 38 43 44 40 

CELLULOSE,OT CHEM DER 3912 Total 579 622 657 714 846 879 953 || 51.9% 8.4% || Total 217 206 226 254 

China 6 5 7 15 28 96 114 || 1630.9% 18.8% || Germany 29 28 38 41 

Belgium 57 88 80 100 119 110 101 || 93.8% -8.2% || Japan 37 37 42 43 Japan 39 61 34 36 50 62 77 || 57.7% 25.5% || Netherlands 24 24 24 25 

Korea, South 22 28 29 35 39 50 63 || 126.1% 27.0% || Brazil 8 4 3 10 United Kingdom 43 36 45 47 46 56 61 || 29.4% 9.3% || China 0 1 3 5 

All Others 412 405 462 482 564 506 537 || 22.8% 6.1% || All Others 118 111 116 131 

OT NATURAL PRIME FORM 3913 Total 204 215 230 244 265 262 268 || 28.6% 2.2% || Total 114 208 216 192 

Mexico 56 41 35 54 62 63 65 || 12.8% 3.9% || China 7 103 107 101 

Japan 24 31 55 38 35 39 39 || 59.4% 1.8% || Austria 11 10 13 11 

Belgium 14 25 26 30 36 32 36 || 136.0% 12.4% || Japan 9 11 10 10 Canada 14 14 15 21 23 27 28 || 88.1% 3.9% || France 18 17 17 14 

Brazil 5 3 6 5 10 9 10 || 91.6% 10.7% || United Kingdom 2 4 8 9 China 1 4 3 4 4 6 8 || 398.3% 37.3% || All Others 68 63 62 47 All Others 90 98 90 91 95 87 81 || -3.9% -6.5%

Appendix 2 
 Counterfeit Concerns --------- Annual US Exports in $ Millions --------- -- Change -- --------- Annual US Imports i

Product HS Code Source 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 '00-'05 '06/'05 Source 2000 2001 2002 2003 

U.S. Exports and Imports of Products Known to be Affected by IP Theft: Top Five Markets (Plus China) 2000-2006

ION-EXCHANGERS 3914 Total 108 86 87 81 91 101 95 || -6.8% -6.0% || Total 172 161 176 183 

Canada 42 25 28 21 23 28 35 || -32.7% 23.2% || Sweden 70 68 71 60 

Germany 1 0 2 1 4 12 13 || 1187.8% 8.4% || France 19 17 25 36 

Japan 15 10 8 20 19 19 10 || 21.5% -44.8% || Austria 25 24 25 30 

Mexico 12 7 4 5 6 5 8 || -56.4% 52.5% || China 4 7 8 15 

China 1 1 1 1 3 4 6 || 412.3% 27.6% || Germany 17 15 13 13 

All Others 37 44 44 33 36 33 24 || -12.0% -27.8% || All Others 37 30 34 28 

WASTE,PARINGS,SCRAP 3915 Total $214 $273 $257 $291 $348 $453 $581 || 111.3% 28.4% || Total 154 147 160 149 

Hong Kong 51 79 96 107 101 152 223 || 196.2% 46.3% || China 10 11 19 16 

China 34 38 50 53 84 101 150 || 201.2% 49.0% || Mexico 42 39 31 33 

Canada 59 64 54 62 79 107 107 || 80.5% -0.2% || Canada 36 32 23 28 India 5 7 7 7 8 21 23 || 319.1% 10.2% || Germany 19 17 25 20 Belgium 2 11 4 5 6 6 13 || 273.8% 108.0% || Italy 10 15 20 15 All Others 63 73 47 57 69 65 65 || 3.2% -0.2% || All Others 38 33 42 38 

MONOFIL,ROD,STICK,ETC 3916 Total 180 174 217 282 268 280 263 || 55.5% -6.3% || Total 326 365 363 389 

Canada 39 41 44 47 56 69 78 || 73.9% 13.1% || Canada 282 316 320 347 

Mexico 23 21 17 25 37 37 41 || 63.1% 12.6% || China 2 4 5 5 

Dominican Republic 10 11 34 53 36 40 30 || 322.6% -26.4% || Germany 5 5 3 5 

Costa Rica 39 52 72 93 61 47 29 || 20.4% -36.9% || United Kingdom 7 6 2 2 Japan 16 2 4 5 5 6 12 || -61.1% 90.7% || Belgium 2 1 2 2 

China 1 2 2 4 7 6 6 || 359.4% -1.7% || All Others 28 34 31 28 

All Others 53 44 44 55 66 75 66 || 43.0% -11.7%

TUBE,PIPE,HOSES+FIT 3917 Total 985 932 955 1,087 1,197 1,366 1,610 || 38.6% 17.8% || Total 683 659 663 735 

Mexico 298 293 301 360 412 475 594 || 59.5% 25.2% || Canada 272 260 237 251 

Canada 265 249 268 304 335 383 422 || 44.3% 10.2% || China 15 20 37 51 

Germany 24 22 25 33 30 31 45 || 26.7% 46.7% || Mexico 48 43 46 55 

United Kingdom 22 25 23 23 29 39 38 || 74.8% -2.4% || Germany 45 43 53 67 Australia 12 13 14 20 19 34 36 || 194.7% 6.0% || Japan 59 53 54 58 

China 7 9 9 14 23 25 22 || 242.8% -9.0% || All Others 244 239 236 253 

All Others 357 322 315 334 350 381 452 || 6.5% 18.8%

FLOOR,WALL COVER 3918 Total 202 155 141 140 160 181 191 || -10.4% 5.8% || Total 333 331 370 420 

Canada 98 94 95 94 104 114 122 || 16.6% 6.8% || China 32 39 73 86 

Mexico 10 9 4 5 7 8 10 || -19.6% 26.1% || Canada 166 153 144 143 United Kingdom 8 5 4 5 5 7 8 || -8.2% 14.3% || Taiwan 48 45 46 46 Germany 3 2 2 1 2 3 5 || 12.3% 48.7% || Korea, South 2 4 4 16 

Hong Kong 4 3 2 3 3 5 4 || 15.8% -18.4% || United Kingdom 22 21 19 23 

China 3 4 1 1 1 4 3 || 1.4% -8.9% || All Others 63 69 84 106 

All Others 76 39 32 31 38 40 39 || -47.2% -1.9%

SELF ADHESIVE MATERIL 3919 Total 1,090 977 1,123 1,187 1,377 1,553 1,601 || 42.5% 3.0% || Total 428 408 478 511 

Mexico 293 240 263 290 326 377 348 || 28.7% -7.7% || Canada 116 122 166 166 

Canada 247 237 270 261 290 314 302 || 27.2% -3.8% || China 15 20 27 34 China 22 27 39 46 72 84 111 || 274.3% 32.3% || Taiwan 69 63 68 65 

Germany 65 53 67 77 96 101 106 || 54.3% 5.4% || Japan 101 67 62 61 

Hong Kong 24 20 32 41 56 58 62 || 137.5% 7.5% || Germany 38 41 50 55 

All Others 439 400 453 472 536 620 671 || 41.4% 8.2% || All Others 89 95 105 129 

Appendix 2 
 Counterfeit Concerns --------- Annual US Exports in $ Millions --------- -- Change -- --------- Annual US Imports i

Product HS Code Source 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 '00-'05 '06/'05 Source 2000 2001 2002 2003 

U.S. Exports and Imports of Products Known to be Affected by IP Theft: Top Five Markets (Plus China) 2000-2006

PLATE,SHEET,ET,N CELL 3920 Total $2,944 $2,746 $2,720 $2,872 $3,248 $3,423 $3,653 || 16.3% 6.7% || Total 2,026 1,924 2,035 2,311 

Canada 886 813 870 960 1,022 1,102 1,176 || 24.3% 6.8% || Canada 594 621 665 764 

Mexico 482 477 430 459 535 621 660 || 28.8% 6.4% || Japan 336 299 295 341 

China 53 81 97 106 141 148 173 || 177.5% 17.1% || Korea, South 121 111 145 162 

United Kingdom 157 121 125 120 137 141 163 || -10.5% 15.6% || China 59 58 73 81 

Germany 99 107 115 111 125 123 124 || 24.3% 0.9% || Mexico 117 120 119 134 

All Others 1,266 1,147 1,083 1,114 1,288 1,289 1,356 || 1.9% 5.2% || All Others 800 716 739 829 

OTHR PLATE,SHEET,ETC. 3921 Total 991 936 967 1,078 1,223 1,425 1,618 || 43.8% 13.6% || Total 745 709 799 850 

Canada 279 275 295 299 373 420 432 || 50.5% 2.9% || Canada 232 233 278 253 

Mexico 280 225 265 272 304 365 403 || 30.6% 10.4% || Germany 76 74 79 93 

China 17 23 31 44 77 87 117 || 405.3% 34.1% || Korea, South 65 63 68 75 

Hong Kong 32 31 32 41 54 61 105 || 91.6% 73.3% || China 10 12 17 23 

United Kingdom 50 54 41 55 53 80 90 || 60.1% 11.7% || Mexico 38 40 48 46 

All Others 333 328 303 367 362 412 471 || 23.6% 14.5% || All Others 325 286 308 360 

BATH,SINK,LAVATR SEAT 3922 Total 56 63 53 53 61 68 84 || 22.1% 22.1% || Total 134 127 138 155 

Canada 19 21 20 22 25 27 37 || 45.6% 36.2% || Canada 94 83 85 92 

Mexico 6 4 5 4 7 7 7 || 28.6% -8.2% || China 7 9 11 17 

United Kingdom 3 14 5 3 5 5 6 || 39.7% 26.6% || Mexico 19 23 26 28 Belgium 6 4 5 2 3 3 3 || -52.8% 10.0% || Germany 3 2 3 3 

France 1 1 1 1 2 2 3 || 293.2% 21.2% || Korea, South 0 0 1 3 

China 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 || -50.5% -41.9% || All Others 12 11 12 13 All Others 20 18 17 20 20 23 27 || 13.9% 17.6%

BOX,BAG,CLOSURES,ETC 3923 Total 2,671 2,620 2,882 2,958 3,151 3,442 3,844 || 28.8% 11.7% || Total 2,139 2,334 2,723 3,163 

Mexico 973 974 1,126 1,143 1,241 1,364 1,487 || 40.2% 9.0% || Canada 881 932 994 1,114 

Canada 752 796 890 953 920 1,088 1,210 || 44.6% 11.2% || China 423 499 625 789 

Japan 126 104 103 120 135 135 145 || 6.8% 7.8% || Mexico 110 154 206 206 

United Kingdom 79 79 70 74 88 88 96 || 11.6% 9.3% || Taiwan 111 114 135 136 

Belgium 12 26 12 37 38 60 79 || 411.7% 30.3% || Thailand 28 33 54 82 

China 30 28 29 42 63 37 53 || 23.0% 41.9% || All Others 587 602 709 835 

All Others 699 613 652 590 664 670 774 || -4.1% 15.5%

TABLEWARE,O HOUSEHOLD 3924 Total 530 572 535 543 570 603 659 || 13.9% 9.3% || Total 1,423 1,491 1,658 1,824 

Canada 181 186 208 216 235 264 292 || 46.1% 10.5% || China 799 860 1,025 1,149 

Mexico 68 73 78 66 60 64 59 || -6.1% -7.9% || Mexico 81 110 110 117 United Kingdom 25 35 26 25 32 29 35 || 16.3% 21.6% || Taiwan 186 166 146 139 

Netherlands 16 14 12 15 15 16 19 || 0.5% 20.1% || Canada 92 98 101 108 

Australia 12 11 11 13 15 15 19 || 25.3% 29.8% || Hong Kong 35 36 34 39 

China 3 5 5 4 4 7 9 || 131.7% 33.9% || All Others 230 221 242 273 

All Others 225 248 195 204 209 208 225 || -7.5% 8.1%

OT BUILDERS' WARE 3925 Total $239 $209 $219 $225 $256 $307 $380 || 28.1% 23.8% || Total 786 835 987 1,140 

Canada 109 96 98 104 137 164 198 || 50.7% 20.8% || Canada 389 426 501 562 

Mexico 20 20 17 16 18 22 30 || 11.6% 35.9% || China 280 297 352 380 

United Kingdom 13 16 18 16 11 14 16 || 11.7% 17.6% || Mexico 23 32 36 59 

Australia 8 5 6 4 3 9 11 || 9.7% 25.9% || Taiwan 59 51 57 83 

China 1 2 3 4 4 4 8 || 206.6% 94.2% || Korea, South 1 1 2 10 

All Others 89 71 78 81 83 94 116 || 5.4% 23.8% || All Others 33 30 39 46 

Appendix 2 
 Counterfeit Concerns --------- Annual US Exports in $ Millions --------- -- Change -- --------- Annual US Imports i

Product HS Code Source 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 '00-'05 '06/'05 Source 2000 2001 2002 2003 

U.S. Exports and Imports of Products Known to be Affected by IP Theft: Top Five Markets (Plus China) 2000-2006

OTHER ARTICLES 3926 Total 4,386 3,960 3,487 3,385 3,768 4,063 4,367 || -7.3% 7.5% || Total 3,631 3,611 3,707 3,988 

Mexico 2,275 1,929 1,710 1,590 1,702 1,772 1,803 || -22.1% 1.8% || China 1,235 1,277 1,364 1,507 

Canada 723 722 661 683 796 867 896 || 19.9% 3.4% || Canada 626 608 659 678 

Japan 202 175 145 155 171 200 216 || -1.1% 8.1% || Mexico 424 388 390 409 

United Kingdom 118 130 115 120 108 124 129 || 5.7% 3.7% || Japan 227 197 183 206 

Germany 111 97 94 85 85 97 123 || -12.6% 26.7% || Germany 168 148 161 187 

China 43 37 38 49 58 62 85 || 44.7% 36.5% || All Others 950 993 950 1,001 

All Others 915 869 724 703 848 942 1,116 || 2.9% 18.5%

O WORK RUBBR+PLST,ETC 8477 Total 1,265 1,106 972 967 1,113 1,296 1,390 || 2.5% 7.3% || Total 1,991 1,428 1,446 1,688 

Canada 323 262 251 239 246 267 300 || -17.4% 12.3% || Canada 471 382 385 407 

Mexico 272 185 164 143 194 243 278 || -10.4% 14.2% || Germany 452 303 323 397 

China 22 35 68 82 104 104 103 || 371.5% -1.7% || Japan 518 269 319 332 

Germany 84 75 60 59 64 76 82 || -9.7% 8.1% || France 137 100 103 157 

Brazil 36 29 33 28 32 64 52 || 78.0% -19.5% || Italy 113 93 70 92 

All Others 528 520 396 416 473 542 576 || 2.6% 6.4% || China 5 5 7 15 

|| All Others 294 278 240 287 

O W INDIV FUNCTIONS 8479 Total 12,279 8,168 6,438 6,271 8,009 7,788 9,241 || -36.6% 18.7% || Total 4,811 3,764 3,073 3,240 

Korea, South 1,515 934 791 925 844 971 1,513 || -35.9% 55.8% || Japan 2,149 1,427 1,082 914 

Taiwan 2,464 1,013 899 581 1,269 1,131 1,089 || -54.1% -3.7% || Germany 725 695 513 634 Canada 1,005 773 820 933 765 810 1,026 || -19.4% 26.8% || Canada 433 368 372 472 

Japan 1,657 1,021 592 734 913 796 948 || -52.0% 19.2% || China 41 46 96 136 

Mexico 953 742 656 513 648 665 698 || -30.3% 4.9% || Italy 218 200 171 196 

China 270 323 403 407 700 438 642 || 62.2% 46.6% || All Others 1,247 1,028 839 887 

All Others 4,414 3,362 2,277 2,177 2,870 2,977 3,324 || -32.6% 11.6%

MOLD BOX F MET FOUNDR 8480 Total 1,028 853 772 753 867 991 981 || -3.6% -1.0% || Total 1,367 1,184 1,343 1,390 

Mexico 331 265 225 236 297 419 442 || 26.5% 5.5% || Canada 708 589 700 713 

Canada 457 301 269 291 337 339 315 || -25.8% -6.9% || Japan 251 229 278 254 

China 11 15 28 20 21 23 23 || 106.0% 0.5% || Germany 73 69 63 76 

Germany 29 22 18 16 25 20 23 || -31.7% 15.5% || China 25 25 30 40 

Japan 15 16 20 15 10 12 18 || -22.8% 54.0% || Taiwan 44 47 36 47 

All Others 185 233 213 175 177 179 160 || -3.2% -10.8% || All Others 266 225 237 259 

PAINTING,DRAW,COLLAGE 9701 Total $2,680 $3,237 $1,910 $1,992 $2,574 $3,316 $4,314 || 23.7% 30.1% || Total 3,682 3,591 3,324 2,601 

Switzerland 814 950 481 622 800 1,090 1,588 || 33.9% 45.6% || France 1,834 1,746 1,400 1,004 

United Kingdom 691 856 509 627 764 903 951 || 30.6% 5.3% || United Kingdom 583 638 500 386 

France 261 261 195 144 227 345 370 || 32.1% 7.1% || Germany 197 183 229 249 

Germany 197 224 128 138 137 248 271 || 26.1% 9.2% || Italy 225 196 251 272 

Korea, South 3 35 46 58 44 43 171 || 1424.0% 293.7% || Spain 79 120 296 117 China 9 11 22 4 8 5 17 || -40.5% 210.4% || China 25 22 33 36 

All Others 705 901 530 399 593 681 947 || -3.3% 39.0% || All Others 738 687 614 537 

ORIGNL ENGRAVE,PRINTS 9702 Total 44 52 63 92 91 94 111 || 112.4% 18.1% || Total 77 74 79 87 

United Kingdom 11 11 16 21 23 19 25 || 79.7% 29.3% || France 24 19 18 19 

Germany 4 8 3 5 5 9 19 || 152.7% 118.1% || Germany 7 15 10 16 

France 3 2 3 4 11 4 13 || 41.9% 237.8% || United Kingdom 16 15 18 17 Switzerland 2 5 2 7 13 17 12 || 810.0% -29.4% || Spain 2 2 3 2 

Canada 5 6 11 24 5 12 9 || 158.5% -22.0% || Switzerland 3 3 6 3 

China 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 || 1216.5% -52.9% || China 0 0 0 1 All Others 21 20 28 31 33 32 32 || 54.3% 0.3% || All Others 25 19 24 29 

Appendix 2 
 Counterfeit Concerns --------- Annual US Exports in $ Millions --------- -- Change -- --------- Annual US Imports i

Product HS Code Source 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 '00-'05 '06/'05 Source 2000 2001 2002 2003 

U.S. Exports and Imports of Products Known to be Affected by IP Theft: Top Five Markets (Plus China) 2000-2006

Digital Multimeters 903031 Total 89 68 60 59 65 76 86 || -14.4% 13.2% || Total 63 49 37 47 

Netherlands 20 19 19 18 19 22 25 || 9.9% 13.3% || China 14 11 14 23 

Canada 9 8 7 7 7 8 9 || -12.2% 4.7% || Malaysia 0 3 3 2 

Mexico 5 4 4 4 4 5 6 || -9.2% 20.1% || Taiwan 13 9 7 8 Singapore 4 3 4 4 4 5 5 || 20.1% 6.6% || Thailand 0 0 0 0 China 4 5 5 4 5 5 5 || 4.4% 4.0% || Korea, South 10 8 6 5 All Others 46 28 22 23 26 31 37 || -31.2% 16.7% || All Others 25 18 7 9 

Connecting Devices for use with Modular Compressed Air Conditioning units 84159090 Total 1,189 1,105 1,196 1,097 1,014 999 1,061 || -15.9% 6.1% || Total 1,050 1,017 1,159 1,227 

Canada 610 537 542 481 488 504 524 || -17.4% 4.0% || Mexico 608 537 682 710 

Mexico 253 297 370 348 253 210 179 || -17.2% -14.7% || Canada 111 156 184 185 Saudi Arabia 48 37 34 39 38 41 62 || -14.6% 51.1% || China 10 14 22 35 

China 19 13 17 23 27 19 25 || 4.4% 27.8% || Japan 176 174 133 115 

Austria 1 0 6 13 10 16 22 || 1387.5% 36.9% || Korea, South 12 13 15 25 All Others 258 221 227 193 198 209 248 || -18.8% 18.7% || All Others 133 123 122 157 

PISTON ENGINS,INT COM 8407 Total 6,513 6,413 6,027 5,747 5,557 5,770 6,005 || -11.4% 4.1% || Total 9,148 7,953 8,277 8,553 

Canada 4,425 4,202 4,011 4,042 4,105 4,191 4,363 || -5.3% 4.1% || Canada 2,788 2,162 2,202 2,421 Mexico 864 938 607 328 431 491 537 || -43.2% 9.5% || Japan 3,378 3,036 2,965 2,769 

Australia 77 75 78 80 95 122 118 || 58.4% -3.1% || Mexico 1,497 1,355 1,338 1,445 

Italy 98 100 124 128 125 153 114 || 55.8% -25.2% || Germany 1,208 1,115 1,258 1,373 

Belgium 153 112 116 102 141 154 103 || 0.8% -33.1% || Austria 125 97 121 169 

China 20 13 7 19 28 34 46 || 69.2% 36.6% || China 6 2 19 55 All Others 875 972 1,083 1,048 632 625 723 || -28.6% 15.5% || All Others 146 183 374 320 

COMPRESSIONIGNITION 8408 Total 2,595 2,157 2,424 2,645 3,783 4,647 4,943 || 79.1% 6.4% || Total 1,547 1,330 1,536 2,115 

Canada 961 707 687 723 1,068 1,468 1,643 || 52.7% 12.0% || Germany 217 190 256 456 

Mexico 773 565 821 1,111 1,584 1,621 1,575 || 109.7% -2.9% || Japan 580 454 441 511 

United Kingdom 210 261 271 228 349 365 346 || 74.0% -5.3% || Mexico 231 164 244 336 

Belgium 64 47 56 47 69 177 191 || 175.0% 7.5% || Brazil 37 14 185 279 

China 32 35 36 34 59 99 156 || 209.1% 57.3% || United Kingdom 278 312 166 206 

All Others 554 541 552 502 654 917 1,033 || 65.4% 12.7% || China 1 0 0 0 

|| All Others 203 195 243 328 

PARTS ENGNS 8407,8408 8409 Total 4,592 4,107 4,497 4,333 4,326 4,845 4,713 || 5.5% -2.7% || Total 5,075 4,562 4,861 5,263 

Canada 2,062 1,740 1,788 1,815 1,971 2,155 1,945 || 4.5% -9.8% || Mexico 948 826 979 1,086 

Mexico 789 674 682 560 574 633 641 || -19.8% 1.1% || Japan 1,720 1,598 1,484 1,485 

United Kingdom 246 221 185 159 161 192 236 || -21.9% 23.1% || Canada 1,171 1,003 1,038 1,124 

Belgium 95 98 141 162 147 110 204 || 16.6% 84.7% || Germany 302 288 347 413 

Australia 129 125 151 137 169 220 198 || 70.7% -9.8% || Brazil 306 223 286 295 

China 25 37 41 63 73 117 120 || 363.7% 2.3% || China 48 59 82 92 

All Others 1,245 1,212 1,510 1,438 1,232 1,417 1,369 || 13.8% -3.4% || All Others 581 564 646 767 

OTHER ENGINE,MOTORS 8412 Total 515 572 571 697 751 942 1,232 || 83.1% 30.8% || Total 821 845 743 875 

Canada 222 210 204 222 257 321 329 || 44.6% 2.6% || Canada 140 142 144 172 

China 9 17 23 24 32 40 135 || 339.1% 241.5% || Germany 127 147 108 144 

Singapore 8 15 18 18 15 27 73 || 249.3% 169.8% || Japan 147 143 112 116 

Mexico 23 21 20 31 41 57 71 || 150.8% 23.8% || United Kingdom 90 90 91 85 

United Kingdom 37 39 23 42 36 50 61 || 37.2% 21.7% || Italy 41 46 42 57 

All Others 216 270 283 360 370 447 563 || 106.6% 25.8% || China 6 6 8 12 

|| All Others 268 271 238 289 

Appendix 2 
 Counterfeit Concerns --------- Annual US Exports in $ Millions --------- -- Change -- --------- Annual US Imports i

Product HS Code Source 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 '00-'05 '06/'05 Source 2000 2001 2002 2003 

U.S. Exports and Imports of Products Known to be Affected by IP Theft: Top Five Markets (Plus China) 2000-2006

OT ADP IN/OUTPUT UN 847160 Total 3,621 3,351 3,348 3,735 4,637 4,392 4,123 || 21.3% -6.1% || Total 19,915 15,793 17,374 15,893 

Canada 1,266 1,017 1,001 1,033 1,265 1,472 1,459 || 16.2% -0.9% || China 3,656 3,759 5,648 7,277 

Mexico 447 627 909 1,172 1,530 1,105 834 || 147.5% -24.5% || Malaysia 1,388 1,106 1,696 1,656 

Netherlands 182 146 120 137 181 228 252 || 25.2% 10.8% || Japan 5,384 3,435 2,492 1,390 

Brazil 95 72 70 80 102 97 135 || 1.6% 39.4% || Mexico 2,476 2,491 2,648 1,680 

Germany 121 110 111 118 117 114 115 || -5.8% 0.8% || Taiwan 1,221 1,005 952 847 China 32 34 55 70 90 91 111 || 184.6% 22.5% || All Others 5,791 3,997 3,937 3,042 

All Others 1,477 1,344 1,082 1,125 1,353 1,286 1,217 || -13.0% -5.4%

OT ADP STORAGE UNIT 847170 Total 4,396 3,849 3,181 3,166 3,683 4,084 4,163 || -7.1% 2.0% || Total 16,179 13,201 11,999 11,395 

Mexico 643 670 572 424 690 872 732 || 35.8% -16.1% || China 1,208 1,325 1,709 1,728 Canada 693 599 554 587 637 699 673 || 0.8% -3.8% || Singapore 4,753 3,935 3,785 3,828 

Netherlands 429 372 247 322 448 327 371 || -23.6% 13.4% || Thailand 1,097 844 651 760 

Japan 384 269 238 280 295 326 301 || -15.1% -7.6% || Malaysia 2,466 2,210 1,947 1,913 

United Kingdom 235 238 157 125 120 165 215 || -29.5% 29.8% || Philippines 1,363 1,043 987 895 China 75 65 55 69 78 75 104 || 0.0% 38.5% || All Others 5,292 3,845 2,920 2,270 

All Others 1,938 1,634 1,357 1,359 1,416 1,618 1,767 || -16.5% 9.2%

RADIO TELEPHONES FOR INSTALLATION IN MOTOR VEHICLE 852520902 Total $339 $174 $101 $77 $142 $123 $71 || -63.7% -42.6% ||

852590 Total 10,111 12,349 13,794 15,556 

Hong Kong 3 6 7 3 6 5 21 || 48.8% 350.8% || China 513 875 1,976 2,882 

Mexico 140 88 28 13 22 22 16 || -84.6% -28.0% || Korea, South 2,916 4,332 4,330 5,594 

France 2 0 1 9 74 42 15 || 2440.2% -64.1% || Mexico 1,801 2,250 1,657 1,479 Korea, South 19 5 8 2 2 0 3 || -99.4% 2528.9% || Taiwan 58 74 63 116 Venezuela 8 10 12 4 1 0 2 || -97.6% 971.6% || Malaysia 846 1,098 1,054 1,290 

China 2 1 2 5 2 1 1 || -40.3% -35.4% || All Others 3,977 3,720 4,714 4,196 

All Others 166 63 44 40 33 54 13 || -67.7% -75.1%

RADIO PHONES, NT MOTOR VHCL, PBLIC CELLULAR SRVCE 852520904 Total 1,120 1,224 913 870 1,412 1,771 2,377 || 58.1% 34.2% || Import detail not available

Mexico 331 506 305 155 400 375 649 || 13.4% 73.0% || Import detail not available

Venezuela 50 53 62 25 153 169 345 || 235.8% 104.0% || Import detail not available

Hong Kong 56 4 5 10 35 90 157 || 60.6% 73.8% || Import detail not available

Peru 23 38 63 73 65 58 138 || 155.3% 136.2% || Import detail not available

Ecuador 12 24 41 62 102 178 121 || 1365.3% -31.7% || Import detail not availableChina 2 1 1 1 2 110 58 || 5870.7% -47.9% || Import detail not availableAll Others 646 598 436 544 655 790 910 || 22.3% 15.2% || Import detail not available

TRANSMISSION APPTS INCORPORATING RECEIVERS,NESOI 852520908 Total 2,048 1,604 1,168 1,107 1,654 1,581 1,745 || -22.8% 10.3% || Import detail not available

Canada 621 443 416 388 561 759 801 || 22.2% 5.6% || Import detail not available

Mexico 330 134 171 139 227 118 271 || -64.2% 129.6% || Import detail not available

Venezuela 16 13 15 15 44 18 73 || 11.6% 300.9% || Import detail not available

Brazil 156 94 59 27 40 54 64 || -65.4% 19.6% || Import detail not available

Algeria 18 82 4 0 1 1 49 || -93.4% 4171.5% || Import detail not availableChina 51 131 51 48 70 26 16 || -47.8% -40.5% || Import detail not available

All Others 857 707 452 490 711 605 470 || -29.4% -22.3% || Import detail not available

Appendix 2 
 Counterfeit Concerns --------- Annual US Exports in $ Millions --------- -- Change -- --------- Annual US Imports i

Product HS Code Source 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 '00-'05 '06/'05 Source 2000 2001 2002 2003 

U.S. Exports and Imports of Products Known to be Affected by IP Theft: Top Five Markets (Plus China) 2000-2006

L-Lysine Feed Products, Their Methods of Production and Genetic Constructs for Production 292241 Total 141 198 218 349 407 238 253 || 69.3% 6.2% || Total 31 26 22 38 

Netherlands 40 68 79 138 153 81 76 || 100.5% -6.1% || China 0 1 1 1 

Canada 24 26 29 39 50 35 37 || 50.4% 4.5% || Brazil 0 0 0 0 

Belgium 4 3 4 9 2 8 20 || 115.0% 143.2% || Indonesia 12 10 5 6 

Brazil 4 9 10 19 26 20 17 || 412.2% -16.2% || Korea, South 7 5 5 8 

Mexico 9 6 4 12 19 13 15 || 48.1% 15.9% || Japan 5 3 3 3 

China 7 4 5 8 27 10 9 || 39.7% -12.7% || All Others 6 7 8 19 

All Others 52 83 87 124 130 69 78 || 32.4% 12.7%

Foam Footwear 6405909 Total 16 12 9 10 16 16 21 || 1.4% 31.3% || Total 60 40 32 45 

Belgium 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 || 3095.1% 270.2% || China 29 30 24 32 Canada 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 || 81.0% 7.6% || Italy 8 3 3 7 

Emirates 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 || 177.1% 1966.5% || Brazil 13 1 1 1 

Tanzania 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 || 900.7% 40.9% || Spain 4 2 2 2 

Nicaragua 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 || 3216.3% 93.2% || Thailand 1 1 1 0 

China 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 || 158.2% 25.6% || All Others 5 2 2 2 

All Others 14 9 7 7 12 10 9 || -28.9% -5.9%

Voltage Regulators 903289 Total $2,283 $2,113 $2,082 $2,203 $2,184 $2,191 $2,355 || -4.0% 7.5% || Total 2,208 2,071 2,310 2,352 

Canada 1,271 1,134 1,120 1,221 1,253 1,153 1,080 || -9.3% -6.3% || Mexico 1,007 1,037 1,214 1,167 

Mexico 379 391 350 305 327 346 332 || -8.8% -3.8% || Germany 187 143 185 241 

France 25 16 16 33 48 123 190 || 387.1% 54.4% || Japan 341 260 277 334 

Korea, South 28 26 34 45 39 43 85 || 52.4% 98.5% || Canada 266 247 209 160 

China 20 27 43 48 49 51 83 || 154.3% 62.4% || United Kingdom 120 93 113 115 

All Others 559 519 519 552 468 475 585 || -15.0% 23.1% || China 20 14 33 34 

|| All Others 267 276 278 301 

Laser Bar Code Scanners and Scan Engines 854890 Total 1,230 993 752 707 678 674 644 || -45.2% -4.5% || Total 142 162 151 176 

Mexico 86 100 101 105 93 129 108 || 49.9% -16.1% || Mexico 49 72 52 68 Japan 100 73 40 45 38 43 51 || -57.0% 19.2% || Switzerland 0 0 6 5 China 46 38 31 21 51 43 43 || -6.8% -0.4% || China 7 9 4 13 

Hong Kong 42 30 20 28 39 54 42 || 27.7% -20.9% || Japan 18 13 16 17 

Australia 28 26 23 24 33 32 38 || 14.3% 18.8% || United Kingdom 3 7 6 5 

All Others 928 726 537 485 424 374 361 || -59.7% -3.4% || All Others 64 60 67 68 

Laminated Floor Panels 4412 Total 235 175 173 179 222 223 249 || -5.0% 11.9% || Total 962 979 1,234 1,397 

Canada 79 69 77 84 104 100 122 || 26.0% 21.9% || China 30 47 103 164 

Mexico 72 51 53 45 47 48 57 || -33.4% 19.2% || Canada 282 315 355 374 

Bahamas 4 4 4 5 11 13 12 || 226.3% -11.2% || Brazil 97 99 143 244 China 1 1 0 2 3 4 6 || 398.9% 45.9% || Malaysia 109 95 130 119 

Dominican Republic 6 4 4 5 2 4 6 || -43.1% 56.0% || Indonesia 234 194 213 189 All Others 72 47 36 39 54 54 47 || -25.1% -13.0% || All Others 208 229 290 306 

Appendix 2 
 Counterfeit Concerns --------- Annual US Exports in $ Millions --------- -- Change -- --------- Annual US Imports i

Product HS Code Source 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 '00-'05 '06/'05 Source 2000 2001 2002 2003 

U.S. Exports and Imports of Products Known to be Affected by IP Theft: Top Five Markets (Plus China) 2000-2006

SEMICON DV;L-EMT DIOD 8541 Total 5,911 4,658 4,020 4,225 5,019 5,243 6,106 || -11.3% 16.5% || Total 5,879 4,016 3,289 3,323 

Mexico 1,068 786 711 734 821 855 908 || -20.0% 6.3% || Japan 1,846 1,168 851 768 

Hong Kong 251 244 233 266 462 593 665 || 136.4% 12.2% || China 282 239 280 309 

Singapore 203 194 252 252 279 242 559 || 19.3% 131.1% || Malaysia 855 468 478 466 Germany 311 323 205 182 265 411 525 || 32.2% 27.7% || Mexico 613 540 381 450 

Thailand 226 243 134 140 327 348 323 || 53.9% -7.3% || Taiwan 301 171 147 169 China 200 226 219 233 272 241 287 || 21.0% 18.8% || All Others 1,983 1,431 1,151 1,163 

All Others 3,652 2,641 2,267 2,418 2,594 2,553 2,839 || -30.1% 11.2%

INTEGRATED CIRCUITS 8542 Total 54,098 40,407 38,215 41,912 43,031 41,978 46,278 || -22.4% 10.2% || Total 42,462 26,406 22,727 21,281 

China 671 865 1,371 2,214 2,667 3,122 5,589 || 365.0% 79.0% || Taiwan 4,840 3,253 2,910 2,858 

Malaysia 4,862 3,599 4,543 6,025 5,209 4,748 5,530 || -2.4% 16.5% || Korea, South 7,370 3,452 3,405 3,313 

Korea, South 5,863 3,312 3,774 4,553 4,392 4,503 4,723 || -23.2% 4.9% || Malaysia 5,452 4,067 3,783 3,116 

Mexico 6,092 5,172 4,085 4,050 4,627 4,681 4,648 || -23.2% -0.7% || Japan 6,701 3,551 2,160 1,880 

Philippines 4,590 4,201 4,230 5,092 3,945 3,685 4,053 || -19.7% 10.0% || Philippines 5,255 3,312 3,073 2,716 

All Others 32,019 23,256 20,211 19,978 22,192 21,240 21,734 || -33.7% 2.3% || China 487 415 449 540 

|| All Others 12,357 8,356 6,946 6,858 

Zero-Mercury-Added Alkaline Batteries 850680 Total $124 $131 $106 $135 $132 $144 $157 || 15.4% 9.3% || Total 118 128 128 155 

Netherlands 0 0 7 31 13 11 36 || 3809.5% 214.5% || China 39 44 51 82 

Mexico 30 31 23 19 18 16 20 || -47.3% 31.4% || Japan 12 12 12 19 

Germany 3 5 9 11 12 24 14 || 608.7% -42.4% || Spain 3 2 1 1 Brazil 2 1 3 2 9 12 11 || 392.2% -1.5% || Korea, South 6 4 5 5 

Canada 50 43 12 9 8 7 8 || -85.5% 13.8% || Mexico 2 4 5 8 China 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 || 119.2% -72.7% || All Others 56 62 54 40 All Others 38 50 51 62 70 73 67 || 91.8% -8.5%

Agricultural Vehicles and Components Thereof 870190 Total 1,007 997 1,149 1,135 1,430 1,726 1,851 || 71.5% 7.3% || Total 1,506 1,374 1,601 1,835 

Canada 437 484 498 515 592 619 694 || 41.7% 12.1% || Japan 600 531 625 741 

Australia 84 65 101 119 193 183 138 || 116.5% -24.4% || Germany 179 203 213 225 

Germany 78 77 74 60 56 96 115 || 23.6% 19.4% || United Kingdom 221 197 243 215 

United Kingdom 42 46 52 37 61 96 97 || 130.3% 0.1% || Italy 127 144 163 144 

Russia 3 8 1 18 20 51 81 || 1800.7% 59.4% || France 26 47 80 64 China 3 4 6 4 10 13 7 || 311.4% -49.9% || China 6 6 9 12 

All Others 360 313 417 382 497 668 721 || 85.6% 7.9% || All Others 347 246 268 433 

Power bars 210690709 Total 730 708 791 960 1,112 1,160 1,709 || 58.8% 47.4% || Total 415 510 607 734 

Canada 227 221 260 287 314 423 493 || 85.8% 16.6% || Canada 121 188 190 240 

Mexico 65 75 69 88 133 150 474 || 129.9% 214.9% || New Zealand 9 18 28 39 Japan 90 89 117 133 149 167 164 || 85.2% -2.0% || Mexico 12 15 23 56 Korea, South 34 63 77 70 72 72 79 || 112.2% 10.1% || Thailand 22 35 47 49 

Netherlands 44 28 30 29 39 34 47 || -21.8% 35.5% || France 26 27 30 37 

China 22 35 16 93 142 26 36 || 16.8% 37.9% || China 16 18 20 21 

All Others 247 197 223 259 263 287 417 || 16.3% 45.2% || All Others 209 209 270 291 

Appendix 2 
 Counterfeit Concerns --------- Annual US Exports in $ Millions --------- -- Change -- --------- Annual US Imports i

Product HS Code Source 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 '00-'05 '06/'05 Source 2000 2001 2002 2003 

U.S. Exports and Imports of Products Known to be Affected by IP Theft: Top Five Markets (Plus China) 2000-2006

Contract lenses 900130 Total 528 592 548 470 511 673 750 || 27.5% 11.3% || Total 181 187 252 317 

United Kingdom 78 84 141 162 168 147 163 || 89.0% 10.6% || Indonesia 80 65 115 100 

Japan 125 183 130 86 79 95 140 || -23.9% 47.1% || Ireland 37 49 55 90 

Singapore 86 78 77 73 91 93 106 || 8.7% 14.0% || United Kingdom 57 65 71 114 

Germany 28 39 24 2 23 121 105 || 329.0% -13.0% || Germany 2 2 4 5 Canada 58 56 53 60 55 76 72 || 30.3% -5.9% || Taiwan 0 0 0 2 

China 5 4 3 2 2 1 2 || -74.9% 38.9% || China 0 0 0 0 All Others 148 148 121 86 93 140 162 || -5.7% 16.2% || All Others 6 5 7 7 

Air conditioners 8415 Total 2,358 2,216 2,155 2,059 2,016 2,132 2,289 || -9.6% 7.4% || Total 1,943 1,886 2,212 2,579 

Canada 1,109 997 1,030 973 969 1,038 1,085 || -6.4% 4.5% || China 193 246 404 684 

Mexico 413 441 504 498 393 343 342 || -16.8% -0.3% || Mexico 709 626 791 865 

Saudi Arabia 75 74 57 61 53 60 90 || -19.8% 50.1% || Canada 214 271 288 290 

Venezuela 34 50 29 15 36 83 75 || 144.9% -10.2% || Korea, South 297 256 289 278 

United Arab Emirates 49 53 41 29 40 61 66 || 24.7% 8.3% || Thailand 70 73 84 73 

China 42 42 45 48 42 36 43 || -15.5% 22.4% || All Others 461 415 355 389 

All Others 637 560 450 435 483 511 587 || -19.9% 15.0%

Soy sauce 210310 Total $16 $17 $17 $18 $18 $22 $22 || 44.4% -1.1% || Total 44 45 44 48 

Canada 8 8 9 10 10 11 12 || 43.0% 7.2% || Hong Kong 16 15 13 14 Mexico 3 2 2 3 3 6 3 || 112.4% -41.8% || Taiwan 9 12 11 12 

Netherlands 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 || 332.8% 25.5% || China 7 7 7 8 

Israel 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 || 55.6% 46.5% || Japan 7 7 7 7 

Russia 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 || 1761.0% -19.9% || Thailand 2 2 2 2 

China 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 || N/A N/A || All Others 3 4 4 5 All Others 4 6 4 4 3 3 4 || -31.2% 25.8%

Motorcycle chains 731511 Total 52 47 46 59 58 72 69 || 38.3% -4.0% || Total 139 121 128 144 

Canada 33 29 30 31 34 38 39 || 14.1% 3.3% || Japan 61 52 51 58 

Mexico 10 7 5 7 6 7 9 || -30.7% 31.4% || China 14 14 15 17 

United Kingdom 1 1 1 2 3 3 3 || 121.0% 3.7% || France 8 9 11 16 

Japan 0 1 0 1 1 4 2 || 1152.3% -38.6% || Italy 11 8 9 11 Brazil 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 || 616.8% 139.9% || Taiwan 20 13 13 14 

China 0 0 0 0 2 2 2 || 1020.0% -9.2% || All Others 25 25 28 28 All Others 7 10 9 18 13 18 12 || 146.6% -32.8%

Curling irons 820551 Total 25 32 33 32 39 35 40 || 39.0% 16.5% || Total 149 155 177 173 

Canada 6 7 7 8 7 9 12 || 44.4% 29.3% || China 74 83 108 115 Philippines 0 1 1 2 2 1 4 || 1266.3% 195.4% || Taiwan 32 30 29 23 

Germany 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 || 67.0% 19.9% || Germany 6 4 5 5 

Costa Rica 0 1 2 1 0 1 2 || 90.7% 203.9% || Italy 9 10 10 9 

Dominican Republic 0 0 1 6 13 4 2 || 4228.6% -44.6% || Japan 4 3 4 4 

China 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 || 560.6% -64.3% || All Others 24 24 21 16 

All Others 17 21 19 13 14 17 17 || -0.2% 3.0%

Electrical cords 8544 Total 5,875 5,231 4,575 4,301 4,814 5,366 6,411 || -8.7% 19.5% || Total 9,036 8,491 8,465 8,571 

Mexico 1,979 1,783 1,627 1,538 1,685 1,855 2,220 || -6.3% 19.7% || Mexico 5,576 5,090 5,590 5,483 

Canada 1,844 1,749 1,675 1,537 1,728 1,875 2,147 || 1.7% 14.5% || China 807 725 832 924 

Honduras 10 8 15 18 77 107 173 || 960.6% 60.6% || Canada 710 687 515 483 

United Kingdom 214 223 146 141 144 129 157 || -39.8% 22.0% || Philippines 351 326 321 349 

China 70 72 71 65 85 121 149 || 71.6% 23.2% || Honduras 58 46 67 91 

All Others 1,756 1,397 1,040 1,002 1,093 1,278 1,564 || -27.2% 22.4% || All Others 1,533 1,616 1,140 1,240 

Appendix 2 
 Counterfeit Concerns --------- Annual US Exports in $ Millions --------- -- Change -- --------- Annual US Imports i

Product HS Code Source 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 '00-'05 '06/'05 Source 2000 2001 2002 2003 

U.S. Exports and Imports of Products Known to be Affected by IP Theft: Top Five Markets (Plus China) 2000-2006

Mineral water 220110 Total 15 19 12 19 20 40 61 || 169.3% 53.7% || Total 201 186 196 331 

Japan 6 9 6 10 14 31 49 || 400.7% 57.3% || France 103 96 86 70 

Canada 6 7 3 6 3 3 6 || -44.4% 84.8% || Italy 32 28 36 44 

Cayman Islands 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 || 66.6% 153.1% || Fiji 5 9 12 23 

Bahamas 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 || 489.6% 70.1% || Canada 41 33 34 159 Taiwan 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 || 128.6% 152.5% || Norway 1 0 2 5 

China 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 || 69.9% -74.3% || China 0 0 0 0 

All Others 2 2 2 2 3 4 3 || 61.0% -18.5% || All Others 20 21 25 29 

Distilled water 28510090 Total $44 $33 $26 $37 $55 $63 $94 || 44.1% 48.0% || Total 28 30 26 35 

Korea, South 6 7 6 8 14 18 22 || 213.0% 22.8% || Canada 19 21 20 27 

China 4 3 4 6 12 14 20 || 253.3% 45.5% || Germany 6 4 3 5 

Taiwan 4 1 1 2 3 7 13 || 66.6% 86.9% || Japan 2 2 1 1 

Singapore 3 3 1 4 4 6 10 || 127.2% 82.7% || Israel 0 0 0 0 

Japan 4 4 3 7 10 8 7 || 87.8% -7.1% || Finland 0 0 0 0 

All Others 23 15 10 9 12 11 20 || -54.4% 92.5% || China 0 0 0 0 

|| All Others 2 3 2 2 

Maize seeds 100510 Total 169 201 214 165 180 177 142 || 5.0% -19.5% || Total 139 116 109 118 

Canada 40 52 45 34 48 51 57 || 26.7% 12.5% || Chile 82 85 82 90 

Mexico 19 58 49 29 25 34 17 || 80.2% -50.2% || Argentina 36 20 15 15 

Chile 4 2 2 3 1 8 10 || 98.5% 37.9% || Canada 11 8 8 11 Pakistan 6 2 6 7 10 13 10 || 121.9% -18.5% || Brazil 0 0 1 1 

France 7 19 35 35 30 13 10 || 102.3% -23.2% || Hungary 2 0 1 0 

China 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 || -56.2% -100.0% || China 0 0 0 0 

All Others 94 67 76 57 64 59 38 || -36.9% -36.2% || All Others 8 3 1 1 

Perfume 330300 Total 489 461 463 565 682 831 963 || 69.9% 15.9% || Total 900 900 980 1,133 

Canada 70 68 91 106 110 127 135 || 80.8% 6.3% || France 564 571 609 718 

Australia 15 15 17 21 35 58 84 || 280.5% 44.9% || United Kingdom 86 85 108 126 

United Kingdom 20 18 26 40 51 59 80 || 195.7% 35.0% || Italy 83 88 88 97 

Mexico 84 92 73 57 62 59 68 || -29.0% 14.4% || Spain 32 31 42 46 

United Arab Emirates 17 22 28 26 37 41 66 || 149.1% 60.5% || Switzerland 29 38 43 45 

China 1 1 0 1 2 5 9 || 688.8% 58.7% || China 1 2 4 8 All Others 283 245 227 315 385 481 521 || 70.0% 8.4% || All Others 105 86 85 92 

Detergent 3402 Total 1,220 1,298 1,290 1,454 1,688 1,767 2,088 || 44.8% 18.2% || Total 581 599 652 593 

Canada 440 485 533 624 759 799 912 || 81.6% 14.1% || Mexico 192 181 185 146 

Mexico 104 100 108 120 139 126 198 || 21.2% 56.5% || Canada 177 204 219 158 

Japan 80 83 78 79 93 95 106 || 17.9% 11.9% || Germany 59 54 62 70 

China 21 20 27 36 50 59 89 || 184.2% 50.4% || Japan 31 27 26 34 

Netherlands 72 75 78 64 66 77 85 || 6.2% 10.8% || China 3 5 11 23 All Others 502 535 467 531 581 611 699 || 21.6% 14.4% || All Others 118 129 149 162 

Sugar 17 Total 683 723 636 689 735 828 1,043 || 21.3% 26.0% || Total 1,480 1,534 1,701 1,933 

Canada 230 256 253 271 267 294 322 || 28.0% 9.6% || Mexico 165 206 274 249 

Mexico 114 91 65 79 123 176 301 || 54.1% 71.0% || Canada 316 392 417 556 

Japan 76 80 63 65 66 70 67 || -7.3% -5.0% || Brazil 90 107 92 116 

China 18 22 13 25 40 29 34 || 56.9% 18.2% || Dominican Repu 88 77 81 88 

Korea, South 26 30 21 17 16 18 26 || -30.4% 44.1% || Guatemala 39 40 58 86 

All Others 218 244 222 232 225 241 293 || 10.1% 21.7% || China 26 26 47 54 

|| All Others 757 685 733 784 

Appendix 2 
 Counterfeit Concerns --------- Annual US Exports in $ Millions --------- -- Change -- --------- Annual US Imports i

Product HS Code Source 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 '00-'05 '06/'05 Source 2000 2001 2002 2003 

U.S. Exports and Imports of Products Known to be Affected by IP Theft: Top Five Markets (Plus China) 2000-2006

Diapers 6209 Total $40 $21 $12 $9 $6 $8 $9 || -79.1% 3.8% || Total 465 547 515 533 

Canada 1 1 1 1 2 2 4 || 268.8% 62.2% || China 50 49 138 214 Ecuador 0 0 1 1 1 2 1 || 691.3% -44.5% || Bangladesh 46 64 52 47 Mexico 12 6 4 1 1 1 1 || -94.5% 17.6% || Vietnam 1 0 4 11 

Costa Rica 18 8 2 2 1 1 1 || -96.7% 2.9% || Philippines 68 79 53 40 United Kingdom 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 || -24.8% 67.2% || Indonesia 50 58 41 38 

China 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 || N/A -100.0% || All Others 251 296 227 183 

All Others 8 6 5 4 2 2 2 || -72.1% -5.5%

Razors 8212 Total 308 336 343 334 333 369 355 || 19.8% -3.9% || Total 157 183 200 274 

Canada 69 86 95 115 128 149 128 || 114.6% -14.1% || Mexico 61 76 82 71 United Kingdom 88 105 88 57 66 55 42 || -37.2% -24.5% || China 11 13 33 78 Mexico 26 21 27 42 42 45 40 || 71.1% -12.1% || Greece 16 15 12 25 

Poland 1 1 3 2 3 10 22 || 776.6% 121.4% || Poland 0 0 0 0 

Malaysia 4 8 13 12 11 13 16 || 273.3% 23.0% || Brazil 0 0 1 16 

China 10 22 51 3 1 2 1 || -84.1% -28.2% || All Others 68 80 74 84 All Others 110 92 66 103 82 95 106 || -13.7% 11.4%

Olive oil 1509 Total 6 4 7 8 10 17 16 || 172.3% -7.7% || Total 413 376 437 520 

Canada 2 2 2 2 3 6 8 || 171.3% 32.1% || Italy 310 274 316 362 

Hong Kong 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 || 741.8% 3599.9% || Spain 63 55 84 95 Mexico 2 1 1 1 2 2 1 || -0.6% -60.4% || Tunisia 9 9 3 4 

Guatemala 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 || 144.4% 19.0% || Turkey 11 22 12 28 Netherlands Antilles 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 || 384.5% 66.7% || Argentina 2 2 2 5 China 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 || N/A N/A || China 0 0 0 0 

All Others 2 2 3 5 4 8 5 || 343.8% -38.7% || All Others 17 15 20 25 

Baby formula 0404 Total 179 156 146 143 172 237 342 || 32.0% 44.5% || Total 169 116 128 135 

Mexico 47 22 27 28 28 55 89 || 16.0% 63.7% || New Zealand 68 76 76 101 

Canada 43 45 32 35 43 46 52 || 8.4% 11.8% || Canada 14 11 8 10 

China 9 17 19 24 28 31 49 || 242.5% 57.0% || Ireland 22 7 11 10 Japan 21 24 24 16 19 24 29 || 13.8% 21.9% || Denmark 2 1 3 3 

Korea, South 9 5 5 7 7 18 22 || 103.3% 27.1% || Australia 23 8 10 0 

All Others 50 43 38 33 46 63 100 || 24.1% 59.0% || China 0 0 0 0 

|| All Others 40 13 20 12 

Toothpaste 330610 Total 148 136 131 138 156 168 182 || 13.5% 8.3% || Total 44 54 56 64 

Canada 60 53 65 60 74 80 85 || 31.9% 7.3% || Mexico 5 0 0 8 

Japan 14 18 16 17 21 22 27 || 61.0% 25.1% || Canada 19 23 22 21 

Russia 0 0 0 0 0 1 7 || N/A 410.8% || Netherlands 0 0 0 2 

Korea, South 4 6 8 6 5 5 6 || 42.7% 12.7% || United Kingdom 7 17 16 13 

Germany 6 8 3 5 5 9 5 || 49.4% -40.8% || India 3 4 4 5 

China 2 0 0 0 1 1 2 || -27.9% 59.4% || China 5 5 3 2 All Others 63 51 38 49 49 49 49 || -20.9% -1.7% || All Others 5 5 11 13 

Air fresheners 330749 Total $64 $78 $85 $82 $104 $119 $161 || 86.4% 35.7% || Total 49 63 54 83 

Canada 33 41 39 42 56 50 66 || 50.5% 31.5% || Canada 36 36 31 39 

Mexico 4 7 10 11 11 23 35 || 469.6% 53.4% || China 2 2 3 6 

Philippines 1 1 3 5 11 17 21 || 2739.8% 21.4% || Mexico 1 5 2 14 

United Kingdom 4 7 6 5 5 5 7 || 16.0% 39.7% || Thailand 1 1 0 6 

Japan 6 4 5 2 2 3 5 || -50.7% 62.0% || Guatemala 0 0 0 0 

China 0 0 0 1 1 2 3 || 1005.0% 19.4% || All Others 10 19 17 18 

All Others 15 17 22 16 17 18 25 || 19.6% 35.6%

US Department of Commerce, China Customs, Global Trade Information Services and MBG Information Services.

Appendix 2 
 Counterfeit Concerns

Product HS Code

Inkjet cartridges 8443Golf clubs 950631Windshields 700711Auto replacement parts: brake pads, ignition coils, sway bars 8708Cell phone batteries 850650Duracell Batteries 8507

--------- Annual US Balances in $ Millions ----------- -- Change --

Source 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 '00-'05 '06/'05

Total -$462 -$573 -$479 -$497 -$779 -$848 -$1,002 || 83.7% 18.2%

Germany -477 -597 -470 -499 -672 -709 -780 || 48.7% 10.0%

Japan -321 -193 -157 -171 -214 -316 -339 || -1.6% 7.4%

Israel -59 -57 -53 -68 -68 -86 -125 || 45.3% 46.4%Canada 140 112 119 134 91 131 108 || -6.8% -17.3%United Kingdom -60 -28 -48 -64 -70 -79 -97 || 32.1% 21.6%China 39 39 21 23 10 19 17 || -51.6% -11.7%

All Others 276 151 109 149 144 192 214 || -30.3% 11.3%

Total 327 328 148 133 96 56 23 || -82.9% -58.9%

China -53 -65 -153 -175 -218 -273 -320 || 418.3% 17.2%Canada 58 60 53 59 63 69 81 || 17.5% 17.8%United Kingdom 89 91 88 88 89 85 73 || -4.6% -14.0%

Korea, South 33 28 28 26 26 42 57 || 28.4% 34.2%Japan 118 135 66 67 56 41 40 || -65.7% -0.6%

All Others 81 78 66 69 80 92 91 || 13.8% -0.9%Total 204 150 111 137 95 65 20 || -68.4% -69.8%

Canada 240 195 174 169 163 163 142 || -32.0% -13.3%

Mexico -55 -50 -63 -57 -83 -114 -126 || 107.3% 10.8%Germany 15 14 13 24 12 12 18 || -24.5% 56.0%

China -1 -5 -2 -4 -5 -6 -9 || 428.2% 50.5%Korea, South -0 -1 -2 -1 -1 -1 -6 || 277.4% 549.0%All Others 5 -4 -9 6 9 11 1 || 104.5% -89.4%Total 3,009 2,583 -280 -4,262 -6,428 -9,777 -9,661 || -425.0% -1.2%

Japan -5,919 -5,401 -5,590 -6,189 -8,012 -8,476 -7,803 || 43.2% -7.9%

Canada 7,225 6,693 6,804 5,785 6,785 6,503 6,738 || -10.0% 3.6%

China -320 -422 -585 -774 -1,063 -1,622 -2,178 || 406.8% 34.2%

Germany -872 -788 -1,061 -1,569 -1,733 -1,944 -1,815 || 123.0% -6.7%Mexico 2,615 2,165 1,245 308 -338 -1,462 -1,747 || -155.9% 19.5%

All Others 280 335 -1,092 -1,823 -2,066 -2,775 -2,856 || -1092.2% 2.9%

Total -32 -3 -10 6 28 51 67 || -261.2% 31.1%

Japan -101 -68 -61 -47 -45 -49 -46 || -51.6% -6.0%China -2 0 -5 -16 -20 -36 -39 || 1945.1% 9.6%

Mexico 33 18 14 12 13 21 35 || -37.5% 71.0%

Switzerland -2 -3 -2 -1 -1 21 29 || -1033.0% 41.4%

Ireland 6 16 24 32 23 39 25 || 522.2% -36.3%

All Others 34 34 21 27 59 56 63 || 62.2% 13.2%Total -1,190 -928 -851 -793 -1,137 -1,279 -1,325 || 7.5% 3.6%China -242 -226 -251 -304 -479 -602 -756 || 148.6% 25.5%Japan -988 -758 -562 -379 -449 -439 -429 || -55.5% -2.4%

Canada 257 265 261 260 276 274 334 || 6.3% 22.1%

Mexico -273 -213 -210 -224 -223 -214 -234 || -21.4% 9.1%Korea, South -15 -10 -44 -69 -113 -131 -129 || 781.2% -1.7%All Others 70 14 -46 -77 -150 -165 -112 || -335.9% -32.2% U.S. Trade Balances for Products Known to be Affected by IP Theft: Top Five Markets (Plus China) 2000-2006

Appendix 2 
 Counterfeit Concerns

Product HS Code

Auto and truck parts 8708Personal care products 33Aircraft parts 880330Testing equipment 9024Electrical control equipment 8532Commercial door fixtures 730830

--------- Annual US Balances in $ Millions ----------- -- Change --

Source 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 '00-'05 '06/'05

 U.S. Trade Balances for Products Known to be Affected by IP Theft: Top Five Markets (Plus China) 2000-2006Total 3,009 2,583 -280 -4,262 -6,428 -9,777 -9,661 || -425.0% -1.2%

Japan -5,919 -5,401 -5,590 -6,189 -8,012 -8,476 -7,803 || 43.2% -7.9%

Canada 7,225 6,693 6,804 5,785 6,785 6,503 6,738 || -10.0% 3.6%

China -320 -422 -585 -774 -1,063 -1,622 -2,178 || 406.8% 34.2%

Germany -872 -788 -1,061 -1,569 -1,733 -1,944 -1,815 || 123.0% -6.7%Mexico 2,615 2,165 1,245 308 -338 -1,462 -1,747 || -155.9% 19.5%

All Others 280 335 -1,092 -1,823 -2,066 -2,775 -2,856 || -1092.2% 2.9%

Total 1,221 1,439 1,158 291 -321 -673 -294 || -155.2% -56.4%

Ireland -17 -44 -47 -945 -1,665 -2,015 -1,991 || 11543.3% -1.2%

France -703 -743 -784 -911 -994 -1,028 -1,046 || 46.1% 1.8%Canada 531 534 636 693 720 744 909 || 40.1% 22.1%Italy -137 -166 -155 -190 -276 -333 -351 || 143.4% 5.5%Japan 245 297 262 346 389 351 315 || 43.3% -10.3%China -86 -132 -164 -165 -185 -230 -273 || 168.3% 18.3%All Others 1,388 1,693 1,410 1,463 1,688 1,837 2,144 || 32.4% 16.7%Total 8,324 8,334 7,837 8,520 9,405 10,519 12,450 || 26.4% 18.4%Germany 679 636 557 615 776 1,167 1,274 || 71.9% 9.2%Brazil 397 395 315 342 776 753 1,157 || 89.8% 53.6%Singapore 342 436 374 467 595 782 1,024 || 128.4% 31.0%United Kingdom 612 531 722 768 773 653 666 || 6.8% 2.0%Korea, South 449 657 354 281 296 313 641 || -30.3% 105.0%

China 175 200 200 209 232 434 594 || 147.5% 36.8%All Others 5,670 5,479 5,314 5,837 5,956 6,418 7,093 || 13.2% 10.5%Total 536 501 415 477 469 484 546 || -9.7% 12.7%

China 28 39 51 74 82 84 96 || 199.3% 14.2%Korea, South 57 41 29 41 46 51 54 || -10.7% 5.9%

Canada 32 27 23 31 29 27 36 || -14.8% 30.9%

Saudi Arabia 27 44 35 44 35 41 33 || 55.6% -19.3%

United Kingdom 26 18 10 24 8 19 33 || -26.0% 70.4%

All Others 367 333 267 263 268 261 294 || -28.7% 12.5%

Total 294 282 330 404 525 39 80 || -86.6% 101.8%

Japan -1,111 -533 -413 -352 -417 -384 -427 || -65.4% 11.2%

Hong Kong 62 26 64 110 96 106 123 || 70.2% 16.4%Netherlands -1 -3 35 88 99 102 98 || -19114.6% -4.1%

Canada 356 185 117 98 104 105 97 || -70.6% -7.4%

China 2 -3 -20 -14 20 35 78 || 1926.5% 119.5%

All Others 985 609 546 474 623 76 111 || -92.3% 47.0%

Total -105 -117 -143 -176 -209 -201 -183 || 90.2% -8.7%

Canada -128 -124 -131 -137 -155 -120 -103 || -6.3% -14.8%

China -4 -6 -10 -14 -28 -37 -55 || 778.9% 50.6%

Mexico -13 -19 -24 -25 -28 -34 -53 || 150.3% 56.9%Kuwait 1 1 0 0 0 1 18 || 157.8% 1116.8%Germany -1 1 -1 -13 -10 -3 -8 || 340.1% 157.6%

All Others 41 31 23 12 12 -8 17 || -120.8% -305.3%

Appendix 2 
 Counterfeit Concerns

Product HS Code

Computer Software 852491Entertainment Software (including videogame DCs and cartridges, personal computer CD-ROMs and multimedia products) 950410Records 852410Laser Disks 852432MAGN TPE,N SOUND/IM 852440

--------- Annual US Balances in $ Millions ----------- -- Change --

Source 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 '00-'05 '06/'05

 U.S. Trade Balances for Products Known to be Affected by IP Theft: Top Five Markets (Plus China) 2000-2006Total 589 409 280 269 284 316 403 || -46.4% 27.7%

Canada 231 171 127 110 97 74 69 || -67.9% -6.5%

Japan 33 25 14 22 27 29 32 || -12.7% 8.4%

Germany 17 5 1 -5 4 18 30 || 8.7% 63.0%

Hong Kong 14 10 7 8 12 10 27 || -25.8% 162.8%

China 13 6 7 15 15 16 27 || 23.0% 68.0%All Others 281 193 125 119 130 168 219 || -40.2% 30.2%

Total -1,693 -2,950 -3,231 -1,824 -1,620 -1,808 -2,629 || 6.8% 45.4%China -336 -398 -1,571 -2,108 -1,957 -2,357 -3,642 || 602.4% 54.5%

Canada 244 334 331 441 382 448 597 || 83.5% 33.4%Mexico -4 -121 -608 -4 32 71 325 || -2010.1% 360.7%

Japan -1,606 -2,607 -1,336 -191 -129 -73 -125 || -95.4% 71.1%

Hong Kong 15 2 9 25 13 20 60 || 40.3% 195.0%All Others -6 -160 -56 12 39 83 155 || -1487.8% 86.5%

Total 48 50 36 40 34 22 22 || -54.2% 1.7%

Japan 22 23 17 17 16 11 9 || -47.1% -21.9%

Russia 0 0 0 0 1 1 4 || 473.2% 336.0%Canada 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 || -32.3% -16.9%

Netherlands 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 || -75.8% 155.5%

China 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 || 329.1% 5.5%All Others 21 22 15 19 14 6 5 || -70.9% -12.5%

Total -135 -100 -76 -44 -47 -25 -36 || -81.5% 42.7%United Kingdom -46 -34 -31 -28 -31 -32 -27 || -31.2% -16.1%

Japan 4 16 15 25 33 42 25 || 870.2% -40.3%

Germany -21 -6 -13 -12 -11 -12 -14 || -44.2% 22.0%

China -4 -6 -4 -5 -6 -6 -10 || 57.1% 62.4%Netherlands -6 -6 -6 -4 -4 -6 -5 || 2.2% -8.4%All Others -63 -63 -37 -20 -29 -11 -5 || -81.8% -60.6%

Total 100 68 35 38 46 15 16 || -85.2% 5.2%

Canada 2 -1 1 4 3 3 3 || 43.4% -16.1%

India 6 1 5 14 19 1 2 || -79.1% 36.3%

Mexico 5 11 2 1 4 2 2 || -53.6% -21.3%

Korea, South 11 2 2 7 2 2 2 || -86.4% 4.7%

China 1 2 1 1 2 0 1 || -56.5% 86.3%

United Kingdom 6 7 3 1 2 1 1 || -81.8% -17.6%

All Others 69 47 23 12 16 6 7 || -92.0% 24.5%

Appendix 2 
 Counterfeit Concerns

Product HS Code

MGN TPE,SND/IM=<4MM 852451MG TPE,S/I>4=<6.5MM 852452MG TPE,SND/IM>6.5MM 852453Textbooks, tradebooks, reference & prof'onal publications/journals 490199Table grapes (Chinese copy US packaging/sell as US goods) 80610

--------- Annual US Balances in $ Millions ----------- -- Change --

Source 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 '00-'05 '06/'05

 U.S. Trade Balances for Products Known to be Affected by IP Theft: Top Five Markets (Plus China) 2000-2006Total 20 18 11 25 21 17 13 || -13.3% -23.0%

Russia 0 0 -0 -0 -0 2 3 || 2633.7% 82.1%

Brazil 1 0 0 1 2 3 3 || 465.8% -4.3%

Canada 6 5 6 6 5 4 2 || -23.0% -42.6%

Mexico -3 -0 2 2 2 2 1 || -177.9% -43.9%

United Kingdom 11032 -0 1 || -101.7% -2891.7%China -1 -2 -2 -1 -0 -0 -0 || -65.0% -75.0%

All Others 16 13 5 14 10 6 3 || -61.4% -57.5%

Total 64 30 24 25 25 13 13 || -79.8% 1.2%

Canada 16 3 5 8 9 6 5 || -62.5% -12.6%

Mexico 0 4 2 1 1 1 1 || 1087.9% 46.9%Korea, South 3 3 2 1 3 0 1 || -88.4% 213.0%

Japan 16 5 3 2 0 1 1 || -96.5% 27.4%

China 41200 -0 0 || -101.5% -166.9%All Others 26 14 10 13 11 6 5 || -78.8% -6.5%

Total 13 1 -27 -10 -5 2 -2 || -82.5% -174.2%Korea, South -11 -7 -30 -23 -12 -5 -4 || -52.2% -23.2%

Canada 16 10 12 14 10 9 4 || -46.4% -56.5%

Peru 00000 -4 -2 || -976.6% -52.2%Venezuela 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 || 331.0% 745.7%China -4 -5 -7 -8 -6 -1 -1 || -67.2% -13.2%All Others 11 2 -2 7 2 4 0 || -64.0% -94.1%

Total 386 166 125 63 -58 21 -0 || -94.6% -101.9%

Canada 554 491 534 570 599 657 704 || 18.7% 7.2%China -207 -254 -323 -391 -509 -581 -691 || 181.2% 19.0%

Hong Kong -192 -198 -190 -169 -160 -156 -116 || -18.6% -25.6%

Australia 106 57 61 66 68 91 101 || -14.0% 10.8%

Singapore -24 -47 -50 -53 -55 -59 -64 || 144.6% 8.2%All Others 148 117 92 39 -0 68 65 || -53.8% -4.6%

Total -97 -96 -186 -164 -134 -249 -257 || 155.6% 3.3%Chile -388 -378 -459 -444 -509 -614 -718 || 58.3% 16.9%

Canada 206 190 214 235 281 306 311 || 48.7% 1.6%Mexico -105 -145 -161 -190 -165 -250 -103 || 138.9% -58.7%Hong Kong 49 72 68 59 35 44 43 || -11.3% -2.2%

Malaysia 16 37 38 43 54 63 40 || 298.7% -35.7%

China 11 9 8 6 21 47 35 || 323.0% -24.1%All Others 114 120 105 128 148 157 136 || 37.6% -13.4%

Appendix 2 
 Counterfeit Concerns

Product HS Code

Fresh fruit 08Beverages 22Structural wood-based panels 441292Structural wood-based panels 441820Agricultural chemical products, including glyphosate (Roundup) 38083019ETHYLENE,PRIMARY FORM 3901

--------- Annual US Balances in $ Millions ----------- -- Change --

Source 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 '00-'05 '06/'05

 U.S. Trade Balances for Products Known to be Affected by IP Theft: Top Five Markets (Plus China) 2000-2006Total 61 159 13 174 217 588 516 || 870.0% -12.2%

Canada 1,111 1,130 1,237 1,374 1,512 1,721 1,890 || 54.8% 9.8%Chile -619 -624 -770 -793 -918 -1,051 -1,215 || 69.6% 15.7%

Mexico -459 -456 -512 -647 -833 -1,084 -973 || 136.2% -10.2%Costa Rica -476 -504 -475 -516 -477 -503 -730 || 5.8% 45.1%Japan 623 601 606 604 635 613 611 || -1.6% -0.4%

China 6 7 -4 -12 -27 28 -2 || 378.6% -107.8%All Others -126 5 -69 164 324 863 937 || -784.4% 8.6%Total -6,633 -6,939 -7,934 -8,945 -9,515 -10,747 -13,491 || 62.0% 25.5%France -1,665 -1,554 -1,757 -2,063 -2,107 -2,343 -2,724 || 40.8% 16.2%Mexico -1,136 -1,231 -1,452 -1,552 -1,679 -1,935 -2,305 || 70.3% 19.1%Italy -714 -756 -923 -1,100 -1,147 -1,264 -1,370 || 77.0% 8.4%

Netherlands -716 -826 -953 -962 -936 -1,010 -1,231 || 41.1% 21.9%Brazil -7 11 -7 -12 -99 -107 -1,034 || 1339.8% 868.6%China -13 -18 -22 -18 -19 -12 -91 || -7.1% 643.3%

All Others -2,382 -2,565 -2,820 -3,240 -3,529 -4,076 -4,736 || 71.1% 16.2%Total -1 -1 -6 -6 -8 -8 -8 || 1302.3% -7.9%

Thailand -0 -1 -3 -4 -3 -4 -4 || 1965.6% 14.7%China 0 -0 -0 -0 -2 -2 -2 || -1636.3% -1.5%Malaysia -0 -0 -0 -0 -1 -1 -1 || 520.1% -25.2%Taiwan -0 -0 -0 -0 -1 -0 -1 || 3274.5% 63.4%Mexico 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 || 87.0% -24.4%

All Others -1 1 -3 -1 -2 -1 -0 || 159.1% -81.3%

Total -318 -375 -419 -420 -506 -597 -657 || 87.6% 10.0%Canada -153 -173 -185 -188 -218 -250 -275 || 63.5% 9.7%China -1 -3 -7 -11 -29 -57 -99 || 4097.3% 73.5%Brazil -33 -48 -55 -47 -64 -85 -90 || 156.9% 5.5%

Chile -21 -31 -39 -38 -50 -44 -51 || 112.3% 15.0%Indonesia -19 -13 -16 -19 -20 -24 -33 || 25.6% 38.3%All Others -91 -106 -117 -116 -125 -136 -109 || 50.2% -19.7%Total 569 567 555 341 478 573 690 || 0.7% 20.5%Canada 245 315 326 272 313 343 421 || 40.1% 22.6%Brazil 98 93 93 74 112 134 132 || 36.0% -1.5%Mexico 1 15 -14 -6 13 1 44 || -40.6% 6151.4%

Israel -6 -2 -2 -7 -15 -19 -39 || 225.2% 105.6%

Belgium 37 28 29 29 33 25 31 || -31.8% 22.7%

China 1 8 -9 -42 -11 -17 -25 || -2133.5% 46.0%All Others 192 110 131 21 33 106 126 || -45.0% 18.9%

Total 1,044 652 948 688 1,243 1,296 1,465 || 24.1% 13.0%Canada -887 -969 -923 -1,233 -1,458 -1,811 -2,085 || 104.2% 15.1%

Mexico 627 588 587 730 938 1,186 1,298 || 89.1% 9.4%China 138 110 114 113 240 349 383 || 151.9% 9.8%Belgium 215 171 228 241 272 361 344 || 68.5% -4.7%Colombia 60 40 48 60 92 98 133 || 64.5% 35.6%All Others 891 711 894 776 1,160 1,113 1,391 || 24.9% 25.0%

Appendix 2 
 Counterfeit Concerns

Product HS Code

OTHR OLEFIN PRIMARY F 3902STYRENE,PRIMARY FORMS 3903VINYL CHLORIDE,ETC 3904VINYL ACETATE;O VINYL 3905ACRYLIC POLYMERS 3906POLYETHER,EXPOXIDE,ET 3907

--------- Annual US Balances in $ Millions ----------- -- Change --

Source 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 '00-'05 '06/'05

 U.S. Trade Balances for Products Known to be Affected by IP Theft: Top Five Markets (Plus China) 2000-2006Total 1,050 1,039 1,096 1,305 1,621 2,021 2,490 || 92.5% 23.2%Mexico 355 335 380 424 540 801 996 || 125.9% 24.3%Canada 243 205 231 314 381 460 515 || 89.4% 12.0%China 56 110 101 150 196 236 295 || 324.0% 25.0%Belgium 61 50 76 64 81 89 93 || 45.4% 4.8%Israel 25 37 23 35 73 37 77 || 50.1% 106.8%All Others 310 301 285 318 351 397 513 || 28.0% 29.1%Total 292 173 198 228 195 2 241 || -99.4% 12898.0%

Canada 153 165 161 186 167 156 178 || 2.2% 13.9%Mexico 154 78 105 152 130 63 166 || -59.3% 164.6%

Korea, South -63 -51 -59 -59 -90 -153 -137 || 142.6% -10.7%

Bahamas -53 -67 -64 -84 -90 -113 -128 || 115.0% 12.5%Taiwan -19 -30 -34 -39 -52 -90 -73 || 383.3% -19.1%China 12 6 13 15 28 27 47 || 129.0% 70.9%All Others 107 73 76 58 102 112 187 || 4.4% 66.9%Total 326 461 596 636 738 572 804 || 75.6% 40.5%Canada 197 80 198 211 237 269 404 || 36.3% 50.3%Mexico 63 82 88 93 108 129 144 || 104.3% 12.1%Germany -44 -29 -34 -55 -97 -130 -123 || 195.0% -5.1%China 64 116 117 113 127 117 120 || 81.6% 2.5%Japan -141 -105 -71 -68 -46 -64 -109 || -54.3% 69.3%

All Others 186 317 299 341 410 251 367 || 35.2% 46.1%Total 307 262 350 391 441 448 425 || 46.0% -5.1%

Belgium 122 107 119 147 128 142 122 || 16.8% -14.0%Mexico 61 56 54 54 71 62 60 || 1.6% -2.9%Singapore 39 38 45 47 48 44 51 || 12.8% 15.2%Brazil 22 26 28 23 32 42 41 || 87.8% -1.4%Canada 19 14 27 25 29 31 34 || 63.3% 8.5%China -8 -7 5 8 7 7 8 || -179.1% 21.3%

All Others 52 27 72 87 126 120 108 || 131.2% -9.6%Total 491 519 527 462 615 772 847 || 57.2% 9.7%Mexico 147 122 138 136 167 195 226 || 32.6% 16.0%Canada 114 129 140 134 169 190 161 || 65.9% -15.1%

Brazil 49 42 47 45 54 72 91 || 47.3% 24.9%Belgium 20 36 32 20 24 41 56 || 104.6% 38.2%Japan -47 -39 -47 -58 -32 -35 -46 || -25.5% 30.4%

China 19 14 22 25 30 25 33 || 31.9% 31.4%All Others 189 215 195 160 203 284 326 || 50.5% 14.6%

Total 1,909 1,897 1,756 1,772 2,201 2,039 2,374 || 6.8% 16.4%Mexico 381 366 421 438 335 452 514 || 18.6% 13.9%China 136 131 172 221 298 258 305 || 90.2% 17.9%Canada 293 250 255 256 237 237 247 || -19.1% 4.2%

Hong Kong 171 113 167 164 194 190 221 || 11.3% 16.5%Netherlands 87 122 97 92 107 99 207 || 14.1% 109.6%All Others 843 915 644 601 1,030 803 880 || -4.7% 9.6%

Appendix 2 
 Counterfeit Concerns

Product HS Code

POLYAMIDES 3908AMINO-RESIN,PRIM F;OT 3909SILICONE,PRIMARY FORM 3910PETRO RESIN,PRIM F;OT 3911CELLULOSE,OT CHEM DER 3912OT NATURAL PRIME FORM 3913

--------- Annual US Balances in $ Millions ----------- -- Change --

Source 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 '00-'05 '06/'05

 U.S. Trade Balances for Products Known to be Affected by IP Theft: Top Five Markets (Plus China) 2000-2006Total 437 320 325 389 556 690 872 || 57.8% 26.4%Mexico 71 106 84 78 129 146 177 || 106.7% 21.4%China 21 22 32 43 69 85 132 || 309.4% 56.0%Belgium 49 44 43 52 77 68 112 || 39.7% 63.8%Germany -44 -46 -53 -58 -71 -78 -99 || 78.1% 27.6%Canada 41 41 24 44 48 105 96 || 159.2% -8.7%All Others 300 153 195 228 303 364 454 || 21.2% 25.0%Total 472 431 486 606 698 1,005 1,007 || 113.0% 0.2%Canada 174 116 141 184 223 320 298 || 83.6% -7.0%Mexico 83 95 96 128 139 185 216 || 123.0% 17.2%China 24 25 41 108 123 177 174 || 638.9% -1.7%Brazil 22 23 24 27 53 68 84 || 206.4% 23.0%Germany -45 -29 -46 -49 -63 -58 -76 || 29.2% 31.4%All Others 213 200 230 209 224 314 311 || 46.9% -0.6%Total 271 248 327 356 406 468 615 || 72.7% 31.4%China 13 12 16 26 37 64 97 || 399.2% 50.9%Belgium 39 30 67 68 74 62 90 || 61.1% 44.2%Korea, South 29 25 32 40 49 56 67 || 95.6% 20.1%Canada 54 44 58 55 60 68 65 || 25.0% -4.2%Mexico 60 48 48 45 50 55 61 || -7.8% 9.6%

All Others 77 89 107 122 136 163 235 || 111.9% 44.8%Total 391 389 404 381 486 460 476 || 17.6% 3.4%Belgium 87 69 57 52 93 87 103 || -0.6% 18.3%

Mexico 50 49 34 39 53 57 86 || 13.0% 51.1%Netherlands 15 24 37 46 58 58 78 || 276.8% 35.5%Canada 63 128 142 130 112 74 56 || 16.9% -24.5%

United Kingdom -18 -38 -21 -26 -33 -37 -52 || 108.8% 40.2%China 14 14 13 15 19 31 17 || 126.4% -44.5%

All Others 179 144 142 126 184 191 188 || 6.5% -1.6%

Total 362 417 430 460 565 588 655 || 62.4% 11.5%China 5 4 4 10 22 80 96 || 1433.1% 20.9%Belgium 45 74 68 85 105 94 84 || 108.1% -11.1%

United Kingdom 29 23 33 38 36 49 52 || 70.4% 7.3%Korea, South 20 24 23 29 31 38 52 || 87.7% 36.2%Russia 7 18 22 21 21 37 48 || 413.1% 29.6%All Others 256 273 280 277 349 291 324 || 13.8% 11.4%Total 90 8 14 52 20 -16 110 || -118.3% -770.0%

Mexico 55 41 35 54 62 63 65 || 12.8% 3.8%Belgium 13 25 26 30 36 32 36 || 139.8% 12.3%China -6 -100 -104 -97 -143 -149 -36 || 2560.6% -76.0%

Canada 12 11 13 19 21 25 25 || 105.0% 2.3%Japan 15 21 45 28 24 25 25 || 67.8% -1.6%All Others -1 10 -0 18 20 -12 -5 || 1912.3% -56.3%

Appendix 2 
 Counterfeit Concerns

Product HS Code

ION-EXCHANGERS 3914WASTE,PARINGS,SCRAP 3915MONOFIL,ROD,STICK,ETC 3916TUBE,PIPE,HOSES+FIT 3917FLOOR,WALL COVER 3918SELF ADHESIVE MATERIL 3919

--------- Annual US Balances in $ Millions ----------- -- Change --

Source 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 '00-'05 '06/'05

 U.S. Trade Balances for Products Known to be Affected by IP Theft: Top Five Markets (Plus China) 2000-2006Total -63 -75 -89 -101 -73 -101 -107 || 60.4% 5.8%Sweden -70 -66 -71 -59 -69 -76 -69 || 7.9% -9.0%Canada 41 23 27 19 21 27 34 || -34.8% 27.5%

France -16 -9 -23 -34 -30 -34 -33 || 112.3% -3.2%

Austria -24 -24 -25 -30 -3 -20 -26 || -13.4% 26.4%

China -3 -6 -6 -14 -12 -15 -18 || 378.0% 16.2%

All Others 9 6 9 17 20 18 5 || 91.8% -74.4%

Total 60 126 97 141 187 230 201 || 285.2% -12.7%

Hong Kong 51 77 93 105 100 151 222 || 198.7% 46.7%China 24 27 31 37 68 82 74 || 245.4% -9.3%Mexico -13 -2 -21 -12 -21 -48 -56 || 271.3% 16.9%Canada 24 31 31 34 45 52 51 || 122.0% -3.0%Germany -18 -15 -22 -18 -17 -17 -44 || -4.6% 154.3%

All Others -7 7 -15 -4 12 9 -47 || -225.0% -603.4%

Total -146 -192 -146 -107 -121 -95 -90 || -34.6% -5.5%

Canada -243 -275 -276 -299 -281 -237 -191 || -2.5% -19.4%Mexico 22 20 17 25 37 35 39 || 60.1% 11.1%Dominican Repu 10 11 34 53 36 40 30 || 322.6% -26.7%

Costa Rica 39 52 72 93 61 47 29 || 20.5% -36.9%

China -0 -2 -3 -2 -2 -9 -16 || 3194.4% 75.3%

All Others 27 2 10 23 27 28 19 || 4.7% -34.2%

Total 302 273 292 352 351 384 507 || 27.0% 32.2%Mexico 250 249 255 304 340 380 487 || 52.2% 28.0%China -8 -11 -27 -37 -33 -66 -109 || 755.5% 64.4%

Japan -30 -20 -30 -26 -35 -44 -50 || 46.1% 12.9%Germany -21 -21 -28 -34 -44 -47 -41 || 123.7% -13.3%Canada -7 -11 31 53 42 17 35 || -361.2% 104.4%

All Others 118 87 91 91 79 143 184 || 21.5% 28.7%Total -131 -177 -230 -280 -277 -273 -303 || 108.4% 11.1%

China -28 -36 -72 -85 -104 -107 -131 || 276.8% 22.5%

Taiwan -46 -41 -45 -45 -51 -50 -39 || 7.7% -20.8%Korea, South 3 -2 -2 -15 -18 -19 -33 || -664.2% 70.0%

United Kingdom -14 -17 -15 -17 -23 -24 -26 || 70.3% 5.3%Germany -4 -8 -17 -45 -19 -16 -25 || 274.7% 55.2%All Others -41 -73 -78 -73 -62 -57 -50 || 36.9% -12.6%

Total 662 570 645 676 788 848 807 || 28.0% -4.8%Mexico 286 236 252 270 293 319 300 || 11.5% -5.9%Canada 131 115 104 95 116 137 125 || 4.7% -8.4%Hong Kong 24 20 32 41 56 57 62 || 138.0% 7.4%Singapore 28 27 52 51 47 55 50 || 96.8% -9.7%Australia 26 22 27 32 36 44 45 || 72.4% 2.9%China 7 7 12 11 24 9 -2 || 27.8% -121.7%

All Others 161 143 167 175 216 226 227 || 40.7% 0.4%

Appendix 2 
 Counterfeit Concerns

Product HS Code

PLATE,SHEET,ET,N CELL 3920OTHR PLATE,SHEET,ETC. 3921BATH,SINK,LAVATR SEAT 3922BOX,BAG,CLOSURES,ETC 3923TABLEWARE,O HOUSEHOLD 3924OT BUILDERS' WARE 3925

--------- Annual US Balances in $ Millions ----------- -- Change --

Source 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 '00-'05 '06/'05

 U.S. Trade Balances for Products Known to be Affected by IP Theft: Top Five Markets (Plus China) 2000-2006Total 918 822 685 561 572 409 421 || -55.5% 3.0%

Mexico 365 356 311 326 382 434 471 || 18.8% 8.5%Japan -205 -189 -196 -216 -237 -255 -273 || 24.5% 7.0%

Korea, South -47 -32 -69 -94 -119 -144 -142 || 208.0% -1.9%Taiwan -64 -52 -50 -48 -37 -65 -89 || 1.2% 36.9%Hong Kong 60 53 48 52 55 53 80 || -11.9% 51.7%

China -5 23 24 26 29 -23 -38 || 315.3% 67.6%All Others 814 662 615 515 500 408 411 || -49.8% 0.6%

Total 246 227 168 227 157 187 253 || -23.7% 35.0%

Mexico 242 185 217 226 249 295 329 || 22.0% 11.4%Germany -47 -42 -50 -66 -111 -103 -142 || 121.3% 37.4%Hong Kong 31 31 32 40 53 60 104 || 91.9% 73.0%Korea, South -49 -48 -50 -55 -82 -79 -77 || 60.5% -2.9%

Canada 47 41 17 46 54 60 76 || 26.5% 28.0%China 7 11 14 22 36 15 20 || 107.0% 33.8%All Others 14 48 -11 15 -43 -60 -57 || -523.6% -4.3%

Total -78 -65 -85 -102 -102 -118 -122 || 51.9% 3.2%Canada -75 -62 -65 -70 -67 -71 -58 || -4.6% -18.0%China -6 -7 -11 -16 -27 -33 -47 || 467.4% 40.7%

Mexico -13 -19 -22 -24 -11 -18 -22 || 37.8% 25.1%United Kingdom 2 13 3 1 3 3 4 || 4.7% 59.4%Germany -0 -1 -2 -2 -2 -3 -4 || 2451.6% 34.3%All Others 13 12 11 9 2 4 5 || -66.7% 17.9%

Total 532 286 159 -204 -546 -923 -1,018 || -273.3% 10.3%

China -393 -471 -597 -747 -851 -1,143 -1,381 || 191.0% 20.8%Mexico 863 821 920 937 973 1,084 1,174 || 25.6% 8.2%Canada -128 -137 -104 -161 -335 -362 -341 || 181.8% -5.7%Taiwan -93 -94 -109 -112 -134 -170 -180 || 83.6% 5.6%Thailand -18 -21 -38 -66 -72 -129 -137 || 607.0% 6.4%All Others 301 189 87 -54 -128 -204 -153 || -167.7% -24.8%

Total -893 -919 -1,123 -1,282 -1,554 -1,929 -2,136 || 116.0% 10.7%

China -796 -856 -1,021 -1,144 -1,392 -1,751 -1,983 || 120.0% 13.2%

Canada 89 88 107 108 127 146 170 || 63.3% 16.7%Mexico -13 -37 -31 -52 -114 -137 -152 || 964.9% 11.5%Taiwan -182 -162 -144 -136 -120 -121 -124 || -33.5% 2.2%Hong Kong -20 -23 -26 -33 -43 -42 -33 || 113.6% -23.0%All Others 29 70 -7 -24 -11 -23 -13 || -181.0% -42.3%Total -547 -627 -768 -916 -1,059 -1,173 -1,152 || 114.5% -1.8%

China -279 -295 -349 -377 -427 -495 -510 || 77.5% 3.0%

Canada -280 -330 -403 -458 -503 -526 -504 || 87.6% -4.1%

Mexico -4 -12 -19 -44 -76 -105 -121 || 2878.3% 15.2%

Taiwan -56 -49 -54 -79 -77 -77 -78 || 38.0% 1.0%

United Kingdom 8 12 14 11 5 8 11 || 2.0% 35.8%All Others 64 47 44 30 18 22 51 || -65.6% 128.6%

Appendix 2 
 Counterfeit Concerns

Product HS Code

OTHER ARTICLES 3926O WORK RUBBR+PLST,ETC 8477O W INDIV FUNCTIONS 8479MOLD BOX F MET FOUNDR 8480PAINTING,DRAW,COLLAGE 9701ORIGNL ENGRAVE,PRINTS 9702

--------- Annual US Balances in $ Millions ----------- -- Change --

Source 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 '00-'05 '06/'05

 U.S. Trade Balances for Products Known to be Affected by IP Theft: Top Five Markets (Plus China) 2000-2006Total 755 349 -220 -603 -834 -1,249 -1,291 || -265.6% 3.4%

China -1,192 -1,240 -1,325 -1,459 -1,761 -2,142 -2,281 || 79.7% 6.5%Mexico 1,850 1,541 1,319 1,181 1,247 1,250 1,208 || -32.5% -3.4%Taiwan -134 -186 -155 -187 -166 -163 -172 || 22.3% 5.1%

Germany -57 -50 -67 -101 -133 -140 -119 || 144.3% -15.1%Belgium 37 59 42 47 77 87 89 || 135.4% 2.4%All Others 251 226 -34 -83 -97 -141 -17 || -156.1% -88.0%

Total -726 -322 -474 -721 -678 -831 -759 || 14.5% -8.6%

Germany -369 -227 -262 -337 -389 -453 -438 || 22.9% -3.4%Japan -467 -208 -277 -287 -307 -368 -378 || -21.2% 2.8%

Mexico 268 182 161 141 192 240 275 || -10.2% 14.4%

Canada -148 -120 -133 -168 -184 -237 -222 || 60.5% -6.3%

France -101 -73 -82 -140 -101 -106 -128 || 5.3% 20.7%China 17 30 61 67 80 70 67 || 311.4% -5.6%All Others 73 94 59 4 32 22 65 || -69.4% 192.2%

Total 7,467 4,404 3,365 3,031 4,079 3,432 4,314 || -54.0% 25.7%Korea, South 1,446 883 743 852 761 851 1,421 || -41.2% 67.0%Taiwan 2,413 974 862 531 1,200 1,068 1,017 || -55.7% -4.8%Mexico 922 705 630 483 594 592 618 || -35.8% 4.5%

Japan -492 -405 -490 -180 -230 -398 -570 || -19.1% 43.3%Singapore 765 432 327 216 569 400 482 || -47.7% 20.4%

China 229 277 307 271 490 166 331 || -27.7% 100.1%

All Others 2,185 1,540 986 859 695 753 1,014 || -65.5% 34.6%Total -339 -331 -571 -637 -644 -611 -825 || 80.3% 35.1%

Canada -251 -288 -431 -422 -377 -477 -490 || 89.9% 2.6%Mexico 320 259 217 230 281 403 413 || 25.9% 2.4%Japan -236 -213 -258 -240 -288 -222 -273 || -5.9% 23.3%

Germany -44 -47 -45 -60 -74 -118 -151 || 168.7% 27.8%China -14 -9 -1 -20 -33 -57 -92 || 319.1% 61.7%All Others -115 -32 -52 -125 -153 -140 -232 || 22.4% 65.6%

Total -1,002 -355 -1,414 -609 -784 53 29 || -105.3% -45.7%Switzerland 620 815 298 453 692 964 1,404 || 55.5% 45.6%France -1,573 -1,485 -1,205 -860 -1,073 -812 -1,038 || -48.4% 27.9%

Italy -182 -89 -58 -235 -148 -186 -218 || 2.2% 17.0%

Germany -1 40 -101 -111 -203 -82 -210 || 11088.4% 155.5%Korea, South -3 29 40 47 20 34 158 || -1326.1% 360.1%

China -16 -11 -11 -32 -28 -48 -50 || 197.5% 4.0%All Others 153 345 -376 128 -44 183 -17 || 19.2% -109.5%Total -32 -22 -17 5 -13 -30 -24 || -8.1% -19.7%

France -21 -18 -14 -15 -18 -24 -20 || 13.1% -17.5%

Germany -3 -8 -8 -11 -11 -21 -9 || 529.9% -55.7%Switzerland -1 2 -4 4 11 12 6 || -1002.7% -50.8%

Canada -5 1 8 20 0 8 5 || -258.3% -34.5%

Spain -1 -2 -3 -0 -3 -2 -4 || 20.5% 161.2%

China -0 -0 -0 -1 -0 0 -1 || -276.4% -677.7%

All Others 01589 -3 -0 || -1852.0% -94.7%

Appendix 2 
 Counterfeit Concerns

Product HS Code

Digital Multimeters 903031Connecting Devices for use with Modular Compressed Air Conditioning units 84159090PISTON ENGINS,INT COM 8407COMPRESSIONIGNITION 8408PARTS ENGNS 8407,8408 8409OTHER ENGINE,MOTORS 8412

--------- Annual US Balances in $ Millions ----------- -- Change --

Source 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 '00-'05 '06/'05

 U.S. Trade Balances for Products Known to be Affected by IP Theft: Top Five Markets (Plus China) 2000-2006Total 26 19 23 12 -2 -1 -5 || -104.9% 257.4%

China -10 -6 -9 -19 -37 -45 -51 || 345.6% 13.1%Netherlands 7 7 18 17 18 21 25 || 191.5% 18.1%Malaysia 0 -2 -3 -2 -3 -3 -10 || -228018.8% 233.5%

Canada 9 7 6 6 7 7 8 || -13.6% 6.3%

Taiwan -11 -8 -6 -7 -7 -7 -7 || -36.4% 0.3%

All Others 32 20 16 17 19 25 30 || -21.6% 21.0%

Total 193 122 85 -94 -242 -463 -573 || -340.4% 23.7%

Mexico -338 -228 -297 -345 -462 -621 -711 || 83.4% 14.5%

Canada 499 380 357 296 311 324 355 || -35.1% 9.5%

Japan -163 -155 -107 -102 -98 -106 -120 || -34.9% 13.3%China 9 -1 -4 -11 -22 -71 -116 || -929.1% 62.3%

Saudi Arabia 49 38 36 41 40 42 62 || -14.4% 47.2%

All Others 137 87 99 26 -11 -31 -42 || -122.5% 37.5%

Total -2,635 -1,540 -2,250 -2,806 -3,623 -3,638 -2,125 || 38.1% -41.6%

Japan -3,074 -2,805 -2,560 -2,509 -2,579 -2,731 -2,236 || -11.1% -18.1%

Canada 1,637 2,040 1,810 1,621 1,204 1,364 1,877 || -16.7% 37.6%Mexico -633 -417 -731 -1,117 -1,469 -1,459 -1,040 || 130.5% -28.7%

Germany -1,168 -1,048 -1,224 -1,345 -1,345 -1,214 -1,033 || 3.9% -14.9%Austria -107 -83 -89 -115 -76 -152 -162 || 41.1% 6.9%China 14 11 -11 -36 -37 -67 -57 || -574.3% -14.4%

All Others 696 763 555 696 680 621 526 || -10.7% -15.3%

Total 1,048 827 888 530 984 1,166 823 || 11.2% -29.4%

Canada 957 701 670 697 1,047 1,438 1,610 || 50.2% 11.9%Germany -152 -124 -186 -415 -516 -584 -1,086 || 283.9% 85.9%

Mexico 542 400 578 776 1,082 1,064 961 || 96.4% -9.8%Japan -552 -431 -402 -464 -672 -834 -827 || 51.1% -0.9%Brazil -20 8 -167 -251 -170 -307 -429 || 1453.3% 39.8%China 31 35 36 34 53 93 153 || 198.1% 64.3%All Others 242 237 360 153 160 296 442 || 22.3% 49.4%Total -484 -454 -364 -930 -2,096 -2,462 -3,245 || 408.8% 31.8%Japan -1,565 -1,475 -1,114 -1,155 -1,628 -1,681 -1,563 || 7.4% -7.0%Mexico -159 -152 -297 -526 -902 -1,014 -1,260 || 539.9% 24.2%Germany -166 -183 -219 -320 -395 -484 -555 || 191.7% 14.7%Canada 891 736 750 691 773 766 502 || -14.0% -34.5%

Brazil -225 -110 -139 -159 -300 -367 -464 || 62.8% 26.6%

China -23 -22 -41 -30 -57 -94 -172 || 315.2% 84.0%All Others 762 751 696 569 413 411 267 || -46.1% -34.9%

Total -306 -273 -172 -178 -353 -468 -417 || 53.0% -11.0%

Germany -99 -114 -83 -107 -154 -207 -224 || 110.2% 8.4%Japan -123 -112 -69 -78 -109 -141 -182 || 14.7% 29.1%United Kingdom -54 -51 -67 -42 -68 -122 -119 || 125.6% -1.8%Italy -34 -35 -33 -41 -67 -68 -76 || 102.6% 12.2%Singapore 1 -7 -5 13 8 22 67 || 1665.3% 209.3%China 3 12 15 12 3 -9 66 || -445.2% -845.4%All Others -1 33 70 67 33 56 52 || -5802.0% -8.6%

Appendix 2 
 Counterfeit Concerns

Product HS Code

OT ADP IN/OUTPUT UN 847160OT ADP STORAGE UNIT 847170RADIO TELEPHONES FOR INSTALLATION IN MOTOR VEHICLE 852520902RADIO PHONES, NT MOTOR VHCL, PBLIC CELLULAR SRVCE 852520904TRANSMISSION APPTS INCORPORATING RECEIVERS,NESOI 852520908

--------- Annual US Balances in $ Millions ----------- -- Change --

Source 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 '00-'05 '06/'05

 U.S. Trade Balances for Products Known to be Affected by IP Theft: Top Five Markets (Plus China) 2000-2006Total -16,294 -12,442 -14,025 -12,158 -14,072 -13,289 -12,800 || -18.4% -3.7%

China -3,624 -3,725 -5,593 -7,207 -10,910 -10,902 -11,173 || 200.8% 2.5%Malaysia -1,361 -1,081 -1,676 -1,646 -1,325 -1,453 -1,234 || 6.7% -15.0%

Canada 1,142 893 890 904 1,110 1,296 1,216 || 13.5% -6.2%Japan -5,232 -3,255 -2,371 -1,278 -1,178 -948 -817 || -81.9% -13.8%

Taiwan -1,176 -958 -908 -793 -698 -547 -526 || -53.5% -3.9%

All Others -6,043 -4,315 -4,368 -2,139 -1,071 -737 -265 || -87.8% -64.0%

Total -11,783 -9,352 -8,818 -8,228 -7,151 -6,695 -7,039 || -43.2% 5.1%

China -1,133 -1,260 -1,654 -1,659 -2,048 -2,333 -2,846 || 105.9% 22.0%Singapore -4,318 -3,588 -3,543 -3,622 -3,187 -3,073 -2,706 || -28.8% -11.9%

Thailand -1,069 -824 -630 -738 -989 -1,310 -1,857 || 22.6% 41.8%Malaysia -2,329 -2,043 -1,780 -1,829 -1,326 -917 -859 || -60.6% -6.3%

Canada 665 574 534 565 615 682 661 || 2.6% -3.0%All Others -3,599 -2,211 -1,746 -945 -216 255 567 || -107.1% 122.6%852590 Total -4,322 -7,629 -10,317 -12,151 -16,333 -19,899 -21,380 || 360.4% 7.4%China -372 -604 -1,856 -2,797 -5,453 -9,146 -11,775 || 2359.2% 28.7%Korea, South -2,727 -4,288 -4,242 -5,554 -8,022 -5,897 -5,286 || 116.3% -10.4%Taiwan -12 -23 -30 -97 -227 -797 -1,645 || 6622.1% 106.4%Malaysia -827 -1,073 -1,017 -1,260 -1,357 -1,455 -1,583 || 76.0% 8.8%Mexico -728 -1,170 -995 -1,030 -1,304 -1,544 -1,163 || 112.0% -24.6%All Others 343 -471 -2,177 -1,413 30 -1,060 73 || -409.0% -106.9%

Balance detail not availableBalance detail not availableBalance detail not availableBalance detail not availableBalance detail not availableBalance detail not availableBalance detail not availableBalance detail not availableBalance detail not availableBalance detail not availableBalance detail not availableBalance detail not availableBalance detail not availableBalance detail not availableBalance detail not availableBalance detail not available

Appendix 2 
 Counterfeit Concerns

Product HS Code

L-Lysine Feed Products, Their Methods of Production and Genetic Constructs for Production 292241Foam Footwear 6405909Voltage Regulators 903289Laser Bar Code Scanners and Scan Engines 854890Laminated Floor Panels 4412

--------- Annual US Balances in $ Millions ----------- -- Change --

Source 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 '00-'05 '06/'05

 U.S. Trade Balances for Products Known to be Affected by IP Theft: Top Five Markets (Plus China) 2000-2006Total 110 172 196 311 339 199 215 || 81.3% 7.7%Netherlands 40 68 79 138 152 81 76 || 100.5% -6.0%Canada 24 26 29 39 50 35 36 || 47.6% 3.6%Belgium 4 3 4 9 0 8 20 || 115.7% 143.2%Mexico 5 3 -2 -2 19 13 15 || 184.3% 15.9%

Spain 14 13 12 16 20 12 13 || -9.8% 1.6%

China 7 3 4 7 15 4 -2 || -46.3% -144.0%

All Others 17 57 72 104 82 46 56 || 174.1% 22.7%Total -46 -30 -26 -37 -41 -73 -110 || 58.6% 51.4%China -30 -31 -25 -33 -37 -65 -111 || 117.5% 71.9%Italy -7 -3 -3 -7 -10 -11 -10 || 51.5% -6.8%

Belgium 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 || 3515.4% 266.5%Canada 1 2 1 1 2 2 3 || 73.5% 53.3%

Brazil -13 -1 -1 -1 -2 -5 -3 || -57.3% -53.3%

All Others 3 2 2 3 6 5 7 || 101.7% 33.5%Total 75 42 -227 -149 -540 -439 -381 || -683.8% -13.3%Canada 1,006 887 910 1,060 1,066 935 847 || -7.0% -9.4%

Mexico -628 -647 -864 -862 -885 -713 -662 || 13.5% -7.3%

Germany -147 -103 -127 -161 -293 -322 -403 || 119.2% 25.1%Japan -228 -174 -189 -261 -397 -344 -348 || 50.8% 1.0%France 1 -19 -13 -5 -14 44 108 || 3291.6% 147.8%

China 0 13 11 14 5 5 19 || 950.7% 302.7%All Others 72 84 44 66 -22 -43 57 || -159.7% -234.2%

Total 1,089 831 601 531 459 479 463 || -56.0% -3.4%Hong Kong 42 30 20 27 39 53 40 || 27.1% -24.1%

Japan 82 60 23 28 19 27 36 || -67.1% 34.1%

Australia 29 26 23 23 32 31 35 || 10.2% 10.0%St. Kitts & Nevis 1 -0 0 -0 0 0 34 || -59.2% 14346.9%

Saudi Arabia 16 19 18 21 21 22 30 || 35.2% 37.9%China 39 28 27 8 39 15 27 || -61.5% 75.6%

All Others 880 667 490 424 308 329 260 || -62.6% -20.9%

Total -727 -803 -1,061 -1,217 -1,958 -2,095 -2,321 || 188.1% 10.8%China -29 -46 -103 -162 -429 -612 -976 || 1978.3% 59.3%Canada -203 -247 -278 -290 -352 -398 -338 || 96.1% -15.1%Brazil -97 -99 -143 -244 -440 -416 -280 || 328.7% -32.7%Malaysia -109 -95 -129 -118 -207 -175 -213 || 60.5% 21.5%Indonesia -234 -194 -212 -188 -212 -193 -201 || -17.4% 3.7%All Others -54 -123 -196 -215 -318 -299 -314 || 453.3% 4.7%

Appendix 2 
 Counterfeit Concerns

Product HS Code

SEMICON DV;L-EMT DIOD 8541INTEGRATED CIRCUITS 8542Zero-Mercury-Added Alkaline Batteries 850680Agricultural Vehicles and Components Thereof 870190Power bars 210690709

--------- Annual US Balances in $ Millions ----------- -- Change --

Source 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 '00-'05 '06/'05

 U.S. Trade Balances for Products Known to be Affected by IP Theft: Top Five Markets (Plus China) 2000-2006Total 32 642 731 902 1,123 1,350 1,557 || 4142.2% 15.4%Japan -1,476 -849 -597 -461 -570 -578 -808 || -60.8% 39.8%

Hong Kong 145 203 210 247 439 580 652 || 299.1% 12.5%Singapore 129 127 193 199 228 208 529 || 60.8% 154.4%China -82 -13 -61 -76 -164 -265 -395 || 222.8% 49.5%Mexico 456 246 330 285 283 366 345 || -19.7% -5.8%

All Others 859 929 656 708 907 1,039 1,235 || 20.9% 18.9%Total 11,636 14,000 15,488 20,631 20,178 20,111 23,444 || 72.8% 16.6%Mexico 5,189 4,639 3,566 3,635 4,266 4,419 4,380 || -14.9% -0.9%China 184 450 921 1,674 1,746 1,843 4,089 || 899.2% 121.9%Malaysia -590 -468 760 2,909 2,093 1,833 2,904 || -410.6% 58.5%

Hong Kong 1,540 1,363 1,724 2,339 3,289 2,836 2,278 || 84.1% -19.7%Canada 4,031 1,616 1,140 1,179 1,839 1,867 1,885 || -53.7% 0.9%

All Others 1,281 6,400 7,377 8,895 6,945 7,314 7,908 || 471.0% 8.1%Total 6 4 -22 -20 -22 13 40 || 109.5% 193.4%China -38 -43 -51 -82 -94 -89 -88 || 132.5% -0.8%

Netherlands 0 0 7 31 13 11 36 || 3917.0% 214.7%Mexico 28 28 19 12 9 9 18 || -67.8% 104.1%

Germany 2 2 6 8 7 22 13 || 919.5% -40.2%

Brazil 2 1 3 2 9 12 11 || 403.2% -1.6%

All Others 12 16 -6 9 33 48 49 || 291.8% 1.7%

Total -500 -377 -452 -700 -1,014 -1,028 -648 || 105.9% -37.0%

Japan -594 -526 -618 -735 -990 -1,064 -1,063 || 79.2% -0.2%Canada 281 422 431 422 467 507 605 || 80.6% 19.2%Germany -101 -126 -140 -165 -258 -235 -223 || 132.5% -5.2%Italy -106 -119 -132 -116 -158 -173 -194 || 63.7% 12.1%United Kingdom -179 -151 -192 -178 -214 -175 -151 || -2.2% -13.9%

China -3 -2 -2 -8 -8 -8 -11 || 169.0% 33.0%

All Others 199 124 198 72 139 111 377 || -44.1% 238.5%

Total 1,133 1,113 1,054 1,112 1,105 1,190 1,380 || 5.0% 16.0%Mexico 93 101 92 93 109 226 419 || 143.0% 85.2%Japan 133 159 181 204 212 222 212 || 67.1% -4.8%

Canada 202 136 178 159 51 105 168 || -48.0% 59.9%

New Zealand 12 6 -21 -31 -37 -80 -131 || -738.9% 64.1%

Korea, South 51 81 85 72 85 68 62 || 35.2% -10.0%

China 11 24 5 82 149 46 32 || 321.0% -30.6%

All Others 631 606 534 531 536 601 618 || -4.7% 2.8%

Appendix 2 
 Counterfeit Concerns

Product HS Code

Contract lenses 900130Air conditioners 8415Soy sauce 210310Motorcycle chains 731511Curling irons 820551Electrical cords 8544

--------- Annual US Balances in $ Millions ----------- -- Change --

Source 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 '00-'05 '06/'05

 U.S. Trade Balances for Products Known to be Affected by IP Theft: Top Five Markets (Plus China) 2000-2006Total 347 404 296 153 118 264 358 || -23.8% 35.5%

Indonesia -80 -65 -115 -99 -127 -151 -158 || 90.0% 4.2%Ireland -29 -42 -52 -89 -154 -154 -152 || 429.5% -0.7%

Japan 125 183 129 85 79 95 140 || -23.7% 47.2%

Singapore 83 76 75 70 90 88 106 || 6.0% 20.5%United Kingdom 21 19 70 48 69 61 98 || 186.8% 60.6%China 5 4 3 2 2 1 2 || -74.9% 39.1%

All Others 222 230 186 136 159 324 322 || 45.9% -0.4%Total 415 330 -57 -520 -656 -874 -1,282 || -310.6% 46.6%

China -150 -205 -360 -636 -703 -884 -1,223 || 487.5% 38.3%Mexico -296 -185 -287 -368 -518 -763 -901 || 157.6% 18.2%Canada 895 726 742 684 697 747 788 || -16.4% 5.4%

Thailand -62 -65 -80 -71 -99 -92 -156 || 47.8% 70.9%Korea, South -284 -244 -279 -265 -245 -154 -147 || -45.6% -4.5%All Others 313 304 207 136 211 271 359 || -13.4% 32.3%

Total -28 -28 -27 -30 -30 -27 -29 || -4.8% 7.1%

Hong Kong -16 -15 -13 -14 -14 -13 -13 || -19.3% -1.8%

Taiwan -9 -11 -11 -12 -11 -12 -11 || 28.1% -6.3%Canada 8 7 8 9 9 10 11 || 30.1% 8.0%

China -7 -7 -7 -8 -9 -11 -11 || 52.8% -0.6%

Japan -6 -6 -7 -6 -7 -7 -9 || 5.1% 27.6%All Others 2 3 2 2 2 5 3 || 107.6% -37.8%

Total -86 -73 -81 -84 -102 -99 -118 || 13.9% 19.3%Japan -60 -52 -51 -58 -56 -50 -57 || -17.4% 14.6%

Canada 32 25 26 29 31 35 36 || 10.9% 3.6%China -14 -13 -15 -16 -20 -24 -27 || 71.0% 10.8%Italy -11 -8 -9 -10 -13 -14 -19 || 29.5% 42.2%France -8 -8 -11 -16 -20 -19 -19 || 136.5% 0.0%All Others -25 -17 -21 -13 -24 -27 -32 || 8.3% 17.1%

Total -124 -123 -144 -141 -128 -135 -160 || 8.7% 18.5%China -74 -81 -107 -115 -110 -113 -145 || 51.9% 28.7%Taiwan -31 -29 -29 -23 -20 -19 -15 || -40.9% -18.3%

Canada 5 6 6 8 6 9 11 || 73.1% 28.9%

Germany -5 -3 -4 -4 -5 -5 -5 || 11.0% -9.0%

Italy -9 -10 -10 -9 -8 -5 -4 || -39.8% -23.3%All Others -10 -4 -1 2 9 -2 -2 || -79.6% 10.9%

Total -3,161 -3,260 -3,891 -4,270 -4,682 -5,325 -6,026 || 68.4% 13.2%Mexico -3,597 -3,307 -3,963 -3,945 -3,997 -4,409 -4,506 || 22.6% 2.2%China -737 -654 -762 -860 -1,167 -1,385 -1,893 || 88.0% 36.6%Canada 1,134 1,062 1,160 1,054 1,185 1,280 1,380 || 12.9% 7.8%Philippines -300 -305 -278 -305 -312 -321 -339 || 7.1% 5.6%Japan -148 -93 -120 -106 -143 -211 -203 || 42.3% -3.8%All Others 486 37 71 -108 -248 -279 -465 || -157.3% 66.8%

Appendix 2 
 Counterfeit Concerns

Product HS Code

Mineral water 220110Distilled water 28510090Maize seeds 100510Perfume 330300Detergent 3402Sugar 17

--------- Annual US Balances in $ Millions ----------- -- Change --

Source 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 '00-'05 '06/'05

 U.S. Trade Balances for Products Known to be Affected by IP Theft: Top Five Markets (Plus China) 2000-2006Total -186 -167 -183 -311 -300 -255 -216 || 36.9% -15.1%France -103 -96 -86 -70 -87 -78 -81 || -24.0% 4.2%

Italy -32 -28 -35 -44 -54 -65 -66 || 106.0% 1.5%Japan 6 9 6 10 13 31 49 || 407.8% 57.7%Fiji -5 -9 -12 -23 -27 -48 -41 || 825.5% -15.8%

Norway -1 -0 -2 -5 -10 -19 -23 || 3461.2% 24.5%China 0000 -0 0 -0 || 66.8% -367.9%

All Others -52 -43 -54 -179 -135 -76 -54 || 45.7% -29.0%Total 12 1 -1 1 20 16 35 || 32.9% 119.7%

Canada -15 -18 -17 -24 -23 -33 -43 || 118.9% 29.7%Korea, South 5 6 6 8 14 18 22 || 274.0% 23.2%China 4 3 4 6 12 13 20 || 237.4% 48.8%Taiwan 4 -0 1 2 3 7 12 || 71.2% 83.4%

Singapore 2 3 1 4 4 6 10 || 136.2% 81.6%All Others 12 8 5 5 11 6 14 || -52.4% 141.4%

Total 30 85 105 48 90 79 -18 || 167.6% -123.1%

Chile -78 -82 -80 -87 -56 -48 -83 || -38.9% 74.4%

Canada 29 44 37 23 31 31 37 || 7.9% 18.6%Argentina -31 -18 -12 -13 -10 -11 -36 || -63.3% 217.5%

Mexico 18 58 49 29 25 34 17 || 82.4% -50.4%

Pakistan 6 2 6 7 10 13 10 || 121.9% -18.5%

China 000000 -0 || -55.0% -102.9%

All Others 85 81 105 89 90 61 37 || -28.9% -39.0%

Total -411 -439 -517 -567 -569 -511 -449 || 24.6% -12.2%

France -551 -555 -585 -675 -710 -769 -781 || 39.5% 1.5%Italy -81 -87 -87 -94 -124 -141 -132 || 74.2% -6.4%Canada 48 47 74 84 80 100 117 || 110.4% 17.2%

Spain -30 -27 -41 -42 -59 -71 -94 || 136.2% 32.4%

United Kingdom -66 -66 -82 -86 -67 -67 -93 || 1.2% 38.2%China 0 -1 -3 -7 -6 -2 -2 || -10230.2% 45.9%

All Others 271 252 207 253 316 439 536 || 62.1% 22.2%Total 639 699 638 861 1,080 1,108 1,368 || 73.3% 23.5%Canada 263 281 314 466 613 652 736 || 148.0% 12.9%Netherlands 70 72 72 56 55 62 64 || -11.3% 4.1%

China 17 15 16 13 15 37 60 || 111.4% 63.1%Japan 50 56 52 45 52 50 57 || 0.4% 14.9%Germany -44 -39 -47 -52 -52 -45 -50 || 1.9% 11.0%All Others 284 315 231 333 397 352 500 || 24.3% 41.9%Total -797 -811 -1,065 -1,244 -1,255 -1,541 -1,863 || 93.2% 20.9%

Mexico -51 -115 -210 -170 -178 -279 -454 || 451.3% 62.3%Canada -86 -136 -164 -285 -273 -290 -282 || 236.4% -2.6%Brazil -79 -93 -87 -110 -115 -178 -175 || 126.3% -1.9%Dominican Repu -84 -74 -77 -86 -83 -83 -119 || -1.8% 44.3%

Guatemala -37 -37 -55 -83 -73 -108 -118 || 193.5% 9.7%China -7 -4 -34 -29 -29 -59 -69 || 687.3% 17.1%All Others -453 -351 -438 -481 -504 -544 -645 || 20.0% 18.6%

Appendix 2 
 Counterfeit Concerns

Product HS Code

Diapers 6209Razors 8212Olive oil 1509Baby formula 0404Toothpaste 330610Air fresheners 330749US Department of Commerce, Chi

--------- Annual US Balances in $ Millions ----------- -- Change --

Source 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 '00-'05 '06/'05

 U.S. Trade Balances for Products Known to be Affected by IP Theft: Top Five Markets (Plus China) 2000-2006Total -425 -526 -503 -524 -532 -571 -631 || 34.5% 10.4%China -50 -49 -138 -214 -245 -290 -333 || 476.9% 14.8%Bangladesh -46 -64 -52 -47 -43 -46 -68 || 0.2% 49.2%Vietnam -1 -0 -4 -11 -25 -37 -42 || 6535.4% 12.4%Philippines -68 -79 -53 -40 -30 -31 -33 || -54.0% 4.7%

Indonesia -50 -58 -41 -38 -29 -28 -30 || -44.1% 6.2%

All Others -210 -275 -215 -174 -160 -139 -126 || -33.9% -9.8%

Total 151 153 143 60 78 70 5 || -53.4% -93.1%

Canada 54 58 69 80 104 129 110 || 139.2% -14.5%

China -1 9 18 -75 -53 -47 -53 || 3311.8% 12.7%

Mexico -35 -55 -54 -29 -31 -40 -51 || 13.2% 28.4%Greece -16 -15 -12 -25 -39 -52 -49 || 221.4% -5.9%United Kingdom 78 100 85 54 62 54 41 || -30.2% -23.8%

All Others 72 55 37 54 35 26 7 || -63.7% -75.1%

Total -407 -371 -430 -512 -708 -842 -966 || 106.9% 14.7%Italy -310 -273 -316 -362 -480 -558 -619 || 80.1% 10.9%Spain -63 -55 -84 -95 -124 -149 -175 || 134.6% 18.0%Tunisia -9 -9 -3 -4 -39 -20 -56 || 115.6% 175.0%Turkey -11 -22 -12 -28 -28 -56 -41 || 405.9% -25.4%Argentina -2 -2 -2 -5 -4 -22 -23 || 802.9% 5.6%China -0 0 -0 -0 -0 -0 -0 || -9.3% 25.5%

All Others -11 -11 -14 -17 -33 -37 -51 || 242.2% 35.9%Total 10 40 19 9 12 40 127 || 291.8% 218.0%New Zealand -68 -76 -76 -101 -112 -144 -172 || 111.1% 19.8%Mexico 47 22 27 28 28 55 89 || 16.0% 63.7%China 9 17 19 24 28 31 49 || 242.5% 56.9%Japan 21 24 24 16 19 24 29 || 14.0% 21.9%Canada 28 35 24 25 27 23 27 || -17.2% 17.7%

All Others -27 18 -1 16 22 50 104 || -282.8% 106.7%

Total 104 82 75 74 93 102 86 || -2.2% -15.6%

Canada 41 31 42 38 56 62 64 || 50.5% 2.8%Mexico 145 -3 -5 -8 -43 || -976.1% 426.3%Japan 14 18 16 17 21 22 27 || 60.9% 25.2%Russia 0 0 -0 0 0 1 7 || N/A 410.8%Korea, South 2 5 6 5 4 4 5 || 97.8% 28.1%

China -3 -4 -3 -2 -2 -2 -1 || -47.5% -29.3%

All Others 50 29 8 18 17 22 27 || -55.1% 19.7%

Total 14 15 31 -0 5 11 32 || -21.2% 176.3%China -2 -2 -3 -5 -8 -15 -29 || 806.5% 93.5%Canada -2 6 7 4 18 14 24 || -720.6% 70.0%

Philippines 1 1 3 5 11 17 21 || 2758.5% 21.5%Mexico 328 -4 -6 5 12 || 52.6% 157.1%Thailand -1 -1 -0 -6 -11 -11 -6 || 984.6% -45.1%All Others 16 8 16 6 1 1 9 || -95.7% 1186.3%na Customs, Global Trade Information Services and MBG Information Services.

Appendix 2 
APPENDIX 

3 

Chinese Laws and Judicial Interpretations 

- List of Chinese laws and treaties discussed in report and information 

regarding where such laws may be accessed 

- Table 1: Current Chinese IPR Laws With Dates Promulgated/Adopted, Date 

of Effect, and Amendments 

- 1982 Trademark Law of the People’s Republic of China (Adopted at the 24th

Session of the Standing Committee of the Fifth National People’s Congress 

on August 23, 1982) (in Chinese) 

- 1984 Patent Law of the People’s Republic of China (entered into force April 

1, 1985) (in Chinese) 

- 1990 Copyright Law of the People’s Republic of China (adopted at the 

Fifteenth Session of the Standing Committee of the Seventh National 

People’s Congress on September 7, 1990) (in Chinese) 

- Excerpts of the Criminal Law of the People’s Republic of China 

- Judicial Interpretations by the Supreme People’s Court and the Supreme 

People’s Procuratorate on Several Issues of Concrete Application of Laws in 

Handling Criminal Cases of Infringing Intellectual Property (December 21, 

2004) 

- Judicial Interpretations by the Supreme People’s Court and the Supreme 

People’s Procuratorate on Several Issues of Concrete Application of Laws in 

Handling Criminal Cases of Infringing Intellectual Property II (April 5, 2007) 

(In Chinese) 
Chinese Laws and Treaties 

Chinese Intellectual Property Laws and Treaties 

Copyright Law of the People’s Republic of China (adopted Sep. 7, 1990, amended Oct. 

27, 2001), available at Main dedicated Intellectual Property Laws and Regulations 

Notified Under Article 63.2 of the Agreement: China, WTO Council for Trade-Related 

Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, IP/N/1/CHN/C/1, Doc. 02-3795 (July 8, 2002). 

Regulations for the Implementation of the Copyright Law of the People’s Republic of 

China (promulgated by Decree of the State Council on August 2, 2002), available at

Main dedicated Intellectual Property Laws and Regulations Notified Under Article 63.2 

of the Agreement: China, WTO Council for Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual 

Property Rights, IP/N/1/CHN/C/3, Doc. 03-5385 (Oct. 13, 2002). 

Trademark Law of the People’s Republic of China (adopted Aug. 23, 1982, amended 

Feb. 22, 1993 and Oct. 27, 2001) available at Main dedicated Intellectual Property Laws 

and Regulations Notified Under Article 63.2 of the Agreement: China, WTO Council for 

Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, IP/N/1/CHN/T/1, Doc. 02-3791 

(July 8, 2002). 

Regulations for the Implementation of the Trademark Law of the People’s Republic of 

China (promulgated by Decree of the State Council on Aug. 3, 2002) available at Main 

dedicated Intellectual Property Laws and Regulations Notified Under Article 63.2 of the 

Agreement: China, WTO Council for Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property 

Rights, IP/N/1/CHN/T/2, Doc. 03-5384 (Oct. 13, 2003). 

Patent Law of the People’s Republic of China (adopted Mar. 12, 1984, amended Sept. 4, 

1992 and Aug. 25, 2000) available at Main dedicated Intellectual Property Laws and 

Regulations Notified Under Article 63.2 of the Agreement: China, WTO Council for 

Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, IP/N/1/CHN/I/1, Doc. 02-3796 

(July 8, 2002). 

Implementing Regulations of the Patent Law of the People’s Republic of China 

(promulgated by Decree of the State Council on June 15, 2001), available at Main 

dedicated Intellectual Property Laws and Regulations Notified Under Article 63.2 of the 

Agreement: China, WTO Council for Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property 

Rights, IP/N/1/CHN/I/2, Doc. 02-3797 (July 8, 2002). 

Rules for the Implementation of the Patent Law of the People’s Republic of China 

(promulgated by Decree of the State Council on June 15, 2001, revised Dec. 28, 2002), 

available at Main dedicated Intellectual Property Laws and Regulations Notified Under 

Article 63.2 of the Agreement: China, WTO Council for Trade-Related Aspects of 

Intellectual Property Rights, IP/N/1/CHN/I/3, Doc. 03-5381 (Oct. 13, 2003). 

Regulations on Computer Software Protection (adopted Dec. 20, 2001, effective as of 

Jan. 1, 2002), available at Main dedicated Intellectual Property Laws and Regulations 

Notified Under Article 63.2 of the Agreement: China, WTO Council for Trade-Related 
Chinese Laws and Treaties 

Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, IP/N/1/CHN/C/2/Rev.1, Doc. 03-5382 (Oct. 13, 

2002).

Regulations on the Protection of Layout Designs of Integrated Circuits (adopted Mar. 28, 

2001, promulgated Apr. 2, 2001), available at Main dedicated Intellectual Property Laws 

and Regulations Notified Under Article 63.2 of the Agreement: China, WTO Council for 

Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, IP/N/1/CHN/L/1/Rev.1, Doc. 03-

5386 (Oct. 13, 2003).

Rules for Implementing the Regulations on the Protection of Layout-Designs of 

Integrated Circuits (promulgated Sept. 18, 2001, effective as of Oct. 1, 2001), available 

at Main dedicated Intellectual Property Laws and Regulations Notified Under Article 

63.2 of the Agreement: China, WTO Council for Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual 

Property Rights, IP/N/1/CHN/L/2, Doc. 02-3798 (July 8, 2002). 

Anti Unfair Competition Law of the People's Republic of China (effective as of Dec. 01, 

1993), available at http://en.chinacourt.org/public/detail.php?id=3306. 

Regulations on Protection of New Varieties of Plants (promulgated by Decree of the 

State Council on Mar. 20, 1997, effective as of Oct. 1, 1997), available at Main 

dedicated Intellectual Property Laws and Regulations Notified Under Article 63.2 of the 

Agreement: China, WTO Council for Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property 

Rights, IP/N/1/CHN/P/1, Doc. 02-3792 (July 8, 2002). 

Rules of the Customs of People’s Republic of China for Implementing the Regulations of 

People’s Republic of China on Customs Protection of Intellectual Property Rights 

(adopted at the Executive Meeting of the General Administration of Customs on Apr. 22, 

2004, promulgated by Decree of the General Administration of Customs on May 25, 

2004, and effective as of July 1, 2004), available at 

http://english.ipr.gov.cn/ipr/en/info/Article.jsp?a_no=2068&col_no=121&dir=200603. 

Criminal Law of the People’s Republic of China § 7: Crimes of Infringing on Intellectual 

Property Rights (adopted July 1, 1979, revised Mar. 14, 1997) available at

http://www.cecc.gov/pages/newLaws/criminalLawENG.php. 

Drug Administration Law of the People’s Republic of China (promulgated by Order of 

the President on Feb. 28, 2001, effective as of Dec. 01, 2001), available at 

http://www.sfda.gov.cn/cmsweb/webportal/W45649037/A48335975.html. 

Regulations for Implementation of the Drug Administration Law of the People’s 

Republic of China (promulgated by Decree of the State Council on Aug. 04, 2002, 

effective as of Sept. 15, 2002), available at 

http://www.sfda.gov.cn/cmsweb/webportal/W45649038/A48335997.html. 

Agreement on Trade Relations Between The United States of America and The People’s 

Republic of China, July 7, 1979, 18 Int’l Legal Materials 1041. 
Chinese Laws and Treaties 

Memorandum of Understanding Between the Government of the People’s Republic of 

China and the Government of the United States of America on the Protection of 

Intellectual Property Rights (Jan. 17, 1992), available at 

http://tcc.export.gov/trade_agreements/all_trade_agreements/exp_005362.asp. 

People’s Republic of China Intellectual Property Rights Memorandum of Understanding 

– 1995 Action plan, Action Plan for Effective Protection and Enforcement of Intellectual 

Property Rights, Annex I (Feb. 26, 1995), available at 

http://tcc.export.gov/trade_agreements/all_trade_agreements/exp_005363.asp. 

People’s Republic of China Implementation of the 1995 Intellectual Property Rights 

Agreement – 1996 (June 17, 1996), available at 

http://tcc.export.gov/trade_agreements/all_trade_agreements/exp_005361.asp. 

Convention Establishing the World Intellectual Property Organization, July 14, 1967, 

WIPO Notification No. 110, Accession by the People’s Republic of China (deposited 

Mar. 4, 1980, effective June 3, 1980), available at 

http://www.wipo.int/edocs/notdocs/en/convention/treaty_convention_110.html. 

Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property, Mar. 20, 1883, Paris 

Notification No. 114, Accession by the People’s Republic of China (deposited Dec. 19, 

1984, effective Mar. 19, 1985), available at 

http://www.wipo.int/edocs/notdocs/en/paris/treaty_paris_114.html. 

Madrid Agreement Concerning the International Registration of Marks, April 14, 1891, 

Madrid (Marks) Notification No. 41, Accession by the People’s Republic of China 

(deposited July 4, 1989, effective Oct. 4, 1989), available at 

http://www.wipo.int/edocs/notdocs/en/madrid-gp/treaty_madrid_gp_41.html. 

Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works, Sept. 9, 1886, Berne 

Notification No. 140, Accession by the People’s Republic of China (deposited July 15, 

1992, effective Oct. 15, 1992), available at 

http://www.wipo.int/edocs/notdocs/en/berne/treaty_berne_140.html. 

Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT), June 19, 1970, PCT Notification No. 81, Accession by 

the People’s Republic of China (deposited Oct. 1, 1993, effective Jan. 1, 1994), available 

at http://www.wipo.int/edocs/notdocs/en/pct/treaty_pct_81.html. 
Table 1

China’s Intellectual Property Laws 

Promulgated/ 

Adopted

Date of Effect Amendments Effective Da

Last Amendm

Copyright Law September 7, 1990 June 1, 1991 October 27, 2001 January 1, 2Implementing Regulations of Copyright Law 

August 2, 2002 September 15, 2002 

Trademark Law August 23, 1982 March 1, 1983 February 22,1993 

October 27, 2001 

December 1, 

Implementing Regulations of Trademark Law 

August 3, 2002 September 15, 2002 

Patent Law March 12, 1984 April 1, 1985 September 4,1992 

August 25, 2000 

July 1, 200

Implementing Regulations of Patent Law 

June 15, 2001 July 1, 2001 2003(?) 

Rules for the Implementation of Patent Law 

June 15, 2001/ 

December 28, 2002 

Regulations on Computer Software Protection 

December 20, 2001 January 1, 2002 

Regulations on the Protection of Layout Designs of Integrated Circuits 

March 28, 2001/ 

April 2, 2001 

October 1, 2001 

Rules for Implementing the Regulations on the Protection of Layout-Designs of Integrated Circuits 

September 18, 2001 October 1, 2001 

The Unfair Competition Law September 2, 1993 Regulations on Protection of New Varieties of Plants 

March 20, 1997 October 1, 1997 

** The eight laws and regulations that have been notified by China are considered the “main dedicated laws” rela
1982 Trademark Law 

PRC Trade Mark Law (1982) 

【法规标题】中华人民共和国商标法(1982) 

【类别】商标及特殊标志/商标法

【发文字号】全国人大常委会令第 10 号

【批准日期】

【发布部门】全国人大常委会

【发布日期】1982.08.23 

【实施日期】1983.03.01 

【时效性】已被修订

【效力级别】法律

【唯一标志】44439 

【全文】

*注:本篇法规已被《全国人大常委会关于修改商标法的决定》(发布日期:1993

年 2 月 22 日 实施日期:1993 年 7 月 1 日)修正

中华人民共和国商标法

 (全国人大常委会令第 10 号 1982 年 8 月 23 日第五届全国

 人民代表大会常务委员会第二十四次会议通过)

(相关资料: 法律 1 篇 行政法规 6 篇 部门规章 114 篇 司法解释 4 篇 地方法规 25

篇 案例 3 篇 相关论文 4 篇)

 目录 

 第一章 总则

 第二章 商标注册的申请

 第三章 商标注册的审查和核准

 第四章 注册商标的续展、转让和使用许可
1982 Trademark Law 

 第五章 注册商标争议的裁定

 第六章 商标使用的管理

 第七章 注册商标专用权的保护

 第八章 附则

第一章 总则 

 第一条 为了加强商标管理,保护商标专用权,促使生产者保证商品质量和维

护商标信誉,以保障消费者的利益,促进社会主义商品经济的发展,特制定本法。 

 第二条 国务院工商行政管理部门商标局主管全国商标注册和管理的工作。 

(相关资料: 部门规章 2 篇)

 第三条 经商标局核准注册的商标为注册商标,商标注册人享有商标专用权,

受法律保护。 

(相关资料: 部门规章 4 篇 案例 2 篇)

 第四条 企业、事业单位和个体工商业者,对其生产、制造、加工、拣选或者

经销的商品,需要取得商标专用权的,应当向商标局申请注册。 

(相关资料: 部门规章 3 篇 司法解释 1 篇)

 第五条 国家规定必须使用注册商标的商品,必须申请商标注册,未经核准注

册的,不得在市场销售。 

(相关资料: 部门规章 3 篇)

 第六条 商标使用人应当对其使用商标的商品质量负责。各级工商行政管理部

门应当通过商标管理,监督商品质量,制止欺骗消费者的行为。 

 第七条 商标使用的文学、图形或者其组合,应当有显著特征,便于识别。使

用注册商标的,并应当标明“注册商标”或者注册标记。 

 第八条 商标不得使用下列文字、图形: 

 (1)同中华人民共和国的国家名称、国旗、国徽、军旗、勋章相同或者近似

的; 

 (2)同外国的国家名称、国旗、国徽、军旗相同或者近似的; 

 (3)同政府间国际组织的旗帜、徽记、名称相同或者近似的; 

 (4)同“红十字”、“红新月”的标志、名称相同或者近似的; 
1982 Trademark Law 

 (5)本商品的通用名称和图形; 

 (6)直接表示商品的质量、主要原料、功能、用途、重量、数量及其他特点

的; 

 (7)带有民族歧视性的; 

 (8)夸大宣传并带有欺骗性的; 

 (9)有害于社会主义道德风尚或者有其他不良影响的。 

(相关资料: 部门规章 9 篇)

 第九条 外国人或者外国企业在中国申请商标注册的,应当按其所属国和中华

人民共和国签订的协议或者共同参加的国际条约办理,或者按对等原则办理。 

(相关资料: 行政法规 1 篇 部门规章 2 篇)

 第十条 外国人或者外国企业在中国申请商标注册和办理其他商标事宜的,应

当委托国家指定的组织代理。 

(相关资料: 部门规章 6 篇)

第二章 商标注册的申请 

 第十一条 申请商标注册的,应当按规定的商品分类表填报使用商标的商品类

别和商品名称。 

 第十二条 同一申请人在不同类别的商品上使用同一商标的,应当按商品分类

表分别提出注册申请。 

(相关资料: 部门规章 1 篇)

 第十三条 注册商标需要在同一类的其他商品上使用的,应当另行提出注册申

请。 

 第十四条 注册商标需要改变文字、图形的,应当重新提出注册申请。 

 第十五条 注册商标需要变更注册人的名义、地址或者其他注册事项的,应当

提出变更申请。 

(相关资料: 部门规章 1 篇)

第三章 商标注册的审查和核准 
1982 Trademark Law 

 第十六条 申请注册的商标,凡符合本法有关规定的,由商标局初步审定,予

以公告。 

 第十七条 申请注册的商标,凡不符合本法有关规定或者同他人在同一种商品

或者类似商品上已经注册的或者初步审定的商标相同或者近似的,由商标局驳回申

请,不予公告。 

 第十八条 两个或者两个以上的申请人,在同一种商品或者类似商品上,以相

同或者近似的商标申请注册的,初步审定并公告申请在先的商标;同一天申请的,

初步审定并公告使用在先的商标,驳回其他人的申请,不予公告。 

 第十九条 对初步审定的商标,自公告之日起三个月内,任何人均可以提出异

议。无异议或者经裁定异议不能成立的,始予核准注册,发给商标注册证,并予公

告;经裁定异议成立的,不予核准注册。 

 第二十条 国务院工商行政管理部门设立商标评审委员会,负责处理商标争议

事宜。 

 第二十一条 对驳回申请、不予公告的商标,商标局应当书面通知申请人。申

请人不服的,可以在收到通知十五天内申请复审,由商标评审委员会做出终局决

定,并书面通知申请人。 

 第二十二条 对初步审定、予以公告的商标提出异议的,商标局应当听取异议

人和申请人陈述事实和理由,经调查核实后,做出裁定。当事人不服的,可以在收

到通知十五天内申请复审,由商标评审委员会做出终局裁定,并书面通知异议人和

申请人。 

(相关资料: 部门规章 1 篇)

第四章 注册商标的续展、转让和使用许可 

 第二十三条 注册商标的有效期为十年,自核准注册之日起计算。 

 第二十四条 注册商标有效期满,需要继续使用的,应当在期满前六个月内申

请续展注册;在此期间未能提出申请的,可以给予六个月的宽展期。宽展期满仍未

提出申请的,注销其注册商标。 

 每次续展注册的有效期为十年。 

 续展注册经核准后,予以公告。 
1982 Trademark Law 

 第二十五条 转让注册商标的,转让人和受让人应当共同向商标局提出申请。

受让人应当保证使用该注册商标的商品质量。 

 转让注册商标经核准后,予以公告。 

 第二十六条 商标注册人可以通过签订商标使用许可合同,许可他人使用其注

册商标。许可人应当监督被许可人使用其注册商标的商品质量。被许可人应当保证

使用该注册商标的商品质量。 

 商标使用许可合同应当报商标局备案。 

(相关资料: 部门规章 5 篇)

第五章 注册商标争议的裁定 

 第二十七条 对已经注册的商标有争议的,可以自该商标经核准注册之日起一

年内,向商标评审委员会申请裁定。 

 商标评审委员会收到裁定申请后,应当通知有关当事人,并限期提出答辩。 

(相关资料: 部门规章 1 篇)

 第二十八条 对核准注册前已经提出异议并经裁定的商标,不得再以相同的事

实和理由申请裁定。 

 第二十九条 商标评审委员会做出维持或者撤销有争议的注册商标的终局裁定

后,应当书面通知有关当事人。 

第六章 商标使用的管理 

 第三十条 使用注册商标,有下列行为之一的,由商标局责令限期改正或者撤

销其注册商标: 

 (1)自行改变注册商标的文字、图形或者其组合的; 

 (2)自行改变注册商标的注册人名义、地址或者其他注册事项的; 

 (3)自行转让注册商标的; 

 (4)连续三年停止使用的。 

(相关资料: 部门规章 2 篇)
1982 Trademark Law 

 第三十一条 使用注册商标,其商品粗制滥造,以次充好,欺骗消费者的,由

各级工商行政管理部门分别不同情况,责令限期改正,并可以予以通报或者处以罚

款,或者由商标局撤销其注册商标。 

(相关资料: 部门规章 2 篇)

 第三十二条 注册商标被撤销的或者期满不再续展的,自撤销或者注销之日起

一年内,商标局对与该商标相同或者近似的商标注册申请,不予核准。 

 第三十三条 违反本法第五条规定的,由地方工商行政管理部门责令限期申请

注册,可以并处罚款。 

 第三十四条 使用未注册商标,有下列行为之一的,由地方工商行政管理部门

予以制止,限期改正,并可以予以通报或者处以罚款: 

 (1)冒充注册商标的; 

 (2)违反本法第八条规定的; 

 (3)粗制滥造,以次充好,欺骗消费者的。 

(相关资料: 部门规章 7 篇)

 第三十五条 对商标局撤销注册商标的决定,当事人不服的,可以在收到通知

十五天内申请复审,由商标评审委员会做出终局决定,并书面通知申请人。 

(相关资料: 部门规章 1 篇)

 第三十六条 对工商行政管理部门根据本法第三十一条、第三十三条、第三十

四条的规定做出的罚款决定,当事人不服的,可以在收到通知十五天内,向人民法

院起诉;期满不起诉又不履行的,由有关工商行政管理部门申请人民法院强制执

行。 

第七章 注册商标专用权的保护 

 第三十七条 注册商标的专用权,以核准注册的商标和核定使用的商品为限。 

(相关资料: 部门规章 3 篇 案例 1 篇)

 第三十八条 有下列行为之一的,均属侵犯注册商标专用权: 

 (1)未经注册商标所有人的许可,在同一种商品或者类似商品上使用与其注

册商标相同或者近似的商标的; 

 (2)擅自制造或者销售他人注册商标标识的; 
1982 Trademark Law 

 (3)给他人的注册商标专用权造成其他损害的。 

(相关资料: 部门规章 3 篇 司法解释 1 篇 案例 3 篇)

 第三十九条 有本法第三十八条所列侵犯注册商标专用权行为之一的,被侵

权人可以向侵权人所在地的县级以上工商行政管理部门要求处理。有关工商行政管

理部门有权责令侵权 人立即停止侵权行为,赔偿被侵权人的损失,赔偿额为侵权

人在侵权期间因侵权所获得的利润或者被侵权人在被侵权期间因被侵权所受到的损

失;对情节严重的,可 以并处罚款。当事人不服的,可以在收到通知十五天内,

向人民法院起诉;期满不起诉又不履行的,由有关工商行政管理部门申请人民法院

强制执行。 

 对侵犯注册商标专用权的,被侵权人也可以直接向人民法院起诉。 

(相关资料: 部门规章 3 篇 司法解释 1 篇 案例 1 篇)

 第四十条 假冒他人注册商标,包括擅自制造或者销售他人注册商标标识的,

除赔偿被侵权人的损失,可以并处罚款外,对直接责任人员由司法机关依法追究刑

事责任。 

(相关资料: 部门规章 1 篇 司法解释 1 篇)

第八章 附则 

 第四十一条 申请商标注册和办理其他商标事宜的,应当缴纳费用,具体收费

标准另定。 

(相关资料: 部门规章 1 篇)

 第四十二条 本法的实施细则,由国务院工商行政管理部门制定,报国务院批

准施行。 

 第四十三条 本法自1983年3月1日起施行。1963年4月10日国务

院公布的《商标管理条例》同时废止;其他有关商标管理的规定,凡与本法抵触

的,同时失效。 

 本法施行以前已经注册的商标继续有效。
1984 Patent Law 

【英文译本】Patent Law of the People's Republic of China (1985) 

【法规标题】中华人民共和国专利法

【类别】专利/专利法

【发文字号】中华人民共和国主席令第十一号

【批准日期】

【发布部门】全国人大常委会

【发布日期】1984.03.12 

【实施日期】1985.04.01 

【时效性】已被修订

【效力级别】法律

【唯一标志】1943 

【全文】

*注:本篇法规已被《全国人大常委会关于修改<中华人民共和国专利法>的决定》

(发布日期:1992 年 9 月 4 日 实施日期:1992 年 9 月 4 日)修正

中华人民共和国专利法

 (一九八四年三月十二日第六届全国人民代表大会常务委员会第四次会议通过

 一九八四年三月十二日中华人民共和国主席令第十一号公布

 一九八五年四月一日起施行)

 目 录

(相关资料: 法律 3 篇 行政法规 6 篇 部门规章 95 篇 司法解释 5 篇 其他规范性文件

1 篇 地方法规 71 篇 案例 3 篇 裁判文书 13 篇 相关论文 6 篇)

 第一章 总 则

 第二章 授予专利权的条件

 第三章 专利的申请

 第四章 专利申请的审查和批准

 第五章 专利权的期限、终止和无效
1984 Patent Law 

 第六章 专利实施的强制许可

 第七章 专利权的保护

 第八章 附 则

第一章 总 则

 第一条 为了保护发明创造专利权, 鼓励发明创造, 有利于发明创造的推广应

用,促进科学技术的发展,适应社会主义现代化建设的需要,特制定本法。

 第二条 本法所称的发明创造是指发明、实用新型和外观设计。

 第三条 中华人民共和国专利局受理和审查专利申请 , 对符合本法规定的发明

创造授予专利权。

(相关资料: 部门规章 1 篇)

 第四条 申请专利的发明创造涉及国家安全或 者重大 利益需要保密的,按照国

家有关规定办理。

 第五条 对违反国家法律、社会公德或者妨害公共利益的发明创造,不授予专利

权。

(相关资料: 部门规章 1 篇)

 第六条 执行本单位的任务或者主要是利用本单位的物质条件所完成的职务发

明创造,申请专利的权利属于该单位 ; 非职务发明创造 , 申请专利的权利属于发

明人或者设计人。申请被批准后,全民所有制单位申请的,专利权归该单位持有;

集体所有制单位或者个人申请的,专利权归该单位或者个人 所有。

 在中国境内的外资企业和中外合资经营企业的工作人员完成的职务发明创造,

申请专利的权利属于该企业;非职务发明创造,申请专利的权利属于发明人或者设

计人。申请被批准后,专利权归申请的企业或者个人所有。

 专利权的所有人和持有人统称专利权人。

(相关资料: 部门规章 1 篇 案例 1 篇)

 第七条 对发明人或者设计人的非职务发明创造专利申请 , 任何单位或者个人

不得压制。

 第八条 两个以上单位 协作或 者一个单位接受其他单位委托的研究、设计任务

所完成的发明创造,除另有协议的以外,申请专利的权利属于完成或者共同完成的
1984 Patent Law 

单位;申请被批准后,专利权归申请的单位所有或者持有。

(相关资料: 部门规章 2 篇)

 第九条 两个以上的申请人分别就同样的发明创造申请专利的 , 专利授予最先

申请的人。

(相关资料: 部门规章 1 篇 案例 1 篇)

 第十条 专利申请权和专利权可以转让。

 全民所有制单位转让专利申请权或者专利权的,必须经上级主管机关批准。

 中国单位或者个人向外国人转让专利申请权或者专利权的,必须经国务院有关

主管部门批准。

 转让专利申请权或者专利权的,当事人必须订立书面合同,经专利局登记和公

告后生效。

 第十一条 发明和实用新型专利权被授予后 , 除本法第十四条规定的以外,任

何单位或者个人未经专利权人许可,都不得实施其专利,即不得为生产经营目的制

造、使用或者销售其专利产品,或者使用其专利方法。

 外观设计专利权被授予后, 任何单位或者个人未经专利权人许可,都不得实

施其专利,即不得为生产经营目的制造或者销售其外观设计专利产品。

 第十二条 任何单位或者个人实施他人专利的 , 除本法第十四条规定的以外,

都必须与专利权人订立书面实施许可合同,向专利权人支付专利使用费。被许可人

无权允许合同规定以外的任何单位或者个人实施该专利。

 第十三条 发明专利申请公布后 , 申请人可以要求实施其发明的单位或者个人

支付适当的费用。

 第十四条 国务院有关主管部门和省 、 自治区、直辖市人民政府根据国家计

划,有权决定本系统内或者 所管辖的全民所有制单位持有的重要发明创造专利允

许指定的单位实施,由实施单位按照国家规定向持有专利权的单位支付使用费。

 中国集体所有制单位和个人的专利,对国家利益或者公共利益具有重大意义,

需要推广应用的,由国务院有关主管部门报国务院批准后,参照上款规定办理。

(相关资料: 部门规章 1 篇)

 第十五条 专利权人有权在其专利产品或者该产品的包装上标明专利标记和专利

号。
1984 Patent Law 

 第十六条 专利权的所有单位 或者 持有单位应当对职务发明创造的发明人或者

设计人给予奖励;发明创造专利实施后,根据其推广应用的范围和取得的经济效

益,对发明人或者设计人给予奖励。

(相关资料: 部门规章 2 篇)

 第十七条 发明人或者设计人有在专利文件中写明自己是发明人或者设计人的权

利。

 第十八条 在中国没有经常居所或者营业所的外国人 、 外国企业或者外国其他

组织在中国申请专利的,依照其所属国同中国签订的协议或者共同参加的国际条

约,或者依照互惠原则,根据本法办理。

(相关资料: 部门规章 1 篇)

 第十九条 在中国没有经常居所或者营业所的外国人 、 外国企业或者外国其他

组织在中国申请专利和办理其他专利事务的,应当委托中华人民共和国国务院指定

的专利代理机构办理。

 中国单位或者个人在国内申请专利和办理其他专利事务的,可以委托专利代理

机构办理。

(相关资料: 部门规章 2 篇 地方法规 3 篇)

 第二十条 中国单位 或 者个人将其在国内完成的发明创造向外国申请专利的,

应当首先向专利局申请专利,并经国务院有关主管部门同意后,委托国务院指定的

专利代理机构办理。

(相关资料: 部门规章 5 篇 司法解释 1 篇 地方法规 3 篇)

 第二十一条 在专利申请公布或者公告前 , 专利局工作人员及有关人员对其内

容负有保密责任。

第二章 授予专利权的条件

 第二十二条 授予专利权的发明和实用新型,应当具备新颖性、创造性和实用

性。

 新颖性,是指在申请日以前没有同样的发明或者实用新型在国内外出版物上公

开发表过、在国内公开使用过或者以其他方式为公众所知,也没有同样的发明或者

实用新型由他人向专利局提出过申请并且记载在申请日以后公布的专利申请文件
1984 Patent Law 

中。

 创造性,是指同申请日以前已有的技术相比,该发明有突出的实质性特点和显

著的进步,该实用新型有实质性特点和进步。

 实用性,是指该发明或者实用新型能够制造或者使用,并且能够产生积极效

果。

(相关资料: 部门规章 1 篇 案例 1 篇)

 第二十三条 授予专利权的外观设计 , 应当同申请日以前在国内外出版物上公

开发表过或者国内公开使用过的外观设计不相同或者不相近似。

(相关资料: 部门规章 1 篇)

 第二十四条 申请专利的发明创造在申请日以前六个月内 , 有下列情形之一

的,不丧失新颖性:

 一、在中国政府主办或者承认的国际展览会首次展出的;

 二、在规定的学术会议或者技术会议上首次发表的;

 三、他人未经申请人同意而泄露其内容的。

(相关资料: 部门规章 2 篇)

 第二十五条 对下列各项,不授予专利权:

 一、科学发现;

 二、智力活动的规则和方法;

 三、疾病的诊断和治疗方法;

 四、食品、饮料和调味品;

 五、药品和用化学方法获得的物质;

 六、动物和植物品种;

 七、用原子核变换方法获得的物质。

 对上款第四项至第六项所列产品的生产方法,可以依照本法规定授予专利权。

(相关资料: 部门规章 3 篇 裁判文书 1 篇)

第三章 专利的申请

 第二十六条 申请发明或者实用新型专利的 , 应当提交请求书、说明书及其摘

要和权利要求书等文件。
1984 Patent Law 

 请求书应当写明发明或者实用新型的名称,发明人或者设计人的姓名,申请人

姓名或者名称、地址,以及其他事项。

 说明书应当对发明或者实用新型作出清楚、完整的说明,以所属技术领域的技

术人员能够实现为准;必要的时候,应当有附图。摘要应当简要说明发明或者实用

新型的技术要点。

 权利要求书应当以说明书为依据,说明要求专利保护的范围。

(相关资料: 部门规章 1 篇)

 第二十七条 申请外观设计专利的, 应当提交请求书以及该外观设计的图片或

者照片等文件,并且应当写明使用该外观设计的产品及其所属的类别。

(相关资料: 部门规章 2 篇)

 第二十八条 专利局收到专利申请文件之日为申请日 。 如果申请文件是邮寄

的,以寄出的邮戳日为申请日。

 第二十九条 外国申请人就同一发明或者实用新型在外国第一次提出专利申

请之日起十二个月内,或者就同一外观设计在外国第一次提出专利申请之日起六个

月内,又在中国提 出申请的,依照其所属国同中国签订的协议或者共同参加的国

际条约,或者依照相互承认优先权的原则,可以享有优先权,即以其在外国第一次

提出申请之日为申请 日。

 申请人要求优先权,有本法第二十四条所列情形之一的,优先权的期限自该情

形发生之日起计算。

(相关资料: 部门规章 2 篇)

 第三十条 申请人要求优先权的,应当在申请的时候提出书面声明,写明在外

国提出申请的申请日和受理该申请的国家,并且在三个月内提交经该国受理机关证

明的该申请文件副本;未提出书面声明或者逾期未提交文件的,即被视为未要求优

先权。

 第三十一条 一件发明或者实用新型专利申请应当限于一项发明或者实用新

型。属于一个总的发明构思的两项以上的发明或者实用新型,可以作为一件申请提

出。

 一件外观设计专利申请应当限于一种产品所使用的一项外观设计。用于同一类

别并且成套出售或者使用的产品的两项以上的外观设计,可以作为一件申请提出。

(相关资料: 部门规章 1 篇)
1984 Patent Law 

 第三十二条 申请人可以在被授予专利权之前随时撤回其专利申请。

 第三十三条 申请人可以对其专利申请文件进行修改 , 但是不得超出原说明书

记载的范围。(相关资料: 裁判文书 1 篇)

第四章 专利申请的审查和批准

 第三十四条 专利局收到发明专利申请后 , 经初步审查认为符合本法要求的,

自申请日起十八个月内,予以公布。专利局可以根据申请人的请求早日公布其申

请。

 第三十五条 发明专利申请自申请日起三年内 , 专利局可以根据申请人随时提

出的请求,对其申请进行实质审查;申请人无正当理由逾期不请求实质审查的,该

申请即被视为撤回。

 专利局认为必要的时候,可以自行对发明专利申请进行实质审查。

(相关资料: 部门规章 1 篇)

 第三十六条 发明专利的申请人请求实质审查的时候 , 应当提交在申请日前与

其发明有关的参考资料。

 发明专利已经在外国提出过申请的,申请人请求实质审查的时候,应当提交该

国为审查其申请进行检索的资料或者审查结果的资料;无正当理由不提交的,该申

请即被视为撤回。

(相关资料: 部门规章 2 篇)

 第三十七条 专利局对发明专利申请进行实质审查后 , 认为不符合本法规定

的,应当通知申请人,要求其在指定的期限内陈述意见,或者对其申请进行修改;

无正当理由逾期不答复的,该申请即被视为撤回。

 第三十八条 发明专利申请经申请人陈述意见或者进行修改后 , 专利局仍然认

为不符合本法规定的,应当予以驳回。

 第三十九条 发明专利申请经实质审查没有发现驳回理由的 , 专利局应当作出

审定,予以公告,并通告申请人。

(相关资料: 法律 1 篇 行政法规 1 篇 部门规章 2 篇 相关论文 2 篇)
1984 Patent Law 

 第四十条 专利局收到实用新型和外观设计专利申请后 , 经初步审查认为符合

本法要求的,不再进行实质审查,即行公告,并通知申请人。

(相关资料: 法律 1 篇 行政法规 1 篇 部门规章 2 篇 相关论文 2 篇)

 第四十一条 专利申请自公告之日起三个月内 , 任何人都可以依照本法规定向

专利局对该申请提出异议。专利局应当将异议的副本送交申请人,申请人应当在收

到异议副本之日起三个月内提出书面答复;无正当理由逾期不提出书面答复的,该

申请即被视为撤回。

(相关资料: 部门规章 1 篇)

 第四十二条 专利局经审查认为异议成立的 , 应当作出驳回申请的决定,并通

知异议人和申请人。

 第四十三条 专利局设立专利复审委员会 。 申请人对专利局驳回申请的决定不

服的,可以在收到通知之日起三个月内,向专利复审委员会请求复审。专利复审委

员会复审后,作出决定,并通知申请人。

 发明专利的申请人对专利复审委员会驳回复审请求的决定不服的,可以在收到

通知之日起三个月内向人民法院起诉。

 专利复审委员会对申请人关于实用新型和外观设计的复审请求所作出的决定为

终局决定。

(相关资料: 部门规章 1 篇)

 第四十四条 对专利申请无异议或者经审查异议不成立的 ,专利局应当作出授

予专利权的决定,发给专利证书,并将有关事项予以登记和公告。

第五章 专利权的期限、终止和无效

 第四十五条 发明专利权的期限为十五年,自申请日起计算。

 实用新型和外观设计专利权的期限为五年,自申请日起计算,期满前专利权人

可以申请续展三年。

 专利权人享有优先权的,专利权的期限自在中国申请之日起计算。

(相关资料: 部门规章 1 篇)

 第四十六条 专利权人应当自被授予专利权的当年开始缴纳年费。
1984 Patent Law 

 第四十七条 有下列情形之一的,专利权在期限届满前终止:

 一、没有按照规定缴纳年费的;

 二、专利权人以书面声明放弃其专利权的。

 专利权的终止,由专利局登记和公告。

 第四十八条 专利权被授予后 , 任何单位或者个人认为该专利权的授予不符合

本法规定的,都可以请求专利复审委员会宣告该专利权无效。

(相关资料: 部门规章 2 篇 司法解释 1 篇 地方法规 1 篇)

 第四十九条 专利复审委员会对宣告专利权无效的请求进行审查 , 作出决定,

并通知请求人和专利权人。宣告专利权无效的决定,由专利局登记和公告。

 对专利复审委员会宣告发明专利无效或者维持发明专利权的决定不服的,可以

在收到通知之日起三个月内向人民法院起诉。

 专利复审委员会对宣告实用新型和外观设计专利权无效的请求所作出的决定为

终局决定。

(相关资料: 部门规章 1 篇 司法解释 1 篇)

 第五十条 宣告无效的专利权视为自始即不存在。

第六章 专利实施的强制许可

 第五十一条 专利权人负有自己在中国制造其专利产品 、 使用其专利方法或者

许可他人在中国制造其专利产品、使用其专利方法的义务。

 第五十二条 发明和实用新型专利权人自专利权被授予之 日 起满三年,无正当

理由没有履行本法第五十一条规定的义务的,专利局根据具备实施条件的单位的申

请,可以给予实施该专利的强制许可。

(相关资料: 部门规章 1 篇)

 第五十三条 一 项 取得专利权的发明或者实用新型比前已经取得专利权的发明

或者实用新型在技术上先进,其实施又有赖于前一发明或者实用新型的实施的,专

利局根据后一专利权人的申请,可以给予实施前一发明或者实用新型的强制许可。

 在依照上款规定给予实施强制许可的情形下,专利局根据前一专利权人的申

请,也可以给予实施后一发明或者实用新型的强制许可。

(相关资料: 部门规章 2 篇)
1984 Patent Law 

 第五十四条 依照本法规定申请实施强制许可的单位或者个人 , 应当提出未能

以合理条件与专利权人签订实施许可合同的证明。

 第五十五条 专利局作出的给予实施强制许可的决定,应当予以登记和公告。

 第五十六条 取得实施强 制 许可的单位或者个人不享有独占的实施权,并且无

权允许他人实施。

 第五十七条 取得实施强 制 许可的单位或者个人应当付给专利权人合理的使用

费,其数额由双方商定;双方不能达成协议的,由专利局裁决。

(相关资料: 部门规章 1 篇)

 第五十八条 专利权人对专利局关于实施强制许可 的 决定或者关于实施强制许

可的使用费的裁决不服的,可以在收到通知之日起三个月内向人民法院起诉。

第七章 专利权的保护

 第五十九条 发明或者实用新型专利权的保护范围以其权利要求的内容为准,

说明书及附图可以用于解释权利要求。

 外观设计专利权的保护范围以表示在图片或者照片中的该外观设计专利产品为

准。

(相关资料: 案例 1 篇)

 第六十条 对未经专利权人许可 , 实施其专利的侵权行为,专利权人或者利害

关系人可以请求专利管理机关进行处理, 也可以直接向人民法院起诉。专利管理

机关处理的时候,有权责令侵权入停止 侵权行为,并赔偿损失;当事人不服的,

可以在收到通知之日起三个月内向人民法院起诉;期满不起诉又不履行的,专利管

理机关可以请求人民法院强制执行。

 在发生侵权纠纷的时候,如果发明专利是一项产品的制造方法,制造同样产品

的单位或者个人应当提供其产品制造方法的证明。

(相关资料: 部门规章 2 篇)

 第六十一条 侵犯专利权的诉讼时效为二年 , 自专利权人或者利害关系人得知

或者应当得知侵权行为之日起计算。

(相关资料: 部门规章 1 篇)
1984 Patent Law 

 第六十二条 有下列情形之一的,不视为侵犯专利权:

 一、专利权人制造或者经专利权人许可制造的专利产品售出后,使用或者销售

该产品的;

 二、使用或者销售不知道是未经专利权人许可而制造并售出的专利产品的;

 三、在专利申请日前已经制造相同产品、使用相同方法或者已经作好制造、使

用的必要准备,并且仅在原有范围内继续制造、使用的;

 四、临时通过中国领土、领水、领空的外国运输工具,依照其所属国同中国签

订的协议或者共同参加的国际条约,或者依照互惠原则,为运输工具自身需要而在

其装置和设备中使用有关专利的;

 五、专为科学研究和实验而使用有关专利的。

 第六十三条 假冒他人专利的 , 依照本法第六十条的规定处理;情节严重的,

对直接责任的人员比照刑法第一百二十七条的规定追究刑事责任。

(相关资料: 相关论文 1 篇)

 第六十四条 违反本法第二十条规定 , 擅自向外国申请专利,泄露国家重要机

密的,由所在单位或者上级主管机关给予行政处分;情节严重的,依法追究刑事责

任。

(相关资料: 部门规章 1 篇)

 第六十五条 侵夺发明人或 者 设计人的非职务发明创造专利申请权和本法规定

的其他权益的,由所在单位或者上级主管机关给予行政处分。

 第六十六条 专利局工作人员及有关国家工作人员徇私舞弊的 , 由专利局或者

有关主管机关给予行政处分;情节重的,比照刑法第一百八十八条规定追究刑事责

任。

第八章 附 则

 第六十七条 向专利局申请专利和办理其他手续,应当按照规定缴纳费用。

(相关资料: 部门规章 2 篇)

 第六十八条 本法实施细则由专利局制订,报国务院批准后施行。

(相关资料: 部门规章 1 篇)

 第六十九条 本法自一九八五年四月一日起施行。
1990 Copyright Law 

【英文译本】Copyright Law of the People's Republic of China 1990 

【法规标题】中华人民共和国著作权法

【类别】著作权与软件保护/著作权

【发文字号】主席令第 31 号

【批准日期】

【发布部门】全国人大常委会

【发布日期】1990.09.07 

【实施日期】1991.06.01 

【时效性】已被修订

【效力级别】法律

【唯一标志】4812 

【全文】

*注:本篇法规已被《全国人民代表大会常务委员会关于修改<中华人民共和国著

作权法>的决定》(发布日期:2001 年 10 月 27 日 实施日期:2001 年 10 月 27

日)修改

中华人民共和国著作权法

 (1990年9月7日第七届全国人民代表

 大会常务委员会第十五次会议通过)

 中华人民共和国主席令

 第三十一号

(相关资料: 法律 2 篇 行政法规 13 篇 部门规章 108 篇 司法解释 18 篇 其他规范性

文件 1 篇 地方法规 55 篇 案例 15 篇 裁判文书 177 篇 相关论文 42 篇)

 《中华人民共和国著作权法》已由中华人民共和国第七届全国人民代表大会常

务委员会第十五次会议于1990年9月7日通过,现予公布,自1991年6月

1日起施行。
1990 Copyright Law 

 中华人民共和国主席 杨尚昆

 1990年9月7日

第一章 总则

 第一条 为保护文学、艺术和科学作品作者的著作权,以及与著作权有关的权

益,鼓励有益于社会主义精神文明、物质文明建设的作品的创作和传播,促进社会

主义文化和科学事业的发展与繁荣,根据宪法制定本法。

(相关资料: 相关论文 2 篇)

 第二条 中国公民、法人或者非法人单位的作品,不论是否发表,依照本法享有

著作权。

 外国人的作品首先在中国境内发表的,依照本法享有著作权。

 外国人在中国境外发表的作品,根据其所属国同中国签订的协议或者共同参加

的国际条约享有的著作权,受本法保护。

(相关资料: 行政法规 1 篇 部门规章 1 篇 司法解释 1 篇 案例 1 篇 裁判文书 20

篇 相关论文 1 篇)

 第三条 本法所称的作品,包括以下列形式创作的文学、艺术和自然科学、社会

科学、工程技术等作品:

 (一)文字作品;

 (二)口述作品;

 (三)音乐、戏剧、曲艺、舞蹈作品;

 (四)美术、摄影作品;

 (五)电影、电视、录像作品;

 (六)工程设计、产品设计图纸及其说明;

 (七)地图、示意图等图形作品;

 (八)计算机软件;

 (九)法律、行政法规规定的其他作品。

(相关资料: 部门规章 1 篇 司法解释 1 篇 案例 1 篇 裁判文书 17 篇 相关论文 1 篇)
1990 Copyright Law 

 第四条 依法禁止出版、传播的作品,不受本法保护。

 著作权人行使著作权,不得违反宪法和法律,不得损害公共利益。

(相关资料: 裁判文书 1 篇 相关论文 1 篇)

 第五条 本法不适用于:

 (一)法律、法规,国家机关的决议、决定、命令和其他具有立法、行政、司

法性质的文件,及其官方正式译文;

 (二)时事新闻;

 (三)历法、数表、通用表格和公式。

(相关资料: 案例 1 篇 裁判文书 3 篇)

 第六条 民间文学艺术作品的著作权保护办法由国务院另行规定。

(相关资料: 裁判文书 2 篇)

 第七条 科学技术作品中应当由专利法、技术合同法等法律保护的,适用专利

法、技术合同法等法律的规定。

 第八条 国务院著作权行政管理部门主管全国的著作权管理工作;各省、自治

区、直辖市人民政府的著作权行政管理部门主管本行政区域的著作权管理工作。

(相关资料: 部门规章 1 篇 相关论文 1 篇)

第二章 著作权

 第一节 著作权人及其权利

 第九条 著作权人包括:

 (一)作者;

 (二)其他依照本法享有著作权的公民、法人或者非法人单位。

(相关资料: 部门规章 1 篇 裁判文书 5 篇)

 第十条 著作权包括下列人身权和财产权:

 (一)发表权,即决定作品是否公之于众的权利;

 (二)署名权,即表明作者身份,在作品上署名的权利;

 (三)修改权,即修改或者授权他人修改作品的权利;

 (四)保护作品完整权,即保护作品不受歪曲、篡改的权利;

 (五)使用权和获得报酬权,即以复制、表演、播放、展览、发行、摄制电
1990 Copyright Law 

影、电视、录像或者改编、翻译、注释、编辑等方式使用作品的权利;以及许可他

人以上述方式使用作品,并由此获得报酬的权利。

 第二节 著作权归属

(相关资料: 部门规章 2 篇 司法解释 1 篇 案例 3 篇 裁判文书 33 篇)

 第十一条 著作权属于作者,本法另有规定的除外。

 创作作品的公民是作者。

 由法人或者非法人单位主持,代表法人或者非法人单位意志创作,并由法人或

者非法人单位承担责任的作品,法人或者非法人单位视为作者。

 如无相反证明,在作品上署名的公民、法人或者非法人单位为作者。

(相关资料: 部门规章 1 篇 案例 2 篇 裁判文书 27 篇)

 第十二条 改编、翻译、注释、整理已有作品而产生的作品,其著作权由改编、

翻译、注释、整理人享有,但行使著作权时,不得侵犯原作品的著作权。

(相关资料: 部门规章 2 篇 司法解释 1 篇 案例 1 篇 裁判文书 8 篇)

 第十三条 两人以上合作创作的作品,著作权由合作作者共同享有。没有参加创

作的人,不能成为合作作者。

 合作作品可以分割使用的,作者对各自创作的部分可以单独享有著作权,但行

使著作权时不得侵犯合作作品整体的著作权。

(相关资料: 裁判文书 2 篇)

 第十四条 编辑作品由编辑人享有著作权,但行使著作权时,不得侵犯原作品的

著作权。

 编辑作品中可以单独使用的作品的作者有权单独行使其著作权。

(相关资料: 行政法规 1 篇 裁判文书 5 篇)

 第十五条 电影、电视、录像作品的导演、编剧、作词、作曲、摄影等作者享有

署名权,著作权的其他权利由制作电影、电视、录像作品的制片者享有。

 电影、电视、录像作品中剧本、音乐等可以单独使用的作品的作者有权单独行

使其著作权。

(相关资料: 案例 2 篇 裁判文书 4 篇 相关论文 1 篇)

 第十六条 公民为完成法人或者非法人单位工作任务所创作的作品是职务作品,

除本条第二款的规定以外,著作权由作者享有,但法人或者非法人单位有权在其业

务范围内优先使用。作品完成两年内,未经单位同意,作者不得许可第三人以与单
1990 Copyright Law 

位使用的相同方式使用该作品。

 有下列情形之一的职务作品,作者享有署名权,著作权的其他权利由法人或者

非法人单位享有,法人或者非法人单位可以给予作者奖励:

 (一)主要是利用法人或者非法人单位的物质技术条件创作,并由法人或者非

法人单位承担责任的工程设计、产品设计图纸及其说明、计算机软件、地图等职务

作品;

 (二)法律、行政法规规定或者合同约定著作权由法人或者非法人单位享有的

职务作品。

(相关资料: 行政法规 1 篇 司法解释 2 篇 裁判文书 15 篇 相关论文 2 篇)

 第十七条 受委托创作的作品,著作权的归属由委托人和受托人通过合同约定。

合同未作明确约定或者没有订立合同的,著作权属于受托人。

(相关资料: 司法解释 1 篇 案例 2 篇 裁判文书 9 篇 相关论文 1 篇)

 第十八条 美术等作品原件所有权的转移,不视为作品著作权的转移,但美术作

品原件的展览权由原件所有人享有。

(相关资料: 行政法规 1 篇 裁判文书 1 篇 相关论文 1 篇)

 第十九条 著作权属于公民的,公民死亡后,其作品的使用权和获得报酬权在本

法规定的保护期内,依照继承法的规定转移。

 著作权属于法人或者非法人单位的,法人或者非法人单位变更、终止后,其作

品的使用权和获得报酬权在本法规定的保护期内,由承受其权利义务的法人或者非

法人单位享有;没有承受其权利义务的法人或者非法人单位的,由国家享有。

 第三节 权利的保护期

(相关资料: 裁判文书 2 篇)

 第二十条 作者的署名权、修改权、保护作品完整权的保护期不受限制。

(相关资料: 行政法规 1 篇)

 第二十一条 公民的作品,其发表权、使用权和获得报酬权的保护期为作者终生

及其死亡后五十年,截止于作者死亡后第五十年的12月31日;如果是合作作

品,截止于最后死亡的作者死亡后的第五十年的12月31日。

 法人或者非法人单位的作品、著作权(署名权除外)由法人或者非法人单位享

有的职务作品,其发表权、使用权和获得报酬权的保护期为五十年,截止于作品首

次发表后第五十年的12月31日,但作品自创作完成后五十年内未发表的,本法
1990 Copyright Law 

不再保护。

 电影、电视、录像和摄影作品的发表权、使用权和获得报酬权的保护期为五十

年,截止于作品首次发表后第五十年的12月31日,但作品自创作完成后五十年

内未发表的,本法不再保护。

 第四节 权利的限制

(相关资料: 行政法规 2 篇 裁判文书 3 篇)

 第二十二条 在下列情况下使用作品,可以不经著作权人许可,不向其支付报

酬,但应当指明作者姓名、作品名称,并且不得侵犯著作权人依照本法享有的其他

权利:

 (一)为个人学习、研究或者欣赏,使用他人已经发表的作品;

 (二)为介绍、评论某一作品或者说明某一问题,在作品中适当引用他人已经

发表的作品;

 (三)为报道时事新闻,在报纸、期刊、广播、电视节目或者新闻纪录影片中

引用已经发表的作品;

 (四)报纸、期刊、广播电台、电视台刊登或者播放其他报纸、期刊、广播电

台、电视台已经发表的社论、评论员文章;

 (五)报纸、期刊、广播电台、电视台刊登或者播放在公众集会上发表的讲

话,但作者声明不许刊登、播放的除外;

 (六)为学校课堂教学或者科学研究,翻译或者少量复制已经发表的作品,供

教学或者科研人员使用,但不得出版发行;

 (七)国家机关为执行公务使用已经发表的作品;

 (八)图书馆、档案馆、纪念馆、博物馆、美术馆等为陈列或者保存版本的需

要,复制本馆收藏的作品;

 (九)免费表演已经发表的作品;

 (十)对设置或者陈列在室外公共场所的艺术作品进行临摹、绘画、摄影、录

像;

 (十一)将已经发表的汉族文字作品翻译成少数民族文字在国内出版发行;

 (十二)将已经发表的作品改成盲文出版。

 以上规定适用于对出版者、表演者、录音录像制作者、广播电台、电视台的权
1990 Copyright Law 

利的限制。(相关资料: 行政法规 1 篇 司法解释 1 篇 地方法规 1 篇 案例 1 篇 裁判

文书 9 篇 相关论文 2 篇)

第三章 著作权许可使用合同

 第二十三条 使用他人作品应当同著作权人订立合同或者取得许可,本法规定可

以不经许可的除外。

(相关资料: 部门规章 1 篇 案例 1 篇 裁判文书 6 篇)

 第二十四条 合同包括下列主要条款:

 (一)许可使用作品的方式;

 (二)许可使用的权利是专用使用权或者非专有使用权;

 (三)许可使用的范围、期间;

 (四)付酬标准和办法;

 (五)违约责任;

 (六)双方认为需要约定的其他内容。

(相关资料: 裁判文书 1 篇)

 第二十五条 合同中著作权人未明确许可的权利,未经著作权人许可,另一方当

事人不得行使。

(相关资料: 相关论文 1 篇)

 第二十六条 合同的有效期限不超过十年。合同期满可以续订。

 第二十七条 使用作品的付酬标准由国务院著作权行政管理部门会同有关部门制

定。

 合同另有约定的,也可以按照合同支付报酬。

 第二十八条 出版者、表演者、录音录像制作者、广播电台、电视台等依照本法

取得他人的著作权使用权的,不得侵犯作者的署名权、修改权、保护作品完整权和

获得报酬权。

第四章 出版、表演、录音录像、播放

 第一节 图书、报刊的出版
1990 Copyright Law 

 第二十九条 图书出版者出版图书应当和著作权人订立出版合同,并支付报酬。

(相关资料: 行政法规 1 篇 裁判文书 2 篇)

 第三十条 图书出版者对著作权人交付出版的作品,在合同约定期间享有专有出

版权。合同约定图书出版者享有专有出版权的期限不得超过十年,合同期满可以续

订。

 图书出版者在合同约定期间享有的专有出版权受法律保护,他人不得出版该作

品。

(相关资料: 行政法规 1 篇)

 第三十一条 著作权人应当按照合同约定期限交付作品。图书出版者应当按照合

同约定的出版质量、期限出版图书。

 图书出版者不按照合同约定期限出版,应当依照本法第四十七条的规定承担民

事责任。

 图书出版者重印、再版作品的,应当通知著作权人,并支付报酬。图书脱销

后,图书出版者拒绝重印、再版的,著作权人有权终止合同。

(相关资料: 行政法规 1 篇)

 第三十二条 著作权人向报社、杂志社投稿的,自稿件发出之日起十五日内未收

到报社通知决定刊登的,或者自稿件发出之日起三十日内未收到杂志社通知决定刊

登的,可以将同一作品向其他报社、杂志社投稿。双方另有约定的除外。

 作品刊登后,除著作权人声明不得转载、摘编的外,其他报刊可以转载或者作

为文摘、资料刊登,但应当按照规定向著作权人支付报酬。

(相关资料: 行政法规 1 篇 部门规章 7 篇 案例 1 篇 裁判文书 4 篇 相关论文 1 篇)

 第三十三条 图书出版者经作者许可,可以对作品修改、删节。

 报社、杂志社可以对作品作文字性修改、删节,对内容的修改,应当经作者许

可。

(相关资料: 行政法规 1 篇)

 第三十四条 出版改编、翻译、注释、整理、编辑已有作品而产生的作品,应当

向改编、翻译、注释、整理、编辑作品的著作权人和原作品的著作权人支付报酬。

 第二节 表演

 第三十五条 表演者(演员、演出单位)使用他人未发表的作品演出,应当取得

著作权人许可,并支付报酬。
1990 Copyright Law 

 表演者使用他人已发表的作品进行营业性演出,可以不经著作权人许可,但应

当按照规定支付报酬;著作权人声明不许使用的不得使用。

 表演者使用改编、翻译、注释、整理已有作品而产生的作品进行营业性演出,

应当按照规定向改编、翻译、注释、整理作品的著作权人和原作品的著作权人支付

报酬。

 表演者为制作录音录像和广播、电视节目进行表演使用他人作品的,适用本法

第三十七条、第四十条的规定。

(相关资料: 行政法规 1 篇 部门规章 4 篇 裁判文书 5 篇 相关论文 1 篇)

 第三十六条 表演者对其表演享有下列权利:

 (一)表明表演者身份;

 (二)保护表演形象不受歪曲;

 (三)许可他人从现场直播;

 (四)许可他人为营利目的录音录像,并获得报酬。

 第三节 录音录像

(相关资料: 行政法规 1 篇 裁判文书 2 篇)

 第三十七条 录音制作者使用他人未发表的作品制作录音制品,应当取得著作权

人的许可,并支付报酬。使用他人已发表的作品制作录音制品,可以不经著作人许

可,但应当按照规定支付报酬;著作权人声明不许使用的不得使用。

 录像制作者使用他人作品制作录像制品,应当取得著作权人的许可,并支付报

酬。

 录音录像制作者使用改编、翻译、注释、整理已有作品而产生的作品,应当向

改编、翻译、注释、整理作品的著作权人和原作品的著作权人支付报酬。

(相关资料: 行政法规 1 篇 部门规章 5 篇 裁判文书 3 篇 相关论文 1 篇)

 第三十八条 录音录像制作者制作录音录像制品,应当同表演者订立合同,并支

付报酬。

(相关资料: 裁判文书 1 篇)

 第三十九条 录音录像制作者对其制作的录音录像制品,享有许可他人复制发行

并获得报酬的权利。该权利的保护期为五十年,截止于该制品首次出版后第五十年

的12月31日。

 被许可复制发行的录音录像制作者还应当按照规定向著作权人和表演者支付报
1990 Copyright Law 

酬。

 第四节 广播电台、电视台播放

(相关资料: 行政法规 1 篇 部门规章 2 篇 裁判文书 5 篇)

 第四十条 广播电台、电视台使用他人未发表的作品制作广播、电视节目,应当

取得著作权人的许可,并支付报酬。

 广播电台、电视台使用他人已发表的作品制作广播、电视节目,可以不经著作

权人许可,但著作权人声明不许使用的不得使用;并且除本法规定可以不支付报酬

的以外,应当按照规定支付报酬。

 广播电台、电视台使用改编、翻译、注释、整理已有作品而产生的作品制作广

播、电视节目,应当向改编、翻译、注释、整理作品的著作权人和原作品的著作权

人支付报酬。

(相关资料: 行政法规 1 篇 部门规章 2 篇 案例 1 篇 裁判文书 1 篇 相关论文 1 篇)

 第四十一条 广播电台、电视台制作广播、电视节目,应当同表演者订立合同,

并支付报酬。

 第四十二条 广播电台、电视台对其制作的广播、电视节目,享有下列权利:

 (一)播放;

 (二)许可他人播放,并获得报酬;

 (三)许可他人复制发行其制作的广播、电视节目,并获得报酬。

 前款规定的权利的保护期为五十年,截止于该节目首次播放后第五十年的12

月31日。

 被许可复制发行的录音录像制作者还应当按照规定向著作权人和表演者支付报

酬。

(相关资料: 行政法规 1 篇 部门规章 1 篇 裁判文书 2 篇)

 第四十三条 广播电台、电视台非营业性播放已经出版的录音制品,可以不经著

作权人、表演者、录音制作者许可,不向其支付报酬。

(相关资料: 裁判文书 2 篇 相关论文 2 篇)

 第四十四条 电视台播放他人的电影、电视和录像,应当取得电影、电视制片者

和录像制作者的许可,并支付报酬。(相关资料: 案例 2 篇 相关论文 1 篇)

第五章 法律责任
1990 Copyright Law 

 第四十五条 有下列侵权行为的,应当根据情况,承担停止侵害、消除影响、公

开赔礼道歉、赔偿损失等民事责任:

 (一)未经著作权人许可,发表其作品的;

 (二)未经合作作者许可,将与他人合作创作的作品当作自己单独创作作品发

表的;

 (三)没有参加创作,为谋取个人名利,在他人作品上署名的;

 (四)歪曲、篡改他人作品的;

 (五)未经著作权人许可,以表演、播放、展览、发行、摄制电影、电视、录

像或者改编、翻译、注释、编辑等方式使用作品的,本法另有规定的除外;

 (六)使用他人作品,未按照规定支付报酬的;

 (七)未经表演者许可,从现场直播其他表演的;

 (八)其他侵犯著作权以及与著作权有关的权益的行为。

(相关资料: 司法解释 1 篇 地方法规 1 篇 案例 7 篇 裁判文书 64 篇 相关论文 2 篇)

 第四十六条 有下列侵权行为的,应当根据情况,承担停止侵害、消除影响、公

开赔礼道歉、赔偿损失等民事责任,并可以由著作权行政管理部门给予没收非法所

得、罚款等行政处罚:

 (一)剽窃、抄袭他人作品的;

 (二)未经著作权人许可,以营利为目的,复制发行其作品的;

 (三)出版他人享有专有出版权的图书的;

 (四)未经表演者许可,对其表演制作录音录像出版的;

 (五)未经录音录像制作者许可,复制发行其制作的录音录像的;

 (六)未经广播电台、电视台许可,复制发行其制作的广播、电视节目的;

 (七)制作、出售假冒他人署名的美术作品的。

(相关资料: 行政法规 1 篇 部门规章 3 篇 司法解释 2 篇 地方法规 4 篇 案例 6 篇 裁

判文书 53 篇 相关论文 1 篇)

 第四十七条 当事人不履行合同义务或者履行合同义务不符合约定条件的,应当

依照民法通则有关规定承担民事责任。

(相关资料: 地方法规 1 篇 裁判文书 5 篇 相关论文 1 篇)
1990 Copyright Law 

 第四十八条 著作权侵权纠纷可以调解,调解不成或者调解达成协议后一方反悔

的,可以向人民法院起诉。当事人不愿调解的,也可以直接向人民法院起诉。

(相关资料: 裁判文书 5 篇)

 第四十九条 著作权合同纠纷可以调解,也可以依据合同中的仲裁条款或者事后

达成的书面仲裁协议,向著作权仲裁机构申请仲裁。

 对于仲裁裁决,当事人应当履行。当事人一方不履行仲裁裁决的,另一方可以

申请人民法院执行。

 受申请的人民法院发现仲裁裁决违法的,有权不予执行人民法院不予执行的,

当事人可以就合同纠纷向人民法院起诉。

 当事人没有在合同中订立仲裁条款,事后又没有书面仲裁协议的,可以直接向

人民法院起诉。

(相关资料: 裁判文书 1 篇)

 第五十条 当事人对行政处罚不服的,可以在收到行政处罚决定书三个月内向人

民法院起诉,期满不起诉又不履行的,著作权行政管理部门可以申请人民法院执

行。(相关资料: 地方法规 1 篇 相关论文 1 篇)

第六章 附则

 第五十一条 本法所称的著作权与版权系同义语。

(相关资料: 地方法规 1 篇)

 第五十二条 本法所称的复制,指以印刷、复印、临摹、拓印、录音、录像、翻

录、翻拍等方式将作品制作一份或者多份的行为。

 按照工程设计、产品设计图纸及其说明进行施工、生产工业品,不属于本法所

称的复制。

(相关资料: 司法解释 1 篇 裁判文书 3 篇)

 第五十三条 计算机软件的保护办法由国务院另行规定。

(相关资料: 裁判文书 1 篇)

 第五十四条 本法的实施条例由国务院著作权行政管理部门制定,报国务院批准

后施行。

(相关资料: 行政法规 1 篇)
1990 Copyright Law 

 第五十五条 本法规定的著作权人和出版者、表演者、录音录像制作者、广播电

台、电视台的权利,在本法施行之日尚未超过本法规定的保护期的,依照本法予以

保护。

 本法施行前发生的侵权或者违约行为,依照侵权或者违约行为发生时的有关规

定和政策处理。

 第五十六条 本法自1991年6月1日起施行。
Criminal Law Excerpts 

Excerpts of the Criminal Law of the People's Republic of China 

(Adopted at the Second Session of the Fifth National People's Congress on July 1, 1979, 

Revised at the Fifth Session of the Eighth National People's Congress on March 14, 

1997) 

SECTION 7 CRIMES OF INFRINGING ON INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS 

Article 213 Whoever, without permission from the owner of a registered trademark, uses 

a trademark which is identical with the registered trademark on the same kind of 

commodities shall, if the circumstances are serious, be sentenced to fixed-term 

imprisonment of not more than three years or criminal detention and shall also, or shall 

only, be fined; if the circumstances are especially serious, he shall be sentenced to fixedterm imprisonment of not less than three years but not more than seven years and shall 

also be fined. 

Article 214 Whoever knowingly sells commodities bearing counterfeit registered 

trademarks shall, if the amount of sales is relatively large, be sentenced to fixed-term 

imprisonment of not more than three years or criminal detention and shall also, or shall 

only, be fined; if the amount of sales is huge, he shall be sentenced to fixed-term 

imprisonment of not less than three years but not more than seven years and shall also be 

fined. 

Article 215 Whoever forges or without authorization of another makes representations of 

the person's registered trademarks or sells such representations shall, if the circumstances 

are serious, be sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of not more than three years, 

criminal detention or public surveillance and shall also, or shall only, be fined; if the 

circumstances are especially serious, he shall be sentenced to fixed- term imprisonment 

of not less than three years but not more than seven years and shall also be fined. 

Article 216 Whoever counterfeits the patent of another shall, if the circumstances are 

serious, be sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of not more than three years or criminal 

detention and shall also, or shall only, be fined. 

Article 217 Whoever, for the purpose of making profits, commits any of the following 

acts of infringement on copyright shall, if the amount of illegal gains is relatively large, 

or if there are other serious circumstances, be sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of 

not more than three years or criminal detention and shall also, or shall only, be fined; if 

the amount of illegal gains is huge or if there are other especially serious circumstances, 

he shall be sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of not less than three years but not 

more than seven years and shall also be fined: 
Criminal Law Excerpts 

(1) reproducing and distributing a written work, musical work, motion picture, television 

programme or other visual works, computer software or other works without permission 

of the copyright owner; 

(2) publishing a book of which the exclusive right of publication is enjoyed by another 

person; 

(3) reproducing and distributing an audio or video recording produced by another person 

without permission of the producer; or 

(4) producing or selling a work of fine art with forged signature of another painter. 

Article 218 Whoever, for the purpose of making profits, knowingly sells works 

reproduced by infringing on the copyright of the owners as mentioned in Article 217 of 

this Law shall, if the amount of illegal gains is huge, be sentenced to fixed-term 

imprisonment of not more than three years or criminal detention and shall also, or shall 

only, be fined. 

Article 219 Whoever commits any of the following acts of infringing on business secrets 

and thus causes heavy losses to the obligee shall be sentenced to fixed-term 

imprisonment of not more than three years or criminal detention and shall also, or shall 

only, be fined; if the consequences are especially serious, he shall be sentenced to fixedterm imprisonment of not less than three years but not more than seven years and shall 

also be fined: 

(1) obtaining an obligee's business secrets by stealing, luring, coercion or any other 

illegitimate means; 

(2) disclosing, using or allowing another to use the business secrets obtained from the 

obligee by the means mentioned in the preceding paragraph; or 

(3) in violation of the agreement on or against the obligee's demand for keeping business 

secrets, disclosing, using or allowing another person to use the business secrets he has. 

Whoever obtains, uses or discloses another's business secrets, which he clearly knows or 

ought to know falls under the categories of the acts listed in the preceding paragraph, 

shall be deemed an offender who infringes on business secrets. 

"Business secrets" as mentioned in this Article refers to technology information or 

business information which is unknown to the public, can bring about economic benefits 

to the obligee, is of practical use and with regard to which the obligee has adopted secretkeeping measures. 

"Obligee" as mentioned in this Article refers to the owner of business secrets and the 

person who is permitted by the owner to use the business secrets. 
Criminal Law Excerpts 

Article 220 Where a unit commits any of the crimes mentioned in the Articles from 213 

through 219 of this Section, it shall be fined, and the persons who are directly in charge 

and the other persons who are directly responsible for the crime shall be punished in 

accordance with the provisions of the Articles respectively. 

Source: Congressional – Executive Commission on China 

Available at: http://www.cecc.gov/pages/newLaws/criminalLawENG.php
Judicial Interpretation I 

Interpretation by the Supreme People's Court and the Supreme People's 

Procuratorate on Several Issues of Concrete Application of Laws in 

Handling Criminal Cases of Infringing Intellectual Property 

(Adopted at the 1331st Session of the Judicial Committee of the Supreme People's Court on 

November 2, 2004 and the 28th Session of the Tenth Procuratorial Committee of the Supreme 

People's Procuratorate on November 11, 2004 and to be effective as of December 22, 2004.) 

To punish criminal acts of infringing on intellectual property in accordance with law and 

to maintain the order of the socialist market economy, some concrete problems regarding 

law application to handling criminal cases involving infringement on intellectual property 

are hereby interpreted as follows in accordance with applicable provisions of the 

Criminal Law of the People's Republic of China ("the Criminal Law"): 

Article 1 Using an identical trademark on the same merchandise without permission of 

its registered owner in any of the following circumstances falls under the definition of 

"the circumstances are serious" stipulated in Article 213 of the Criminal Law and shall be 

sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of not more than three years or criminal detention 

and shall also, or shall only, be fined for committing the crime of forging registered 

trademarks: 

(1) the amount of illegal business volume being more than RMB 50,000 or that of illegal 

gains being more than RMB 30,000; 

(2) forging more than two registered trademarks, the amount of illegal business volume 

being more than RMB 30,000 or that of illegal gains being more than RMB 20,000; 

(3) other circumstances of a serious nature. 

Whoever having any of the following acts that falls under the definition of "the 

circumstances are especially serious" stipulated in Article 213 of the Criminal Law shall 

be sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of not less than three years but not more than 

seven years and shall also be fined for committing the crime of forging registered 

trademarks: 

(1) the amount of illegal business volume being more than RMB 250,000 or that of illegal 

gains being more than RMB 150,000; 

(2) forging more than two registered trademarks, the amount of illegal business volume 

being more than RMB 150,000 or that of illegal gains being more than RMB 100,000; 

(3) other circumstances of an especially serious nature. 

Article 2 Whoever knowingly sells commodities bearing counterfeited registered 
Judicial Interpretation I 

trademarks, if the amount of sales is more than RMB 50,000, and thus falls under the 

definition of "the amount of sales is relatively large" stipulated in Article 214 of the 

Criminal Law shall be sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of not more than three years 

or criminal detention and shall also, or shall only, be fined for committing the crime of 

selling commodities bearing counterfeited registered trademarks. 

Whoever selling such commodities of more than RMB 250,000 in value falls under the 

definition of "the amount of sales is huge" stipulated in Article 214 of the Criminal Law 

and shall be sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of not less than three years but not 

more than seven years and shall also be fined for the crime of selling commodities 

bearing counterfeited registered trademarks. 

Article 3 Whoever forges or makes representations of another person's registered 

trademarks without authorization of the person or sells such representations in any of the 

following circumstances and thus falls under the definition of "the circumstances are 

serious" stipulated in Article 215 of the Criminal Law shall be sentenced to fixed-term 

imprisonment of not more than three years, criminal detention or public surveillance and 

shall also, or shall only, be fined for committing the crime of illegally making registered 

trademarks and selling illegally-made registered trademarks: 

(1) the amount of the representations of other person's registered trademarks forged or 

made without authorization or that of the sold representations of other person's registered 

trademarks forged or made without authorization being more than 20,000 copies, or the 

amount of illegal business volume being more than RMB 50,000, or the amount of illegal 

gains being more than RMB 30,000; 

(2) the amount of the representations of other person's registered trademarks forged or 

made without authorization or that of the sold representations of more than two of other 

person's registered trademarks forged or made without authorization being more than 

10,000 copies, or the amount of illegal business volume being more than RMB 30,000, or 

the amount of illegal gains being more than RMB 20,000; 

(3) other circumstances of a serious nature. 

Whoever having any of the following acts that falls under the definition of 

"circumstances of an especially serious nature" stipulated in Article 215 of the Criminal 

Law shall be sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of not less than three years but not 

more than seven years and shall also be fined for committing the crime of illegally 

making registered trademarks and selling illegally-made registered trademarks: 

(1) the amount of the representations of other person's registered trademarks forged or 

made without authorization or that of the sold representations of other person's registered 

trademarks forged or made without authorization being more than 100,000 copies, or the 

amount of illegal business volume being more than RMB 250,000, or the amount of 

illegal gains being more than RMB 150,000; 
Judicial Interpretation I 

(2) the amount of the representations of other person's registered trademarks forged or 

made without authorization or that of the sold representations of more than two of other 

person's registered trademarks forged or made without authorization being more than 

50,000 copies, or the amount of illegal business volume being more than RMB 150,000, 

or the amount of illegal gains being more than RMB 100,000; 

(3) other circumstances of an especially serious nature. 

Article 4 Whoever counterfeits the patent of another person in any of the following 

circumstances and thus falls under the definition of "the circumstances are serious" 

stipulated in Article 216 of the Criminal Law shall be sentenced to fixed-term 

imprisonment of not more than three years or criminal detention and shall also, or shall 

only, be fined for committing the crime of counterfeiting the patent of another person: 

(1) the amount of illegal business volume being more than RMB 200,000 or that of illegal 

gains being more than RMB 100,000; 

(2) causing direct economic loss of more than RMB 500,000 to the owner of patent; 

(3) counterfeiting more than two patents, the amount of illegal business volume being 

more than RMB 100,000 or that of illegal gains being more than RMB 50,000; 

(4) other circumstances of a serious nature. 

Article 5 Whoever, for the purpose of making profits, commits any of the acts of 

infringement on copyright mentioned in Article 217 of the Criminal Law, if the amount 

of illegal gains is more than RMB 30,000, and thus falls under the definition of "the 

amount of illegal gains is relatively large"; or whoever has any of the following acts and 

thus falls under the definition of "there are other serious circumstances" shall be 

sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of not more than three years or criminal detention 

and shall also, or shall only, be fined for committing the crime of infringing on copyright: 

(1) the amount of illegal business volume being more than RMB 50,000; 

(2) reproducing and distributing more than 1,000 illegal copies of a written work, musical 

work, motion picture, television program or other visual works, computer software or 

other works without permission of the copyright owner; 

(3) other circumstances of a serious nature. 

Whoever, for the purpose of making profits, commits any of the acts of infringement on 

copyright mentioned in Article 217 of the Criminal Law, if the amount of illegal gains is 

more than RMB 150,000, and thus falls under the definition of "the amount of illegal 

gains is huge"; or whoever has any of the following acts and thus falls under the 

definition of "there are other especially serious circumstances" shall be sentenced to 

fixed-term imprisonment of not less than three years but not more than seven years and 

shall also be fined for committing the crime of infringing on copyright: 
Judicial Interpretation I 

(1) the amount of illegal business volume being more than RMB 250,000; 

(2) reproducing and distributing more than 5,000 illegal copies of a written work, musical 

work, motion picture, television program or other visual works, computer software or 

other works without permission of the copyright owner; 

(3) other circumstances of an especially serious nature. 

Article 6 Whoever, for the purpose of making profits, commits any of the acts stipulated 

in Article 218 of the Criminal Law, if the amount of illegal gains is more than RMB 

100,000, and thus falls under the definition of "the amount of illegal gains is huge" shall 

be sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of not more than three years or criminal 

detention and shall also, or shall only, be fined for committing the crime of selling works 

reproduced by infringing on the copyright: 

Article 7 Whoever commits any of the acts stipulated in Article 219 of the Criminal Law 

to cause losses of more than RMB 500,000 to the obligee of business secrets and thus 

falls under the definition of "causing heavy losses to the obligee of business secrets" shall 

be sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of not more than three years or criminal 

detention and shall also, or shall only, be fined for committing the crime of infringing on 

business secrets. 

Whoever causes losses of more than RMB 2.5 million to the obligee of business secrets 

and thus falls under the definition of "the consequences are especially serious" stipulated 

in Article 219 of the Criminal Law shall be sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of not 

less than three years but not more than seven years and shall also be fined for committing 

the crime of infringing on business secrets. 

Article 8 "Identical trademarks" as stipulated in Article 213 of the Criminal Law refers to 

the trademarks either identical to the registered trademarks infringed on, or showing no 

notable visual difference from the trademarks infringed on and thus being misleading to 

the public. 

"Use" as stipulated in Article 213 of the Criminal Law refers to such acts as applying 

registered trademarks or counterfeited registered trademarks to commodities, commodity 

packing and containers, commodity user guides and commodity transaction documents, 

or using registered trademarks or counterfeited registered trademarks for advertisement, 

publicity, exhibitions and other business activities. 

Article 9 "Amount of sales" as stipulated in Article 214 of the Criminal Law refers to all 

the illegal incomes gained or ought to be gained by selling commodities bearing 

counterfeited registered trademarks. 

Any of the following circumstances shall be regarded as falling under the definition of 

"knowingly" stipulated in Article 214 of the Criminal Law: 
Judicial Interpretation I 

(1) Knowing that the registered trademarks on the commodities that he/she sells have 

been altered, replaced or covered; 

(2) Selling the same commodities for which one has already been given administrative 

penalty or has borne civil responsibilities for selling commodities bearing counterfeited 

registered trademarks; 

(3) Counterfeiting or altering the authorization documents of the registrant or knowing 

such documents have been counterfeited or altered; 

(4) Other circumstances in which the fact that the registered trademarks borne by the 

commodities are counterfeited is known. 

Article 10 Any of the following acts falls under the definition of "counterfeiting patent of 

another person" stipulated in Article 216 of the Criminal Law: 

(1) Citing patent number on the commodities or the packing of the commodities one 

produces or sells without permission of the owner of the patent; 

(2) Citing patent number in advertisement or other publicity materials without permission 

of the owner of the patent so as to make people think that the involved technology is the 

patented technology of another person; 

(3) Citing patent number in contract without permission of the owner of the patent so as 

to make people think that the involved technology in the contract is the patented 

technology of another person; 

(4) Counterfeiting or altering the patent certificates, patent documents or patent 

application documents of another person. 

Article 11 The circumstances of charging directly or indirectly by such means as 

publishing paid advertisement fall under the definition of "for the purpose of making 

profits" stipulated in Article 217 of the Criminal Law. 

"Without permission of the copyright owner" as stipulated in Article 217 of the Criminal 

Law refers to the circumstances where authorization of the copyright owner is not 

obtained, the authorization documents of the copyright owner are altered or the 

authorization scope is exceeded. 

Distributing a written work, musical work, motion picture, television program or other 

visual works, computer software or other works to the public by information network 

falls under the definition of "reproducing and distributing" stipulated in Article 217 of the 

Criminal Law. 

Article 12 "Illegal business volume" as stipulated in the Interpretation refers to the value 
Judicial Interpretation I 

of the products produced, stored, transported and sold by the doer in the course of 

infringing on intellectual property. Value of the products produced by infringing on 

intellectual property shall be computed according to the prices at which such products are 

actually sold. Value of the products produced by infringing on intellectual property 

produced, stored, transported, and those not sold shall be computed according to the 

labeled prices or the actual prices found to be sold at after investigation. Value of the 

products produced by infringing on intellectual property without labeled prices or whose 

actual prices are impossible to be ascertained shall be computed according the middle 

market prices of such products. 

Values of illegal business volume, illegal gains and amount of sales shall be computed 

cumulatively in cases of repeatedly infringing on intellectual property where such acts 

have not yet been given administrative penalty or have not so far initiated criminal 

procedures. 

"Copies" as stipulated in Article 3 of the Interpretation refers to one piece of 

representation of the complete logo of the trademark. 

Article 13 Committing the crime of counterfeited registered trademarks stipulated in 

Article 213 of the Criminal Law while selling commodities bearing such counterfeited 

registered trademarks and thus constituting a crime shall be convicted and punished in 

accordance with provisions of Article 213 of the Criminal Law for committing the crime 

of counterfeiting registered trademarks. 

To whoever that commits the crime of counterfeiting registered trademarks stipulated in 

Article 213 of the Criminal Law while knowingly selling commodities bearing registered 

trademarks counterfeited by another person and thus constituting a crime, a combined 

punishment for several crimes shall be applied. 

Article 14 Committing the crime of infringing on copyright stipulated in Article 217 of 

the Criminal Law while selling commodities produced by infringing on copyright and 

thus constituting a crime shall be convicted and punished in accordance with provisions 

of Article 217 of the Criminal Law for committing the crime of infringing on copyright. 

To whoever that commits the crime of infringing on copyright stipulated in Article 217 of 

the Criminal Law while knowingly selling works reproduced by infringing on the 

copyright and thus constituting a crime, a combined punishment for several crimes shall 

be applied. 

Article 15 Where a unit commits any of the crimes stipulated in the Articles 213 through 

219 of the Criminal Law, it shall be convicted and sentenced according to the criteria that 

are as three times higher as those for convicting and sentencing individuals committing 

same crimes according to the Interpretation. 

Article 16 Whoever knowingly provides loans, funds, bank accounts, invoices, 

certificates, licenses, production and operation places, as well as facilities and assistance 
Judicial Interpretation I 

in producing, storing and import-export agency services shall be deemed an accomplice 

in the crime of infringing on intellectual property. 

Article 17 Should discrepancies arise between the Interpretation and other legal 

interpretations promulgated previously regarding infringement on intellectual property, 

the previously promulgated interpretations shall not be applied after the Interpretation 

goes into effect. 

Source: IPR.gov.cn 

Available at: 

http://english.ipr.gov.cn/ipr/en/info/Article.jsp?a_no=2038&col_no=121&dir=200603 
Judicial Interpretation II 

Judicial Interpretations by the Supreme People’s Court 

and the Supreme People’s Procuratorate on Several Issues of 

Concrete Application of Laws in Handling Criminal Cases of Infringing Intellectual 

Property II (April 5, 2007) 

【法规标题】最高人民法院、最高人民检察院关于办理侵犯知识产权刑事案件具体

应用法律若干问题的解释(二) 

【类别】经济审判/知识产权案件审理

【发文字号】法释[2007]6 号

【批准日期】

【发布部门】最高人民法院/最高人民检察院

【发布日期】2007.04.05 

【实施日期】2007.04.05 

【时效性】现行有效

【效力级别】司法解释

【唯一标志】89851 

【全文】

最高人民法院公告

 《最高人民法院、最高人民检察院关于办理侵犯知识产权刑事案件具体应用

法律若干问题的解释(二)》已于 2007 年 4 月 4 日由最高人民法院审判委员会第

1422 次会议、最高人民检察院第十届检察委员会第 75 次会议通过,现予公布,自

2007 年 4 月 5 日起施行。

二○○七年四月五日

最高人民法院、最高人民检察院关于办理

侵犯知识产权刑事案件具体应用法律若干问题的解释(二)
Judicial Interpretation II 

(2007 年 4 月 4 日最高人民法院审判委员会第 1422 次会议、最高人民检察院

第十届检察委员会第 75 次会议通过 法释〔2007〕6 号)

 为维护社会主义市场经济秩序,依法惩治侵犯知识产权犯罪活动,根据刑法、

刑事诉讼法有关规定,现就办理侵犯知识产权刑事案件具体应用法律的若干问题解

释如下:

 第一条 以营利为目的,未经著作权人许可,复制发行其文字作品、音乐、电

影、电视、录像作品、计算机软件及其他作品,复制品数量合计在五百张(份)以

上的,属于刑法第二百一十七条规定的“有其他严重情节”;复制品数量在二千五百

张(份)以上的,属于刑法第二百一十七条规定的“有其他特别严重情节”。

 第二条 刑法第二百一十七条侵犯著作权罪中的“复制发行”,包括复制、发行

或者既复制又发行的行为。

 侵权产品的持有人通过广告、征订等方式推销侵权产品的,属于刑法第二百一

十七条规定的“发行”。

 非法出版、复制、发行他人作品,侵犯著作权构成犯罪的,按照侵犯著作权罪

定罪处罚。

 第三条 侵犯知识产权犯罪,符合刑法规定的缓刑条件的,依法适用缓刑。有

下列情形之一的,一般不适用缓刑:

 (一)因侵犯知识产权被刑事处罚或者行政处罚后,再次侵犯知识产权构成犯

罪的;

 (二)不具有悔罪表现的;

 (三)拒不交出违法所得的;

 (四)其他不宜适用缓刑的情形。

 第四条 对于侵犯知识产权犯罪的,人民法院应当综合考虑犯罪的违法所得、

非法经营数额、给权利人造成的损失、社会危害性等情节,依法判处罚金。罚金数
Judicial Interpretation II 

额一般在违法所得的一倍以上五倍以下,或者按照非法经营数额的 50%以上一倍

以下确定。

 第五条 被害人有证据证明的侵犯知识产权刑事案件,直接向人民法院起诉

的,人民法院应当依法受理;严重危害社会秩序和国家利益的侵犯知识产权刑事案

件,由人民检察院依法提起公诉。

 第六条 单位实施刑法第二百一十三条至第二百一十九条规定的行为,按照

《最高人民法院、最高人民检察院关于办理侵犯知识产权刑事案件具体应用法律若

干问题的解释》和本解释规定的相应个人犯罪的定罪量刑标准定罪处罚。

 第七条 以前发布的司法解释与本解释不一致的,以本解释为准。
APPENDIX 

4 
Appendix 4: Table 1 

Changes to Chinese Patent law 

The 1984 Patent Law 

The 1979 Penal Code 

The 1992 Patent Law 

The 1979 Penal Code 

2000 Patent Law 

1997 Penal Code 

Judicial 

Review of the 

Administrative 

Decision 

3 month statute of limitations for challenging administrative decisions. (Article 60, second sentence) 

Same Same 

Private Course 

of Actions for 

Infringement 

2 year of statute of limitations for civil action, starting from the time the right holder should have known of the infringement. (Article 61) 

Same Same 

Calculation of 

Damages No equivalent provisions No equivalent provisions 

Two primary options plus an alternative measur1) Damages based on losses to the right holder2) Damages based on illicit profit made by the 3) When it is difficult to ascertain damages usin

damages will be equal to reasonable license 

Article 61, second sentence: the administrative agency has the authority to issue a cease and desist order and 

order the payment of damages. 

Same as the 2000 law (Article 78 of the Implementing Regulations) 

Article 58 of the Implementing Regulations propassing off patented product shall be subject to 

the violation; confiscation of the illicit income; 

by a fine three times the illicit income (in cases no illicit income, a fine not exceeding RMB 50

Mandatory Administrative 

Sanctions 

No equivalent provisions No equivalent provisions 

Any person who falsely claims that certain prodpatented shall be subject to a cease and desist oshall be publicized. In addition, the person may fine not exceeding RMB 50,000. (Article 59) 

Criminal 

Liability 

Article 63: Any person who is directly responsible for passing off his product 

as other person’s patented product, and the circumstances are serious, shall be held criminally liable in accordance with Article 127 of the 1979 Penal Code. 

Same as the 1984 law 

Article 58, first sentence: Where any person pasanother person as his own may be subject to cri(Implementing Regulations of the Patent Law dpassing off a patent.) 
Appendix 4: Table 1 

The 1984 Patent Law 

The 1979 Penal Code 

The 1992 Patent Law 

The 1979 Penal Code 

2000 Patent Law 

1997 Penal Code 

Directly responsible; and Directly responsible; and No similar requirement 

Threshold for 

Criminal 

Prosecution 

Serious circumstances (no Supreme People’s Court (SPC) Interpretation) 

Serious circumstances (no Supreme People’s Court Interpretation) 

Serious circumstances SPC has clarified that “serious circumstances” m1) Illicit turnover of more than RMB 200,000 (2) Illicit profit over RMB 100,000 (US$12,5003) Causing direct loss to the right owner over R

(US$62,500); 

4) Passing off two or more patents, and illicit t

100,000 (US$12,500) or illicit profit over R(US$6,250); or 

5) Other serious circumstances. 

Maximum 

Punishment 

3-year imprisonment (Article 127 of the 1979 Penal Code) 

3-year imprisonment (Article 127 of the 1979 Penal Code) 

3-year imprisonment (Article 216 of the 1997 P
Appendix 4: Table 2 

Changes to Chinese Trade Mark Law 

1982 Trade Mark Law 

1979 Penal Code 

1992 Trade Mark Law 

1979 Penal Code 

1993 

Amendment to 

the Penal Code 

200

Judicial Review of 

Administrative 

Decision 

Article 39 (15 days statute of limitation) Same (Article 39) N/A Same (A

Private Course of 

Actions for 

Infringement 

Yes (Article 39, second paragraph) Same (Article 30, second paragraph) N/A Same (A

Calculation of 

Damages No equivalent provisions No equivalent provisions N/A 

Article Two baof the inright owstop the above creasonabdetermidamagecircumsinfringecircumsdamage 

Mandatory 

Administrative 

Sanctions 

Not mandatory Not mandatory N/A 

Mandatof infrin1) Ceas2) Conf

infrinprodequip
Appendix 4: Table 2 

1982 Trade Mark Law 

1979 Penal Code 

1992 Trade Mark Law 

1979 Penal Code 

1993 

Amendment to 

the Penal Code 

200

Criminally 

Punishable Conduct 

Two types of conduct are criminally punishable: 1) Trade mark passing off; 2) Production or sale of 

registered trade mark. 

Article 40 of the Trade Mark Act Article 127 of the Penal Code 

Additional conduct that is criminally punishable: knowingly selling infringing products. (Article 40 of the Trade Mark Act) 

Limits “trade mark passing off” to the conduct of applying the same mark on the same line of products as a registered mark. 

Same as 

Threshold for 

Criminal 

Investigation 

1) For state or collectively 

owned enterprises: illicit turnover above RMB 10,000, or illicit profit over RMB 3,000. 

2) For individual: illicit 

turnover above RMB 3,000, or illicit profit over RMB 1,000. 

(SPP [86] GaoJianfa [2] 4, March 24, 1986) 

1) Trade Mark Passing Off 

i) For entities, illicit turnover above RMB 

100,000 (US$12,500), or illicit profit above RMB 20,000 (US$2,500); 

ii) For individuals: illicit turnover above 

RMB20, 000 (US$ 2,500), or profit RMB2, 000 (US$250). 

2) Production or Sale of Registered Trade 

Mark Without Authorization 

i) Entities: 20,000 pieces, or illicit profit 

over RMB10, 000, (US$2,500); 

ii) Individual—5,000 pieces, RMB 2,000 

(US$250). 

3) Knowingly Sell Infringing Products 

i) Entities: illicit turnover RMB 100,000 

(US$12,500), or illicit profit over RMB 20,000 (US$2,500); 

ii) Individual: illicit turnover above RMB 

20,000 (US$2,500), or profit over RMB 5,000 (US$625). 
Appendix 4: Table 2 

1982 Trade Mark Law 

1979 Penal Code 

1992 Trade Mark Law 

1979 Penal Code 

1993 

Amendment to 

the Penal Code 

200

Directly responsible Directly responsible 

Head of an entity is directly responsible for infringements by that entity. 

No simi

Threshold for 

Criminal Punishment 

Serious circumstances Serious circumstances (not defined) 

Serious circumstances or large illicit profits 

“Seriou1) Illici

50, 0

2) Illici

30,00

3) Pass

regiseithemore (US$abov(US$

(Supremopinion

Maximum 

Punishment 

3 year imprisonment, criminal detention and/or fine 

3 year imprisonment, criminal detention and/or fine 

Up to 7 years of imprisonment, criminal detention, and/or fine 

Up to 7 crimina
Appendix 4: Table 3 

Changes to Chinese Copyright law

1990 Copyright Law 

1979 Penal Code 1994 (Penal Code Amendment) The 2001 Cop

The 1997 Penal Code a

Judicial Review of 

Administrative Decisions 

Yes, 3-month statute of limitations (Article 50) N/A Same (Article 55) 

Private Course of Actions 

for Infringement Yes (Articles 45-49) N/A Yes (Articles 47,48) 

Calculation of Damages No provision N/A 

Damages shall be calculatof the right holder. When the actual loss, the illicit pbe used. The cost the righstopping the infringement compensated. When actuand the illicit profit by the established with reasonabimpose a fine according to circumstances of the case, amount of the fine be morUS$62,500). (Article 48) 

Mandatory 

Administrative Sanction 

Discretionary authority to impose administrative sanctions 

N/A Discretionary authority to 

sanctions 

Criminal Liability Not a criminal offense Yes (conditioned on “commercial purpose”) Same as the 1994 amendm

with commercial purpose 
Appendix 4: Table 3 

1990 Copyright Law 

1979 Penal Code 1994 (Penal Code Amendment) The 2001 Cop

The 1997 Penal Code a

Threshold for Criminal 

Punishment Not a crime 

The illicit profit was large or the existence of other serious circumstances. SPC 1995 opinion: illicit profit was large when: 1) For individual infringer, the illicit profit 

was more than RMB 20,000 (US$2,500), or illicit turnover more than RMB 100,000 (US$12,500); 

2) For entity infringer, the illicit profit was 

more than RMB 100,000 (US$12,500), or the illicit turnover was above RMB 500,000 (US$62,500); or 

3) Has been twice subjected to penal or 

administrative sanctions for copyright infringement. 

(Fafa [1995] 1, January 16, 1995) 

Same ambiguous languagtwo judicial interpretationSPC First Judicial Interpre1) Illicit profit of RMB 302) Illicit turnover over RM3) More than 1000 illicit or 3) Other serious circumst(Fashi [2004] 19, DecembSPC Second Judicial Inter1) 500 copies or more wil

circumstances; 

2) Reproduction of 2,500 

constitute “other excepcircumstances.” 

(Fashi [2007] 6, April 4, 2

Maximum Punishment 

(for reproduction, 

publication of infringing 

works, or sale of bogus 

artworks) 

Not a crime Up to 7 years Up to 7 years 

Maximum Punishment 

for Sale of Infringing 

Works 

 Up to 5-years Up to 3 years 
APPENDIX 

5 
Appendix 5 

Commitments Of China 

Report of the Working Party on the Accession of China 

WT/MIN(01)/3

TRADE-RELATED INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY REGIME

A. General 

1. Overview 

251. The representative of China stated that China had made the protection of intellectual property rights ("IPRs") 

an essential component of its reform and opening-up policy and socialist legal construction. The formulation of 

laws and regulations in this field could be traced back to the late 1970s. Since then, China had joined relevant 

international conventions and had actively participated in the activities sponsored by relevant international 

organizations. It had intensified its exchanges and cooperation with countries throughout the world in the field of 

IPR protection. As a result, notwithstanding the initial stage of its development, China's IPR protection system 

aimed at achieving world dimension and world standards. Lists of administrative rules concerning intellectual 

property rights currently in force in China were presented below in Table A. The status of ongoing reforms and 

other relevant information was presented in Table B in the following paragraph. Other laws, regulations and 

measures relating to the implementation of the TRIPS Agreement had been or would be notified to the WTO and 

would be made available upon request. 

Table A: The Administrative Rules of China Concerning Intellectual Property Rights [omitted; consists of lists of 

laws regarding patent rights, trademark, and copyright] 

252. The representative of China stated that for accession to the WTO Agreement and compliance with the TRIPS 

Agreement, further amendments had been made to the Patent Law. The amendments to the Copyright Law and 

the Trademark Law, as well as relevant implementing rules covering different areas of the TRIPS Agreement, 

would also be accomplished upon China's accession. The representative of China stated that laws adopted by the 

National People's Congress and administrative regulations, including implementing rules, issued by the State 

Council were applied and enforced by the people's courts. The Working Party took note of these commitments. 

Table B: Revision of China's IPR Laws in Conformity with the TRIPS Agreement

A list of China's IPR laws, administrative regulations and department rules to be revised and abolished * * *. 

Part I of the list contained eight laws and regulations. Part II of the list contained four department rules to be 

revised or abolished * * *. This list included the names of laws, regulations and department rules, reasons for 

revision or abolishment, and dates of implementation. 

2. Responsible agencies for policy formulation and implementation 

253. The representative of China stated that, at present, different agencies were responsible for IPR policy 

formulation and implementation. The State Intellectual Property Office ("SIPO") was responsible for patent 

approval; the Trademarks Office under the State Administration for Industry and Commerce ("SAIC") was 

responsible for trademarks registration; the Copyright Office was responsible for copyright policy making; SAIC 

was responsible for anti-unfair competition, including the protection of trade secrets; the State Drug 

Administration ("SDA") was responsible for administrative protection of pharmaceuticals; the General Customs 

Administration was responsible for border measures; the Ministry of Agriculture and the State Administration of 

Forestry were responsible for protection of plant varieties; the Ministry of Information Industry was responsible 

for the protection of layout designs of integrated circuits; and the State General Administration of the People's 

Republic of China for Quality Supervision and Inspection and Quarantine and SAIC were responsible for 

combating counterfeiting activities. Other agencies like the agency for press and publications, the people's courts 

and police were also involved in the protection of IPR in China.
Appendix 5 

3. Participation in international intellectual property agreements 

254. The representative of China stated that China became a member of the World Intellectual Property 

Organization in 1980. * * * 

[ China ia member of various international IPR groups and agreements: Paris Convention for the Protection of 

Industrial Property (1985), Treaty on Intellectual Property in Respect of Integrated Circuits (1989), Madrid 

Agreement Concerning the International Registration of Marks (1989), Berne Convention for the Protection of 

Literary and Artistic Works (1992), Convention for the Protection of Producers of Phonograms Against 

Unauthorized Duplication of Their Phonograms (1993), Patent Cooperation Treaty (1994), Nice Agreement 

Concerning the International Classification of Goods and Services for the Purposes of the Registration of Marks 

(1994), Budapest Treaty on the International Recognition of the Deposit of Microorganisms for the Purposes of 

Patent Procedure (1995), Protocols of the Madrid Agreement Concerning the International Registration of Marks 

(1995), Locarno Agreement on Establishing an International Classification for Industrial Designs (1996), 

Strasbourg Agreement Concerning the International Patent Classification (1997)] 

Besides the above efforts, China participated in the TRIPS negotiations during the Uruguay Round and initialled 

the Final Act. 

4. Application of national and MFN treatment to foreign nationals 

256. The representative of China responded that China's IPR laws provided that any foreigner would be treated in 

accordance with any agreement concluded between the foreign country and China, or in accordance with any 

international treaty to which both countries were party, or on the basis of the principle of reciprocity. The 

representative of China further confirmed that China would modify relevant laws, regulations and other measures 

so as to ensure national and MFN treatment to foreign right-holders regarding all intellectual property rights 

across the board in compliance with the TRIPS Agreement. This would include adjustments of the clearance 

requirement mentioned in the previous paragraph to ensure national treatment. The Working Party took note of 

these commitments. 

B. Substantive Standards Of Protection, Including Procedures For The Acquisition And 

Maintenance Of Intellectual Property Rights 

1. Copyright protection 

258. Some members of the Working Party expressed concerns about the consistency of China's current law on the 

protection of copyright and related rights with the TRIPS Agreement. * * * 

259. The representative of China responded that, realizing that there were some existing differences between 

China's copyright laws and the TRIPS Agreement, the amendment to the Copyright Law had been accelerated. 

The proposed amendments would clarify the payment system by broadcasting organizations which use the 

recording products and also include the following provisions: rental rights in respect of computer programs and 

movies, mechanical performance rights, rights of communication to the public and related protection measures, 

protection of database compilations, provisional measures, increasing the legitimate compensation amount and 

strengthening the measures against infringing activities. China's copyright regime including Regulations for the 

Implementation of the Copyright Law and the Provisions on the Implementation of the International Copyright 

Treaty would be amended so as to ensure full consistency with China's obligations under the TRIPS Agreement. 

The Working Party took note of these commitments. 
Appendix 5 

2. Trademarks, including service marks 

263. The representative of China stated that with the development of China's market economy and the further 

implementation of the TRIPS Agreement, China's legislative and law enforcement bodies had also realized that 

the existing trademark law fell somewhat short of fulfilling the requirements of the TRIPS Agreement and the 

Paris Convention in a few aspects and were therefore preparing to amend the existing trademark law to fully meet 

the requirements of the TRIPS Agreement. Modifications would mainly be made to the following aspects: to 

include the trademark registration of three-dimensional symbols, combinations of colours, alphabets and figures; 

to add the content of collective trademark and certification trademark (including geographical indications); to 

introduce official symbol protection; to protect well-known trademarks; to include priority rights; to modify the 

existing trademark right confirmation system and offer interested parties the opportunity for judicial review 

concerning the confirmation of trademark rights; to crack down on all serious infringements; and to improve the 

system for providing damages for trademark infringement. The Working Party took note of these commitments. 

3. Geographical indications, including appellations of origin 

264. The representative of China stated that the relevant rules of the SAIC and the State General Administration 

of the People's Republic of China for Quality Supervision and Inspection and Quarantine partly provided 

protection for geographical indications, including appellations of origin, and that the amendments to the 

trademark law would have a specific provision on the protection of geographical indications. 

265. Members of the Working Party took note of the progress achieved on providing protection for geographical 

indications and reiterated the importance of China's legislation complying with the obligations under the TRIPS 

Agreement (Articles 22, 23 and 24). The representative of China shared this assessment and reiterated China's 

intention to fully comply with relevant articles in the TRIPS Agreement on geographical indications. The 

Working Party took note of this commitment. 

4. Industrial designs 

266. Some members of the Working Party noted that the industrial design provisions of China's patent law 

appeared to implement substantial portions of the TRIPS Agreement requirements relating to industrial designs. 

One notable exception was the area of textile designs. These members noted that designs of WTO Members could 

be protected under China's Provisions on the Implementation of the International Copyright Treaty as works of 

applied art. Members urged China to incorporate this protection into its law and to provide such protection to 

domestic textile designs. 

5. Patents 

267. The representative of China stated that in preparation for its accession, China revised its patent law in 1992 

for the first time. China had taken measures to enhance consistency with the TRIPS Agreement in terms of major 

provisions and protection standards. In order to increase the awareness of the general public on IPR protection, 

and patent protection in particular, to be consistent with the TRIPS Agreement, and to build up a sound social 

environment for the promotion and commercialization of inventions, the National People's Congress approved the 

second revision of the Patent Law on 25 August 2000. The revised patent law, which would take effect on 1 July 

2001, included the following elements: (1) patent owners would have the right to prevent others from offering for 

sale the patented product without their consent (Article 11); (2) for utility model and design applications or 

patents, the final decision on re-examination and invalidation would be made by the people's courts other than for 

inventions that were patented prior to the amendment (Articles 41 and 46); (3) patent owners could, before 

instituting legal proceedings, request the people's court to take provisional measures such as to order the 

suspension of infringing acts and to provide property preservation (Article 61); and (4) conditions for granting a 

compulsory licence would be further clarified and made consistent with the TRIPS Agreement. 
Appendix 5 

268. The representative of China further stated that since its establishment, SIPO had paid great attention to 

strengthening its contacts and coordination with relevant departments and ministries in the field of IPR law 

enforcement, especially in the areas of settling inter-agency problems and resolving key cases. * * * 

269. The representative of China stated that so far as the range of patent protection and protection for new plant 

varieties were concerned, China had already met the requirements of Article 27 of the TRIPS Agreement. When 

amending the Patent Law in 1992, China modified Article 25 therein with reference to the relevant stipulations in 

the draft of the TRIPS Agreement and expanded the coverage of patent protection to food, beverages, flavourings, 

pharmaceuticals and materials obtained by chemical methods. The scope of patent exclusions would be limited to 

"scientific discoveries, rules and methods of intellectual activities, diagnostic and therapeutic methods for the 

treatment of diseases, animals and plant varieties, as well as materials obtained by the change of nucleus". 

270. He further stated that Article 5 of China's Patent Law stipulated that inventions that violate laws of China or 

social morality or prejudice public interest would not be entitled to patent right. While literally there was a 

difference between Article 5 of China's Patent Law and the TRIPS Agreement, in practice, during the review of 

patent applications, the interpretation of "violating laws of China" had been restricted to "if laws of China prohibit 

the sale of a certain patented product, or prohibit the sale of products manufactured by a patented method, the 

granting of patent right cannot be denied to this product invention or this invention of product manufacturing 

method by relying on Article 5 of the Patent Law". Hence, in essence, he concluded that there was no difference 

between Article 5 of the Patent Law as applied and the TRIPS Agreement. Nonetheless, China would amend the 

Implementing Rules of the Patent Law to ensure that this provision would be implemented in full compliance 

with Article 27.2 of the TRIPS Agreement, which stipulated that: "Members may exclude from patentability 

inventions, the prevention within their territory of the commercial exploitation of which is necessary to protect 

ordre public or morality, including to protect human, animal or plant life or health or to avoid serious prejudice to 

the environment, provided that such exclusion is not made merely because the exploitation is prohibited by their 

law". The Working Party took note of this commitment. 

271. Regarding Article 28 of the TRIPS Agreement (rights conferred), the representative of China stated that 

China's patent law had fully complied with the requirements of the TRIPS Agreement * * *. 

272. Further to the 1992 amendment, the representative of China stated that China's Patent Law provided for 

compulsory licences based on reasonable terms, for public interest and for dependent patents. * * * 

273. The representative of China stated that following the 1992 amendment, the regulations on compulsory 

licensing in China's Patent Law and its implementing rules, as a whole, had fulfilled the requirements of the 

TRIPS Agreement. However, some wording and expressions in the Chinese regulations were still not identical to 

the TRIPS Agreement and these regulations still needed improvement in respect of the administrative legal 

proceedings concerning compulsory licensing. * * * In the representative of China's view, these regulations 

were fully consistent with the TRIPS Agreement. He also added that up to now China had not issued any 

compulsory licences for patent enforcement. 
Appendix 5 

274. Some members of the Working Party noted the improvements in the provisions regarding compulsory 

licensing for patents that the representative of China cited. Some members however, requested clarification of the 

subject matter that would be subject to compulsory licensing under the Patent Law. 

275. In response, the representative of China agreed that still not all the requirements of Article 31 of the TRIPS 

Agreement had been incorporated into Chinese law, and that the Implementing Rules of the Patent Law would 

therefore be modified so as to ensure that: (1) use without authorization of the right-holder would only be 

permitted if, prior to such use, the proposed user had made efforts to obtain authorization from the right-holder on 

reasonable commercial terms and conditions, on the understanding that this requirement could be waived in the 

case of a national emergency or other circumstances of extreme urgency or in cases of public non-commercial use 

and subject to the other provisions of subparagraph (b) of Article 31; (2) the right-holder would be paid adequate 

remuneration in the circumstances of each case, taking into account the economic value of the authorization 

(Article 31(h)); (3) any such use would be authorized predominantly for the supply of the domestic market 

(Article 31(f)); and (4) in the case of semi-conductor technology, the scope and duration of such use would only 

be for public non-commercial use or to remedy a practice determined after judicial or administrative process to be 

anti-competitive (Article 31(c)). The Working Party took note of these commitments. 

276. Regarding Article 32 of the TRIPS Agreement (revocation/forfeiture), the representative of China stated that 

in light of Articles 41 and 46 of the amended Patent Law, patent applicants or patentees of inventions, as well as 

applicable utility models and designs, could institute legal proceedings in the people's court if they were not 

satisfied with the review or nullity decisions made by the Patent Review Board. This modification enabled 

China's Patent Law to be fully consistent with TRIPS regarding administrative decisions which were subject to 

judicial review. 

277. On the duration of patent right protection, the representative of China stated that as early as 1992 when 

China made an initial amendment to the Patent Law, Article 45 (later converted into Article 42 after the second 

amendment) was modified as: "the duration of inventions patent right is 20 years and the duration of patent right 

for applicable utility model and designs is 10 years, counted as of the date of application". Therefore, China's 

Patent Law had for a long time accorded with Articles 26 and 33 of the TRIPS Agreement concerning the 

duration of patent rights.

278. Regarding Article 34 of the TRIPS Agreement (process patents: burden of proof), the representative of 

China stated that China's Patent Law was modified in 1992 and 2000, and was now in full conformity with the 

TRIPS Agreement. The amended paragraph 2 of Article 57 reads: "when any infringement dispute relates to a 

process patent for the manufacture of a new product, any entity or individual manufacturing the identical product 

shall furnish proof to the effect that a different process is used in the manufacture of its or his product". 

6. Plant variety protection 

279. The representative of China confirmed that China was a party to the 1978 text of the Universal Convention 

on the Protection of Plant Varieties ("UPOV"). In March 1997, the State Council formulated and promulgated the 

Regulation on the Protection of New Plant Varieties, thus offering protection for new plant varieties in a sui 

generis form consistent with the requirements of the TRIPS Agreement. A unit or an individual that had 

accomplished the breeding enjoyed an exclusive right in their right-granted variety. No unit or individual could, 

without permission from the owner of the variety rights (referred to as "the variety rights owner"), produce or 

market for commercial purposes the propagation material of the rights-granted variety, or repeatedly use for 

commercial purposes the propagation material of the rights-granted variety in the production of the propagation 

material of another variety. The conditions of non-voluntary licensing were set out in the regulation. The period 

of protection of variety rights, from the date of grant of the rights, would be 20 years for vines, forest trees, fruit 

trees and ornamental trees and 15 years for other plants. 
Appendix 5 

7. Layout designs of integrated circuits 

280. The representative of China stated that China was one of the first countries to sign the Treaty on Intellectual 

Property in Respect of Integrated Circuits in 1989. The specific Regulation on the Protection of Layout Designs 

of Integrated Circuits, which would implement China's obligations under Section 6, Part II of the TRIPS 

Agreement, was issued in April 2001 and would be effective on 1 October 2001. 

281. The representative of China stated that China was strengthening the protection of the layout designs to 

support the rapid development of the integrated circuit industry. The regulations provided protection to layoutdesigns, according to which the following acts if performed without authorization of the right-holder were 

unlawful: importing, selling or otherwise distributing for commercial purposes a protected layout-design, an 

integrated circuit in which a protected layout-design was incorporated, or an article incorporating such an 

integrated circuit only in so far as it continued to contain an unlawfully reproduced layout-design. The exception 

clause and non-voluntary licensing clause were in conformity with Article 37 of TRIPS. The term of protection 

was 10 years counted from the date of filing an application for registration or from the first commercial 

exploitation wherever in the world it occurred. In addition, the protection to the layout-design of integrated 

circuits was in accordance with Article 2 through 7 (other than paragraph 3 of Article 6), Article 12 and paragraph 

3 of Article 16 of the Treaty on Intellectual Property in Respect of Integrated Circuits. 

8. Requirements on undisclosed information, including trade secrets and test data 

284. The representative of China further confirmed that China would, in compliance with Article 39.3 of the 

TRIPS Agreement, provide effective protection against unfair commercial use of undisclosed test or other data 

submitted to authorities in China as required in support of applications for marketing approval of pharmaceutical 

or of agricultural chemical products which utilized new chemical entities, except where the disclosure of such 

data was necessary to protect the public, or where steps were taken to ensure that the data are protected against 

unfair commercial use. This protection would include introduction and enactment of laws and regulations to make 

sure that no person, other than the person who submitted such data, could, without the permission of the person 

who submitted the data, rely on such data in support of an application for product approval for a period of at least 

six years from the date on which China granted marketing approval to the person submitting the data. During this 

period, any second applicant for market authorization would only be granted market authorization if he submits 

his own data. This protection of data would be available to all pharmaceutical and agricultural products which 

utilize new chemical entities, irrespective of whether they were patent-protected or not. The Working Party took 

note of these commitments. 

C. Measures To Control Abuse Of Intellectual Property Rights 

286. Some members of the Working Party expressed some concerns as to the compatibility of China's rules on 

control of anti-competitive licensing practices or conditions with the corresponding obligations under Article 40 

of the TRIPS Agreement. The representative of China stated in response that China's legislation would comply 

with these obligations, notably as to the request for consultations with other Members. He stated that these rules 

would apply across the board to all intellectual property rights. The Working Party took note of this commitment. 

D. Enforcement 

1. General 

287. Some members of the Working Party expressed concern that there was a continued need for additional 

enforcement efforts by the Government of China. They also said that China should strengthen the legislative 

framework for the enforcement of intellectual property rights for all right-holders. The representative of China 

stated that where an infringement of intellectual property rights was found in China, the person concerned could 

bring a lawsuit to a court. * * * 
Appendix 5 

288. Some members of the Working Party further urged China to ensure the vigorous application by Chinese 

authorities of the enforcement legislation in order to considerably reduce the existing high levels of copyright 

piracy and trademark counterfeiting. Action should include the closure of manufacturing facilities as well as 

markets and retail shops that had been the object of administrative convictions for infringing activities. The 

representative of China stated that the measures for cracking down on intellectual property piracy were always 

severe in China. In judicial aspects, courts at all levels were continuously paying attention to the trial of IPR 

cases. As for administration aspects, the administrative authorities at all levels were putting emphasis on 

strengthening anti-piracy work. In addition, the administrative authorities were also enhancing the legal 

publication and education of the general public in a bid to ensure that the legal environment of China would be 

able to meet the requirements for enforcing the TRIPS Agreement. The Working Party took note of these 

commitments.

2. Civil judicial procedures and remedies 

290. The representative of China stated that Article 118 of the General Principles of the Civil Law provided that if 

the rights of authorship (copyrights), patent rights, rights of exclusive use of trademarks, rights of discovery, 

rights of invention or rights for scientific and technological research achievements of citizens or juridical persons 

were infringed upon by such means as plagiarism, alteration or imitation, they had the right to demand that the 

infringement be stopped, its ill effects be eliminated and the damages be compensated for. He further stated that 

the Trademark Law, the Patent Law and the Copyright Law had similar provisions. 

291. The representative of China further confirmed that, Articles 42 and 43 of the TRIPS Agreement would be 

effectively implemented under the judicial rules of civil procedure. The Working Party took note of this 

commitment. 

292. The representative of China confirmed that the relevant implementing rules would be amended to ensure full 

compliance with Articles 45 and 46 of the TRIPS Agreement, to the effect that damages paid by the infringer to 

the right-holder would be adequate to compensate for the injury suffered because of an infringement of that 

person's intellectual property right by an infringer who knowingly, or with reasonable grounds to know, engaged 

in infringing activity. The Working Party took note of this commitment. 

3. Provisional measures 

294. The representative of China stated that in China's Civil Procedure Law there were provisions on property 

preservation, but as yet no explicit stipulations had been provided to authorize the people's court to take measures 

for the prevention of infringements prior to formal institution of a lawsuit by a party involved. In order to enhance 

the deterrent power of law against infringements and to guarantee that the legitimate rights and interests of 

patentees would not suffer from irreparable harm as well as to comply with the TRIPS Agreement, China, when 

amending the Patent Law for the second time in 2000, introduced Article 61 to regulate provisional measures, 

which provided as follows: "where a patentee or any interested party who can provide any reasonable evidence 

that his right is being infringed or that such infringement is imminent, and any delay in stopping the acts is likely 

to cause irreparable harm to his or its legitimate rights and interests, he or it may, before instituting legal 

proceedings, request the people's court to order the suspension of related acts and to provide property 

preservation". 

296. The representative of China stated that Article 61 of the Patent Law would be implemented in a way fully 

consistent with Article 50.1-4 of the TRIPS Agreement. He also stated that "reasonable evidence" in Article 61 of 

the Patent Law would be, through implementing rules, clarified to mean "any reasonably available evidence in 

order to satisfy with sufficient degree of certainty that the applicant is the right-holder and that the applicant's 

right is being infringed or that such infringement is imminent, and to order the applicant to provide a security or 

equivalent assurance sufficient to protect the defendant and to prevent abuse". The Working Party took note of 

this commitment. 
Appendix 5 

4. Administrative procedures and remedies 

299. The representative of China stated that most IPR enforcement actions in China resulted in administrative 

measures to address the infringement. He noted ongoing efforts to strengthen the sanctions that were available to 

administrative authorities and the increased attention given to enforcement of IPRs. The representative of China 

confirmed that the government would continue to enhance its enforcement efforts, including through the 

application of more effective administrative sanctions. Relevant agencies, including the State Administration for 

Industry and Commerce, the State General Administration of the People's Republic of China for Quality 

Supervision and Inspection and Quarantine and the Copyright Office, now had the authority to confiscate 

equipment used for making counterfeit and pirated products and other evidence of infringement. These relevant 

agencies would be encouraged to exercise their authority to seize and preserve evidence of infringement such as 

inventory and documents. Administrative authorities would have the authority to impose sufficient sanctions to 

prevent or deter further infringement and would be encouraged to exercise that authority. Appropriate cases, 

including those involving repeat offenders and willful piracy and counterfeiting, would be referred to relevant 

authorities for prosecution under the criminal law provisions. The Working Party took note of these 

commitments. 

5. Special border measures 

301. Some members of the Working Party expressed concerns as to the compatibility of existing border measures 

with obligations under Articles 51 to 60 of the TRIPS Agreement; * * * 

302. In response, the representative of China stated that China would provide holders of intellectual property 

rights with procedures related to border measures that complied fully with the relevant provisions of the TRIPS 

Agreement (Articles 51 to 60). The Working Party took note of this commitment. 

6. Criminal procedures 

304. Some members of the Working Party expressed concerns that criminal procedures could not be used 

effectively to address piracy and counterfeiting. In particular, the monetary thresholds for bringing a criminal 

action, as currently applied, were very high and seldom met. Those thresholds should be lowered so as to permit 

effective action that would deter future piracy and counterfeiting. In response, the representative of China stated 

that China's administrative authority would recommend that the judicial authority make necessary adjustments to 

lower the thresholds so as to address these concerns. The Working Party took note of this commitment. 

305. Noting the advanced state of protection for intellectual property rights in China, the representative of China 

confirmed that upon accession China would fully apply the provisions of the TRIPS Agreement. The Working 

Party took note of this commitment. 

Source: Terence P. Stewart, Law Offices of Stewart and Stewart, Accession of the People’s Republic of China to the 

Word Trade Organization: Baseline of Commitments, Initial Implementation and Implications for U.S.-PRC 

Trade Relations and U.S. Security Interests: A Report and Selected Annexes Prepared for the U.S.-China 

Security Review Commission by the Law Offices of Stewart and Stewart, Transnational Publishers, 

Appendix 2 (2002). 
APPENDIX 

6 
Appendix 6: Table 1 

Criminal Thresholds for IPR Infringement in China 

Trademark 

Criminal Law Punishment Threshold 

Article 213 Unauthorized Use of Trademark 

Imprisonment ≤ 3 years 

Fine* 

1. Illegal business > RMB 50K ($6,250) or illegal gains > 

RMB 30K ($3,750) 

2. Forging more than 2 reg. trademarks and 

a. Illegal business > RMB 30K ($3,750) or b. Illegal gains > RMB 20K ($2,500) 

3. Other circumstances of a serious nature 

Article 213 Unauthorized Use of Trademark 

Imprisonment ≥ 3 years, but ≤

7years Fine* 

1. Illegal business > RMB 250K ($31,250) or illegal gains > 

RMB 150K ($18750) 

2. Forging more than 2 reg. trademarks and 

a. Illegal business > RMB 150K ($18750) or b. Illegal gains > RMB 100K ($12,500) 

3. Other circumstances of an especially serious nature 

Article 214 Knowingly Sells Commodities Bearing Counterfeited Registered Trademarks 

Imprisonment ≤ 3 years 

Fine* Amount of sales > 50K ($6,250) 
Criminal Law Punishment Threshold 

Article 214 Knowingly Sells Commodities Bearing Counterfeited Registered Trademarks 

Imprisonment 

≥ 3 years, but 

≤

7years Fine* 

Amount of sales > 250K ($31,250) 

Article 215 Forgery or Unauthorized Representation of Another’s Person Trademark, Sale of Such Representation 

Imprisonment 

≤ 3 years 

Fine* 

1. Trademark of 1 person: 

a. Amount of copies > 20K b. Illegal business > RMB 50K ($6,250) c. Illegal gains > RMB 30K ($3,750) 

2. Trademarks of more than 2 persons 

a. Amount of copies > 10K b. Illegal business > RMB 30K ($3,750) c. Illegal gains > RMB 20K ($2,500) 

3. Other circumstances of a serious nature 

Article 215 Forgery or Unauthorized Representation of Another Person’s Trademark, Sale of Such Representation 

Imprisonment 

≥3 years, but 

≤

7years Fine 

1. Trademark of 1 person: 

a. Amount of copies > 100K b. Illegal business > RMB 250K ($31,250) c. Illegal gains > RMB 150K ($18,750) 

2. Trademarks of more than 2 persons: 

a. Amount of copies > 50K or b. Illegal business > RMB 150K ($18,750) or c. Illegal gains > RMB 100K ($12,500) 

3. Other circumstances of a especially serious nature 

* In determining the size of a fine, the Peoples Court takes into account “illegal income, the illegal turnover, the damage caused 

harm to society and other circumstances of the crime. The amount of the fine shall generally range from one time up to five tim50% up to one time the illegal turnover.” See, Judicial Interpretations by the Supreme People’s Court and the Supreme Pe

Several Issues of Concrete Application of Laws in Handling Criminal Cases of Infringing Intellectual Property II (April 

http://ipdragon.blogspot.com/2007/04/draft-judicial-interpretation-several.html. 
Appendix 6: Table 2 

Criminal Thresholds for IPR Infringement in China 

Patent 

Criminal Law Punishment Threshold 

Article 216 Counterfeit of Patent of Another Person 

Imprisonment ≤ 3 years 

Fine* 

1. Illegal business > RMB 200K ($25.000) 2. Illegal gains > 100K 3. Direct economic loss of patentee > RMB 500K ($62,500) 4. Counterfeit of more than 2 patents: 

a. Illegal business > RMB 100K ($12,500) or b. Illegal gains > RMB 50K ($6,250) 

5. Other circumstances of a serious nature 

* In determining the size of a fine, the Peoples Court takes into account “illegal income, the illegal turnover, the damage caused 

harm to society and other circumstances of the crime. The amount of the fine shall generally range from one time up to five tim50% up to one time the illegal turnover.” See, Judicial Interpretations by the Supreme People’s Court and the Supreme Pe

Several Issues of Concrete Application of Laws in Handling Criminal Cases of Infringing Intellectual Property II (April 

http://ipdragon.blogspot.com/2007/04/draft-judicial-interpretation-several.html. 
Appendix 6: Table 3 

Criminal Thresholds for IPR Infringement in China 

Copyright 

Criminal Law Punishment Threshold 

Article 217 Copyright Infringement for the Purpose of Making Profits 

Imprisonment ≤ 3 years 

Fine* Illegal gains > RMB 30K ($3,750) 

Article 217 Copyright Infringement for the Purpose of Making Profits 

Imprisonment ≤ 3 years 

Fine 

1. Illegal business > RMB 50K ($6,250) 2. Reproduced and distributed copies ≥ 500 

3. Other circumstances of a serious nature 

Article 217 Copyright Infringement for the Purpose of Making Profits 

Imprisonment ≥3 years, but ≤

7years Fine* 

Illegal gains > RMB 150K ($18,750) 

Article 217 Copyright Infringement for the Purpose of Making Profits 

Imprisonment ≥3 years, but ≤

7years Fine* 

1. Illegal business > RMB 250K ($31,250) 2. Reproduced and distributed copies ≥ 2500 

3. Other circumstances of a especially serious nature 

Article 218 Knowingly Sells Infringing Copyright Works for the Purpose of Making Profits 

Imprisonment ≤ 3 years 

Fine* Illegal gains > RMB 100K ($12,500) 

* In determining the size of a fine, the Peoples Court takes into account “illegal income, the illegal turnover, the damage caused 

harm to society and other circumstances of the crime. The amount of the fine shall generally range from one time up to five tim50% up to one time the illegal turnover.” See, Judicial Interpretations by the Supreme People’s Court and the Supreme Pe

Several Issues of Concrete Application of Laws in Handling Criminal Cases of Infringing Intellectual Property II (April 

http://ipdragon.blogspot.com/2007/04/draft-judicial-interpretation-several.html. 
APPENDIX 

7 
Appendix 7: Table 1 

Ap

Criminal Thresholds for IPR Infringement in the United States 

Copyright 

Criminal Law Punishment Threshol

17 U.S.C. § 506(a)(1)(A): Willful copyright infringement for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain 

Imprisonment ≤ 5 years and/or 

fine 

18 U.S.C. § 2319(b)(1): Reproduction or distribution, ielectronic means, of at least 10 phonorecords of 1 or more copduring any 180 day period, reta

17 U.S.C. § 506(a)(1)(A): Willful copyright infringement for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain 

Imprisonment ≤ 10 years and/or 

fine 

18 U.S.C. § 2319(b)(2): Offense is a second or subsequparagraph (1) 

17 U.S.C. § 506(a)(1)(A): Willful copyright infringement for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain 

Imprisonment ≤ 1 year and/or 

fine 

18 U.S.C. § 2319(b)(3): In any other case 

17 U.S.C. § 506(a)(1)(B): Reproduction or distribution, including by electronic means, of at least 10 copies or phonorecords of 1 or more copyrighted works during any 180 day period, retail value > $1,000 

Imprisonment ≤ 3 years and/or 

fine 

18 U.S.C. § 2319(c)(1): Reproduction or distribution ocopies or phonorecords of 1 or works, retail value ≥ $2,500 

17 U.S.C. § 506(a)(1)(B): Reproduction or distribution, including by electronic means, of at least 10 copies or phonorecords of 1 or more copyrighted works during any 180 day period, retail value > $1,000 

Imprisonment ≤ 6 years and/or 

fine 

18 U.S.C. § 2319(c)(2): Offense is a second or subsequparagraph (1) 
Appendix 7: Table 1 

Ap

Criminal Law Punishment Threshol

17 U.S.C. § 506(a)(1)(B): Reproduction or distribution, including by electronic means, of at least 10 copies or phonorecords of 1 or more copyrighted works during any 180 day period, retail value > $1,000 

Imprisonment ≤ 1 year and/or 

fine 

18 U.S.C. § 2319(c)(3): Reproduction or distribution ophonorecords of 1 or more copvalue ≥ $1,000 

17 U.S.C. § 506(a)(1)(C): Distribution of a work being prepared for commercial distribution, by making it available on a computer network accessible to members of the public, if such person knew or should have known that the work was intended for commercial distribution 

Imprisonment ≤ 3 years and/or 

fine 18 U.S.C. § 2319(d)(1) 

17 U.S.C. § 506(a)(1)(C): Distribution of a work being prepared for commercial distribution, by making it available on a computer network accessible to members of the public, if such person knew or should have known that the work was intended for commercial distribution 

Imprisonment ≤ 5 years and/or 

fine 

18 U.S.C. § 2319(d)(2): Offense was committed for puadvantage or private financial 

17 U.S.C. § 506(a)(1)(C): Distribution of a work being prepared for commercial distribution, by making it available on a computer network accessible to members of the public, if such person knew or should have known that the work was intended for commercial distribution 

Imprisonment ≤ 6 years and/or 

fine 

18 U.S.C. § 2319(d)(3): Offense is a second or subsequ
Appendix 7: Table 1 

Ap

Criminal Law Punishment Threshol

17 U.S.C. § 506(a)(1)(C): Distribution of a work being prepared for commercial distribution, by making it available on a computer network accessible to members of the public, if such person knew or should have known that the work was intended for commercial distribution 

Imprisonment ≤ 10 years and/or 

fine 

18 U.S.C. § 2319(d)(4): Offense is a second or subsequparagraph (2) 

Criminal Law Punishme

18 U.S.C. § 2319A(a): Whoever, without the consent of the performer or performers involved, knowingly and for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain— (1) Fixes the sounds or sounds and images of a live musical performance in a copy or 

phonorecord, or reproduces copies or phonorecords of such a performance from an unauthorized fixation; 

(2) Transmits or otherwise communicates to the public the sounds or sounds and 

images of a live musical performance; or 

(3) Distributes or offers to distribute, sells or offers to sell, rents or offers to rent, or 

traffics in any copy or phonorecord fixed as described in paragraph (1), regardless of whether the fixations occurred in the United States 

Imprisonment ≤ 5 years and/or 

18 U.S.C. § 2319A(a): (See above) and offense is a second or subsequent offense Imprisonment ≤ 10 years and/o
Appendix 7: Table 1 

Ap

Trademark 

Criminal Law Punishme

18 U.S.C. § 2320(a): Whoever intentionally traffics or attempts to traffic in goods or services and knowingly uses a counterfeit mark on or in connection with such goods or services 

Individual: - Imprisonment ≤ 10 years and

- Fine ≤ 2million Other than individual: - Fine ≤ 5 million 

18 U.S.C. § 2320(a): In the case of an offense by a person under this section that occurs after that person is convicted of another offense under this section 

Individual: - Imprisonment ≤ 20 years and

- Fine ≤ 5million Other than individual: - Fine ≤ 15 million 

Patent: The United States has no criminal provisions relating to patent infringement. 
Appendix 7: Table 2 

Ap

Annex 7: Table 2: Criminal Thresholds for IPR Infringement in Can

Trademark 

Criminal Law Punishme

§ 406 Forging trade-mark Imprisonment ≤ 2 years or offe

summary conviction 

§ 407 Offence Every one commits an offence who, with intent to deceive or defraud the public or any person, whether ascertained or not, forges a trade-mark. 

Imprisonment ≤ 2 years or offe

summary conviction 

§ 408 Passing off Every one commits an offence who, with intent to deceive or defraud the public or any person, whether ascertained or not, (a) passes off other wares or services as and for those ordered or required; or 

(b) makes use, in association with wares or services, of any description that is false 

... 

Imprisonment ≤ 2 years or offe

summary conviction 

§ 409 Instruments for forging trademarks Every one commits an offence who makes, has in his possession or disposes of a die, block, machine or other instrument designed or intended to be used in forging a trade-mark. 

Imprisonment ≤ 2 years or offe

summary conviction 

§ 410 Other offences to trade-marks Every one commits an offence who, with intent to deceive or defraud, (a) defaces, conceals or removes a trade-mark or the name of another person from 

anything without the consent of that other person; or 

(b) being a manufacturer, dealer, trader or bottler, fills any bottle or siphon that bears 

the trade-mark or name of another person, without the consent of that other 

person, with a beverage, milk, by-product of milk or other liquid commodity for the purpose of sale or traffic. 

Imprisonment ≤ 2 years or offe

summary conviction 
Appendix 7: Table 2 

Ap

Criminal Law Punishme

§ 411 Used goods sold without disclosure Every one commits an offence who sells, exposes or has in his possession for sale, or advertises for sale, goods that have been used, reconditioned or remade and that bear the trade-mark or the trade-name of another person, without making full disclosure that the goods have been reconditioned, rebuilt or remade for sale and that they are not then in the condition in which they were originally made or produced. 

Imprisonment ≤ 2 years or offe

summary conviction 

Copyright 

Criminal Law Punishme

§ 42(1) Offences and punishment Every person who knowingly (a) makes for sale or rental an infringing copy of a work or other subject-matter in 

which copyright subsists, 

(b) sells or rents out, or by way of trade exposes or offers for sale or rental, an 

infringing copy of a work or other subject-matter in which copyright subsists, 

(c) distributes infringing copies of a work or other subject-matter in which copyright 

subsists, either for the purpose of trade or to such an extent as to affect 

prejudicially the owner of the copyright, 

(d) by way of trade exhibits in public an infringing copy of a work or other subjectmatter in which copyright subsists, or 

(e) imports for sale or rental into Canada any infringing copy of a work or other 

subject-matter in which copyright subsists 

On summary conviction: 1. Fine ≤ C$25,000 and/or 2. Imprisonment ≤ 6 months 

On conviction on indictment 1. Fine ≤ C$1 million and/or 2. Imprisonment ≤ 5 years 
Appendix 7: Table 2 

Ap

Criminal Law Punishme

§ 42(2) Possession and performance offences and punishment Every person who knowingly (a) makes or possesses any plate that is specifically designed or adapted for the 

purpose of making infringing copies of any work or other subject-matter in which 

copyright subsists, or 

(b) for private profit causes to be performed in public, without the consent of the 

owner of the copyright, any work or other subject-matter in which copyright subsists 

On summary conviction: 1. Fine ≤ c$25,000 and/or 2. Imprisonment ≤ 6 months 

On conviction on indictment 1. Fine ≤ c$1 million and/or 2. Imprisonment ≤ 5 years 

§ 43(1) Infringement in case of dramatic, operatic or musical work Every person who knowingly (a) makes or possesses any plate that is specifically designed or adapted for the 

purpose of making infringing copies of any work or other subject-matter in which 

copyright subsists, or 

(b) for private profit causes to be performed in public, without the consent of the 

owner of the copyright, any work or other subject-matter in which copyright subsists 

On summary conviction: 1. Fine ≤ c$250 In case of a second or subsequ1. Fine ≤ c$250 and/or 2. Imprisonment ≤ 2 months 

§ 43(2) Change or suppression of title or author’s name Any person who makes or causes to be made any change in or suppression of the title, or the name of the author, of any dramatic or operatic work or musical composition in which copyright subsists in Canada, or who makes or causes to be made any change in the work or composition itself without the written consent of the author or of his legal representative, in order that the work or composition may be performed in whole or in part in public for private profit 

On summary conviction: 1. Fine ≤ c$500 In case of a second or subsequ1. Fine ≤ c$500 and/or 2. Imprisonment ≤ 4 months 

Patent: Canada has no criminal provisions relating to patent infringement. 
Appendix 7: Table 3 

Ap

Annex 7: Table 3: Criminal Thresholds for IPR Infringement in Aust

Trademark 

Criminal Law Punishme

§ 145: Falsifying or unlawfully removing a registered trade mark 1. Fine ≤ 500 penalty units* an

2. Imprisonment ≤ 2 years 

§ 146: Falsely applying a registered trade mark 1. Fine ≤ 500 penalty units* an

2. Imprisonment ≤ 2 years 

§ 147: Manufacture and possession of die etc. for use in commission of offence 1. Fine ≤ 500 penalty units* an

2. Imprisonment ≤ 2 years 

§ 148: Selling, exposing goods for sale, having goods in possession for the purpose 

of trade or manufacture, importing goods into Australia for the purpose of trade or manufacture 

1. Fine ≤ 500 penalty units* an2. Imprisonment ≤ 2 years 

* Crimes Act of 1914 

4AA Penalty units 

(1) In a law of the Commonwealth or a Territory Ordinance, unless the contrary intention appears: penalty unit means $110. 

4B Pecuniary penalties—natural persons and bodies corporate 

(3) Where a body corporate is convicted of an offence against a law of the Commonwealth, the court may, if the contrary inte

and the court thinks fit, impose a pecuniary penalty not exceeding an amount equal to 5 times the amount of the maximupenalty that could be imposed by the court on a natural person convicted of the same offence. 
Appendix 7: Table 3 

Ap

Copyright 

Criminal Law Punishment Standa

132 Offences (1) A person shall not, at a time when copyright subsists in a work: 

(a) make an article for sale or hire; (b) sell or let for hire, or by way of trade offer or expose for 

sale or hire, an article; 

(c) by way of trade exhibit an article in public; or (d) import an article into Australia for the purpose of: 

(i) selling, letting for hire, or by way of trade offering or 

exposing for sale or hire, the article; 

(ii) distributing the article for the purpose of trade, or for 

any other purpose to an extent that will affect prejudicially the owner of the copyright in the work; or 

(iii) by way of trade exhibiting the article in public; if the 

person knows, or ought reasonably to know, the article to be an infringing copy of the work. 

(2) A person shall not, at a time when copyright subsists in a work, 

distribute: (a) for the purpose of trade; or (b) for any other purpose to an extent that affects 

prejudicially the owner of the copyright; an article that the person knows, or ought reasonably to know, to be an infringing copy of the work. 

(2A) A person shall not, at a time when copyright subsists in a 

work, have in his or her possession an article for the purpose of: (a) selling, letting for hire, or by way of trade offering or 

exposing for sale or hire, the article; 

(b) distributing the article for the purpose of trade, or for any 

other purpose to an extent that will affect prejudicially the owner of the copyright in the work; or 

1. Imprisonment ≤ 5 years and/or 2. Fine ≤ 850 penalty units* 

(6AA) If: (a) a person contravenes suband (b) the article to which the c

an infringing copy becauconverting a work or othhardcopy or analog form electronic machine-reada
Appendix 7: Table 3 

Ap

Criminal Law Punishment Standa

See above 

1. Imprisonment ≤ 5 years and/or 2. Fine ≤ 550 penalty units* 

(6AB) If: (a) either: 

(i) a person contraven

because of the doiin paragraph (1)(a

(ii) a person contraven

(2A); and 

(b) subsection (6AA) does 

(1) A person shall not, at a time when copyright subsists in a work: 

(d) import an article into Australia for the purpose of: 

(i) selling, letting for hire, or by way of trade offering or 

exposing for sale or hire, the article; 

(ii) distributing the article for the purpose of trade, or for 

any other purpose to an extent that will affect prejudicially the owner of the copyright in the work; or 

(iii) by way of trade exhibiting the article in public; if the 

person knows, or ought reasonably to know, the article to be an infringing copy of the work. 

1. Imprisonment ≤ 5 years and/or 2. Fine ≤ 650 penalty units* 

(6AC) If: (a) a person contravenes sub

the doing of an act referr(1)(d); and 

(b) subsection (6AA) does n

(3) A person shall not, at a time when copyright subsists in a work, 

make or have in his or her possession a device that the person knows, or ought reasonably to know, is to be used for making infringing copies of the work. 

(5) A person shall not cause a literary, dramatic or musical work to 

be performed in public at a place of public entertainment, if the person knows, or ought reasonably to know, that copyright subsists in the work and that the performance constitutes an infringement of the copyright. 

(5AA) A person shall not cause: 

(a) a sound recording to be heard in public at a place of 

public entertainment; or 

(b) a cinematograph film, in so far as it consists of visual 

images, to be seen in public at a place of public entertainment or, in so far as it consists of sounds, to be 

1. Imprisonment ≤ 5 years and/or 2. Fine ≤ 550 penalty units* 

(6A) A person who contrave

(5AA), (5A), (5B), (5C
Appendix 7: Table 3 

Ap

Criminal Law Punishment Standa

heard in public at such a place; if the person knows, or ought reasonably to know, that copyright subsists in the sound recording or the cinematograph film and that the copyright will thereby be infringed. 

(5A) A person must not provide, or by way of trade promote, 

advertise or market, a circumvention service if the person knows, or is reckless as to whether, the service will be used to circumvent, or facilitate the circumvention of, a technological protection measure. 

(5B) A person must not: 

(a) make a circumvention device; or (b) sell, let for hire, or by way of trade offer or expose for 

sale or hire, or otherwise promote, advertise or market, a circumvention device; or 

(c) distribute a circumvention device with the intention of 

trading, or engaging in any other activity that will affect prejudicially an owner of copyright; or 

(d) by way of trade exhibit a circumvention device in public; 

or 

(e) import a circumvention device into Australia with the 

intention of: (i) selling, letting for hire, or by way of trade offering or 

exposing for sale or hire, or otherwise promoting, advertising or marketing, the device; or 

(ii) distributing the device for trading, or for engaging in 

any other activity that will affect prejudicially an owner of copyright; or 

(iii) exhibiting the device in public by way of trade; or 

(f) make a circumvention device available online to an extent 

that will affect prejudicially an owner of copyright; if the person knows, or is reckless as to whether, the device will be used to circumvent, or facilitate the circumvention of, a technological protection measure. 

(5C) A person must not remove or alter any electronic rights management information attached to a copy of a work or other 
Appendix 7: Table 3 

Ap

Criminal Law Punishment Standa

subject-matter in which copyright subsists, except with the permission of the owner or exclusive licensee of the copyright, if the person knows, or is reckless as to whether, the removal or alteration will induce, enable, facilitate or conceal an infringement of the copyright in the work or other subject-matter. (5D) A person must not: 

(a) distribute a copy of a work or other subject-matter in 

which copyright subsists with the intention of trading; or 

(b) import into Australia a copy of such a work or other 

subject-matter with the intention mentioned in paragraph (a); or 

(c) communicate to the public a copy of such a work or other 

subject-matter; without the permission of the owner or exclusive licensee of the copyright if any electronic rights 

management information attached to the copy has been removed or altered and the person; 

(d) knows that the electronic rights management information 

has been so removed or altered without the permission of the owner or exclusive licensee of the copyright; and 

(e) knows, or is reckless as to whether, the doing of the act 

referred to in paragraph (a), (b) or (c) will induce, enable, facilitate or conceal an infringement of the copyright in the work or other subject-matter. 

* Crimes Act of 1914 

4AA Penalty units 

(1) In a law of the Commonwealth or a Territory Ordinance, unless the contrary intention appears: penalty unit means $110. 

4B Pecuniary penalties—natural persons and bodies corporate 

(3) Where a body corporate is convicted of an offence against a law of the Commonwealth, the court may, if the contrary inte

and the court thinks fit, impose a pecuniary penalty not exceeding an amount equal to 5 times the amount of the maximupenalty that could be imposed by the court on a natural person convicted of the same offence. 

Patent: Australia has no criminal provisions relating to patent infringement. 
Appendix 7: Table 4 

Ap

Annex 7: Table 4: Criminal Thresholds for IPR Infringement in Jap

Trademark A translation of the new Japanese Trademark Act, including the amendment of criminal provisions, will be availhttp://www.cas.go.jp/jp/seisaku/hourei/data2.html. Copyright 

Criminal Law Pu

Article 119 (i) any person who infringes of moral rights of authors, copyright, right of publication, moral rights 

of performers or neighboring rights etc.; 

(ii) any person who, for profit-making purposes, causes others to use automatic reproducing machines 

mentioned in Article 30, paragraph (1), item (i) for such reproduction of works or performances, etc. as constitutes an infringement on copyright, right of publication or neighboring rights. 

1. Imprisonm

2. Fine ≤ 5 m

Article 120bis(i) any person who transfers to the public the ownership of, or lends to the public, manufactures, 

imports or possesses for transfer of ownership or lending to the public, or offers for the use by the public, a device having a principal function for the circumvention of technological protection measures or copies of a program having a principal function for circumvention of technological protection measures, or transmits publicly or makes transmittable such program; 

(ii) any person who, as a business, circumvents technological protection measures in response to a 

request from the public; 

(iii) any person who, for profit-making purposes, does an act considered to constitute an infringement 

on moral rights of authors, copyright, moral rights of performers or neighboring rights under the provisions of Article 113, paragraph (3); 

(iv) any person who, for profit-making purposes, does an act considered to constitute an infringement 

on copyright or neighboring rights under the provisions of Article 113, paragraph (5). 

1. Imprisonm

2. Fine ≤ 3 m
Appendix 7: Table 4 

Ap

Criminal Law Pu

Article 121 Any person who distributes copies of works on which the true name or generally known pseudonym of 

a non-author is indicated as the name of the author. 

1. Imprisonm

2. Fine ≤ 1 m

Article 121bis 

Any person who makes, distributes or possesses for distribution copies of commercial phonograms reproduced from any of the following commercial phonograms . . . . 

1. Imprisonm

2. Fine ≤ 1 m

Article 122

Any person who violates the provisions of Article 48 (Indication of sources) or Article 102, paragraph (2) (reproduction is made of performances, phonograms, sounds or images of broadcasts or wire diffusions). 

Fine ≤ 500,00

Patent 

Criminal Law Pu

Article 196 (Crime of infringement) An infringer of a patent right or exclusive license . . . . 

1. Imprisonm

years or 2. Fine ≤ 5 m

Article 197 (Crime of fraud) Any person who has obtained a patent, a registration of extension of the duration of a patent right or a trial decision by means of a fraudulent act . . . . 

1. Imprisonm

year or 2. Fine ≤ 1 m

Article 198 (Crime of false marking) A person s who fails to comply with Article 188 . . . . 

1. Imprisonm

years or 2. Fine ≤ 3 m
Appendix 7: Table 4 

Ap

Criminal Law Pu

Article 201 (Dual liability) Where a representative of a juridical person or an agent, employee or other worker of a juridical person or an individual has committed in the course of performing his/her duties for the juridical person or individual, any act in violation prescribed in the following items, in addition to the offender, the juridical person shall be punished by a fine as provided in the corresponding item and the individual shall be punished by a fine as provided in the Article prescribed in the corresponding item: 

(i) Article 1

≤ 150 m

(ii) Article 1

million Y
APPENDIX 

8 
Appendix 8: Tables 1 and 2

Total Invention Utility Model Design Total Invention Utility Model Design Total Inventio

1985-2006 

Accumulated 

Total

3334367 1089515 1289867 954985 2727857 565147 1280558 882152 606510 52436

2001 203573 63204 79722 60647 165773 30038 79275 56460 37800 33166 2002 252631 80232 93139 79260 205544 39806 92166 73572 47087 40426 2003 308487 105318 109115 94054 251238 56769 107842 86627 57249 48549 2004 353807 130133 112825 110849 278943 65786 111578 101579 74864 64347 2005 476264 173327 139566 163371 383157 93485 138085 151587 93107 79842 2006 573178 210490 161366 201322 470342 122318 159997 188027 102836 88172 

Total Invention Utility Model Design Total Invention Utility Model Design Total Inventio

1985-2006 

Accumulated 

Total

1737504 296503 838228 602773 1488747 112442 831638 544667 248757 18406

2001 114251 16296 54359 43596 99278 5395 54018 39865 14973 10901 2002 132399 21473 57484 53442 112103 5868 57092 49143 20296 15605 2003 182226 37154 68906 76166 149588 11404 68291 69893 32638 25750 2004 190238 49360 70623 70255 151328 18241 70019 63068 38910 31119 2005 214003 53305 79349 81349 171619 20705 78137 72777 42384 32600 2006 268002 57786 107655 102561 223860 25077 106312 92471 44142 32709 

Three Kinds of Patents Granted for Home and Abroad, 1985-2006

Years

Total Domestic F

Table 2

Applications for Three Kinds of Patents Received from Home and Abroad, 1985-2006

Total Domestic F

Years

Table 1

A
APPENDIX 

9 
Patents

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 

Total Patent Applications 121,989 134,239 170,690 203,573 252,631 308,487 

Percent of Increase Over Previous Year 6.8 10.0 27.2 19.3 24.1 22.1 

Domestic Patent Applications 96,233 109,958 140,273 201,919 251,680 307,316 

Foreign Patent Applications 25,756 24,281 30,417 1,654 951 1,171 

Patents Approved 67,889 100,156 105,344 114,252 132,399 182,226 

Requests for Reexamination 322 463 555 616 961 1,813 

Percent of Increase Over Previous Year 5.6 43.8 19.9 11.0 56.0 88.7 

Cases Resolved 258 401 817 625 785 1,235 

Requests for Invalidation 636 783 1,194 1,316 1,752 1,813 

Percent of Increase Over Previous Year 15.6 23.1 52 10.2 33.1 3.4 

Invalidation Cases Resolved 398 795 1,561 1,480 ******* 1,617 

Total Patent Disputes 612 791 802 977 1442 1,517 

Percent of Increase Over Previous Year 3.6 29.2 1.4 21.8 47.6 5.2 

Disputes Resolved 465 641 718 888 1,291 1,237 

Passing-Off of Patent Investigations 2,086 2,071 ******* 413 1679 1873 

Trademarks

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 

Total Trademark Applications 157,683 170,715 223,177 270,417 371,936 452,095 

Percent of Increase Over Previous Year 6 8.3 30.7 21.2 37.5 26.3 

Domestic Trademark Applications 129,394 140,620 181,717 229,775 321,034 405,620 

Foreign Trademark Applications 18,252 18,883 24,623 23,234 37,221 33,912 

Trademark Applications Examined 139,228 166,866 167,307 139,014 223,793 245,737 

Trademarks Approved 107,710 122,401 158,575 202,839 212,533 242,511 

Total Number of Valid Registered Trademarks 968,827 1,091,228 1,249,803 1,452,277 1,664,810 1,907,321 

Total Number of Trademark Infringement 

and Counterfeiting Cases 14,736 16,949 22,001 22,813 23,539 26,488 

Number of Cases Concluded 14,141 16,130 11,313 21,960 23,109 26,023 

Total Amount of Fines Assessed (RMB) 85,547,000 106,000,000 140,000,000 210,000,000 214,000,000 242,000,000 2

Persons Transferred to Judicial Agencies for 

Criminal Prosecution 35 21 45 88 78 45 

Copyrights

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 

Total Copyright Registrations 3,265 4,791 6,474 10,370 11,836 ******* Total Copyright Cases 1,028 1,616 2,457 4,416 6,408 23,013 

Number of Cases Concluded 826 1,515 2,277 4,306 6,107 22,429 

Concluded by Imposition of Fines 826 1,059 1,726 3,607 5,250 21,032 

Handled by Mediation 294 463 479 633 721 1,173 

Transferred to Judicial Authorities 28 39 103 66 136 224 

Source: White Papers on the Intellectual Property Right Protection in China 1998-2006, available at: www.sipo.gov.

Chinese IPR Application and Enforcement Statistics

Appendix 9
APPENDIX 

10 
Appendix 10: Table 1 

Appendix 10: Table 1 

Project Allocation of US Government Trade Capacity Building (TCB) 

Assistance for TRIPS in China 

Activity Title Activity Description Year Total 

China Forum on 

Criminal Intellectual 

Property Protection 

The Department of Justice provided an Intellectual 

Property Law Enforcement Coordinator to participate in 

the 2006 China Forum on Criminal Intellectual Property 

Protection in Shanghai, China. The forum was hosted by 

the Ministry of Public Security and the State Office of 

Intellectual Property Protection of China. Funded by 

Department of State and implemented by Department of 

Justice/Criminal Division. 

2006 $2,262 

Regional Law 

Enforcement 

Workshop in Hong 

Kong 

Two members of the Computer Crimes and Intellectual 

Property Section of the Department of Justice, a trial 

attorney and an intellectual property law enforcement 

coordinator, traveled to Beijing, China, to participate in law 

enforcement meetings with Chinese officials on combating 

online piracy. Funded by Department of State and 

implemented by Department of Justice. 

2006 $6,950 

Combating Online 

Piracy Meetings 

Two members from the Department of Justice Computer 

Crime and Intellectual Property Section (a trial attorney 

and an intellectual property law enforcement coordinator) 

traveled to Beijing, China, to participate in law 

enforcement meetings with Chinese officials on combating 

online piracy. Funded by Department of State and 

implemented by Department of Justice. 

2006 $8,600 

Intellectual Property 

Rights Training 

Program 

The proposed intellectual property rights training program 

would provide training courses on methods and techniques 

to identify counterfeit and pirated goods for customs 

officials in China. The U.S. Trade and Development 

Agency anticipates trainers would include officials from 

Customs and Border Protection of the Department of 

Homeland Security, other U.S. Government agencies, and 

private sector experts. Funded and implemented by Trade 

and Development Agency. 

2006 $383,000 
Appendix 10: Table 1 

Activity Title Activity Description Year Total 

Enforcement 

provisions of TRIPS 

& Internet Piracy – 

video conferences 

with Chinese judges 

and the Shanghai 

Intellectual Property 

Bureau 

Enforcement provisions of TRIPS & Internet Piracy – 

video conferences with Chinese judges and the Shanghai 

Intellectual Property Bureau (May, 2002). Funded and 

implemented by US Patent and Trademark Office. 

2002 $7,375 

Seminars & Meetings 

on IPR 

IP enforcement seminars with Sichuang Province Academy 

of Social Sciences (researchers, judges, government 

officials); a TRIPs compliance lecture and Chinese IP 

statutory initiatives with Chonqing IP officials, Chongqing 

Academy of Social Sciences, and the Southwestern Univ. 

of Policies and Law in Chongqing City; the USPTO 

enforcement program seminar with the Shanghai WTO 

Enforcement Center; a meeting with the Mayor of Dalian; a 

meeting with judges; a meeting at the Academy of 

Sciences; and a meeting with SIPO (April, 2002). Funded 

and implemented by US Patent and Trademark Office. 

2002 $38,997 

USTR Bilateral 

Meetings 

USTR bilateral meetings (January, 2002). Funded and 

implemented by US Patent and Trademark Office. 2002 $9,987 

Biotech Patenting 

Speech 

Biotech patenting speech (June, 2002). Funded and 

implemented by US Patent and Trademark Office. 2002 $6,364 

Source: USG Trade Capacity Building Database, USAID Data Services; http://qesdb.usaid.gov/tcb/index.html. 
Appendix 10: Table 2 

Appendix 10: Table 2 

Intellectual Property Rights: Training Program Database: 

Technical Assistance Projects Provided to China in 2006 

Title of Program Synopsis/Comments Date Sponsor 

USPTO GIPA: 

Enforcement 

Academy 

Location: Alexandria, Virginia 

Training Recipients: Police, Customs officials, other 

enforcement officials, Prosecutors, Judges - 

civil/administrative courts, Judges - criminal courts 

This program deals with the U.S. Goverment's system for 

the protection and enforcement of intellectual property 

rights. 

1/24/06 – 

1/27/06 USPTO 

USPTO GIPA 

Visiting Scholars 

Program 

Location: Alexandria, Virginia 

Training Recipients: Trademark officials, Patent officials 

To provide foreign government officials from patent and 

trademark backgrounds an overview of the U.S. system of 

patent and trademark examination. 

2/13/06 – 

2/24/06 USPTO 

USPTO-CTMO 

Seminar on 

Geographical 

Indications 

Location: Beijing (May 22-23) and Xiamen (May 25) 

Training Recipients: Trademark officials, Administrative 

officials, other enforcement officials, Commerce officials, 

Industry officials (i.e., Ministry of), Trade officials, other 

executive branch officials, Legislators, Journalists, Legal 

professionals, Right holder groups, other, Academics 

The focus of the program was on the benefits of using the 

trademark-based system for GI protection, discussion of 

the WTO Panel Report, and WTO TRIPs Council 

discussions on the GI issue. The seminar also focused on 

U.S. industry’s view concerning the benefits of using the 

trademark system and the “economic advantage for 

rightholders.” 

5/22/06 – 

5/25/06 USPTO 

Seminar: Traditional 

Knowledge/Genetic 

Resources/Folklore 

Location: Beijing and Kunming, China 

Training Recipients: Copyright officials, Patent officials, 

other enforcement officials, Commerce officials, Culture 

officials, Industry officials (i.e., Ministry of), Ministry of 

Public Health officials, Trade officials, Journalists, Legal 

professionals, Right holder groups, other, Academics 

Seminar to discuss new developments in the protection of 

traditional knowledge, genetic resources, and folklore. 

Additional Sponsor: State Intellectual Property Office of 

China (SIPO) 

6/05/06 – 

06/09/06 USPTO 
Appendix 10: Table 2 

Title of Program Synopsis/Comments Date Sponsor 

USPTO Global IP 

Academy Copyright 

Program 

Location: Alexandria, VA 

Training Recipients: Copyright officials, Administrative 

officials, other executive branch officials, Legal 

professionals 

Program to provide copyright training to foreign 

government officials featuring presentations, panel 

discussions, and case studies on broad range of legal and 

policy issues, including the purposes of copyright; the 

subject matter of copyright, ownership, transfer and 

collective management, rights and limitations, copyright 

infringement and liability; and copyright’s role in 

economic and cultural development. 

8/15/06 - 

8/18/06 USPTO 

Copyright & Related 

Rights 

Location: Stockholm 

Training Recipients: Copyright officials, Police, 

Administrative officials 

Training sponsored by the Swedish Patent Office for 25 

persons from developing world. IFPI dealt specifically 

with the music industry response to investigation of piracy 

both physical product and on-line. 

8/24/06 - 

8/24/06 USPTO 

USPTO GIPA 

Patents Program 

Location: Alexandria, VA 

Training Recipients: Patent officials, Legal professionals, 

other 

Global Intellectual Property Academy (GIPA) program 

provided the opportunity to learn from and interact with 

U.S. Government officials responsible for patent 

examination procedure and policy. Program also provided 

the opportunity to interact with each other and build 

relationships with counterparts from other countries. 

9/23/06 - 

9/27/06 USPTO 
Appendix 10: Table 2 

Title of Program Synopsis/Comments Date Sponsor 

Local Law 

Enforcement 

Workshops 

Location: China 

Training Recipients: Copyright officials, Trademark 

officials, Patent officials, Police, Customs officials, 

Administrative officials, other enforcement officials, 

Prosecutors, Judges – civil/administrative courts, Judges – 

criminal courts, Commerce officials, Legal professionals, 

Right holder groups 

USPTO Staff, along with invitational speakers (a senior 

ADA, from the Bronx District Attorney’s Office and 

Assistant Chief of the Waterfront Commission of NY 

Harbor) traveled throughout five cities in China, speaking 

and meeting with over 80 local police officers, 

prosecutors, customs officials and judges. The purpose of 

the workshops was to have U.S. local enforcement 

officials share their experiences investigating and 

prosecuting IP criminal cases in NYC with their 

counterparts in China. In an effort to get China to increase 

criminal IP cases, the discussions in China demonstrated 

the efforts undertaken by U.S. local governments and the 

challenges and obstacles our law enforcement officials 

face in pursuing successful criminal IP cases. 

11/07/06 - 

11/15/06 USPTO 

USPTO GIPA 

Trademarks Program 

Location: Alexandria, VA 

Training Recipients: Trademark officials, Patent officials, 

other 

USPTO Global Intellectual Property Academy (GIPA) 

program provided training to leaders of industrial property 

offices, patent and trademark examiners, and other IP 

experts. 

12/05/06 - 

12/08/06 USPTO 

Source: Intellectual Property Rights Training Program Database: http://www.training.ipr.gov/. See also, Technical 

Cooperation Activities: Information from Members: United States, IP/CW/476/Add.6 (25 October 2006).
Appendix 10: Table 3 

Appendix 10: Table 3 

Technical Assistance Activities 

Provided to China by the European Union 2004-2006 

Beneficiary 

country(ies) 

Title and Date 

of the Event

Organizing 

Agency Description 

China 

China–EU–Japan–IP 

Seminar 

(19 October 2004) 

EUCTP 

This EU–China–Japan IP seminar aimed at joining forces 

with regard to IP enforcement in the context of Design 

Protection and unfair commercial practices 

China Internship 

(July 2005) EUCTP Support to an intern from SIPO to stay with "DG Market" 

in Brussels 

China 

EU–China IP 

Comparative Study 

(15 June – 15 December 

2005) 

EUCTP 

The report documented the European and Chinese practice 

in judicial procedures in handling IPR–related cases 

(Trademark, Patent, Design and Copyright) and compared 

EU practice (UK, France, Germany, Czech Republic) with 

Chinese practices. Please refer to web site 

www.euchinawto.org. 

China 

Pharmaceuticals IPR 

(22 October – 5 

November 2005) 

EUCTP 

The Pharmaceuticals IPR study tour focused on data 

exclusivity, patent term restoration and drug anti–

counterfeiting, as well as the conditions required in China 

for a research–based pharmaceutical industry. The 

delegation visited the UK, France, Belgium and Germany. 

China 

EU–China IP WG 

Briefing Pack 

(7 November – 15 

December 2005) 

EUCTP 

The first EU–China IP Working Group meeting took place 

on 18 October 2005 in Beijing. The meeting brought 

together Chinese officials from a range of ministries linked 

to IPR, EU IPR experts and representatives from the 

European pharmaceutical industry. To support the Group 

meeting and facilitate the dialogue, the EUCTP translated 

the meeting documents and compiled a Briefing Pack. The 

documentation is accessible on the web site of the EUCTP 

encrypted with password. 

China Standards and IPR 

(April – July 2006) EUCTP 

This activity is a fact–finding exercise that examines the 

relationship between IPRs and standards and sheds light on 

policy scenarios in this area. The study was launched on 1 

April 2006. The final draft report will be submitted on 

31 July 2006 and will be disseminated to the beneficiaries 

once reviewed and translated. 

China 

Trademark and Copyright 

Seminar 

(7 June 2006) 

EUCTP 

A seminar was held in Beijing addressing the problems of 

Trademark and Copyrights violations in Beijing Retail 

Markets. 
Appendix 10: Table 3 

Beneficiary 

country(ies) 

Title and Date 

of the Event

Organizing 

Agency Description 

China 

IP Judges Training 

(August – September 

2006) 

EUCTP 

The EUCTP is supporting the National Judges College in 

designing training activities intended to build capacity and 

enhance the skills of approximately 270 judges in civil IP 

courts, including but not limited to civil procedures in 

infringement cases, interim injunctions, trademark and 

copyright infringements on the Internet, trade secrets and 

software infringements. EUCTP is currently identifying 

European judges and specialized senior attorneys to deliver 

their training, which is due to take place in the last week of 

September. 

China 

Support to the EU–China 

IPR Dialogue 

(1 November 2005 – 15 

August 2008) 

EUCTP 

The EUCTP will continue to support the activities 

undertaken under the IPR Working Group and specifically 

will follow up on the recommendations raised by the EU–

China IPR Comparative Study. 

Source: Technical Cooperation Activities: Information from Members: European Communities, IP/C/W/476/Add.5 

(13 December 2006). 
Appendix 10: Table 4

ID Project Name Sponsoring Organization Period Budget (in JPY million) Proj

A.

1

Seminar for Management of China's Public Safety Investigation Team

JICA FY2004

Included in ¥161,206 JICA Contributions to the International Cooperation Organizations Management Budget

To invite and introduce higSafety departments to Japvarious crimes; activities ovisits to various related fac

2 Technical Cooperation Project (IP Protection) JICA FY2005 - FY2010 ¥32 for FY2005

To hold IP training seminaexperts in Japan through ecollaborative research on Ientry. 

3 Research on China's IP System JETRO FY2002 Included in ¥4.6 Specialists Travel Fund

To send legal experts on IP bilateral legal talks among China' needs to address IP

4 Seminar for Promoting the Use of IP Rights for Practitioners JETRO FY2005 Included in ¥207 Project Funds to Strengthen IP Protection in Foreign Countries

To produce and distribute Companies and Informatiosupervisors at local busineHangzhou, Shanghai, Gua(in Wuhan, Chengdu) throu

5 Japan-China IP Protection Improvement Seminar

Japan Chamber of Commerce and Industry in China, JETRO

FY2004

Included in ¥180 Project to Strengthen IP Protection against Counterfeits in Foreign Countries

To promote the publication Fujian, Beijing, Henan, Jiaproduction and their sales 

6

Japan Bearing Industrial Association Seminar for China's Customs

JETRO FY2004

Included in ¥180 Project to Strengthen IP Protection against Counterfeits in Foreign Countries

To hold a seminar for Chincooperation with the Japan distribute "Counterfeit Beadetermine bearing counterassociated with counterfeit of counterfeit bearings in CCustoms staff.

Source: Annual Report on Imitations and Pirated Edition by Government Coordination Office, June 2006

Japan's IP Training Programs for China during the Past Five Years 

Programs For the Government of China

published by Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry, and Related Agencies
Appendix 10: Table 4

ID Project Name Sponsoring Organization Period Budget (in JPY million) Proj

Source: Annual Report on Imitations and Pirated Edition by Government Coordination Office, June 2006

Japan's IP Training Programs for China during the Past Five Years 

published by Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry, and Related Agencies

7 Technical Conference for China's Industrial Rights Bureau JETRO FY2003 Included in ¥120 Project to Strengthen IP Protection against Counterfeits in Foreign Countries

To introduce Japan's high-examiners for securing and rights in patent applicationwhere slow patent applicatChina.

8 Follow-up Seminars Patent Office FY2004 Included in ¥410 Project to Educate Personnel dealing with Industrial Property Rights To hold a Beijing seminar t

9

Invitational Training to Control Products Violating Intellectual Property Rights

CIPIC, Japan's Customs Office FY2005 Included in ¥16 Contract for Economic Cooperation Research To invite Chinese Customs 

TRIPs rules.

B.

10 Project To Train IP Translators JETRO FY2004 Included in ¥878 Demonstration Project to Form Leading Investment Environments To establish a Japan-Chin

in China to certify translatoissues, which is one of the 

11

Creating Network and Membership Support for Personnel Training with the Guangzhou IP Research Society

JETRO FY2003 - FY2004 Included in ¥840 Contract to Support Harmonized Trade Investments

To send specialists to help Japanese companies liaisomember companies' underorganizational structures to Research Organization (prOrganization has strong wgovernment organizations 

12

Assistance to Protect Intellectual Property in Computer Software in Dalian

JETRO FY2004 - FY2005 Included in ¥922 Contract to Support Harmonized Trade Investments

To hold seminars for softwinformation management sbusiness from Japan durinspecialists to hold seminarfor software companies.

13 Training in IP Rights AOTS FY2004 - FY2005 Included in ¥185 Cooperative Training for Harmonized Trade Investments

To hold seminars for Beijinhelp improve their capabiliapplications and their respcounterfeits. 

Programs For the China's Private Sector
Appendix 10: Table 4

ID Project Name Sponsoring Organization Period Budget (in JPY million) Proj

Source: Annual Report on Imitations and Pirated Edition by Government Coordination Office, June 2006

Japan's IP Training Programs for China during the Past Five Years 

published by Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry, and Related Agencies

14 Personnel Training Support for Shanghai-Area Patent Offices JETRO FY2003 Included in ¥871 Cooperative Training for Harmonized Trade Investments To send specialists to help 

patent offices in the ShangJapanese companies have 

15 Licensing System Training AOTS FY2003 Included in ¥186 Cooperative Training for Harmonized Trade Investments To provide seminars to ow

companies (in Beijing and importance of the licensing 

16 Market Economy Training (Management of Trademarks) AOTS FY2003 - FY2005 Included in ¥5,974 Economy/Commerce Personnel Training Program To hold invitational semina

sector personnel to help imcapabilities.

17 JPO/IPR Training (Chinese Patent Special Course) Patent Office FY2005

Included in: (1) ¥69 Private-Sector IP Consolidation Cooperation Program; and (2) 

¥410 Industrial Property Right Personnel Training 

Programs

To hold training sessions tIP in general through: lectusystem; preparation of detaoffice actions; application cand the use of patent infor

18 JPO/IPR Training (Chinese Practitioner Course) Patent Office FY2004 - FY2005

Included in: (1) ¥69 Private-Sector IP Consolidation Cooperation Program; and (2) 

¥410 Industrial Property Right Personnel Training 

Programs

To hold invitational training 

sector personnel to help thstrategy and its applicabilitprocedures; and other impissues) at companies throu

19 Chinese IP Assets Management Training AOTS FY2004 - FY2005 Included in ¥5,974 Assistance Training Program for Economic/Commerce Manpower To hold invitational training 

sector personnel to help imcapability.

20 Digital Cinema Training AOTS FY2004 Included in ¥185 Cooperative Training, including Harmonized Trade Investments

To hold invitational training contents, contents selectiomost current movie projectprotection and conducting contracts.

21 Licensee Training Program AOTS FY2004 - FY2005 Included in ¥185 Cooperative Training, including Harmonized Trade Investments

To hold invitational seminaprevention of unfair compebusiness dealings through counterfeits.
Appendix 10: Table 4

ID Project Name Sponsoring Organization Period Budget (in JPY million) Proj

Source: Annual Report on Imitations and Pirated Edition by Government Coordination Office, June 2006

Japan's IP Training Programs for China during the Past Five Years 

published by Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry, and Related Agencies

22 Asia Contents Industry Training AOTS FY2005 Included in ¥5,974 Assistance Training Program for Economic/Commerce Manpower

To hold invitational training discussions on Japan's coindustry, to promote contensystems to produce conten

23 Training for Copyright Protection under Digital Environment WIPO, Agency for Cultural Affairs FY2005 Included in ¥5,974 Assistance Training Program for Economic/Commerce Manpower To provide lectures on cop

enforcement officials, who policy. 

C.

24

International Commercial Laws Symposium (IP Enforcement Activities and Challenges in Asia)

The Ministry of Justice

FY2002 - FY2003

¥3 for China, Singapore, Malaysia, Philippines, Thailand, Australia, and Japan

Held international symposifocusing on the state of IP cooperation of JETRO.

25 Group Seminar (on International IP Rights)

JICA, Comparative Law Research Center

FY2000 - FY2004

Included in ¥161,206 JICA Contribution for China, Thailand, Indonesia, Philippines, 

Cambodia, and Others

To provide outlines of key transfers, and IP rights to son technology transfers.

26 ASEM Trade Harmonization Plan

MOFA, METI, MOF, and Others

FY2000 - FY2004

No Specific Budget Established. For ASEM Countries

To hold seminars to help improtection need to seminar and private-sectors. 

27 Group Training (on Customs Administration) JICA, Japan Customs FY2000 - FY2005 Included in ¥161,206 JICA Contribution for China, Cambodia, India, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, and Others To introduce Japan's custo

developing countries, while providing comparative studcustoms systems.

28 Group Training (on Copyright System) JICA, Agency for Cultural Affairs FY1998 - FY2005 Included in ¥160,077 JICA Contribution for China, Columbia, Indonesia, Malawi, Panama, Peru, and Thailand To help promote copyright

practical training for copyrigovernment officials, organpurposes of copyrights.

29 Training Course (on Protection of Plant Growers' Rights) JICA, MAFF FY2000 - FY2004

Included in ¥161,206 JICA Contribution for China, Thailand, Indonesia, Malaysia, 

Philippines, Vietnam, Argentina, Bangladesh, Bolivia, Kenya, Mauritius, India, Pakistan, Zimbabwe, Brazil, and Costa Rica

To help government officiarights through seminars on knowledge/technologies on 

30 Training Course (on Protection of Plant Species) JICA, MAFF FY2005 Included in ¥160,007 JICA Contribution for China, Philippines, Vietnam, Argentina, Kenya, Zimbabwe, and Mozambique To help government officia

plant species through semknowledge/technologies on 

Programs for Multiple Countries including China
Appendix 10: Table 4

ID Project Name Sponsoring Organization Period Budget (in JPY million) Proj

Source: Annual Report on Imitations and Pirated Edition by Government Coordination Office, June 2006

Japan's IP Training Programs for China during the Past Five Years 

published by Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry, and Related Agencies

31 Group Training (on APEC Industrial Property Rights) JICA, Patent Office FY2002 - FY2005 Included in ¥160,007 JICA Contribution for China, Thailand, Indonesia, Philippines, Vietnam, Papua New Guinea, and Peru To help train personnel on 

expand the systems' applic

32 Group Training (on APEC Industrial Property Rights) JICA, Patent Office FY2000 - FY2001 ¥17 Contribution for China, Thailand, Indonesia, Philippines, Vietnam and Others To help train government p

establishment/managemensystems within the APEC r

33 Invitational Training for IP Counterfeits Control CIPIC, Japan's Customs Office FY2004 ¥18 Contribution for China, Thailand, Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, Vietnam, Cambodia, Myanmar, and Laos To contribute to a better ha

through inviting developing to promote TRIPs rules.

34

International Symposium on Copyrights and Related Rights for the Asia Pacific Region

WIPO, Agency for Cultural Affairs

FY2000 - FY2005

Included in ¥52 Asia-Region Copyright Promotion Project for China, Indonesia, Philippines, Vietnam, Mongolia, Fiji and Asia Pacific Countries

To hold an international coPacific regions. 

35 Special Training Program in Tokyo WIPO, Agency for Cultural Affairs FY2000 - FY2005 Included in ¥52 Asia-Region Copy Right Promotion Project for Bhutan, Cambodia, China, Malaysia, Mongolia, Sri Lanka, and Vietnam To hold annual training pro

developing countries in the 

36

Asia / Pacific Copyrights and Related Rights Seminar (Tokyo Seminar)

Agency for Cultural Affairs, CRIC

FY2000 - FY2005 ¥6 for ASEAN, China, Korea

To hold an international secopyright officials from the exchange information on p

37 Industrial Property Rights Training Program AOTS FY2000 - FY2002

Included in ¥169 Contribution to Harmonize Trade Investments for China, Thailand, Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, Vietnam, and others

To hold invitational seminamanagement, responses to systems for participants (cpatent attorneys).

38 WIPO Training (Enforcement Course) WIPO, Patent Office FY2000 - FY2005

Included in: (1) ¥178 International IP Agencies Contribution; and (2) ¥410 Industrial IP Personnel Training Program for China, Thailand, 

Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, Vietnam, India, and Pakistan

To hold invitational seminabasic IP rights, how to respnegative impacts from pateon IP infringements. Particpolice, and customs staff f

39 WIPO Training (Computerization Course) WIPO, Patent Office FY2000 - FY2005

Included in: (1) ¥178 International IP Agencies Contribution; and (2) ¥410 Industrial IP Personnel Training Program for China, Thailand, 

Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, Vietnam, India, Laos, and Sri Lanka

To hold invitational seminaunderstanding of patent syfrom developing countries, computerization.
Appendix 10: Table 4

ID Project Name Sponsoring Organization Period Budget (in JPY million) Proj

Source: Annual Report on Imitations and Pirated Edition by Government Coordination Office, June 2006

Japan's IP Training Programs for China during the Past Five Years 

published by Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry, and Related Agencies

40 WIPO Training (Inspector Course) WIPO, Patent Office FY2000 - FY2005

Included in: (1) ¥178 International IP Agencies; and (2) ¥410 Industrial IP Personnel Training Program Contribution for China, Thailand, Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, Vietnam, Bhutan, Iran, and Mongolia

To hold invitational training developing countries on: inIP; specialist knowledge foamong responsible agenciharmonization; and the imp

41 WIPO Training (Administration Course) WIPO, Patent Office FY2000 - FY2005

Included in: (1) ¥178 International IP Agencies Contribution; and (2) ¥410 Industrial IP Personnel Training Program for China, 

Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, Thailand, Vietnam, Papa New Guinea, Bangladesh, Cambodia, India, Laos, Mongolia, Myanmar, Nepal, and Sri Lanka

To hold invitational training developing countries on thsystems, improved managdisseminating a better undcountries. 

42 JPO / IPR Training (Corporate Managers Course) Patent Office FY2000 - FY2004

Included in: (1) ¥69 IP Assets Private-Sector Cooperation Project; and (2) ¥410 Industrial IP Personnel Training Program for China, Thailand, 

Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, and Vietnam 

To hold invitational seminaimproving knowledge aboucorporate-level through leccompanies.

43 JPO / IPR Training (Lawyers' Course) Patent Office FY2000 - FY2005

Included in: (1) ¥69 IP Assets Private-Sector Cooperation Project; and (2) ¥410 Industrial IP Personnel Training Program for China, Thailand, 

Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, Vietnam, Mexico, and India

To hold invitational seminaanalysis of IP legal systemfor determining patent violacases to help a better unde

44 JPO / IPR Training (IP Trainers' Course) Patent Office FY2000 - FY2005

Included in: (1) ¥69 IP Assets Private-Sector Cooperation Project; and (2) ¥410 Industrial IP Personnel Training Program for China, Thailand, 

Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, Vietnam, Cambodia, India, and Laos

To hold invitational training knowledge and approachepresentations and exchangexperiences.

45 JPO / IPR Training (Practitioners' Course) Patent Office FY2000 - FY2005

Included in: (1) ¥69 IP Assets Private-Sector Cooperation Project; and (2) ¥410 Industrial IP Personnel Training Program, for China, Thailand, 

Indonesia, Philippines, Vietnam, and India

To hold invitational training comprehensive understandinternational patent agreemlaws, patent application prapractices.
Appendix 10: Table 4

ID Project Name Sponsoring Organization Period Budget (in JPY million) Proj

Source: Annual Report on Imitations and Pirated Edition by Government Coordination Office, June 2006

Japan's IP Training Programs for China during the Past Five Years 

published by Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry, and Related Agencies

46 JPO / IPR Training (Patent Specialists' Course) Patent Office FY2000 - FY2005

Included in: (1) ¥69 IP Assets Private-Sector Preparation Cooperation Project; and (2) ¥410 Industrial IP Personnel Training Program for China, Thailand, Indonesia, Philippines, Vietnam, and India

To hold invitational training understanding about patenlectures and discussions oprepare details and drawinleading technologies and ppatent information.

47 APIC Training (Managers' Training Course) Japan Institute of Invention and Innovation FY2004 Included in ¥501 for China, Thailand, Indonesia, Malaysia, Vietnam, India, and Mexico To hold invitational semina

help improve their knowledwithin their companies thromanagement and discussi

48 Long-Term IP Research Fellowship Program Patent Office FY2001 - FY2005 Included in ¥ 410 Industrial Property Personnel Training Program for China, Thailand, and Vietnam To hold invitational semina

governments, as well as coPacific region countries ne

49 Asia Pacific Region Workshop WIPO / Patent Office FY2004

Included in ¥178 International IP Rights Organizations Contribution for Japan, Bangladesh, Cambodia, China, India, Indonesia, 

Iran, Laos, Malaysia, Mongolia, Pakistan, Papua New Guinea, Korea, Singapore, Sri Lanka, Thailand, Vietnam, and Philippines

To help Asia Pacific region disseminating information accurate system to protect application process; the ussimplification of IP adminisunder a workshop titled "CTechnologies and IP rights

50 Asia Pacific Region Workshop WIPO / Patent Office FY2004

Included in ¥178 International IP Rights Organizations Contribution for Japan, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, China, India, Indonesia, 

Iran, Malaysia, Maldives, Nepal, Philippines, Korea, Sri Lanka, Thailand, and Singapore

To hold regional workshopprotecting international IP the Madrid System's econo

51 Asia Pacific Region Workshop WIPO / Patent Office FY2004

Included in ¥178 International IP Rights Organizations Contribution for Japan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Cambodia, China, Fiji, 

India, Indonesia, Iran, Laos, Malaysia, Mongolia, Myanmar, Nepal, Pakistan, Papa New Guinea, Philippines, Korea, Thailand, Singapore, and Vietnam

To hold regional workshopUse" to help promote coopagencies, universities, and 
Appendix 10: Table 4

ID Project Name Sponsoring Organization Period Budget (in JPY million) Proj

Source: Annual Report on Imitations and Pirated Edition by Government Coordination Office, June 2006

Japan's IP Training Programs for China during the Past Five Years 

published by Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry, and Related Agencies

52 Asia Pacific Region Symposium WIPO / Patent Office FY2005

Included in ¥178 International IP Rights Organizations Contribution for Japan, Malaysia, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Brunei, Cambodia, China, Fiji, India, Indonesia, Iran, Laos, Mongolia, Myanmar, Nepal, Pakistan, Papua New Guinea, Philippines, Korea, Samoa, Singapore, Sri Lanka, Thailand, Tonga, and Vietnam

To hold seminars for: effecbuilding through strong cooagencies; improving staff kpolice departments by provsharing information on IP eadministration. 

53 International Forum WIPO / Patent Office FY2005

Included in ¥178 International IP Rights Organizations Contribution for Japan, China, 

Korea, Singapore, Malaysia, India, Indonesia, Philippines, Thailand, Vietnam, Cambodia, Mongolia, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Brunei, Fiji, Iran, Laos, Maldives, Myanmar, Nepal, Pakistan, Papua New Guinea, Samoa, Tonga, Afghanistan, the U.S., EPO, Cameroon, Kenya, Nigeria, South Africa, Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Morocco, Brazil, Chile, and Jamaica

To help create a mutual undeveloped countries and dintroduces and discusses vfoster a "IP System for Eco

54 Industrial Property Rights Training Program AOTS FY2004

Included in ¥6,021 Project to Educate Personnel for Economic/Commercial Development in Cambodia, China, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, 

Myanmar, Mongolia, Laos, and Vietnam

To hold invitational training rights for Asian companies

 Abbreviations: JICA = Japan International Cooperation Agency

JETRO = Japan External Trade Organization

CIPIC = Customs Intellectual Property Information Center

AOTS = The Association for Overseas Technical Scholarship

MOFA = The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan

METI = Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry of Japan

MOF = Ministry of Finance Japan
Appendix 10: Table 5 

Appendix 10: Table 5 

Ha Noi Action Plan 

Digital Economy and IPR 

Schedule of Activities 

Elements On-going Actions Future Actions Timeframe Capacity-Building

AntiCounterfeit 

and Piracy

• Implement existing three 

Model Guidelines for 

Anti counterfeiting and 

Piracy 

• Develop additional 

Model Guidelines on 

Effective IPR Public 

Awareness Campaign 

and Model Guidelines on 

Keeping Supply Chains 

against Counterfeit and 

Pirated Goods 

• Cooperation and identify 

customs and law 

enforcement contacts 

from each economy 

• Advance proposal for 

government agencies to 

use legitimate software 

and other copyright 

materials 

• Continue to 

implement the 

existing model 

guidelines and 

develop new ones, 

where appropriate

• Report on 

implementation of 

the APEC Effective 

Practices for 

Regulations Related 

to Optical Disc 

Production 

• Strengthen 

collaboration with 

the private sector 

and other 

stakeholders, 

including ABAC 

• Conduct training on combating 

counterfeit medicines and 

medical devices 

• Capacity building for custom 

officers in preventing 

counterfeit goods 

• Capacity building to relevant 

parties responsible for 

conducting public awareness 

campaign 

• Workshop to exchange 

experience on the issue of 

supply chain intellectual 

property infringement, and 

capacity building to relevant 

parties in the supply chain in 

order to secure supply chains 

against counterfeit and pirated 

goods 

IPR Service 

Centers 

• Complete exchange of 

information on IPR 

enforcement points of 

contact and IPR websites 

• Establish a website in 

each economy to provide 

basic factual IPR-related 

information 

• IPR toolkits 

• Improve the 

operations of IPR 

Services Centers via 

sharing best 

practices 

• APEC consolidated 

Internet Portal on 

IPR Services in 

member economies 

2006-2008

• Training and seminar on 

operation of IPR Services 

Center 

• Promote private sector inputs 

for IPR protections and 

enforcement 

Promoting 

Trade in 

Digital 

Economy

• Establish Technology 

Choice Principles 

Pathfinder 

• Share experiences in 

implementing 

technology choices 

principles 

• Workshops, seminars 
Appendix 10: Table 5 

Elements On-going Actions Future Actions Timeframe Capacity-Building

Other IPR 

Initiatives

• Strengthen IPR in SME 

through holding joint 

seminar between IPEG 

and SME, including 

women SMEs 

• Strengthen intellectual 

property protection for 

life sciences 

• The Auto Dialogue 

adopted Best Practices 

Paper on IPR issues in 

the automotive sector 

• Share best practices 

in IPR protection 

and enforcement for 

SMEs 

• Training workshops 

on anticounterfeiting of 

pharmaceuticals and 

medical devices. 

• Share experiences 

on the 

implementation of 

Best Practices Paper 

on IPR issues in the 

automotive sector 

2007 – 2008

• Educational training seminars 

and other events 

• Two training workshops on 

LSIF anti-counterfeiting 

• Workshop, seminars 

Source: Ha Noi Action Plan to Implement the Busan Roadmap Towards the Bogar Goals – Final; 

http://www.mofa.go.jp/policy/economy/apec/2006/action.pdf. 
APPENDIX 

11 
1JD5$~lRtz:tJ(1*t?Iit mJtt'§U#JT~~ffiJ!i&
 

-.11: "~pj(%JiRFfj(f*t?!:§-gUiJTit:l:i;" J:.l¥J~~jf

j* 11 &
 

( 2007iF3 13 2813 ) 

~~EfJ~{lL*~" ~1.v.Jj}tbz, :9:±1f1, 1G~{f1:

J:.lf~!

~F'M~~~1Jn*?Xit:l:~, ~i,lt'±V}1J1J!~m~, R~1Im:~"

"me "%IiHFfj(1*t? ~-gU1JT" ±~, !:§ ~{lL 1?*" *~,,~ ~:itt1T

1*i10 

tr.$ilLT J:f:l *$iff1~~*tr~jfj i:Jtl !~IZ, oo±IID~R 10.26 

JJ3fJJ0m, S~OO1.06%; J~"AD7549]JA, S~OO5.7%, A 

1J@;~7J~OOZ~; l"~13/j'~'~m" 1061'-lfr (m" IX) 0 ¥I

~~~-t-~£i1f*~, :t1¥-GDPJt1i2.1]J{Z7G, S~OOl/10, A~

Jt1i3500~7Go 1I~R:~1'3fnJ(*~', ~2181'OO*fO!&IXJ!iL T 

~~**, ~~:it1t±i DJg,Wt28401Z~7G, 7~~1i~f9::otMi174{Z

~7G, S~~1/4~J:.o 7~1f1jj9::6t1Eibm 6 »s: ~275*.i!t3'f.500

5i1E~:tErr~19:~o tr~X£-l'f4~A7J*~, r@j~119?Jr,

:tEt2~140JJA, ,@~OO~-; f4-UJfm~38oo~1', f4~AP3.36

7J, iI~fiW3~~±300~~, r:5~~1¥J1/4, :{fu~I¥JP9~J~~±

-1­
~90A, ~OO~37Jjf3U~o

1J05$9q]i~p:*;Z1*:f?, ~%~:Jt*f4t1 § 3:.-frH~JfI¥J1W1!:fO'1*~!,

ift~~:f? ~~m~~~:£f:tJifQ0Sf5t$J~tl!¥J~1itlHi.lf~o -t~Jt-A

~*,tt~~~~~m9q]*~U'1*~I~,~~~~~~~~~

mJif-frU ¥JT~ 111J!1&8"J ~~pq ~, 1tJg "rti1Ettt~" "ifiX 

ffltt$"~~~m~w~,~~~mm~~~,g~0Sf5t$$

~~~~~~nOO,~~~~~~~~m~~~~~§~,~m

~{e:$~~1.v.~iH~tj(-frlJm~ '1*:f?, fJjfflfP~!'fj~j]~~JL"

1J05;~Jff~iR~tj(~!!~~~ 1!:~0~~~%-7j(SfJgmJ8, ~j]J!

iL~m:f:mg2i*1*fljU*§m~, !:§g2i**±~~Ji*§~iffiJ, !:§OO~~.mYllj

;f§~~B"J~i,R~tj(I1t~!!1*fljUf0J61-rmfljU , ~i,R~tJZI1"FX~t.

~~~~,~~~~m~,~~~*~*,~~8Mtt~o

-,~~~m~~I~m~~~!:§~~~~

~i,R~tj(I1t~~'t15!lL itV&Ifij~~, ~fIJ, ~*JZ~±'~Wfl,

i±ttV&m~, 0~, rt~Jt~~r!~rttJl*, II&Jff£,3.In1Jn5;g13.gR~J!·

~fpgJ.c~~iffiJo I 1t~, ft1fJ±~1JR 7 fm-"/'15W: -~lm5;g13.g,R

~J! ~o ~~Jffft~tl!~fo~mffi$:f:mg2r*~ff~~ ~/j\g13.*[~ T ~iL1* 

~~~~~I~m,~~~~~m~~~~~~I~o=£~~

~fFmfljljo 1JQ5jmtZg)!i~, ~'~ ~'~ffi~&60%~J:.!l- (m, IX) 

~iL.~lR~;fj(~o ~m!l-lf)j~ffi Jl&tj(~i3rl~iL7*§~~!'m~~

1ArtlY\1fi.o ~~m~iL T E825-"/'$rlg13.mtfJ%liR~~lf*nl~iS[~J

~,%~~Wrl*§1L~GS8"Jii1'1tmf!jUo ~j]05;'fljU~J!~o ~'£

-2­
h'mfflT ~*r*-±/7tJ05;~i,RP:fJ.I1t!¥J~.m~" ~*~7fJi~

m~~~~~~fi~~~£~~*~~#,~~reFmrr*~m

~mF~fi~"g~_m~~~~mp:~~~~~~,~~g~

~~m 11 ~BIj~JT-gIJ11(f,f:tl" ~)li&-gU~JT~ ~~ffif~{#~ 1J~~~~*

~pq~o IZ!H~:)rz7fJi'§1~~)(~m~o n~'fJjffl "tlt:W-~iR;n:fJ.

B" ~atm, 7fJ&~1?~i,R;n:fJ.~1~~"~1?~iR;n:fJ.m51~J~W:

~$i9J, 5Eitlj~;ffi"%JiRFtj(1*?5ts~-ts,~~\~ "1*i?%liRFifJ., 

~ffirP:l:m~ff" ~.3::~~m !!tt±:g:iJllfJI, tE~~g~_m%li,Rp:

fJ." 1*1?~iR;n:fJl.E81:&~~li 0 

=" ~1ilBafHjftIE8 ~.tffJ}jBU~JTIT)t* rPJ 

-gU*JT~f+~tt*~m~~J~\~ 1J*O~Jt\'(f11H, miRFfJ.~f4

ttffl~E8~~~~.m~oft~~M~~~~~~_~~,m~

#tt~~~~m;n:~~~o-~m~m~;n:~~~~Mtt~~o

~xtt;n:~*Q.3::~1T~~~~D, tE$~I" ~~R" m~" 1tI" 

~~,,~~,,~~~~m;n:~~~rr~-m~~&~,m*wtt

. *.tIJ~~1J; tE~t:.!Jmtt*" 1§/~,tt*" *JT~t*4*ol2S~" ¥JT~~1~

~~*JTtt*&~JT~;n:~tVl±~1J05$~iRFfJl.-gU~, fJtfr~Jt\~$11 

*oxt*~;n:~EtJ*~1J; ~st, ffml.m~t<~*o~~~~1500EI"J

%liRFifJl.1*t?I1t, m*fJTt<B)!i9:&~jl*lJ;~~" JJF~bt~~

~~~~,m*~~~~~~tio=~~W~~~~~~~ox

~~~~~~A,tt*rr~~ffl~~$limm*m*~15~~T

t~~*~1~; x~l£~~iL~~m~, ~~m~f4ttA.D1~~~~

-3­
~Ime~tr~~#.m~mm~~~m~~~;~~~~~~

m~~~~&*Am~,M~~~*$~mh#~m~~~~~

#JTiJ:\$Ij&frJ§?X~rPJm:f:mas~£, II&Jff:itt1T§m~WG1TW;]o £51 

~iH~t)(-fru 0 ~II&M*T~1mJJflJiIEJttf4it-fru#JT'fru ~50~II&*

$, »..xt~~*1j$1~ ~.x~m~it**~IfE~Jl:~1JOO,SA1iJ§T 

rl~~~~*o 1I~~8tiI3t*~:ff{B15rTh#~~Ji~~~, ~1))JJJ1£~

~~15~~~~OO~~o~~,~~~~~*~~Fmm~~,

Smf~~J:.I~f=1Hl¥Jtm5J\.z-; ~*Ij$i~.5.3~14-~ ~t)(.

1.9]j14-; 3ffl~1:f}jf~ffffl~5o 8.7~1tt- $ OO~fuij ~*~6314-, $ 00;g 

J1$f=£ 1531tt- ( ~g:n:p ~t~J'f·ijJ1$F6b 11tt- ), ;g<B:1Ji.,@:@:OOmJIJ 0 

-~3t*~m~~m*~~~F~~

~~~.~~~~$h~§~,~*Mitm*~~~A,*

*~mF~~*~~~~f=n~~o~~~n~~~~§~~~

as~iRf=lJ(fi~JI~*~1tm*1j 0 »,,2004!if:~, ~'~Rti9:iL~*f41X~

*~~~~~~,X~~~~~~~~~~m*#1X~*$ffl~

F~1t, ~mgJ~~~{B1881'~§, ,gJ9:A2281Z7G, Jffi§}j~Jl~jm~

~~~W~8~o=~~n**F~ffl~~o~~~~~~~~

f4{jJf~Jlml¥J~fF, mZ9Jr§j~ f4~JfrsJGpJrIE~~~fQmJ~i~*1iJ§JE

~Jl:m~,%~~~ffl~~~#~~~o ~~nH~~~.M

1t~r~o "~rsJG~~~$~" (~OOf4~~~ ~OOIf¥~~ i~

:1¥*~, ~t**~~ *41X$~ ~IDJf-J.I~) JliL T~~B\J~fF~ *, f~f&~ ~* JfJlRJ~f41t-fru~JTij}fF, ~~tt*OO~*41t?)tmE

-4­
!:§tr1~, Q-& 51 TJIj;J3\J~J*J)7~%JiJ:Uil:fJ.Ji~Jf~=1±1I~$~1-to [gJl~

n~~~~~~~tt*~~m~o*h~*tt*x~m~~~~

M,~~a~$~,~m~~~*o~~,~~~~tt*tr~M

1)]~:rm, m~~1201GTGo

tm" t~~~i-RP:*J.1A1t7j(5¥

J]O*1A1!j]l!t, *ltFmtTm1~~~miJ~F*Xit1t~~n1TiJ,

~%Ii,Rrz:*Jl.I 1tl¥J~~P'J~o ~J~:tJR:fFli 1'lJOO: ~~j]Qsj1!~~

~¥~~o~~T(tt~~~~~~~~fi~~~)~~~~~

tt~m,~~~~0~,,~~o~~T~mrz:~fi~~~*~~

~,,~*~~~oc,~~1A~I~~~~,~m~o=~~~1A

~lli~~~~o~~T(ft~~~!:§m*~~ffim~J3\JI~.

m) , J]QsjI ~" h&fJ." to 1T~:tm 1'1 !:§ 0~" ~~" 1t~~ P] 

iti:tmrlEJ{J~1tf=.f$~, tJOsj !:§)7~~mEJ{JWfF@c~, ~iL~1t:tmrl11J

1~~Jl~J" m*~1tf=.~~1H1*mftJu" If*~v}~mfIJU, mzw~iRrz:fJl.

tAitiI1t" 1'~~~" : EE1~rPJm "~Jt\l'f$" 1¥J±~l~~, EEl 

~~~~~~~tA~~~,ffi~~~~~w~~~~~~~o~

~j]tJ*li1tiffiJJ3\J*±~~fiftJ~it~fitJ~oJtiL~iRrz:*J.~*

~w$JC}, i&~ "12312" ~*f:§3lio 1Z9~~I~lEh&lE~~j:tB)!

iio ntii1?T1B-~lEJtOC-M-1~~ffi*, #rPJ$~, ~~t3tJ1t, *ffl J!~~lJ~\JJJlffiif1~H~U6bg~g1TJg ,3tJ1ttn*" :1£~~fflIEJt&$x1tfo

liJl~$H~~~~,,~~,,~~Jgm~~~mrz:~~~~~fi

~o ~!rf., ~~1ti~~lfrE!~" =$%JiRrz:fJ.~1tj:.100o§'1tf=.,

-5­
5fIJ1TI&1A1!fJl*~~J!~14:8414:, ~f~~~fJl*~fir~:g~g?20 

Jj-t-, ~~flJjJb~~ mt~9000§-t-, ~:1ttf§jt~1~t~f~1~ ~14:1000

§~,fl~~~7~m~~~~A~~~~o

Ii" -tJJ~1Jo5!iB~%-1*%dti&

fJt~~iR~tJ.fE:E17j(5JZ,&:\3Jl~it~1j:, 1JOJt*JtiLiI~*±~

1t" \XXJ~1t!¥.J ~iR~tJ.~~%-1** 0 -~ff~~iRrz:tJ.0~n~%-5JZ

€:I )1i9: 0 *~ J!~ ~Ij" [fJj*3F" hRtX*~] iRf=fX1BI~' \ 1!1f1~L~, " 

mtmf~J~,fQn~%-f~J~,+-1*ft-J~~0~{~J~'~~~SjZ~, )tiL7$ 

)t~fl3?t~5fU" ~~~~5fIj" ~iRrz:tJ.n~~m~" 1!1$1!~" ~1Jtl"

oo~~~mrz:~~I~~*~~$~7~~mW,%~700~~

~"f1<J0~1~,~JxXl~5f€l0 =~ffm%JiR~tJ.f\;fln~%-m~~i&o

~~~~~.~~m~fi*~~~~~"it~~~~~%~,~

d}%JiRrz:tJZ.ijl[%-fJl~, ~w%~t~f)jE~f1<J~iRrz:tJ.Rfl" f~J@'

~im" f=tJ.x~" ~rz:~fEfl" )Xl~19:~~]I[%-m~~1*%o -~ff

~~tf1T~11J~8"JfFffl 0 ~m1T~11J~tfjt~f=~~J&" 1JE*1T 

~~~~OO8"JfFffl,~~fi~~mrz:~~~\~~,,~ffl~~,

~~ff~%Jmrz:~~g~M"li$,,~em~o

~lW, tr.$A~GDPm3500~JG, J~,1*LBwAmtm1tjG~

M" I~1t~ID!M" tP.Xm 1ttJl]itMfQg~jjfOO~1tf~ft-JtA 0 tt**

2V7j(¥" 3:.-g0~JT§~~~~79~~1j:" ~~zf§'jPloJ~rJf~-g.~

~n~~~~8"Jm~z-oft~~~~~{tr~~~~f=~~~

~;Olli~~~ 79±~, ffil~~iRf=t)[E~~JT" ~fl" ~1P" It5c*" 0 

-6­
~~~3} __ tiA/\*1*%.JtiL, *trtiltt~iJ~P:t)[I1t!:§ ~~y1f IfF 

~*g~~__ fttiliL9J, j]O*1Til&~rH¥]1t:1*jpj]JJt, t&tt:Frntrili 

~18~iRP:f)[*1t:18W1TJg, Jg~:tJjJJJ § :=t'frlJJfJT -- gti?f)[fIJA.~1t:

fJl.~fl~~tJ1*~.o

3z"±ff1, )Ic~1fJ:

U~tEj]D5!li~i-RP:fJl.1*i?I fF$, +5J\.m*mxt)7~~Y*~it

~o~~B~~OO__ ~M--B*--~~~OO*~~~~~T~~
 

~5E8"J-g.1t*ffi, !:3~OO~OO~~lf*-g.mJ}]$VJ\ . TwgJEi3"$~( tI " 

1») ~iRtz:~Jl.iBj:i" , ~lJT ~%Ji-RP:fJl.~fFiffiM~~*~, ~"

!&XiitI!~lJT -g.fF~ E*0 *;~*~t/~ JJoll:t?XiBj:il3"J~OO~OO

1YJ~~i1!m~*~TE}j~l'"!f-nJ&ffl*MiI:1t*1Tbt~ijJ'rii], :# 

~~1±~OO~~~JNWJJR*~1tmi-Rf=~Jl.1*1?~i#o tEDt, fX15t~

i1!m~~1TmJ~'Jt~o Plat, fXill~F'ffl'5R¥±~xttfJfrtl~t{Xtaj:~tfJ~

~*M~m~tfJ~~,~~®m~tt$~~~~--~ft~m,~

Jt~7f~tfJtt~.AJ~Jxi9l{$1f1 ! 

~~t~~tk*!

-7­
APPENDIX 

12 
 

 

WORLD TRADE

ORGANIZATION

WT/DS363/1 

G/L/820 

S/L/287 

16 April 2007 

(07-1499) 

Original: English 

CHINA – MEASURES AFFECTING TRADING RIGHTS AND 

DISTRIBUTION SERVICES FOR CERTAIN PUBLICATIONS 

AND AUDIOVISUAL ENTERTAINMENT PRODUCTS 

Request for Consultations by the United States

 The following communication, dated 10 April 2007, from the delegation of the United States 

to the delegation of China and to the Chairman of the Dispute Settlement Body, is circulated in 

accordance with Article 4.4 of the DSU. 

_______________ 

 My authorities have instructed me to request consultations with the Government of the 

People's Republic of China ("China") pursuant to Articles 1 and 4 of the Understanding on Rules and 

Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes ("DSU"), Article XXII of the General Agreement 

on Tariffs and Trade 1994 ("GATT 1994"), and Article XXII of the General Agreement on Trade in 

Services ("GATS") with respect to (1) certain measures that restrict trading rights with respect to 

imported films for theatrical release, audiovisual home entertainment products (e.g., video cassettes 

and DVDs), sound recordings, and publications (e.g., books, magazines, newspapers, and electronic 

publications), and (2) certain measures that restrict market access for, or discriminate against, foreign 

suppliers of distribution services for publications and foreign suppliers of audiovisual services 

(including distribution services) for audiovisual home entertainment products. 

I. Trading rights 

In its protocol of accession to the World Trade Organization ("WTO"),1

 China committed to 

fully open the right to trade (i.e., the right to import goods into China and to export goods from 

China), with some limited exceptions not applicable here, within three years after accession. Despite 

this, various measures of China reserve to certain Chinese state-designated and wholly or partially 

state-owned enterprises the right to import films for theatrical release, audiovisual home entertainment 

products (e.g., video cassettes and DVDs), sound recordings, and publications (e.g., books, 

magazines, newspapers, and electronic publications) (collectively, the "Products"). 

In this connection, the measures at issue include the following: 

(1) the Regulations on Administration of the Films Industry2

; 

 1 Protocol on the Accession of the People's Republic of China, WT/L/432, 23 November 2001 (the 

"Accession Protocol"). 2

 State Council Order No. 342, adopted at the 50th executive meeting of the State Council on 

12 December 2001, promulgated on 25 December 2001. 
WT/DS363/1 

G/L/820 

S/L/287 

Page 2 

 

(2) the Provisional Rules on the Entry Criteria for Operating Film Enterprises3

; 

(3) the Administrative Regulation on Publishing4

; 

(4) the Administrative Regulations on Audiovisual Products5

; 

(5) the Catalogue for Guidance of Foreign Investment Industries6

; 

(6) the Several Opinions of the Ministry of Culture, State Administration of Radio, Film and 

Television, General Administration of Press and Publication, National Development and 

Reform Commission and the Ministry of Commerce on Introducing Foreign Investment into 

the Cultural Sector7

; 

(7) the Measures for the Administration of Import of Audio and Video Products8

; 

(8) the Measures for Administration of Chinese Foreign Contractual Distribution Ventures of 

Audiovisual Products9

; 

(9) the Administrative Regulations on Electronic Publications10; and 

(10) the Procedure for Examination and Approval of Establishment of Publication Importation 

Entities11; 

as well as any amendments, related measures, or implementing measures. 

The measures at issue appear not to allow all Chinese enterprises and all foreign enterprises 

and individuals to have the right to import the Products into the customs territory of China. It also 

appears that foreign individuals and enterprises, including those not invested or registered in China, 

are accorded treatment less favourable than that accorded to enterprises in China with respect to the 

right to trade. Accordingly, the measures at issue appear to be inconsistent with China's obligations 

under the provisions of paragraphs 5.1 and 5.2 of Part I of the Accession Protocol,12 as well as China's 

obligations under the provisions of paragraph 1.2 of Part I of the Accession Protocol (to the extent 

that it incorporates commitments in paragraphs 83 and 84 of the Report of the Working Party on the 

 3

 Decree No. 43 of the State Administration of Radio, Film and Television and the Ministry of 

Commerce (10 October 2004). 4

 State Council Order No. 343, adopted at the 50th executive meeting of the State Council on 

12 December 2001, promulgated on 25 December 2001. 5

 State Council Order No. 341, adopted at the 50th executive meeting of the State Council on 

12 December 2001, promulgated on 25 December 2001. 6

 Order [2004] No. 24 of the State Development and Reform Commission, the Ministry of Commerce 

of the People's Republic of China (30 November 2004). 7

 Order [2005] No. 19 of the Ministry of Culture (6 July 2005). 

8

 Decree No. 23 of the Ministry of Culture and the General Administration of Customs (17 April 2002). 

9

 Promulgated by the Ministry of Culture and Ministry of Commerce on 9 February 2004 (superseding 

the measures notified by China in S/C/N/219). 10 Order No. 11 of the General Administration of Press and Publication (30 December 1997). 

11 General Administration of Press and Publication (27 December 2005) (available at: 

www.gapp.gov.cn/GalaxyPortal/inner/zsww/zongsu3.jsp?articleid=4923&boardpid=1450&boardid1=11501010

11150c) (visited on 9 April 2007). 12 The Products are not listed in Annex 2A or Annex 2B of the Accession Protocol. 
WT/DS363/1 

G/L/820 

S/L/287 

Page 3 

 

Accession of China13). The Accession Protocol forms part of the terms of accession agreed between 

China and the WTO and is an integral part of the Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade 

Organization. 

Furthermore, to the extent that the measures at issue impose prohibitions or restrictions other 

than duties, taxes or other charges, on the importation into China of the Products, these measures 

appear to be inconsistent with China's obligations under Article XI:1 of the GATT 1994. 

II. Distribution services

In the Accession Protocol, China made market access and national treatment commitments in 

the distribution services and audiovisual services sectors of its Schedule of Specific Commitments on 

Services (the "Schedule").14 Despite those commitments, various measures of China impose market 

access restrictions or discriminatory limitations on foreign service providers seeking to engage in the 

distribution of publications and certain audiovisual home entertainment products. 

In this connection, the measures at issue include: 

(1) the Administrative Regulation on Publishing15; 

(2) the Administrative Regulations on Audiovisual Products16; 

(3) the Provisions on Guiding the Orientation of Foreign Investment17; 

(4) the Catalogue for Guidance of Foreign Investment Industries18; 

(5) the Several Opinions of the Ministry of Culture, State Administration of Radio, Film and 

Television, General Administration of Press and Publication, National Development and 

Reform Commission and the Ministry of Commerce on Introducing Foreign Investment into 

the Cultural Sector19; 

(6) the Administrative Regulations on Management of Foreign-Invested Book, Magazine and 

Newspaper Distribution Enterprises20; 

(7) the Administrative Regulations on the Publication Market (revised)21; 

 13 WT/MIN(01)/3. 

14 WT/L/432, Annex 9, and WT/MIN(01)/3/Add.2. 

15 State Council Order No. 343, adopted at the 50th executive meeting of the State Council on 

12 December 2001, promulgated on 25 December 2001. 16 State Council Order No. 341, adopted at the 50th executive meeting of the State Council on 

12 December 2001, promulgated on 25 December 2001. 17 Decree [2002] No. 346 of the State Council (11 February 2002). 

18 Order [2004] No. 24 of the State Development and Reform Commission, the Ministry of Commerce 

of the People's Republic of China (30 November 2004). 19 Order [2005] No. 19 of the Ministry of Culture (6 July 2005). 

20 The General Administration of Press and Publication and the Ministry of Foreign Trade and 

Economic Cooperation (17 March 2003). 21 Promulgated by the General Administration of Press and Publication on 16 July 2003, revised on 

16 June 2004. 
WT/DS363/1 

G/L/820 

S/L/287 

Page 4 

 

(8) the Administrative Regulations on Electronic Publications22; 

(9) the Administrative Measures on Subscription of Imported Publications23; 

(10) the Procedure for Examination and Approval of Establishment of Chinese-Foreign Entities, 

Cooperative Joint Ventures, and Wholly Foreign Owned Publication Distribution 

Enterprises24; and 

(11) the Measures for Administration of Chinese Foreign Contractual Distribution Ventures of 

Audiovisual Products25; 

as well as any amendments, related measures, or implementing measures. 

A. Publications (e.g., books, newspapers, periodicals, and electronic publications)

The measures at issue appear to prohibit foreign service suppliers (including wholly or 

partially foreign-owned or foreign-invested enterprises) from engaging at least in a type of 

distribution described in these measures as the "master distribution" of publications. The measures at 

issue also appear to prohibit foreign service suppliers (including wholly or partially foreign-owned or 

foreign-invested enterprises) from engaging at least in the wholesaling of "electronic publications" (a 

term that refers to a subset of publications). Moreover, the measures at issue may extend this 

prohibition more broadly to all distribution of all publications (whether at the "master distribution" 

level or otherwise). Furthermore, to the extent that some foreign service suppliers are allowed to 

engage in some aspects of the distribution of publications, there appear to be discriminatory 

requirements concerning such suppliers' registered capital, such suppliers' operating term, and the 

particular publications that such suppliers may distribute. 

The measures at issue therefore appear to accord treatment to foreign suppliers of distribution 

services for publications treatment less favourable than that accorded to Chinese suppliers of 

distribution services for publications. In Sectors 4A-4E of its Schedule, China undertook market 

access and national treatment commitments with respect to the supply through commercial presence 

in China by service suppliers of other Members of, inter alia, distribution services for publications. 

Moreover, the measures at issue do not appear to fall within the terms, limitations, conditions, or 

qualifications on market access or national treatment that China has specified in its Schedule for the 

distribution of publications through commercial presence in China by service suppliers of other 

Members. Accordingly, the measures at issue appear to be inconsistent with China's obligations 

under Articles XVI and XVII of the GATS. 

B. Audiovisual home entertainment products

The measures at issue appear to prohibit foreign service suppliers (including wholly or 

partially foreign-owned or foreign-invested enterprises) from engaging at least in a type of 

distribution described in these measures as the "master distribution" of audiovisual home 

 22 Order No. 11 of the General Administration of Press and Publication (30 December 1997). 

23 Order No. 27 of the General Administration of Press and Publication (adopted at the fourth 

conference of the General Administration of Press and Publication on 9 September 2004 and published on 

31 December 2004). 24 General Administration of Press and Publication (27 December 2005). 

25 Promulgated by the Ministry of Culture and Ministry of Commerce on 9 February 2004 (superseding 

the measures notified by China in S/C/N/219). 
WT/DS363/1 

G/L/820 

S/L/287 

Page 5 

 

entertainment products such as video cassettes and DVDs ("audiovisual home entertainment 

products"). Moreover, to the extent that foreign services suppliers are permitted to engage in any 

distribution of those products (whether at the "master distribution" level or otherwise), the measures at 

issue appear to impose requirements that the service be supplied through a form of entity that Chinese 

persons control, or in which Chinese persons have a dominant position, or for which there is a 

limitation on the participation of foreign capital. 

The measures at issue therefore appear to accord treatment to foreign suppliers of audiovisual 

distribution services for audiovisual home entertainment products treatment less favourable than that 

accorded to Chinese suppliers of audiovisual distribution services for audiovisual home entertainment 

products, and to impose restrictions on market access on foreign service suppliers of audiovisual 

distribution services for audiovisual home entertainment products. In Sector 2D of its Schedule, 

China undertook market access and national treatment commitments with respect to the supply 

through commercial presence in China by service suppliers of other Members of distribution services 

for a range of products including, inter alia, audiovisual home entertainment products. Moreover, the 

measures at issue do not appear to fall within the terms, limitations, conditions, or qualifications on 

market access or national treatment that China has specified in its Schedule for the distribution of 

such products through commercial presence in China by service suppliers of other Members. The 

measures at issue therefore appear to be inconsistent with China's obligations under Articles XVI and 

XVII of the GATS. 

* * * * * 

The measures cited in this request for consultations also appear to nullify or impair the 

benefits accruing to the United States directly or indirectly under the cited agreements. 

We look forward to receiving your reply to the present request and to fixing a mutually 

convenient date for consultations. 

__________ 
 

 

WORLD TRADE

ORGANIZATION

WT/DS362/1 

IP/D/26 

G/L/819 

16 April 2007 

(07-1498) 

Original: English 

CHINA – MEASURES AFFECTING THE PROTECTION AND 

ENFORCEMENT OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS 

Request for Consultations by the United States

 The following communication, dated 10 April 2007, from the delegation of the United States 

to the delegation of China and to the Chairman of the Dispute Settlement Body, is circulated in 

accordance with Article 4.4 of the DSU. 

_______________ 

 My authorities have instructed me to request consultations with the Government of the 

People's Republic of China ("China") pursuant to Articles 1 and 4 of the Understanding on Rules and 

Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes ("DSU") and Article 64 of the Agreement on TradeRelated Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights ("TRIPS Agreement") (to the extent that Article 64 

corresponds to Article XXII of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994) with respect to 

certain measures pertaining to the protection and enforcement of intellectual property rights in China. 

I. Thresholds for criminal procedures and penalties

The first matter on which the United States requests consultations concerns the thresholds that 

must be met in order for certain acts of trademark counterfeiting and copyright piracy to be subject to 

criminal procedures and penalties. In this regard, the measures at issue include: 

(1) the Criminal Law of the People's Republic of China (adopted at the Second Session of the 

Fifth National People's Congress on 1 July 1979 and revised at the Fifth Session of the Eighth 

National People's Congress on 14 March 1997) ("Criminal Law"), in particular Articles 213, 

214, 215, 217, 218, and 220; and 

(2) measures by the courts and procuratorate that apply throughout China, including the 

Interpretation by the Supreme People's Court and the Supreme People's Procuratorate on 

Several Issues of Concrete Application of Law in Handling Criminal Cases of Infringing 

Intellectual Property (adopted at the 1331st Session of the Judicial Committee of the Supreme 

People's Court on 2 November 2004 and the 28th Session of the Tenth Procuratorial 

Committee of the Supreme People's Procuratorate on 11 November 2004 and to be effective 

as of 22 December 2004) ("the December 2004 Judicial Interpretation"), and the 

Interpretation by the Supreme People's Court and the Supreme People's Procuratorate on 

Several Issues of Concrete Application of Law in Handling Criminal Cases of Infringing 

Intellectual Property (II) (adopted on 4 April 2007, at the 1422nd Session of the Judicial 

Committee of the Supreme People's Court and the 75th Session of the Tenth Procuratorial 

Committee of the Supreme People's Procuratorate, and to be effective on 5 April 2007) ("the 

April 2007 Judicial Interpretation"); 
WT/DS362/1 

IP/D/26 

G/L/819 

Page 2 

 

as well as any amendments, related measures,1

 or implementing measures. 

 Articles 213, 214, and 215 of the Criminal Law describe certain acts of trademark 

counterfeiting that may be subject to criminal procedures and penalties. However, under Article 213, 

criminal procedures and penalties are available only "if the circumstances are serious" or "if the 

circumstances are especially serious". Under Article 214, criminal procedures and penalties are 

available only "if the amount of sales [of commodities bearing counterfeit registered trademarks] is 

relatively large" or "if the amount of sales is huge". Under Article 215, criminal procedures and 

penalties are available only "if the circumstances are serious" or "if the circumstances are especially 

serious". 

 Articles 217 and 218 of the Criminal Law describe certain acts of copyright piracy that may 

be subject to criminal procedures and penalties. However, under Article 217, criminal procedures and 

penalties are available only "if the amount of illegal gains is relatively large, or if there are other 

serious circumstances" or "if the amount of illegal gains is huge or if there are other especially serious 

circumstances". Under Article 218, criminal procedures and penalties are available only "if the 

amount of illegal gains is huge". 

 Article 220 of the Criminal Law provides for the availability of procedures and penalties 

when the crimes described in Articles 213 through 219 are committed by a "unit", as opposed to by 

natural persons. 

 The Criminal Law itself does not define the terms "serious", "especially serious", "relatively 

large", and "huge" as used in the above-referenced articles. Instead, these terms are defined in the 

December 2004 Judicial Interpretation and the April 2007 Judicial Interpretation by reference to 

"illegal business volume" (stated in terms of the value of products produced, stored, transported and 

sold), "illegal gains" (stated in terms of profit), or number of "illegal copies". 

 Additionally, where the thresholds are defined in terms of "illegal business volume", 

Article 12 of the December 2004 Judicial Interpretation provides that value ordinarily is calculated 

according to "the prices at which such products are actually sold" or "the labeled prices or the actual 

prices found to be sold at after investigation". In other words, it is the price of the infringing goods as 

opposed to the price of the corresponding legitimate goods that determines "illegal business volume". 

The lower the actual or labeled prices of infringing goods, the more of them an infringer can sell or 

offer for sale without reaching the thresholds in the Criminal Law that are defined by reference to 

"illegal business volume". 

 The United States understands that acts of trademark counterfeiting and copyright piracy 

occurring on a commercial scale in China that fail to meet the thresholds are not subject to criminal 

procedures and penalties in China. The lack of criminal procedures and penalties for commercial 

scale counterfeiting and piracy in China as a result of the thresholds appears to be inconsistent with 

China's obligations under Articles 41.1 and 61 of the TRIPS Agreement. 

 1

 Such other related measures include but are not limited to the Explanation on Certain Questions 

Related to the Concrete Application of Law in Hearing Cases of Crimes of Illegal Publication Fa Se (1998) 

No. 30 (adopted by the Adjudication Committee of the Supreme People's Court at its 1032nd meeting on 

11 December 1998, effective as of 23 December 1998) and the Prosecution Guidelines for Criminal Cases 

Jointly Issued by the Supreme People's Procuratorate and the Ministry of Public Safety (18 April 2001). 
WT/DS362/1 

IP/D/26 

G/L/819 

Page 3 

 

II. Disposal of goods confiscated by Customs authorities that infringe intellectual property 

rights

 The second matter on which the United States requests consultations concerns goods that 

infringe intellectual property rights that are confiscated by Chinese customs authorities, in particular 

the disposal of such goods following removal of their infringing features. 

 In this regard, the measures at issue include: 

(1) the Regulations of the People's Republic of China for Customs Protection of Intellectual 

Property Rights (adopted at the 30th Ordinary Meeting of the State Council on 26 November 

2003, published by the State Council on 2 December 2003, and effective from 1 March 2004) 

("Customs IPR Regulations"), in particular Chapter 4 thereof; and 

(2) the Implementing Measures of Customs of the People's Republic of China for the Regulations 

of the People's Republic of China on Customs Protection of Intellectual Property Rights 

(adopted at an Administration Affairs Meeting of the General Administration of Customs on 

22 April 2004, issued by the General Administration of Customs with Order No. 114 on 

25 May 2004, and effective from 1 July 2004) ("Customs IPR Implementing Measures"), in 

particular Chapter 5 thereof; 

as well as any amendments, related measures,2

 or implementing measures. 

 Specifically, the United States understands that Article 27 of the Customs IPR Regulations 

and Article 30 of the Customs IPR Implementing Measures set forth a hierarchy of requirements for 

the disposal of goods that infringe intellectual property rights and that are confiscated by Chinese 

customs authorities. Under that hierarchy, the customs authorities often appear to be required to give 

priority to disposal options that would allow such goods to enter the channels of commerce (for 

instance, through auctioning the goods after removing their infringing features). Only if the 

infringing features cannot be removed must the goods be destroyed. The requirement that infringing 

goods be released into the channels of commerce under the circumstances set forth in the measures at 

issue appears to be inconsistent with China's obligations under Articles 46 and 59 of the TRIPS 

Agreement. 

III. Denial of copyright and related rights protection and enforcement to works that have 

not been authorized for publication or distribution within China

 The third matter on which the United States requests consultations concerns the denial of 

copyright and related rights protection and enforcement to creative works of authorship, sound 

recordings, and performances that have not been authorized for publication or distribution within 

China. For example, it appears that works that are required to undergo censorship review (or other 

forms of pre-publication or pre-distribution review) before entering the Chinese market are not 

protected by copyright before the review is complete and publication and distribution within China 

has been authorized. 

 2

 Such other related measures include but are not limited to the Law of the People's Republic of China 

on Administrative Penalty (adopted at the Fourth Session of the Eighth National People's Congress on 17 March 

1996, promulgated by Order No. 63 of the President of the People's Republic of China on 17 March 1996, and 

effective as of 1 October 1996) and in particular Article 53 thereof. 
WT/DS362/1 

IP/D/26 

G/L/819 

Page 4 

 

 In this regard, the measures at issue include: 

(1) the Copyright Law,3

 in particular Article 4; 

(2) the Criminal Law, the Regulations on the Administration of Publishing Industry, the 

Regulations on the Administration of Broadcasting, the Regulations on the Administration of 

Audiovisual Products, the Regulations on the Administration of films, and the Regulations on 

the Administration of Telecommunication;4

 

(3) the Administrative Regulations on Audiovisual Products5

; 

(4) the Administrative Regulation on Publishing6

; 

(5) the Administrative Regulations on Electronic Publications7

; 

(6) the Measures for the Administration of Import of Audio and Video Products8

; 

(7) the Procedures for Examination and Approval for Publishing Finished Electronic Publication 

Items Licensed by a Foreign Copyright Owner9

; 

(8) the Procedures for Examination and Approval of Importation of Finished Electronic 

Publication Items by Electronic Publication Importation Entities10; 

(9) the Procedures for Recording of Imported Publications11; 

(10) the Interim Regulations on Internet Culture Administration12; and 

(11) the Several Opinions on the Development and Regulation of Network Music13; 

 3

 Adopted at the 15th Session of the Standing Committee of the Seventh National People's Congress on 

7 September 1990, and amended according to the Decision on the Revision of the Copyright Law of the People's 

Republic of China, adopted at the 24th Session of the Standing Committee of the Ninth National People's 

Congress on 27 October 2001. See Main Dedicated Intellectual Property Laws and Regulations Notified under 

Article 63.2 of the Agreement: China, IP/N/1/CHN/C/1, circulated 8 July 2002. 4

 As noted by China in reply to a question in Review of Legislation: China, IP/Q/CHN/1, circulated 

10 December 2002, section V.A.3. 5

 State Council Order No. 341, adopted at the 50th executive meeting of the State Council on 

12 December 2001, promulgated on 25 December 2001. 6

 State Council Order No. 343, adopted at the 50th executive meeting of the State Council on 

12 December 2001, promulgated on 25 December 2001. 7

 Order No. 11 of the General Administration of Press and Publication (30 December 1997). 

8

 Decree No. 23 of the Ministry of Culture and the General Administration of Customs (17 April 2002). 

9

 General Administration of Press and Publication (27 December 2005) (Basis of Establishment: 

Decision on Establishing Administrative Licensing for Items Necessary to be Maintained for Administrative 

Examination and Approval by the State Council [State Council Order No. 412]). 10 General Administration of Press and Publication (27 December 2005) (Basis of Establishment: 

Decision on Establishing Administrative Licensing for Items Necessary to be Maintained for Administrative 

Examination and Approval by the State Council [State Council Order No. 412]). 11 General Administration of Press and Publication (27 December 2005) (Basis of Establishment: 

Article 45 of the Administration Regulations on Publication [State Council Order No. 343]). 12 Promulgated in Order No. 27 of the Ministry of Culture (10 May 2003), amended by Order No. 32 of 

the Ministry of Culture (1 July 2004). 13 Ministry of Culture (20 November 2006). 
WT/DS362/1 

IP/D/26 

G/L/819 

Page 5 

 

as well as any amendments, related measures, or implementing measures. 

 Article 5(1) of the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works (1971)

(the "Berne Convention") requires that foreign authors of protected works shall enjoy all the rights 

granted to domestic authors, as well as all the rights specially granted by the Berne Convention.14 

These rights may not be made subject to any formality (Berne Convention Article 5(2)). TRIPS 

Agreement Article 9.1 requires all WTO Members, inter alia, to comply with Articles 1 through 21 of 

the Berne Convention.15

 China's Copyright Law provides the legal basis for copyright protection within China of the 

works of Chinese and foreign authors, and it provides an array of rights to such authors (e.g., rights of 

reproduction, translation, and adaptation). In addition, the Copyright Law provides specific statutory 

protections to performers, producers of sound recordings, and broadcasting organizations. However, 

the first sentence of Article 4 of the Copyright Law provides as follows: "Works the publication or 

distribution of which is prohibited by law shall not be protected by this Law". Therefore, authors of 

works whose publication or distribution has not been authorized (and whose publication or 

distribution is therefore prohibited) appear not to enjoy the minimum standards of protection specially 

granted by the Berne Convention in respect of those works (and may never enjoy such protection if 

the work is not authorized, or is not authorized for distribution or publication in the form as submitted 

for review). In addition, the rights of authors of works whose publication or distribution is required to 

undergo pre-publication or pre-distribution review appear to be subject to the formality of successful 

conclusion of such review. The foregoing appears to be inconsistent with China's obligations under 

TRIPS Agreement Article 9.1. 

 In addition, Article 14 of the TRIPS Agreement requires China to give performers, inter alia, 

the possibility of preventing certain acts, and to give producers of phonograms (sound recordings) the 

right to authorize or prohibit the direct or indirect reproduction of their sound recordings (collectively, 

the "related rights"). To the extent that the Copyright Law also denies protection of these rights to 

performers and producers of sound recordings during the period of any pre-publication or 

pre-distribution prohibition, the Copyright Law appears to be inconsistent with China's obligations 

under Article 14 of the TRIPS Agreement. 

 Furthermore, it appears that the measures at issue provide different pre-distribution and 

pre-authorization review processes for Chinese nationals' works, performances (or their fixations) and 

sound recordings than for foreign nationals' works, performances (or their fixations) and sound 

recordings. To the extent that these different processes, taken together with Article 4 of the Copyright 

Law, result in earlier or otherwise more favourable protection or enforcement of copyright or related 

rights for Chinese authors' works, Chinese performers' performances (or their fixations) and Chinese 

producers' sound recordings than for foreign authors' works, foreign performers' performances (or 

their fixations) and foreign producers' sound recordings, the measures at issue appear to be 

inconsistent with China's obligations under TRIPS Agreement Article 3.1. Additionally, to the extent 

that Article 4 of the Copyright Law, independently or in conjunction with the different preauthorization or pre-distribution processes in the other measures at issue, causes foreign authors of 

works whose publication or distribution has not been authorized not to enjoy the rights granted to 

 14 The minimum standards of copyright protection for literary and artistic works specially granted by 

the Berne Convention include, inter alia, the right of reproduction (Berne Convention Article 9(1)), the right of 

adaptation (Berne Convention Article 12), and the right of translation (Berne Convention Article 8). 15 However, WTO Members do not have rights or obligations under the TRIPS Agreement in respect of 

the rights conferred under Article 6bis of the Berne Convention or of the rights derived therefrom. 
WT/DS362/1 

IP/D/26 

G/L/819 

Page 6 

 

Chinese authors, the measures at issue appear to be inconsistent with China's obligations under TRIPS 

Agreement Article 9.1 (with respect at least to China's obligations to comply with Articles 5(1) and 

5(2) of the Berne Convention). 

 In addition, to the extent that Article 4 of China's Copyright Law, independently or in 

conjunction with the other measures at issue, makes it impossible for rightsholders to enforce their 

copyrights or related rights with respect to works, performances or sound recordings that have not 

been authorized for publication or distribution, China fails to make enforcement procedures available 

so as to permit effective action against infringements of those copyrights and related rights. This 

appears to be inconsistent with China's obligations under TRIPS Agreement Article 41.1. 

IV. Unavailability of criminal procedures and penalties for a person who engages in either 

unauthorized reproduction or unauthorized distribution of copyrighted works

 The fourth matter on which the United States requests consultations concerns the scope of 

coverage of criminal procedures and penalties for unauthorized reproduction or unauthorized 

distribution of copyrighted works. In particular, it appears that unauthorized reproduction of 

copyrighted works by itself – that is, unauthorized reproduction that is not accompanied by 

unauthorized distribution – may not be subject to criminal procedures and penalties. Likewise, it 

appears that unauthorized distribution of copyrighted works by itself – that is, unauthorized 

distribution that is not accompanied by unauthorized reproduction – may not be not subject to 

criminal procedures and penalties. 

 In this regard, the measures at issue include the Criminal Law, in particular Article 217, as 

well as any amendments, related measures, or implementing measures. 

 Article 217 establishes the availability of criminal procedures and penalties for certain acts of 

copyright piracy, including "reproducing and distributing [fuzhifaxing] a written work, musical work, 

motion picture, television programme or other visual works, computer software or other works 

without permission of the copyright owner" and "reproducing and distributing an audio or video 

recording produced by another person without permission of the producer".16 

 To the extent that wilful copyright piracy on a commercial scale that consists of unauthorized 

reproduction – but not unauthorized distribution – of copyrighted works, and vice versa, may not be 

subject to criminal procedures and penalties under the law of China, this would appear to be 

inconsistent with China's obligations under Articles 41.1 and 61 of the TRIPS Agreement. 

The United States notes that Article 2 of the April 2007 Judicial Interpretation addresses the 

phrase "reproducing and distributing" [fuzhifaxing], and we look forward to discussing this matter 

with China during our consultations. 

* * * * * 

 We look forward to receiving your reply to the present request and to fixing a mutually 

convenient date for consultations. 

__________ 

 16 Article 218 of the Criminal Law refers to someone who "sells" infringing works. However, it 

appears that this reference to "sell[ing]" in Article 218 is different from the reference to "distributing" in 

Article 217. 
APPENDIX 

13 
2
3

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABOUT THE AUTHOR............................................................................4

ABOUT THE MANUFACTUING POLICY PROJECT.........................................4

ABSTRACT............................................................................................5

SUMMARY............................................................................................6

Introduction...................................................................................17

Unprotected American Secrets...........................................................18

The Nano-Power of the Internet..........................................................19

Parties in Conflict...........................................................................23

A New Culture of Infringement..........................................................25

The Politics of Publication.................................................................27

The Arithmetic if Patent Reform...........................................................28

The Mossinghoff Study...................................................................34

The Likely Consequences Of “Reform”.....................................................36

Recommendations...........................................................................37

Tables and Charts...........................................................................40

Chart One Patent Allowance Rate...............................1976-2006

Table One Patent Applications & Grants by Entity Size......1998-2006

Table Two Patent Lawsuits Commenced and Terminated....2001-2006

Table Three Patent, Copyright & Trademark Cases Filed......1990-2005

Table Four Patents Granted & Lawsuits Begun (Ratios)......1993-2006

Notes.........................................................................................46
4

About the Author

Pat Choate is Director of the Manufacturing Policy Project. He previously worked as Director

of Research and Planning for the Oklahoma Industrial Development Commission; as

Tennessee’s first Commissioner of Economic and Community Development; as the Director of

the Appalachian and then Southern Regional Offices of the U.S. Department of Commerce’s

Economic Development Administration (EDA); as Director of the EDA Office of Economic

Research; as the Senior Economist in the Office of Management and Budget’s Trade

Reorganization Project; as a Fellow at the Battelle Institute’s Academy for Contemporary 

Problems and as Vice President of Public Policy at TRW, Inc. He has served on several

Presidential and Congressional commissions on education, infrastructure and national security.

Pat Choate is the author of three books on national development strategies including the HighFlex Society, Agents of Influence and Hot Property: The Stealing of Ideas in an Age of

Globalization. He is co-author of America in Ruins, Being Number One, Thinking 

Strategically, Why NAFTA Must Be Stopped Now and Democratizing U.S. Trade Policy

Making. His forthcoming book is Dangerous Business, The Consequences of Globalization 

(Alfred A Knopf, 2008). He was a co-founder of the Congressional Economic Leadership 

Institute (CELI) and served as its Chair or Co-Chair for 18 years. In 1994, the University of

Oklahoma, from which Choate holds an M.A. and Ph. D. in economics, named him the Arthur

Barto Adams Alumni Fellow in recognition of his continuing scholarship. In 1996, Ross Perot

picked him to be his vice presidential running mate. Pat Choate and his wife live near

Washington, Virginia.

____________________________________

About The Manufacturing Policy Project

The Manufacturing Policy Project (MPP) is a nonprofit, nonpartisan 501(c)(3) research 

organization that undertakes public policy-related studies. MPP reports, books and related 

materials examine issues central to the continuing development of the U.S. economy. P.O. Box 

422 Sperryville, Virginia 22740.

This project was funded by a grant from the U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) under

SBA Grant/Cooperative Agreement Number SBAHQ-06-I-010. SBA's funding should not be

construed as an endorsement of any products, opinions or services. All SBA-funded projects are

extended to the public on a nondiscriminatory basis.

____________________________________
5

Abstract

America’s economy depends upon the creation and enforcement of intellectual property rights. This report examines a key

part of that system – the mandatory publication of patent applications at 18 months after the earliest filing date. This “18-

month rule” was enacted by Congress in 1999 and was a radical change in U.S. patent policy. The policy objectives it aimed

to address have been solved or outstripped by other events. Worse, in today’s “flat world” this special rule recklessly

exposes American inventions to online pirates before they have the protection of a patent. This exposure is compounded by

the equally important problem of examination pendency. In the name of “harmonization,” current patent reform proposals

call for expanding this rule; this gains America nothing and only worsens a problem that is not yet widely appreciated.

In today’s wired world, this rule facilitates piracy of U.S. intellectual property rights before inventors have patent protections.

The problem is significant. Between November 2001 and October 1, 2006, the USPTO published 1,267,000 patent

applications, of which more than 600,000 were from American inventors. China, Korea and other countries use the Internet 

to “hack” the USPTO for innovations; our competitors use published applications as a free R&D lab. While applications

languish in an ever-increasing backlog, competitors take our ideas to market and sell products to Americans. Once published

the damage is done: A published application is prior art and cannot be used by the inventor as a trade secret or modified for

resubmission if rejected.

Pirates already enjoy the advantage of illegal operation. This radical 18-month rule gives pirates the dual gifts of free IP and

more than a year head start. Pendency, the backlog in applications waiting to be examined, has exploded since 1992 from

19 months to 31.1 months. While an inventor is held up in limbo the pirate is making money and locking in customers.

Presently, inventors can choose not to have their applications published if they agree not to file a patent application in

another country. Almost 20 percent of U.S.-origin applicants make that election. Current patent reform proposals would take

this away. Advocates say “harmonization” of U.S. law with other nations is essential. Large multi-national businesses of

course want the same rules everywhere, but this ignores small entity inventors’ unique role in America.

This right of secrecy is particularly important to small entity inventors (independent inventors, businesses with 500 or fewer

employees, universities, and nonprofit research organizations). They file 31 percent of all U.S.-origin applications, and

almost half elect not to publish.

This “great invention giveaway” problem is a classic unintended consequence. The 18-month rule was designed in the preInternet era (1992) to counter “submarine” patents, a problem the USPTO solved through administrative means, and to

“harmonize” U.S. patent practices with those of Europe and Japan. American society gains no innovation benefit from this

rule. Nor does such publication entice firms to clear products to avoid infringement.

America is different. We embrace risk and willingly break the status quo. Other nations embrace incumbents and support

established networks of economic and political power. It is against America’s best interests to “harmonize” our patent 

standards down to theirs and expose our inventors’ secrets without providing the appropriate protections.

Strong patents, quickly processed and fully disclosed create the certainty that inventors and investors need to confront the

status quo and provide the diffusion of knowledge that society expects. Congress should legislate a return to the first

principles adopted by President George Washington and the 1st U.S. Congress in 1790: No information in a patent 

application will be disclosed unless and until the protection of a patent is granted. Rejected patent applications will be

returned to the applicants with their secrets intact.

The report includes several recommendations by which Congress can strengthen the U.S. patent system and, by that,

strengthen American innovation.
6

Summary

__________________________

1. Every patent ever issued in the United States was granted under laws that Congress enacted

under the authority of Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution which states: “The Congress

shall have Power ...To promote the Progress of Science and Useful Arts, by securing for limited

times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their Writings and Discoveries.”

2. The importance of patents to America’s Founding Fathers is reflected in the fact that the Patent

Act of 1790 was one of the first laws made by the 1st U.S. Congress. President George

Washington in his first State of the Union message (January 8, 1790) asked Congress to enact

patent legislation. Barely three months later, he signed the first Patent Act into law (April 10,

1790). The Progress clause is the only place in the U.S. Constitution that explicitly grants a 

“right.”

3. The two fundamental goals of the U.S. patent system are to (a) encourage inventors to produce 

more and useful creations and (b) expand general knowledge in the United States through

disclosure of the details of those creations.

4. The basic “patent bargain” created by America’s Founding Fathers is this: If the inventor will

fully disclose the details of a creation, including the best mode of its use, society will grant that

inventor the right of exclusive use for a set period, and provide a federal court system in which

the patent owner can defend that right. An exclusive right of use for a period in exchange for the 

full disclosure of information about the creation is the “golden covenant” between society and

creative people as embodied in a patent.

5. Between 1790 and 1999 there was a second part to the U.S. “patent bargain:” The U.S.

government would not disclose any details in a patent application unless and until the protection

of a patent was provided. Then as now, rejected patent applications were destroyed unless they

were referred to in a granted patent. Congress radically changed this part of the bargain in 1999,

as is described and analyzed in this paper.

6. A patent is granted only for creations that are (a) useful, (b) novel and (3) not obvious. Whether

a creation is potentially commercial is not a test of patentability.

7. The USPTO makes the determination of whether an application meets the requirements of

patentability. It also provides several means to administratively contest a granted patent. U.S.

law also allows a challenge of a patent’s validity in the Federal Court System. In 1982,

Congress established a separate court in Washington, D.C. to hear patent appeals – The United

States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Patent cases like all other cases coming from

courts of appeal can be taken to the Supreme Court on a petition for certiorari and can be

considered at the discretion of the Court. As this suggests, a patent is a powerful right and the

U.S. provides the means for a strong defense of that right.

8. Until recently, operating a swift patent process was a high national priority. The quicker an

inventor can secure an uncontested patent, the sooner the innovation can be put to use. The

sooner the patent process makes public the details of these creations, the quicker the nation’s

base of knowledge is expanded. Prompt action, leading to uncontested patents and full

disclosure through publication, is vital to U.S. progress.
7

9. About half of the 443,000 patent applications filed at the USPTO in fiscal year 2006 were from

foreign-origin applicants.

10. Of the 173,000 utility patents (the largest category) granted in FY 2006, 89,823 (51.7 percent)

went to U.S.-origin inventors.

11. The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) distinguishes between “small entities” 

(independent inventors, companies with 500 or fewer employees, not-for-profit organizations

and universities) and “large entities” (larger corporations).

12. Of the 89,823 utility patents issued to U.S.-origin inventors in FY 2006, more than 27,000 went

to U.S.-origin small entity inventors. In sum, small-entity inventors are a vital part of the U.S.

processes of creativity and innovation.

13. The importance of small entity inventors in U.S. innovation is obscured by a combination of 

factors,

o The USPTO’s aggregate publication of patent data,

o Under-examination by scholars of innovation,

o Under-representation on blue-ribbon groups which review U.S. patent policy and

o Under-involvement in Congressional hearings and Congressional thinking when patent

reforms are being crafted.

14. Small entities are the annual recipients of about 31 percent of all patents granted to U.S.-origin

applications. Research funded by the Small Business Administration reveals:

o Small firm patents on average are more technically important than large firm patents and

are twice as likely to be among the top one percent of most frequently cited patents.

o Small patenting firms produce 13 times more patents per employee than large patenting

firms.

o Small firms represent one-third of the most prolific patenting companies that have 15 or

more U.S. patents.

o Small firms are more effective in producing high-value innovations.

o Small firm innovation is twice as closely linked to scientific research as large firm

innovation on average and substantially more high-tech or leading edge.

15. With the outsourcing of R&D by large entity corporations, small businesses, individual

inventors, universities, colleges and non-profit research organizations are becoming ever more

important to America’s technological and economic future. The effect of any proposed changes

in patent laws on these small entity inventors merits special attention by Congress.

16. While the United States’ patent system provides inventors, large and small entities, with the

strongest protections in the world, a handful of “Big Tech” corporations have adopted a business

model that fosters a “culture of infringement.”. These companies hire smart people, provide

enormous incentives to create state-of-the art products, send their employees to technical

conferences, require that they read technical journals, but refuse to allow them to read the patents
8

of others. Their legal strategy is to feign ignorance of applications and patents to avoid the

charge of willful infringement. If U.S. patent law were changed to encourage due diligence as

part of any willful infringement defense, such a strategy would be less viable.

17. The business strategy of these Big Tech corporations is to quickly seize ownership of an entire

market, gain enormous wealth and sort out any patent infringement problems later through

takeovers, litigation, delays, negotiations, settlements, Supreme Court challenges and the

lobbying of Congress to “reform” U.S. patent laws in their favor.

18. A check of SEC records of four of the Big Tech corporations that are now actively lobbying

Congress for changes in U.S. patent laws reveals that they paid $3.5 billion in patent settlements

in the period 1993-2005. In the same period, they generated $1.4 trillion in revenues. Their

infringement costs were one-quarter of one-percent of revenues, which in relative terms is an

insignificant business expense.

19. The U.S. patent system is under attack by:

o A few Big Tech companies that are trying to reduce their huge contingent liabilities for 

patent infringement by persuading Congress to change U.S. patent laws to their

advantage,

o A few traditional business groups with transnational agendas who want the convenience

of the same rules wherever they are,

o Academics and businesses in the open source community who are ideologically opposed

to the grant of patents for software and business methods and

o The Governments of Japan and Europe, which are trying to alter the U.S. patent system

in the image of theirs.

20. Though these groups and companies do not act in lock-step, the general goals of their political

advocacy, under the guise of “patent reform,” are to:

o Change the U.S. patent system from first-to-invent to first-to-file.

o Impose 18-month disclosure on all patent applications.

o Eliminate the “best mode” description in a patent application.

o Eliminate treble damages for willful infringement of patents.

o Expand procedures for challenge and review of a patent after grant.

o Allow third party participation in the USPTO patent examinations.

o Limit patent lawsuits to a few federal courts.

o Eliminate juries from patent cases.

o Expand the rule-making authority of USPTO so that it can unilaterally change the rights

of applicants and patent owners.

o Provide no support for reducing examination pendency or giving the USPTO the

resources necessary to truly do its core mission and improve quality.
9

21. The three principal political and propaganda themes of this campaign are:

o America is in the midst of a patent “litigation crisis.”

o The USPTO is issuing a large number of “poor quality” patents.

o Patents are too strongly enforced.

• Presumption of validity.

• Juries favor patent owners, especially sympathetic inventors.

• Patent owner goes first in court proving infringement.

• Accused infringer goes last and must overcome high burden of proof to

challenge validity – clear and convincing.

• Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit is too pro-patent.

22. Federal Judicial Caseload Statistics reveal there is no U.S. patent litigation crisis. Specifically,

o In the 14-year period 1993-2006, the ratio of patent lawsuits commenced per the number

of patents issued remained an almost constant 1.5 percent. Patent disputes grew at the

same pace as the number of patents granted. A flat ratio means there are “no unusual

surge” of lawsuits and “no litigation crisis.” (See Table Four)

o Between 2004 and 2006, the actual number of patent lawsuits commenced dropped from

3,075 to 2,700. (See Table One)

o More than 96 percent of all commenced patent lawsuits settle before trial. Most patent

lawsuits filed are part of a negotiation strategy.

o In 2004, 96 patent lawsuits went to trial in the United States, 107 were tried in 2005, as

were 102 in 2006. Only 102 patent trials per year is not a litigation crisis by any

definition. (See Table One)

o Of the almost 200,000 patents that are now issued annually, only five ten-thousandth of

one percent will be challenged in a patent trial.

23. The patent performance and challenge data of the USPTO reveals that the U.S. is not in the

midst of a “patent quality” crisis. The quality of patents issued by the USPTO is high and

improving, despite a surge in patent applications. Specifically,

o Only a handful of all patents granted are ever challenged at the USPTO or in a trial: a

major test of fire for a patent’s validity and the quality of the USPTO’s examination

policies.

o The USPTO issued more than 3,185,000 patents between 1981 and 2006. During that

same period, 8,612 patents were challenged through the ex parte and inter partes

processes – that is, one/three hundredth of one percent (0.003), an extraordinarily low

rate.

o The USPTO has, on average, only 100 patent interference cases per year (challenges as

to is to who was the first to invent) – an extraordinarily low rate since in FY 2006 the

USPTO received 443,000 patent applications, disposed of 332,000 and allowed 185,000

patents. Only 100 such cases a year is mute testimony to the effectiveness of the 

USPTO and its first-to-invent system.
10

o For all ex parte reviews (1981-12/31/2006), all claims were cancelled for 10 percent, all

claims were confirmed for 26 percent and claim changes were made in 64 percent. For

the 208 inter partes challenges, 7 reexamination certificates were issued (1999-

12/31/07) of which 1 had all claims confirmed and 6 had all claims revoked.

o With 74 percent of ex parte reexaminations resulting in claims cancelled or narrowed,

the process can be viewed as biased in favor of patent holders.

o In the period 1981-2001, the USPTO issued more than 3.1 million patents. Of these,

fewer than 8,900 were challenged at the USPTO (0.003 percent) – a strong indication

that the USPTO is issuing patents of sufficient quality to forestall challenges.

o Of patents challenged in the 100 plus federal patent trials each year, more than 60

percent are affirmed.

o “Reform” proponents promote the perception that there is a widespread problem of

questionable patents, but they provide no data. Instead, they provide unsubstantiated

anecdotes as conclusive “facts” and sound bites.

24. The real patent “crisis” that America faces consists of three parts. None has its roots at the

USPTO. None is solvable by any of the proposed “reforms” now before Congress. Specifically,

o The first crisis is the destructively high and rising U.S. patent pendency rate.

a. The average time required to process a patent has expanded from 19 months in 1992

to more than 31 months in 2006. The average time for first action pendency has

almost tripled from less than eight months in 1992 to 22.6 months in 2006.

b. The principal reason for these increased delays is that between 1991 and 2004 the

President and Congress diverted hundreds of millions of dollars the USPTO

collected in patent and trademark fees to the general fund, and thus other uses. The

2001 appropriation act, for instance, allowed the USPTO to spend only $784 million

of the $1.1 billion of fees that it collected. These fee diversions prevented the

USPTO from hiring the additional examiners it needed to process a rising number of

domestic and foreign patent applications. While Congress has stopped the fee 

diversion, it still does not provide the USPTO with enough additional monies to

reduce a massive legacy backload that will exceed 800,000 patent applications by

the end of 2007.

c. Largely because of inadequate pay, and also for performance problems and job

dissatisfaction, the turnover rate of patent examiners is slightly more than 10 percent

per year. While the USPTO will hire an additional 1,000 examiners this year,

almost 500 existing employees will quit. Thus, the net increase will be about 500

examiners. These are too few to even process all the patent applications USPTO

receives annually, which means the backlog steadily increases, as does the pendency

rate.

d. The USPTO management is being forced to find shortcut solutions such as reducing

the number of claims allowable in a patent. Today, almost 25 percent of all patent

applications contain 10 or more claims. Cutting claims would narrow the 

protections available to complex creations. Shortcut solutions are dangerous for

they inevitably come at the expense of inventors; that is, fewer claims, fewer

continuances, higher rejection rates, fewer protections, and they become permanent.
11

e. While hiring more examiners may be politically and ideologically unpopular, and

even sometimes represented as undoable, such a course is, in fact, the best and

quickest solution to cut the backlog and ultimately the pendency rate, while

simultaneously assuring that the USPTO issues high quality patents. Cutting the 

backlog and pendency rates, while simultaneously improving patent quality, is a

vital national challenge equal in importance to the Manhattan Project or putting an

American on the moon, but at a tiny fraction of the cost of those projects.

f. An average patent pendency rate of 12 months would solve virtually all the 

problems addressed in virtually all the “reform” legislation now before Congress. If

America’s future is dependent on technology, then we need it in use sooner rather

than later, which means Congress should appropriate enough resources to meet this

challenge. Today, the lack of a sufficient number of talented patent examiners at the 

USPTO that speak English proficiently is a major chokepoint in U.S. innovation

efforts.

o The second crisis is the virtually unfettered foreign piracy of U.S. patents.

The Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) for many years has

confronted foreign piracy with diplomacy instead of a forceful assertion of U.S. rights at

the World Trade Organization (WTO). In early April of 2007, the USTR filed an

intellectual property case at the WTO against China for its inadequate protections of 

U.S.-owned copyrights and trademarks. While belated, this is an encouraging action.

Hopefully, it represents a shift to a broader, more aggressive assertion of U.S.

intellectual property rights at the WTO and will be expanded to included patent piracy –

actions that are essential to stopping foreign piracy of U.S. patents.

o The third crisis is the mandated publication of unexamined, unprotected U.S. patent

applications.

Foreign corporations, foreign governments and foreign pirates are now able to

systematically “mine” unprotected U.S.-origin patent applications and steal Americanowned creations because Congress in 1999 mandated that the USPTO must publish

applications on the Internet 18 months and a nanosecond from the earliest date an

inventor files for a patent. Only Congress can stop this reckless publication of

unexamined U.S.-origin patent applications.

25. Congress made its last major changes of U.S. patent law in December 1994 (Congressional

ratification of the World Trade Agreement) and in November 1999 (The American Inventors

Protection Act.)

26. Over the past 40 years, several “Blue Ribbon” commissions have been formed to make

recommendations on patent reform. “The Report of the Presidential Commission on the Patent

System” (1966), for instance, recommended publication of patent applications – the “Johnson

Committee.” The changes that Congress made in 1994 and 1999 were largely based on

recommendations that came from The Advisory Commission on Patent Law Reform, a study

group that was formed in 1991 by Secretary of Commerce Robert Mosbacher. Yet, the

“Johnson” and “Mosbacher” recommendations were dated for they were made,

o Pre-globalization.

o Pre-Internet (One year before the World Wide Web - CERN in 1993).
12

o Pre-Chinese membership in the WTO – 2000.

o Pre-globalization, mega-piracy of patents.

27. The Mosbacher recommendations were made at a time that the average patent pendency was 19

months (vs. 31.1 in 2006) and the average pendency for a first action by the USPTO was only 8

months (vs. 22.6 in 2006). The Mosbacher Commission wanted patent applications published,

but 24 months after the earliest filing date of a patent application – that is, almost 5 months more

than average total pendency in 1992.

28. The changes in patent law that Congress enacted in 1999 mirrored European and Japanese

standards that require publication at the 18-month point. In that legislation, Congress required of 

the United States Patent and Trademark (USPTO) that “each application for a patent shall be 

published, in accordance with procedures determined by the Director, promptly after the

expiration of a period of 18 months from the earliest filing date for which a benefit is sought

under this title.”

29. The USPTO is not required by law to publish the entire application. It chooses to do so.

30. Publication is significant because once on the Internet the entire contents of a U.S. patent

application can be retrieved in about two seconds, anywhere in the world, on tens of thousands

of foreign-based computers. Publication at 18-months means that the full contents of virtually

all U.S. patent applications are made available for inspection worldwide for an average of 4.6

months before the USPTO takes a first action and an average of 13.1 months before it grants a 

patent. For complex patent applications this unprotected period can be 30 months or more.

31. The Congress included with the 18-month rule an “opt-out option” that provides the USPTO will

not publish the patent application, “if an applicant makes a request upon filing, certifying that

the invention disclosed in the application has not and will not be filed in another country, or

under a multilateral international agreement that requires publication of applications 18 months

after filing, the application shall not be published.”

32. The requirement that inventors not file for a patent in other nations if they choose not to allow

the publication of their patent applications contradicts other U.S. policies that encourage global

engagement by American companies and entrepreneurs.

33. Between 2001 and 2006, about 36 percent of U.S.-origin applicants file foreign applications.

Foreign patent offices publish these applications at 18-months from filing. If published abroad

at 18-months, USPTO publication at 18-months does not disadvantage these inventors since the 

information is already public.

34. Overall, about ten percent of all patent applicants received at the USPTO exercise the opt-out

option. Many U.S. inventors and patent attorneys still do not recognize that they have such a

choice. The opt-out rate might be greater if the USPTO’s default was not to publish unless

requested by the applicant to do so, instead of the reverse – that is, the USPTO publishes unless

the inventor exercises their opt-out right.

35. Hidden in this aggregate opt-out data is a very significant fact: Half of all patent applications at

the USPTO come from abroad. As roughly half of the total applications are from foreign-owned

entities, this means that the “opt out” share of U.S.-origin applications is 20 percent. Although

about 20 percent of all U.S.-origin patent applications choose not to have the USPTO publish

their applications, an unknown number of academic inventors disclose information about their

creations in journals and conferences prior to USPTO making a patent decision.
13

36. Narrowing the numbers to U.S.-origin inventors, an estimated half of small entity applications

exercise the option of non-disclosure. This option is vital to these inventors. For them, secrecy

is their best, if not only, protection until they have a patent in hand, even if the price is not to

seek patent protections in other nations.

37. The patent proposals now before Congress would eliminate the right of applicants to not have

their applications disclosed and published. Under these proposals, all patent applications would

be published at the 18-month point.

38. The arithmetic of USPTO’s publication of patent applications is:

o Between November 2001 and October 1, 2006, the USPTO published 1,267,000 U.S.

patent applications. Of these, an estimated 620,000 were of U.S.-origin.

o Of the estimated 620,000 U.S.-origin first patent filings published by the USPTO

between 2001 and 2006, almost 64 percent were neither filed at the Japanese Patent

Office nor at the European Patent Office or in other nations, all of which also publish

patent applications at the 18-month point.

o The argument “Publication in the U.S. does not matter because applications will be 

published in other nations” is not true for 64 percent of all U.S.-origin patent

applications. Almost 400,000 U.S.-origin patent applications filed between November

2001 and October 1, 2006 did not file for a foreign patent.

o All published patent applications become prior art instantly, available to anyone,

anywhere. Consequently, those U.S. inventors whose applications were published but

denied could no longer, as in the past, use their innovations as trade secrets or improve

them for resubmission. Assuming an average allowance rate (approval rate) of 59

percent of these 400,000 U.S.-origin applications, 160,000 were rejected and their

secrets were made public - at the U.S. inventors’ expense.

39. The Japan Patent Office (JPO) reports that South Korea and China are systematically “mining”

Japanese patent applications published on the Internet. Those nations, among many others, are

also mining U.S. and European patent applications on the Internet. In 2005, JPO reported that

their computers were getting 17,000 patent inquiries per day from China and 55,000 per day

from South Korea.

40. The USPTO does not monitor such inquiries, but the U.S. experience is certain to be similar to

Japan’s because the patent applications filed in each are equally open to inspection over the 

Internet.

41. The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) reports that the use of its searchable

patent-information system tripled in 2006. WIPO is accelerating training for developing

countries on how to secure patent information from issued patents and patent applications that

are now available on the Internet. As one WIPO official noted, “Patents are territorial, but

disclosure is global.” 

42. If a patent is published and it is infringed before a patent is issued, U.S. law allows the patent

owner to collect damages, but first the owner must identify the infringer, provide notice of the

published application and specify which claims are being infringed. If the pirate is located in

another nation, such as China, a national patent must have been sought and the lawsuit must be

filed there. Therefore, USPTO secrecy is the only real protection an inventor has until a patent is

granted.
14

43. Several patent “reform” groups are urging Congress to create a USPTO-administered “postgrant” patent challenge process, which would allow anyone to challenge a patent before a

USPTO administrative judge in the nine-month period after it is granted. The advantages of the

“post-grant” process are:

o It would be less expensive than a conventional patent trial.

o It involves few risks for challengers.

44. The disadvantages of such a “post-grant” procedure are:

o It would instantly increase the de facto pendency rate of all patents by a minimum of 

nine months. Today, the average USPTO pendency rate is 31.1 months. If this

procedure were adopted, inventors would have to wait, on average, 40.1 months before

they had an unchallenged patent. Then, challenged patents would be tied up in an

appeals process, which is likely to take another 2.5 years.

o The USPTO ex parte and inter partes challenges have an average pendency of about 23

and 29 months respectively. The European Patent Office, which permits such “postgrant” challenges, reports that the average duration of their appeals proceedings is 31

months. If the USPTO experience with such a new procedure was similar to that of the

European Patent Office, an inventor would, on average, have a challenged patent tied up

for 71 months after filing – almost six years.

o The European Patent Office reports that 5.4 percent of granted patents were challenged

through its nine-month post-grant procedure in 2005. This represented almost 3,000

cases annually and does not include private lawsuits commenced in Europe.

o Europeans are using this relatively inexpensive post-grant challenge procedure as a

business tool to extort a license from inventors, block or delay the introduction of

competing technologies and restrict the scope of someone else’s patent – practices they

and others may find equally attractive if this procedure is available to them in the United

States.

o The U.S. patent challenge rate by all means (ex parte, inter partes, interference and

lawsuit) is 1.8 percent – is less than one-third Europe’s post-grant process.

o If the U.S. use of such a procedure parallels the European rates (5.4 percent of patents

granted), the number of U.S. patent challenges would triple to 10,000 “post grant” suits

annually, plus whatever number of patent suits that would be filed in federal district

courts.

o The adoption of a “post-grant” challenge process would require a substantial increase in

the number of USPTO administrative judges and support staff.

o The Japan Patent Office, which had a similar “post grant” challenge procedure,

abandoned it on January 1, 2004.

45. The lack of respect for the “special dispatch” rule imposed by Congress leads to uncertainty. A

patent owner, particularly a small entity owner, cannot take their asset to market if the cloud of

post-grant review(s) looms overhead. Perpetual re-examination hampers inventors’ capacity to

go to market and reduces or eliminates the economic value of intellectual properties. Additional

post-grant procedures that include features of litigation will slow special dispatch. More

disputes will come to a USPTO already struggling with a re-exam backlog.
15

46. The U.S. first-to-invent system has less confusion and fewer challenges/lawsuits than the firstto-file system used in Europe. The Japan Patent System (JPO) is not comparable.

47. Only 100 U.S. patents a year are challenged as to who was the first to invent, the interference

process. As such a tiny number attests, under the U.S. approach there is virtually no confusion

or conflict as to who is the real inventor.

48. Although small entity inventors generate 31 percent of all U.S.-origin patents, they are involved

in less than 18 percent of the miniscule number of all interference cases – that is, fewer than 20

cases per year. The present system is small-entity “friendly.”

49. The European first-to-file system is sufficiently confusing and conflict-prone that oppositions are 

filed against 5.4 percent of patents granted in the nine-month, “post-grant” challenge process, of

which 38 percent are revoked.

50. This report notes that the Congress should legislate as mandated USPTO policy that no

information in a patent application be disclosed unless the protection of a patent is granted.

51. This report recommends:

Recommendation One – The U.S. Congress should impose an emergency suspension

of the publication of U.S.-origin patent applications until such time as (1) the United

States Trade Representative can certify that China, Russia and other nations on its

priority watch of intellectual property violators have brought the piracy of U.S. patents

under control; (2) the USPTO’s average pendency rate is below the 18-month level and

(3) the Congress votes to resume such publication. Ideally, the governments of Japan

and Europe would join in this effort. But, if not, the U.S. should proceed unilaterally,

while publishing in English foreign applications at the USPTO that are published

abroad. While those nations would still publish the many U.S. patents filed in their 

patent offices, 64 percent of U.S.-origin patent applications are not filed in other nations.

Therefore, the secrets in these U.S.-origin applications would remain secure until either

a U.S. patent was issued or the inventor filed for a patent in another country or the

application. One exception should exist – the USPTO should publish the applications of 

those U.S.-origin applicants that certify that they want publication at the 18-month point

or earlier. An emergency suspension is compatible with U.S. obligations at the World

Trade Organization as the TRIPS agreement does not require the publication of patent

applications after a specified time of filing.

Recommendation Two – The Congress should require the Office of the United States

Trade Representative, as part of its annual 301 Special Report, to identify countries

whose exports to the U.S. have a substantially higher level than average of counterfeit

goods or goods that violate U.S. patent rights. Imports so designated by the USTR

would be required to be accompanied by a “Certificate of Authenticity” from either the

government where the goods are produced or the U.S. importer that verifies the goods

do not violate U.S. patents, copyrights or trade marks. Fraudulent certifications would

result in penalties and inspections of all imports from those nations. Once the USTR

removes a nation from this strengthened Special 301 list, such certifications would no

longer be mandated.

Recommendation Three – The Congress should direct the General Accountability

Office (GAO) to initiate a study of patent litigation in the United States. The report

should examine whether there is a greater number of lawsuits filed against technology

companies than against other types of companies as a percent of patents filed, granted
16

and held. The study should ascertain if the high tech companies surveyed in such a

lawsuit used a patent clearance process (due diligence) and if there is any difference in

the use of such due diligence between high technology and traditional business

defendants. The study should also investigate whether there is a group of plaintiffs that

is systematically abusing the litigation process or whether there is a small group of 

companies recklessly infringing the patent rights of others and thus being sued by many

patent holders. If the GAO finds that a higher than average portion of patent litigation is

against companies that do not use a patent clearance (due diligence) procedure, Congress

should authorize an automatic award of treble damages when such companies lose an

infringement case.

___________________________
17

An Analysis

of

The Global Publication of U.S. Patent Applications & Select

Patent Reform Proposals

By Pat Choate

Introduction

The Japan External Trade Organization (JETRO) maintains dozens of offices throughout the

world, including six in the United States. They provide Japanese industries with timely foreign

market intelligence and business development support. In the summer of 2004, Yoichi Gotani,

Director of JETRO’s Intellectual Property Office in Beijing visited the Haier Group, China’s

largest consumer-electronics maker, where he met the executive in charge of the company’s

intellectual property activities.

When Gotani asked about Haier’s research activities, he was told that the company “spends only 

a small amount on research.” Instead, the Haier executive said, “Using several dozen

computers, we search for patent applications submitted to patent offices in Japan, the United

States and European countries to obtain useful information to develop our products. ... Most of

those foreign inventors and companies,” he said, “won’t apply for patent rights in China; there’s

nothing legally wrong in us using them.”

1

The Haier example is a pattern not an anomaly. China has a well-conceived plan to get secret

and proprietary defense and business information from the United States. Some of this is

obtained through spies. The top intelligence officer in the Office of Director of National

Intelligence, Michael McConnell, has stated that while “140 foreign intelligence services” are

trying to penetrate the U.S., “the Chinese are the most aggressive.” Federal prosecutors in Santa

Ana, California, for instance, describe how one Chinese family stole detailed secrets about Navy 

submarine engines that run silent enough to avoid detection. Other federal prosecutors are

putting another team of Chinese operatives on trial for stealing from DuPont 22,000 confidential

abstracts on company products including advanced materials used in airplane construction.2

Since 2001, one of the easiest ways to obtain such proprietary information legally is by 

systematically mining patent applications published on the Internet. Companies across the

world see published patent applications as a gold mine for ideas that they can get to market

quickly. Studying U.S. and other foreign patent applications augments, and sometimes replaces,

domestic research and development.

Foreign companies can systematically examine the entire content of patent applications
18

submitted to the Japan Patent Office because Japan, Europe, and now the United States publish 

those materials on the Internet 18 months after an inventor files for a patent, regardless of

whether the patent has been granted or not.

After Director Gotani reported his findings to Tokyo, the Japanese Patent Office (JPO)

examined how often people inside China, as well as South Korea, entered their computer system

to look at Japanese patent applications. The JPO officials were stunned to learn there were

17,000 inquiries a day from China and 55,000 a day from South Korea.

3 The Chinese and South

Korean companies were systematically retrieving information about the most advanced research

and development underway in Japan for incorporation into Chinese and Korean research,

development and products.

In July 2005, The Yomiuri Shimbun, one of Japan’s largest newspapers, used the Gotani story 

to illustrate the technological vulnerability created in Japan by the Japan Patent Office’s

premature publication of patent applications. The newspaper editorially concluded that Japan’s

intellectual property competitiveness, a foundation of that nation’s strength, was widely

threatened by this practice.

For decades, Japanese and European patent offices have published patent applications at the 18-

month point. But to get such information, a researcher was forced to go the Japanese or

European patent offices and laboriously search through the filed papers. Then, the principal

beneficiaries of such labor-intensive and expensive research were those nations’ own domestic

corporations. U.S. companies, large and small, were also forced to make early publication of

their patent applications a prerequisite to securing foreign patent protection, allowing foreign

industries to get an early peek at American innovations.

A decade ago such a review of patent applications in the United States would have been

impossible, even illegal. Before 1999, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) was

required by Congress to keep secret the contents of a patent application – the information was

published only if, and after, a patent had been granted. The content of rejected applications was

also kept secret, allowing the inventors to use their creations as trade secrets. The ultimate

example of a how a well-kept trade secret can facilitate long-term success is the Coca-Cola

Company and its secret formula for Coke Classic.

Unprotected American Secrets

U.S. patent policy changed in November 1999 when the U.S. Congress enacted Public Law 106-

113 that included a little-noticed provision requiring the USPTO to follow the practices of

Japanese and European patent offices and publish patent applications 18 months after filing.

The first USPTO publications were made in the fall of 2001 when 27,000 patent applications

reached the 18-month mark. By October 1, 2006, the USPTO had placed on the Internet a total

of 1,271,000 patent applications.

4

The electronic publication of patent applications on the Internet gives anyone located anywhere

in the world instant access to the file of any issued patent in the U.S., Japan or Europe, plus the

details about any patent application that has reached the 18-month-after-filing mark. To put the

economic significance of this procedure into context, the U.S., Japanese and European patent
19

offices receive virtually all the patent applications made worldwide and they issue

approximately 85 percent of all patents granted in the world. Thus, the fastest, easiest and least

expensive R&D program for a company or a developing nation unconcerned about patent rights

is to hire skilled analysts, give them access to the Internet and have them “mine” the

information made public by the patent offices of Japan, Europe and the United States.

Other nations, notably China, and their state-owned and private companies, are aggressively 

mining the U.S., Japanese and European patent systems for their R&D. The ability to access

ideas only 18 months after a patent has been filed, but before the protection of a patent is

provided, enables these nations and companies to get someone else’s newest innovation to

market faster than American, Japanese or European entrepreneurs generally can because the real

creators’ ability to produce their innovations is postponed by the need for a patent in order to get

seed capital. Well-financed infringers have no such limitation.

Consequently, the Congressionally-mandated publication of U.S. patent applications is akin to

the U.S. pouring massive amounts of R&D money into a big bucket in order to stimulate the

creation of more U.S. innovations and ultimately more and better American jobs. But imagine

that there is a big hole in that bucket and the innovations flowing from that new stream of

money are flowing to other nations at the expense of their American owners. This is not

imaginary. The 18-month rule is the hole in America’s innovation bucket.

The Nano-Power of the Internet

Although the governments of Japan and Europe had long lobbied the United States to adopt

their 18-month rule, those governments and their corporate leaders badly underestimated the

power of the Internet to distribute the details of their patent applications.

5 Nor did they

anticipate the magnitude of modern commercial piracy, much of which today is state-protected.

Thus, not just America’s advanced technologies and creations are available worldwide for early

examination, and theft, so too are those of Japan and Europe, as Director Gotani and the JPO

were shocked to discover in 2005.

And to compound these vulnerabilities, the governments of Japan and Europe, as did the U.S.

government, have given Chinese producers, the most aggressive patent pirates in history,

unimpeded access to their goods and their domestic markets.

Logical questions are why does the United States have this 18-month rule in the first place?

What was the original intent? In the 1990s when Congress was considering this proposal, three

reasons were given.

The first was that the United States needed to harmonize its patent system with those of Japan

and Europe. Yet, as skeptics pointed out then, the U.S. has the “gold standard” of global patent

systems. Harmonization was a political argument on a par with “everyone else does it, and so

should we.”

A second, more substantive, reason was to eliminate the threat of “submarine” patents, an

argument developed in the late 1980s and refined in the 1990s by the Japanese development

Ministry.6 Yet, a former Commissioner of the USPTO, has testified before Congress that

between 1971 and 1993, only 627 patent applications out of 2.3 million could be classified as
20

submarine patents. At least a third of those were U.S. government military secrets. In the late

1970s, moreover, the Patent Office had established a system to prevent submarine patents and 

not one had been issued since then.

A third reason was that U.S. companies were supposedly wasting precious resources on

duplicative research. Duplication would be prevented if companies could see what others were

doing through the publication of patent applications. What was not considered are the R&D

losses to inventors when the details of their creations are published but the USPTO does not

grant a patent. Between November 2001 and October 1, 2006, more than 160,000 rejected 

patent applications suffered that fate – the applications were published, the USPTO did not

grant a patent and the inventors’ creations instantly became prior art. I suspect that the costs of

lost R&D that this entailed far exceeds any losses that would have been created by any

duplicative research.

Of course, if patent pendency rates could be reduced to less than 18-months, the need for any 

such publication would be obviated.

Over the past 40 years, several “Blue Ribbon” commissions and other groups have prepared 

recommendations on patent reform, the most recent being that by the Federal Trade

Commission (2003), the National Academy of Sciences (2004) and the Congressional Research

Service (2005) – all of which are distinguished by their under representation of perspectives

from small entity inventors. The most influential of these studies was The Advisory

Commission on Patent Law Reform, a study group that was created by Secretary of Commerce

Robert Mosbacher in 1991, made the case for early publication in its 1992 report. Their work

was the foundation for a multi-year legislative effort by the Clinton Administration.

The Mosbacher report recommended publication at the 24-month point. When the Mosbacher

Commission made its report the average pendency rate was 19 months, as opposed to 31.1

months in 2006. The average pendency for a first action by the USPTO was only eight months

versus 22.6 months in 2006. The anticipation back then was that most patent applications

would have been processed and patents issued or denied by the date of mandatory publication.

As this suggests, the changes recommended by the Mosbacher Commission were made in an 

altogether different era. It was before globalization, before the creation of the World Wide

Web, before China’s emergence as a major economic power and collector of foreign

technologies and before the emergence of mega-piracy. Those changes have altered the world

in ways that could not be imagined in 1992. Yet the Mosbacher recommendations from that era

still define the present reforms now before Congress.

In an experiment for this analysis, I accessed the Internet from my home computer and 

examined the published patents and patent applications of a private chemical company that

zealously guards its technologies and business strategies. Because of Public Law 106-113, and 

its 18-month publication requirement, I could view every U.S. patent ever issued to that

company, plus its 120-plus patent applications that have reached the 18-month mark. Were I a

chemist, I would be able to deconstruct that company’s research agenda, identify its

breakthroughs and, most likely, identify where its research, development and business were

headed.

For small entity inventors, the cost of filing a patent in dozens of other nations is prohibitive.
21

Neither can they afford to defend their patents in dozens of other foreign courts. Altogether,

almost two-thirds of all U.S.-origin patent applications are not filed in other nations. This

means that the “U.S. should publish all its patent applications because they will be made public

elsewhere, anyway” argument is false.

The policy of the USPTO is neither to identify who seeks information from USTPO computers

nor count inquiries. The USPTO sells its raw files, the materials provided on its web site, to 

commercial firms and other governments that then make the information user-friendly for

companies such as the Haier Group. So, no one knows whether analysts from other nations

examine the USPTO filings any more or less than they examine those of the Japan or Europe. A

reasonable assumption is that U.S., Japanese and European patent offices are subject to the same

intensive levels of scrutiny.

The USPTO and its employees are merely doing the job Congress has given it, and doing so

competently. The problem is that in the 1999 legislation, Congress changed the historic

“bargain” the U.S. made with its creative people. For more than two centuries, that bargain was

twofold – (1) that in exchange for disclosing the details of a creation, an inventor would be

given the exclusive use of it for a set time and (2) if no patent were issued, the details of the

creation would be kept a secret, thereby allowing it to be used as a trade secret or be developed

further.

Under this new “bargain,” however, the details of inventions are published before USPTO

makes a decision to provide the protection of a patent. In effect, society gets its ice cream

before having to eat its broccoli. It gets knowledge without providing commensurate protection.

This is of great consequence.

The uncompensated, Congressionally-mandated “taking” of information in a rejected patent

application and giving it to the world destroys any possibility that the inventor can use the

innovation as a trade secret or develop it further for resubmission for a patent. The magnitude

of these takings is massive. USPTO reports that about 41 percent of all patent applications were

rejected in 2005 - about 69,000 applications. Some of this 41 percent may eventually be given a

patent as the data include abandoned applications that may be refiled, continuances and other

forms of disposals. Nonetheless, tens of thousands of patent applications, proprietary

information, were made public, for use by anyone, anywhere. Today, an inventor’s risk is about

50-50 that their application will be rejected and that the USPTO will put their creation into the

public domain unless they choose against publication and agree not to seek a patent in any other

nation.

George Margolin, Vice President of the Professional Inventors Alliance and the holder of

several dozen patents on photographic equipment and advanced semiconductor production 

devices, characterizes this premature release of secrets as “reverse alchemy – converting the

gold of invention into the dross of lead.” For inventors and the U.S. economy, that is certainly 

true.

Lengthening pendency rates also increase the risk of piracy and magnify the losses to inventors,

and ultimately the U.S. economy. The time required to process an application from filing to the

grant of a patent, the period termed “pendency,” has increased from approximately 18 months in

the early 1990s to more than 31 months in 2007.7 The average time the information in an

application is on the Internet before a patent decision is made has grown from a few months to
22

more than a year. For many complex applications, such as biotechnologies and computerrelated innovations, this pendency is now past 44 months, leaving this proprietary information

on the Internet almost two years before a patent is issued, if it is issued.8

Congress enacted two special provisions to mitigate the harmful effects of the 18-month rule.

First, any inventor who chooses not to file a patent outside the United States on a creation is

exempt from the early publication requirement, though the inventor must make a special effort

not to file. The default procedure at USPTO is to publish, unless requested otherwise by the

applicant.

Second, the owner of a patent can collect royalties or damages from an infringer from the date

the patent application was filed until the date the USPTO granted the patent.

Both these provisions are widely viewed as unsatisfactory compensation to inventors for the

early publication of their applications. To force applicants to accept the 18-month rule, in the

first provision described above, Congress has effectively prohibited them from seeking the

patent protection they need to do business in other nations. Likewise the Department of Justice

argued in the Microsoft v AT&T case heard by the Supreme Court in the spring of 2007 that a

patent owner should file for a patent overseas if they want to protect it in a particular country.

By effectively restricting the use of patented intellectual property to U.S. markets, this policy 

undermines other, broader national policies that encourage full U.S. engagement in the global

marketplace.

Despite these stiff limitations, almost ten percent of all patent applicants take the “U.S-only”

option, choosing full patent security in the U.S. now (including keeping their rights to a trade

secret) over the chance of getting patent protection in the rest of the world later. But this

number is deceiving as to its importance because half of U.S. patent applications are of foreignorigin. Virtually all foreign-origin patents do not seek the opt-out option because their

applications are published at 18 months in other nations. As roughly half of the total

applications are from foreign-owned entities, this means that the share of U.S.-origin 

applications is roughly twice the 10 percent of the total – in other words, as much as 20 percent

of all U.S.-origin patent applications chose not to have their patent applications published by the

USPTO. One caveat is in order: Although many academics, or their employers, may choose

not to have USPTO publish their application, many also disclose details of their creations by the

publication of papers and presentations at conferences.

Intuitively, most of those inventors are in the small entity category because they cannot afford 

multiple international filings. Since small entities file 31 percent of all U.S.-origin patent

applications, I estimate that more than half of all small entity applicants choose not to have their

secrets published. (See Table One) Half is a significant number that should be carefully

considered in any Congressional patent reform efforts.

The second compensation Congress provided is also inadequate in that it requires the patent

owner to provide the infringer “actual notice” of the published application and then specify the

claims that are being infringed. To meet such an impossibly high standard at such an early stage

in a patent’s life, patent owners must first discover who, here and abroad, is infringing their

patent claims during the pre-grant publication period, and then formally notify them they are

infringing. Since each nation has its own patent laws, patent owners must bring any suit against

infringers in the nation(s) that issued the patent.
23

Beyond the onerous impracticality of requiring the patent holder to provide such detailed notice,

foreign litigation in faraway places such as China can cost at least a million dollars per case.

Moreover, the Office of the United States Trade Representative has repeatedly reported to 

Congress that such cases have a high risk of failure and that when successful the damage awards

are generally trivial.

Total secrecy until an application is approved or rejected, therefore, is the only assured 

protection an inventor really has while an application is being examined by the USPTO.

The Japanese government is dealing with the reality of the ever-expanding foreign piracy and

counterfeiting of its citizens’ intellectual property by quietly encouraging its corporations to

keep their best and most advanced technologies inside Japan where security is tight. Trade

secrets and tight corporate security are their protection. If a patent is warranted, certain high 

technologies are given priority in the JPO examination process, allowing a patent to be issued

prior to the 18-month mark.

Japan’s policy is practical, though it diminishes the sharing of knowledge with society. Japan’s

strategy is also economically risky because if the trade secret is reverse-engineered by a

competitor or compromised in a legal manner, few protections exist for the patent owner

worldwide.

Interviews with several U.S. inventors and business people, though not a representative

statistical sample, suggest that many are increasingly treating their creations as trade secrets.

They realistically calculate that a premature disclosure through the 18-month publication

process will result in the piracy of their creations. This unintended consequence of action by the

U.S. Congress cuts the heart out of America’s long-term innovation process, limiting the spread 

of knowledge created by a vast base of innovators.

Parties in Conflict

Small changes in something so complex as U.S. patent laws are fraught with unintended

consequences of great significance. As in medicine, that is why the first principle in any

government “reform” should be, “do no harm.”

A major unintended consequence of the 18-month rule is that the large U.S., Japanese and

European corporations that persuaded the U.S. Congress to legislate it into law are among its

principal victims. These corporations and their patent lawyers and advisors did not adequately 

consider the extraordinary power of the Internet to facilitate the instantaneous, detailed mining

of all granted patents and all unprotected patent applications in all the world’s patent offices.

Nor did they anticipate China’s aggressive, technology-based industrial policies. Most

important, they did not anticipate how lucrative open global markets would make patent,

copyright and trademark piracy. They let the foxes into their economic henhouse.

Historically, Congress set U.S. patent rights through a political process that allowed the affected

domestic parties at conflict to find a compromise. That process is impaired now, largely

because of the changing nature of the parties at interest.
24

The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) usefully distinguishes between what it

terms “small entities” (independent inventors, companies with 500 or fewer employees, not-forprofit organizations, and universities) and “large entities” (larger corporations).

Until recently, the principal patent conflict was between independent inventors and large U.S.

corporations, a reflection that individual inventors are a natural enemy of the status quo, large

corporations and state-owned enterprises. With globalization, however, that conflict has quickly 

expanded to the world stage and increasingly it is including a conflict between developing and

developed nations for access and control of various technologies and industries. The large

corporations are even more likely to be victimized by global pirates in this lawless post-Internet

economic age than independent inventors because they have more patents applications

published, and are thus more vulnerable to theft.

Even with all the filings from large U.S. corporations and their counterparts from around the

world, small entity inventors still receive roughly 31 percent of all U.S.-origin patents every 

year. This happens nowhere else in the world. It is the very heart of what Austrian economist

Joseph Schumpeter called “creative destruction” and for more than two hundred years has been 

the engine of America’s economic growth. It is America’s principal hope for meeting the global

economic challenges it faces.

The role of small entity innovation is inadequately understood and undervalued in the United

States, largely because it has been under-studied.9 Small entity inventors play a key role in this

creative process. Research funded by the Small Business Administration reveals,

o Small firm patents on average are more technically important than large firm

patents and are twice as likely to be among the top one percent of most

frequently cited patents.

o Small patenting firms produce 13 times more patents per employee than large

patenting firms.

o Small firms represent one-third of the most prolific patenting companies that

have 15 or more U.S. patents.

o Small firms are more effective in producing high-value innovations.

o Small firm innovation is twice as closely linked to scientific research as large

firm innovation on average and is substantially more high-tech or leading edge.

10

For small entity inventors, patent rights are essential, providing them the means to raise capital,

make license arrangements and defend themselves against infringers.

In the past, large entity inventors were more cavalier about patents. Judge Howard Markey, the

first Chief Judge of the Federal Circuit, the appellate court that hears patent cases exclusively,

wrote of this:

Many giant corporations have no need of a patent system. They may obtain

patents, but only as a defense against some little machine shop operator who 
25

might otherwise invent and patent something the public would demand, and the

big corporation would have to negotiate for, instead of adding the item to its

product line. Many large corporations should be glad to compete on size,

nationwide service, high volume, strong finance, and prompt delivery. They

can kill off smaller competitors on any of these bases, unless the small

competitor has a patent on a product somebody wants to buy.

11

Increasingly, however, large U.S. entities are realizing that global patent rights are also essential

to their survival. In a world where China, India, Brazil and other nations are quickly becoming

the world’s workshop -- manufacturing everything from the simplest to the most advanced 

technologies -- many large entity American-headquartered corporations have transformed 

themselves into little more than intellectual property holding companies that design, market and 

distribute products and services which are produced by others in foreign locales. The protection 

of those corporations’ intellectual property rights is vital because those rights constitute a major

portion of their stockholders’ real value.

Since each nation has its own patent system and laws, patent owners often face the prospect of

having to mount cases in several nations to protect their property. As dozens of major U.S.

transnational corporations have discovered, patent protections provided in developing nations,

such as China, are generally meaningless, as are the judicial remedies in those countries. The

small entity inventors are particularly disadvantaged when pitted against deep-pocket pirates,

particularly those who enjoy the political and financial support of their governments, such as in

China.

The legislative record of the 1999 enactment of the 18-month rule reveals the consequences of

this change in U.S. patent law were given scant attention. The principal arguments for this

legislation were that it would make the U.S. system more like those of Japan and Europe, and it

would help cut down on duplicative research. Then, the power and reach of the Internet were

only partially understood and the limitations of the World Trade Organization intellectual

property protections (TRIPS) were not yet clear, as was the reluctance of governments in

developing countries to confront patent piracy.

A New Culture of Infringement

In 1999, when the last major legislative changes were made in patent law, Congress and those

who advised it did not recognize or understand the emergence of a new U.S. business model,

one created in large measure by a new generation of U.S. tech companies whose approach is to 

pirate the patents of others, quickly become very rich and powerful and deal with the

consequences later.

In testimony before the U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary in May 2006, Dr. Nathan P.

Myhrvold, formerly Chief Technology Officer for Microsoft and now CEO of Intellectual

Ventures, explained how this aggressive business model works:

“Most tech companies have made a deliberate decision to ignore the patent

system. ... The tech company will hire smart people and put them under huge

pressure and lucrative incentives to create state of the art products. They
26

send people to technical conferences, and encourage them to read scientific

papers so they can learn the latest techniques. Yet, they do not allow them to

read patents – not even patents by the same people whose research papers

they use, or patents of the institutions from which they hire employees. In

most tech companies, it is vehemently against company policy for engineers to

read patents. This is based on a “see no evil, hear no evil” theory that it is

better to feign ignorance than to find you’re infringing. They do not check

their products to see whether they infringe anybody else’s patents – a common

practice in other industries, known as patent clearance. Nor do they have

established programs to license outside patents on a proactive basis. The

R&D strategy is very effective because you don’t spend any time worrying

about other people’s patent rights. It inevitably leads to infringing many valid

patents. It is the engineering equivalent of driving at high speed, with the

accelerator pedal mashed to the floor, but not looking to see whether there are

other cars around. ... Their strategy is ‘get big fast,’ own the market and, if

there is a patent problem, sort it out later.”12

In fairness, what Dr. Myhrvold describes was the U.S. and German technology strategy in the

19th Century, the Japanese strategy in the 20th Century and now China’s strategy in the 21st

Century. The more familiar term is “mercantilism,” a systematic approach to acquiring the

technologies of other nations and undercutting their economic abilities. “Predation” is the term

applied when companies engage in such strategies.

To expect that the “smart people” under the “huge pressure” Myhrvold describes would obey

these corporate edicts, and not sneak a peak at a cutting-edge patent application, is probably

unrealistic. If such ambitious and unprincipled people refuse to respect the legal rights of patent

holders, why would they be expected to respect the rights of patent applicants?

If these infringers can use the creations patented by others to quickly seize ownership of an 

entire market, they can become rich enough to buy their way out of any lawsuit, including

purchasing the victim’s company, as often happens. Or, they can simply destroy their victims

with the cost of litigation, forcing a cheap settlement on their own terms, often forcing the

opponent into bankruptcy. Or, they can pay a large settlement out of their winnings. Or, they

can invest a few million dollars in lobbyists and trade associations to weaken the patent laws

and penalties for infringement. Or they can hire the best Constitutional experts and challenge

the validity of key parts of U.S. patent laws. All these options are being used. For them,

stealing pays very well.

The economics of the serial infringers’ business strategy, as described by Dr. Myhrvold, can be

reduced to a cost-benefit analysis. He commissioned an examination of the Securities and

Exchange Commission (SEC) records of four corporations that are leading the political charge

to weaken U.S. patent protections and calculated how much they paid out in patent lawsuit

settlements during the period 1993-2005. In total, the analysts discovered that these four

companies paid $3.5 billion in patent settlements. But, their “pedal to the metal” business

strategy enabled them to take in $1.4 trillion of revenue. Thus, the settlement costs were only

one-quarter of one percent of their revenues (0.26 percent) – in relative terms a minor cost of

doing business. If such corporations can persuade Congress and the Supreme Count to weaken 

existing patent laws and penalties, infringement is made even less costly and thus more

desirable as a business model.
27

This new reality is that the world of innovation is filled with powerful governments and large

corporations that have made a deliberate decision to infringe (steal) the patents owned by others,

and then do all in their power to derail and postpone a reckoning with the owners. The

premature publication of patent applications enables these infringers to access the newest, best

technology only 18 months after it is sufficiently perfected for a patent application. As the

world’s principal source of innovation, the creative people and companies of the United States

are the principal victims of such theft.

Naturally, the question is how did something so obviously harmful as the 18-month rule is

become the law of the United States? The answer is essential to devising a remedy.

The Politics of Publication

The 18-month rule is an old idea, one long used by the Japanese and Europeans to get an early

peek at what their inventors are doing. The principal U.S. advocates were large entity 

corporations and the organizations and service providers they fund, who since the late 1960s

publicly lobbied for Congressional adoption of Japanese and European patent publication

practices.

As these studies reflect, large corporations and their service providers dominate the

membership, control and recommendations of such study groups. Notably absent from such 

committees are representatives of small companies and individual inventors. The absence is

consequential because small entity inventors are the source of about 31 percent of all U.S.-

origin patents granted. For more than 40 years, small entity inventors and their organizations

have stoutly opposed publication of applications prior to the grant of a patent.

In recent years, the consultative process with Congress has become skewed in favor of the large

entities. Partially, this reflects large U.S. corporations’ influence with a succession of

Presidents and the Congress, allowing them to shape U.S. patent policies. But less visibly, this

imbalance also reflects the growing and tightly focused political intervention of Japanese and

European corporations and their governments in U.S. politics and governance. Data produced

by the Center for Public Integrity, a nonprofit organization that monitors lobbying, reveals that

between 1998 and 2004 companies headquartered in 78 countries spent more than $620 million

for the lobbying work of 550 Washington, D.C. firms and 3,800 lobbyists, including 100 former

Members of Congress who are working as foreign agents. Today, almost 700 foreign

governments and corporations employ almost 4,000 lobbyists in Washington, D.C.

As I documented in Hot Property, large entity corporations from the U.S., Japan and Europe so 

dominated the creation of what became the Trade Related Intellectual Property Aspects (TRIPS)

of the World Trade Agreement adopted in 1994 that their lawyers actually drafted the text the

WTO adopted. In that trilateral effort, European business was represented by UNICE, the

Union of Industrial and Employers’ Confederations of Europe, the official voice of businesses

and industries from 22 European nations. The Keidanren, whose membership includes all

major Japanese companies and industry associations, represented Japanese business. A selfappointed group of corporations from the Business Roundtable represented the United States,

including IBM, Pfizer, Merck, Johnson & Johnson, Bristol-Myers, Hewlett-Packard, General

Motors, General Electric, DuPont, Monsanto, CBS, FMC, Warner and Rockwell International.
28

As part of that process, the European, Japanese and U.S. patent offices formed a trilateral

project in 1983 to harmonize the creation of a unitary trilateral patent system. Since 1983, the

directors of the European, Japanese and U.S. patent offices have held 24 trilateral conferences to

effect such integration. Much of that work deals with fundamental questions, such as intercomputer compatibility and which word processing software is mutually acceptable. Yet, much 

of that work also deals with fundamental policy questions, such as should the United States

change from a system that grants a patent to the first person to invent or the first person to file a

patent application?

The issue of who advises the governments on the views of inventors is significant. While the

governments of Japan and Europe have traditionally relied on the views of their large entities to

help set their patent policies, the U.S. now does so as well. That process is formalized in the

Trilateral Project these governments have formed. The trade associations of the large entity 

inventors present the views of U.S. patent holders. Small entity representatives have been

absent at those deliberations, and their perspectives ignored.

A uniquely American problem is created by revolving door appointments – that is, policy

officials in USPTO moving between high public office and the corporations, lobbyists and law

firms that rely on USPTO decisions. It is a culture that provides rich incentives to elevate the

interests of large entities over those of small entities and international over national concerns. It

is an approach in which lawyers, former Members of Congress and ex-Hill staff with no

experience in business or management experience of the scale required are put in charge of the

USPTO, an institution responsible for decisions and assets of critical importance to the economy

and national security.

The point is that the function of the USPTO is quasi-judicial in nature. It involves the

management of thousands of people. The decisions that the USPTO makes are fundamental to

America’s innovation, competitiveness and economic policies. The Under Secretary of

Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the United States Patent and Trademark 

Office has responsibilities that are every bit as sensitive and important to the nation as those of

the Director of Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Director General of the General

Accountability Office, whose top positions are set respectively for fixed terms of 10 and 15 

years, after which the officeholder may not be reappointed. While the positions of

Commissioner of Patents and Commissioner of Trademarks are set for 5-year renewal terms, the

top job is not. As with the FBI and GAO, Congress should consider requiring a one-time fixed

appointment of the top job at USPTO for a duration comparable to that at the FBI or GAO.

The Arithmetic of Patent Reform

Diluting the legal power of U.S. patents, under the guise of “patent reform,” remains a major

goal of other governments and numerous transnational corporations, many of which are

headquartered in the United States.

The agenda of their lobbying effort contains numerous proposals, including (1) changing the

U.S. patent system to a first-to-file approach, (2) eliminating the “opt-out” provision in the 18-

month publication rule, (3) eliminating the requirement to provide a “best mode” description in

the application, (4) limiting to egregious acts the legal provision that provides triple damages for
29

willful infringement, (5) permitting a third-type of post-grant challenge of an issued patent and

(6) allowing a third party challenge to a patent application while it is under review by the

USPTO.

The details of these provisions are complex, and their consequences not immediately obvious.

Thus, the lobbying campaigns for these proposals concentrate on two themes that are more

understandable and more politically acceptable. The first theme is that a patent litigation crisis

exists. The second is that the USPTO is approving a large body of sub-quality patents. Neither

is correct.

The “litigation crisis” theme argues that greedy plaintiffs, filing so many unworthy lawsuits, are

impeding U.S. innovation, unfairly imposing massive burdens on law-biding corporations and

inventors and harming America’s ability to compete in the global economy.

A new lobbying group for tech companies describes this crisis on it web site’s home page as

follows:

Did you know?

Nationwide, the number of patent litigation cases more than doubled

between 1991 and 2001; the number of patent litigation cases in 2005

was more than 19.5% greater than the number in 2001. In Marshall,

Texas alone, where only seven patent cases were filed in 2003, 116 

cases have been filed in the last 16 months?13

These numbers are correct, but highly misleading -- a prime example of Professor Darrel Huff’s

maxim (Lying with Statistics, W.W. Norton Publisher, 1993) that “Numbers, when tortured,

will confess to anything."

While the number of patent litigation cases did more than double between 1991 and 2001, in the

same period the number of patent applications grew from 178,000 to 346,000 and the USPTO

issued 77,000 more patents in 2001 than it did in 1991.14 The number of patent cases that went

to trial between 2001 and 2005 did rise from 76 to 107, actually a 40 percent increase. (See

Table Two) Yet the key fact is that of all the patent lawsuits filed more than 96 percent were

settled without a trial. Clearly, most of these filings were for purposes of negotiation.

As for Marshall, Texas, the New York Times did a profile on the town in 2006 noting that more

patent lawsuits will be filed in that federal district court than all others except the Central

District in Los Angeles.

15 The reason that particular court gets so many patent cases, according

the article, is that Judge T. John Ward is an expert in patent law, quickly moves cases to trial

and local juries are willing to give large awards to those victimized by patent infringers.

Historically, decisions there favor the patent owner. That court is not a good place for lawyers

who try to delay the judicial process, a common strategy particularly when a cash-poor plaintiffinventor sues a rich infringer-defendant. Almost 95 percent of the cases filed there settle

quickly.

Closer to Washington, D.C. the District Court for Northern Virginia is known as the “rocket

docket,” a fast, expert, efficient court that handles complex patent cases. Courts with such

expertise, and that are managed well, deter gaming of the system and reduce the need for post-
30

grant procedures at USTPO to administratively hear patent case.

Several advocates of patent “reform” are urging Congress to establish a handful of patent courts

around the nation, what is known as the “venue” issue, and forcing plaintiffs to file their cases

in the closest one of those few or in the area where they or the other party reside. The goal is to

keep cases out of the “rocket dockets.” Few of these advocates have publicly supported the idea

of providing the federal courts with additional resources for more staff. Not surprisingly,

advocates of a weaker patent system also wish to exclude juries from hearing patent cases,

though juries now decide more than 50 percent of patent damage awards. For 15 of the past 23

years, the median award of damages in patent cases by juries has exceeded that of judges. 16

A major advocacy group illustrates the “litigation crisis” by noting the soaring number of

“intellectual property” cases filed between 2001 and 2005. Missing in their explanation is that

the broad term “intellectual property” includes all copyright and trademark cases filed. It is true

that the number of “intellectual property” cases soared from 8,282 in 2001 to more than 12,000

in 2005, but, the surge was created by an explosion of copyright cases filed by entertainment

companies against people downloading pirated music and movies from the Internet. There has

been no surge of patent suits. (See Table Three)

The Federal Judicial Caseload Statistics, which are issued annually by the Administrative Office

of the U.S. Courts, reveal that in the six-year period 2001-2006 the number of patent lawsuits

filed increased from 2,520 to 2,700 – a growth of seven percent or barely more than one percent

annually. In both 2005 and 2006, the total number of lawsuits commenced actually declined

each year.

Equally important is the question of what happened with those cases? The federal judicial

caseload statistics and the USPTO data on patent applications and grants reveal:

Only 5/10,000 of one percent of patents issued are challenged in a patent trial.

In 2006, more than 52 percent of all patent lawsuits commenced, settled before pretrial.

In 2006, more than 12 percent of patent lawsuits settled during or after pretrial.

In 2006, only 102 patent cases went to trial, which represents about 3.8 percent of all patent

cases commenced.

Put into context, the number of patent lawsuits that go to trial annually rose from 76 cases in

2001 to 102 cases in 2006. While individual companies that were sued could consider

themselves as under siege and settle to avoid litigation expenses, the long-term trend suggests

that there are proportionally no more patent suits per patents granted now than in the past. The

ratio of patent lawsuits per patents granted has hovered around the 1.5 percent level in the 14-

year period 1993 and 2006 (Table Four).

For a nation that now grants almost 200,000 patents annually and has millions of patents in

effect, 2,700 newly filed cases per year, of which only 102 go to trial, is by no measure a patent

“litigation crisis. “ The reality is that by the time a case reaches court or appeal, it most likely

does involve a real patent with real infringement. The point is not many cases ever reach this

point.
31

A “solution” to this non-existent problem proposed by many in the large entity community is for

Congress to adopt a European-type third chance to contest a patent for nine-months after it has

been granted. This would be an inter partes proceeding before a USPTO administrative judge.

As with the current inter partes process, all parties would be involved. The principal advantage

of this new challenge process is it would lessen a plaintiff’s legal costs, while creating another

opportunity to challenge a patent’s validity.

Missing in this discussion, so far, is an examination of the experiences of other nations. The

Innovation Alliance reports that,

Less than 10 years after adopting such a system, Japan, Korea, Taiwan and

China have all recently abolished post-grant opposition procedures in favor of a

streamlined invalidation proceeding that permits a centralized process for

administrative reexamination. The Japanese Patent Office has publicly

acknowledged that repeated attacks against a patent under duplicative

administrative and judicial opposition systems have imposed undue burdens on

patentees, resulting in increased costs and delays. Similarly, Taiwan concluded

that its post-grant opposition system unfairly benefited infringers to the

detriment of all patent owners.

The Innovation Alliance concludes that the post grant procedure,

“... would create a quasi-judicial system of administrative litigation that heavily

tips the balance in favor of the challenger’s interests; increases incentives to 

litigate; and disproportionately shifts litigation costs to the patent owner.

Unlike a civil proceeding, a post-grant opposition system would invite

challenges by any party adversely affected by a patent. And it would facilitate

invalidation by eliminating the patent’s presumption of validity and reducing

significantly the challenger’s evidentiary burden. In addition, the challenger

would be free of constraints designed to reduce the cost, scope and potential

abuses of administrative reexamination.17

The European experience with such post-grant review confirms that view. Its procedures are

used not only to test the validity of patents, but also as a means for infringers to extort patent

owners. The March 2007 Euromoney Institutional Investor reports that one of the important

values of this post-grant challenge process in Europe is its use as a “business tool.”

It is relatively inexpensive to file an opposition, but it can have the

effect of removing a patent which blocks a technology area of interest,

restricting the scope of an overly broad patent or simply provoking

licensing discussions with the patentee. Thus, the offensive value of

oppositions in Europe should not be overlooked.18

The aggressive use of such challenges in Europe can truss a patent for 40 months or more after

it has been granted. This process has the effect in Europe of rendering all granted patents as

“conditional” until the nine-month window for filing a challenge expires. If challenged, the
32

EPO reports that the average duration of its inter parte process is 31 months. The mere threat of

a challenge, therefore, is sufficient to force many patentees to grant a license rather than face a

three- or four-year delay.

How prevalent are such challenges in Europe? Very. Wilding and Bridle report that in 2004 

and 2005 more than five percent of all granted patents in Europe were challenged through this

inter partes procedure. Challenged patents were upheld in whole or part 62 percent of the time

in the first round. In appeal, 20 percent of the challenged patents were revoked. The issue in

Europe is both that of weeding out invalid patents and gaming the inter partes challenge process

for business reasons.

Imagine what would happen in the United States, which has a far more litigious society than

Europe, if Congress adopts this post-grant nine-month review and challenge process. If five

percent of U.S. patents granted annually are challenged, as in Europe, the USPTO would be

forced to handle almost 10,000 cases a year – 17 times the total number of ex parte and inter

partes challenges (581) filed at the USPTO in FY 2006.

By making patent challenges easier and less costly, this proposed solution is likely to stimulate

more rather than fewer lawsuits. The big change is that USPTO judges will be hearing most of

these cases. If the U.S. rate of such challenges equals Europe’s, the total number of cases filed 

in U.S. courts and at the USPTO would surge from the current 3,300 per year (2700 lawsuits

plus 581 USPTO ex parte and inter partes challenges) to 10,000 or more post-grant cases alone.

Plus, plaintiffs that did not use these procedures would still have the option of filing a patent

lawsuit in the federal courts.

The introduction of a post grant challenge process would mean that for thousands of inventors,

the time they would have an unchallenged, exclusive use of their creation would drop from 17.6 

years on average now to 14 years or even less.

Although no U.S. patent litigation crisis exists today, the unintended consequence of creating of

such a post-grant challenge process would be to surely create one.

The second theme being advanced by critics of the U.S. patent system is the poor quality of

patents the USPTO is granting. The “usual suspects” of patented frivolity, or what are often

called “vanity” or “silly” patents, include a patent on a sandwich and one on a backyard swing,

both of which have been revoked by the USPTO. The sandwich patent, however, was not on

how to make a sandwich, but on how to package a sandwich for long-term storage and use in

places such as convenience stores. The patent on a swing seems to be filed by an applicant and

a patent lawyer to demean the patent processes.

Missing from the “poor quality” argument is the identification of instances in which a “silly”

patent has been used as the basis for a successful lawsuit. Ronald J. Riley, Executive Director

of Inventor Ed, notes that, “many of these silly patents are the work of scoundrels in the

invention promotion industry, who have repeatedly defrauded people for typically between ten

and fifty thousand dollars.”

USPTO is making a concentrated effort to improve the quality of its product, requiring an

examiner to secure the approval of two supervisors before a patent is awarded. Consequently,

the patent allowance rate is dropping sharply at the USPTO – that is, the number of applications
33

compared to the number of patents granted. (See Chart 1) In the late 1990s, that rate was in the

70 percent levels. In 2006, it was 54 percent and dropping. While not conclusive, this is

suggestive of tougher standards.

The interference rate (the number of challenges per patents issued as to the origin of an

invention) is a second measure of quality. There are on average only 100 challenges per year as

to who is the true inventor of a patented creation. So few challenges in a system that is now

granting 180,000-plus patents each year is a remarkably positive test of quality. The conflict

rate is so low as to be statistically insignificant.

A third measure of patent quality is how many patents are challenged and survive after being

formally challenged. The USPTO provides two unbiased and relatively quick ways for anyone

to challenge an issued patent. In an ex parte challenge, a procedure available since 1981,

anyone can challenge a patent and the USPTO will review the patent’s claims. In the 26-year

period 1981-2006, the USPTO received 8403 requests for ex parte reexaminations, of which

7403 were granted. Of the 5640 ex parte reexamination certificates issued, 10 percent had all

claims cancelled, 64 percent had claim changes and 26 percent had all claims confirmed.19

The USPTO also offers a second method for anyone to challenge a patent – an inter partes

reexamination, which is akin to an abbreviated trial. The inter partes process was introduced in 

late 1999. In the 7-year period between 1999-2006, the USPTO has had 209 inter partes

requests for reexaminations, of which 168 were granted. Of the seven inter partes

reexamination certificates issued since 1999, only one had all claims confirmed and six had all

claims denied.

The average overall ex partes reexamination pendency rate (filing date to certificate issue date)

is 23 months. For inter partes reexaminations, it is 27.9 months.

Having 74 percent of the ex parte reexaminations result in claims cancelled or narrowed and 6

of the 7 inter partes challenges result in all claims denied reveals that these patents were of poor

quality. This also reveals that these processes are not biased in favor of inventors, as is often

asserted. If anything, these numbers reveal the opposite.

Most important, these numbers strongly support the thesis that almost all patents granted by

USPTO are sufficiently valid to preempt a challenge. Specifically, the USPTO issued more

than 3.185,000 patents between 1981 and 2006. During that same period, 8,612 patents were

challenged through the ex parte and inter partes processes – that is, only one/three thousandth

of one percent (0.003) were challenged.

The USPTO makes mistakes and on a rare occasion issues a “bad” patent. Yet, the tiny number

challenged over the past quarter century, and the even smaller number totally reversed strongly,

suggests that almost all patents granted by USPTO are of sufficient quality to be valid.

A fourth test of validity is the number of patents contested on appeal in a patent trial. By the

time a patent has been examined by USPTO, reexamined if requested and tried in a civil case, it

has withstood a test of fire. The Congress in 1982 established a special court that hears appeals

on patent cases – The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Few patent cases

go this far in the judicial process, but of those that do the lower court decisions are affirmed 

roughly two-thirds of the time.

20
34

Critics of the U.S. patent system argue this reflects a bias on the part of this Court. A more

realistic view is that by the time a patent reaches this advanced stage in the legal process, it has

been examined so closely that only a few are invalid, and those few often reflect a contested

point of patent law which ultimately may need to be resolved by either the Supreme Court or

Congress.

In sum, the USPTO is granting valid patents. Few invalid patents slip through the process and

where an invalid one does get through, the USPTO offers relatively quick, relatively

inexpensive challenge procedures. If that is unsatisfactory, a challenger can take the matter to a

federal district court, which happened only 102 times in 2006. America’s patent system is far

from broken. It works admirably.

A partial solution to the problem of “silly” patents could be for the critics to fund workshops in

select law schools, where students, working under the guidance of their professors, could file ex

parte examination requests at the USPTO. The experience for the students would be useful,

silly patents could be revoked and the USPTO could identify examiners who need more training

and supervision. It could also identify those critics and patent lawyers who are using their

special privileges to waste the USPTO’s limited resources.

The Mossinghoff Study

The United States is the only nation that gives a patent to the first-person-to-invent. All other

nations issue a patent to the first-to-file.

For more than 40 years, the governments of Japan and Europe have urged the U.S. to change its

patent system to be like theirs, as have many large-entity groups in the United States. Their

basic argument is “harmonization” that is, others do it and so therefore should the United States.

Transnational corporations would like one set of procedures and rules everywhere.

A first-to-file system would cut the costs for filing in multiple countries, since the forms and

procedures would be the same. These large U.S. corporations are accustomed to the first-to-file

systems in other nations, as are foreign corporations who apply in the United States under our

first-to-invent procedures.

The arithmetic behind any determination of which system is preferable for the United States is

this, (a) about half of all U.S. patent applications now come from abroad, (b) about 64 percent

of all U.S. patent applications are not filed abroad, (c) small entity inventors file 31 percent of

all U.S.-origin patent applications, and (d) most small entity inventors cannot afford to file for a

foreign patent and do not file for one.

The greatest beneficiaries of the first-to-invent system are America’s small-entity inventors.

Now, they are not pitted in a race to the Patent Office against richer, larger corporations, though 

they would be if Congress makes such a drastic change.

The pivotal public policy question is which system has less confusion as to whom the patent

should be awarded and results in better quality patents? In that contest, the U.S.’s first-to-invent

system wins hands down and is far preferable to the European and Japanese approach.
35

In 2005, a group of large-entity companies sponsored a study to determine whether small or

large entities are advantaged or disadvantaged by America’s first-to-invent approach. The study 

has been cited many times as proof that retaining a first-to-invent system is not justified by the

data. In fact, the data reveals just the opposite conclusion, which surely must have been a

surprise for the sponsors.

The study was directed by former Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks Gerald J.

Mossinghoff, who did a statistical analysis of what happens when two parties claim to have

invented something at nearly the same time, something called interference cases or two-party 

decisions.

21 If there were problems in the first-to-invent system, a large number of such cases

would exist. But they do not.

Remarkably, in the 22-year period 1983-2004, Mossinghoff found there were only 3,253 twoparty decisions, a period when the USPTO received 4.5 million applications and granted more

than 2.4 million patents. There were on average only 155 such interference cases per year, or as

Mossinghoff pointed out, less than one in 1000 applications filed. More recently, the USPTO

reports the average number of interference cases is only 100 per year.

Mossinghoff also found that the number of small entities advantaged in that 22-year period by

the interference process was 286 and the number disadvantaged was almost the same (289), a

strong statistical suggestion that the USPTO approach was balanced.

The Mossinghoff data provides an irrefutably strong argument for not changing from a first-toinvent to a first-to-file patent system. Specifically, the supposed disadvantage of the present

approach is that it leads to confusion and conflicts as to the real inventor. Yet, as the

Mossinghoff data conclusively reveals, this is not so. So few interference cases in the 22-year

period analyzed means the existing first-to-invent system is well understood by users and

produces few conflicts over who is the real inventor. The first-to-invent system works

exceedingly well for the United States. A first-to-file system would be pressed to do as well,

even after several years of operation.

The annual European Patent Offices (EPO) challenge rate was 5.4 percent of granted patents in

2005. The combination of all U.S. interferences, plus all USPTO ex parte and inter partes

challenges, plus all U.S. patent lawsuits commenced, per the number of U.S. patents granted 

produces a comparable U.S. challenge rate of 1.8 percent. The EOP challenge rate is three

times that of the United States, not counting lawsuits.

This difference is highly significant. It strongly suggests that Europe would be well advised to

adopt the U.S. first-to-invent approach if they wish to reduce confusion and lawsuits in their

patent process.

Mossinghoff’s study also reveals that small entities were involved in only 17.6 percent of these

two-party cases, although they generate 31 percent of all U.S-origin patent applications. The

overwhelming majority of those interference cases (82.4 percent) were between large entities

that fully understood the patent process and were capable of financing their advocacy.

The Mossinghoff data document that the number of small entity inventors affected by 

interferences is only one of every 7,800 applications. This is so statistically insignificant as to
36

be irrelevant. One of 7,800 is not a problem at the USPTO.

The point is that our present system is not adversely affecting large or small entity inventors nor

U.S. or foreign inventors as to who is the first to invent. The system results in less than one

third the annual number of patent challenges and lawsuits as that of Europe. Then, why “fix”

something that works so well? Why go to all the trouble, all the costs of changing to something

else, particularly when any possible benefits are so illusory?

If there is some benefit to U.S.-origin inventors other than imitating what other nations require,

other than using the same forms and procedures, which 64 percent of U.S. inventors never do

because they do not file for a foreign patent, advocates of that change should be forthcoming as

to what those benefits may be.

The other question raised in the Mossinghoff paper is about the ability of those few, those one in

7,800 inventors, to finance the legal costs of a two-party case. He found that 575 small entity

inventors, in that two-decade time period, took their cases to conclusion, which also strongly

suggests that legal costs were not a barrier, even for those few.

Strikingly, several of the “reforms” being proposed to Congress, including the first-to-file

proposal, are not a top priority of many large entity organizations. The Intellectual Property

Owners Association (IPO), a trade association of large corporations, reported at the Tokyo

Trilateral Meeting in November 2006 the results of a survey of 117 respondents attending its

September 2005 annual meeting, asking the attendees what patent reform topics were their most

important.

22 The IPO found that only 21 percent of the respondents to its survey thought that

modifying the law on willful infringement was the most important topic they faced.

Only 25 percent of the respondents thought a post-grant opposition system were most important.

Apparently, they felt the USPTO’s existing challenge processes are sufficient.

Only 40 percent of the responding IPO members believed that shifting to a first-to-file system

was the most important patent topic. Not surprisingly, the large entities are experienced and

skilled in dealing with the differences between the U.S., Japanese and European patent systems.

Indeed that gives them a competitive advantage over competitors who lack those capacities.

Concurrently, the Professional Inventors Alliance, which represents the views of independent

inventors, opposes all these proposed changes.

Why, therefore, are these proposals being considered if the large entity inventors do not think

they are a top priority and small entity inventors stoutly oppose them?

I conclude that the shift to a first-to-file system is a legacy recommendation, a hardy standard,

thrown into most Blue Ribbon studies without any analysis of what it would mean to American

inventors. Congress has rejected this change for decades and should reject it now.

The Likely Consequences of Patent “Reform”

If today’s patent “reform” campaign succeeds, the changes now being considered would likely

weaken the U.S. patent system and the protections it provides inventors. They would impede

U.S. innovation and harm America’s ability to face the global challenges we face.
37

Should inventors be required to include in their patent applications the “best mode” to replicate

and use their creations; that is, should they be required to share their knowledge of how best to

use their creation as part of the price for exclusive use?

I think the answer is yes – absolutely. The golden covenant of a patent is simple – exclusive use

in exchange for sharing new knowledge. Otherwise, the patent grantee gains the benefits of

government-licensed exclusivity, while denying the public the full knowledge to which it is

entitled. The possibility that this may cause patent owners future problems in litigation defenses

is no excuse for withholding knowledge.

In the early part of the 20th Century, I.G. Farben, the giant German chemical cartel, was granted 

dozens of chemical patents in the United States, giving it exclusive use of its creations.

However, Farben cheated. When DuPont and other chemical makers tried to replicate those

chemical processes during World War I, they discovered vital elements were missing. Farben

had not provided a best mode of use. It got the benefit of exclusive use without sharing 

knowledge. Indeed, Pierre DuPont, who spent more than $100 million of 1917 dollars trying to 

replicate those chemical patents, claimed that DuPont chemists would have been killed if they 

had followed the Farben patents.

23

The point is the United States should not give exclusive rights to inventors unless the inventors

share with the public the best and true way to independently replicate their creations.

Expanding public knowledge is one of the patent system’s most important functions.

In sum, the “reforms” currently being proposed would allow infringers to escape the

consequences of their actions, but they also will greatly weaken America’s small entity

inventors and those large entity inventors who obey the laws. This will happen through:

More infringement.

More litigation.

More delays for start-ups by small entity inventors.

More patent system abuses, such as those in Japan.

More piracy created by more “mining” of unprotected U.S. patent applications.

More patent applications as inventors rush to the USPTO to be the first to file.

Lower quality created by the premature filing of applications.

Lower financial recoveries for victims of patent infringement.

Recommendations

A culture of infringement exists in many developing nations, particularly China and Russia, and

among many Big Tech companies in the United States. This culture threatens the viability of

patent systems, here and abroad, and thus threatens the incentives that have long underpinned

U.S. innovation and development. If the processes of innovation are to be strengthened, this

new culture of infringement must be smashed. In 2005, the U.S.-China Economic and Security 

Review Commission studied the 18-month rule and recommended to Congress that it be

revoked, but patent legislation was not enacted in the 109th Congress. Thus, the following

recommendations are made.
38

Recommendation One – The Congress should impose an emergency suspension of the

publication of U.S.-origin patent applications until such time as (1) the United States Trade

Representative can certify that China, Russia and other nations on its priority watch of

intellectual property violators have brought the piracy of U.S. patents under control; (2) the

USPTO average pendency rate is below the 18-month level and (3) the Congress votes to

resume such publication. One exception should exist – the USPTO should publish the

applications of those U.S.-origin applicants that certify that they want publication at the 18-

month point or earlier.

The existing publication of U.S.-origin patent applications effectively destroys the possibility of

U.S. inventors using their creations as trade secrets or further developing their inventions and

re-submitting a patent application. Tens of thousands of potential U.S. trade secrets annually

are being administratively destroyed by such publication. Equally significant, publication is

facilitating fast-track piracy by infringers, here and abroad.

Ideally, the governments of Japan and Europe would join in this effort. But, if not, the U.S.

should proceed unilaterally, while publishing in English applications from those nations that are

published abroad. While those nations would still publish the 36 percent of U.S.-origin patent

applications filed in their patent offices, a majority of U.S. inventors are unable to afford the

pursuit of patent applications in other nations. Therefore, the secrets in a majority of U.S.-

origin applications would remain secret until either a U.S. patent was issued or they filed for a

patent in another country. An emergency suspension is compatible with U.S. obligations at the

World Trade Organization as the TRIPS agreement does not require the publication of patent

applications after a specified time of filing.

Recommendation Two – The Congress should require the Office of the United States Trade

Representative, as part of its annual 301 Special Report, to identify countries whose exports to 

the U.S. have a substantially higher level than average of counterfeit goods or goods that violate

U.S. patent rights. Imports so designated by the USTR would be required to be accompanied by 

an “Certificate of Authenticity” from either the government where the goods are produced or the

U.S. importer that verifies the goods do not violate U.S. patents, copyrights or trade marks.

Fraudulent certifications would result in penalties and inspections of all imports from those

nations. Once the USTR removes a nation from this strengthened Special 301 list, such

certifications would no longer be mandated.

Recommendation Three – Direct the GAO to initiate a study of patent litigation in the United

States. The report should examine whether there is a greater number of lawsuits filed against

technology companies than against other types of companies as a percent of patents filed,

granted and held. The study should ascertain if each high tech company in such a lawsuit used a

patent clearance process (due diligence) and if there is any difference in the use of such due

diligence between high technology and traditional business defendants. The study should also

investigate whether there is a group of plaintiffs that is systematically abusing the litigation

process or whether there is a small group of companies allegedly infringing the patent rights of

others and thus being sued by many patent holders. It should also examine if this threat is

sufficiently high enough to merit requiring publicly owned companies to disclose on a regular

basis whether patent litigation is a material risk to shareholders’ equity and quantify the value of

these intellectual property threats in that reportage. If the risk is real, it should be reported. If

the GAO finds that a higher than average portion of patent litigation is against companies that
39

do not use a patent clearance (due diligence) procedure, and thus are reckless, Congress should

consider that an egregious act and authorize an automatic award of treble damages when such 

companies lose an infringement case.

___________________________
40

Tables and Charts
41

Patent Allowance Rate

50.0%

55.0%

60.0%

65.0%

70.0%

75.0%

1976197719781979198019811982198319841985198619871988198919901991199219931994199519961997199819992000200120022003200420052006

Year

Allowance Rate (%)

Allowance Rate (%)

Chart One

Patent Allowance Rate

(1975-2006)

Source: USPTO.
42

Table One

USPTO Patent Applications and Grants

Vital Data (Utility, Plant and Reissue Patents) (1998-2006)

Ownership of Utility, Plant and

Reissue Patents (UPR) 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Total Utility, Plant and Reissue (UPR) 

Applications (FY)* 240,090 261,041 293,244 326,081 333,688 333,452 355,527 384,228 417,819

Large Entity Applicants

Percent of Total Applications 69% 69% 71% N/A 71% 71% 72% 72% 73%

Small Entity Applicants

Percent of Total Applications 31% 31% 29% N/A 29% 29% 28% 28% 27%

Total Utility, Plant and Reissue (UPR) 

Grants (FY)* 140,159 143,681 165,500 170,638 162,216 173,065 170,637 152,088 164,115

Large Entity Grantees

Percent of Total Patent Grants 71% 71% 72% 73% 76% 77% 76% 76% 77%

Small Entity Grantees

Percent of Total Patent Grants 29% 29% 28% 27% 24% 23% 24% 24% 23%

Utility Patents Granted

(Calendar Year)** 147,518 153,485 157,494 166,036 167,331 169,023 164,291 143,806 173,771

U.S. Origin 80,289 83,905 85,068 87,600 86,971 87,893 84,271 74,637 89,823

Percent of Total 54.20% 54.70% 54.00% 52.80% 52.00% 52.00% 51.30% 51.90% 51.70%

Foreign Origin 67,229 69,580 72,426 78,436 80,360 81,130 80,020 69,169 83,948

Percent of Total 45.80% 45.30% 46.00% 47.20% 48.00% 48.00% 48.70% 48.10% 48.30%

U.S.-Origin Utility Patents

(Calendar Year) 80,289 83,905 85,068 87,600 86,971 87,893 84,271 74,637 89,823

Large Entity U.S. Grantees (Calculated)

Percent of Total 61% 62% 63% 65% 69% 69% 69% 68% N/A

Small Entity U.S. Grantees (Calculated)

Percent of Total 39% 38% 37% 35% 31% 31% 31% 32% N/A

Patent Applications Published at 18

Months (FY)*** N/A N/A N/A 25,359 169,729 243,007 248,561 291,221 291,259

Data Sources: “Small entity” means an independent inventor, small businesses with 500 or fewer employees, universities and colleges, and

organizations the U.S. Internal Revenue Service designates as a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization. By statute, they may pay reduced patent fees.

The data herein is denoted as to whether it is on the basis of a Fiscal Year or a Calendar Year. *Provided to Author by USPTO Analysts. **All

Patents, All Types of Report, USPTO, A PTMB Report, 2006. *** USPTO Annual Reports, 2004, 2005 and 2006.
43

Table Two

U.S. District Courts

Patent Cases Commenced and Terminated by

Nature of Court Action Taken -- 2001-2006

Year

Cases

Filed

No Court

Action

Cases Terminated and Court Actions Taken

(12 months

endng March

31) Total Before During or During/After

Pretrial After Pretrial Trial

2001 2520 634 1689 1330 283 76

2002 2700 665 1801 1413 302 86

2003 2814 673 1809 1372 349 88

2004 3075 769 1907 1432 379 96

2005 2720 863 1941 1492 342 107

2006 2700 860 1840 1409 329 102

Source: Federal Judicial Caseload Statistics, 2001-2006 (As of March 31 of each year).
44

Table Three

Copyright, Patent and Trademark Cases Filed

U.S. District Courts

(1990-2005 – Calendar Years)

Fiscal

Year

Private Cases Total

Copyright Patent Trademark

1990 2,075 1,212 2,405 5,692

1995 2,417 1,706 2,716 6,839

2000 2,050 2,460 4,187 8,697

2001 2,446 2,496 3,340 8,282

2002 2,084 2,680 3,458 8,222

2003 2,448 2,788 3,657 8,893

2004 3,007 3,055 3,496 9,558

2005 5,796 2,706 3,657 12,159

Source: Federal Judicial Caseload Statistics. The surge in intellectual property lawsuits is primarily due to an increase in

copyright filings that was likely due to music companies filing infringement cases against individuals downloading from the

Internet copyrighted recordings.
45

Table Four

Patents Granted and Lawsuits Commenced

(FY 1992-2006)

Fiscal Year

Patents 

Granted

Patents Suits 

Commenced

Lawsuits as a 

Percent of 

Patents 

Granted

2006 183,000 2,700 1.47

2005 165,000 2,720 1.64

2004 187,000 3,075 1.64

2003 190,000 2,814 1.48

2002 177,000 2,700 1.52

2001 188,000 2,520 1.32

2000 182,000 2,484 1.36

1999 159,000 2,318 1.45

1998 155,000 2,218 1.43

1997 123,000 2,112 1.71

1996 117,000 1,840 1.57

1995 114,000 1,723 1.51

1994 113,000 1,617 1.43

1993 107,000 1,553 1.45

Sources: Data from the patents Granted is from USPTO Annual Reports. Data for lawsuits commenced is from the Federal

Judicial Statistics. The lawsuit data is as of March 31 of each year. The patents granted data is as of the Federal Fiscal Year.

While the data is skewed by the different times used for the reporting years, a long-term view is created for this 14-year period.

The author calculated the ratios.
46

Notes

1 “Naivete or Generosity?” The Planning National Strategies Series, The Daily Yomiuri (Tokyo) July 2, 2005.

2 “China’s Spying Overwhelms U.S. counterintelligence,” Jeff Bliss, Bloomberg, April 2, 2007.

3 “Naivete or Generosity?”

4 “Historical background,” The Website of the Trilateral Co-operation, www.trilateral.net/background/.

5 Testimony of Pat Choate, The U.S.-China Economic & Security Review Commission, Hearing On Intellectual Property

Rights Issues and Dangers of Counterfeited Goods Imported Into the United States, Washington, D.C., June 8, 2006.

6 A submarine patent is one in which an inventor files an application on a creation of some value, files continuations

to delay the issuance of a patent for many years and then allows the patent to surface (hence submarine) after

which the patent is used to sue companies that were unaware of the patent filing. In reality those few patents that

could be classified as “submarine” patents mostly were issued by government. The problem was a fiction used to

justify changes in U.S. patent law, much as a “litigation crisis” is being used to justify changes in U.S. patent law in

the 110th Congress.

7 Fiscal year 2006: A Record-Breaking Year for the USPTO,” USPTO, Press Release, (December 22, 2006).

8 “Patent Pendency Statistics,” (FY 2006), USPTO Annual Report.

9 “Independent inventors and innovation,” Cynthia Wagner Weick and Cynthia F. Eakin,” Entrepreneurship and

Innovation, February 2005.

10 “Small Serial Innovators: The Small Firm Contribution to Technical Change,” CHI Research, SBA Contract no

SBHHQ-01-C-0149, February 2003.

11 “Stacking the Deck Against the New,” Skip Kaltenheuser, Venture Capital Journal, December 1, 1997.

12 Testimony of Dr. Nathan P. Myhrvold, Subcommittee on Intellectual Property, Committee of the Senate Judiciary,

Washington, D.C., May 23, 2006.

13 Coalition for Patent Fairness, web site.

14 USPTO, “Patents and Trademarks by Type: 1980-2005, Statistical Reports Available for Viewing, Calendar Year

Patent Statistics.”

15 “So Small a Town, So Many Patent Suits,” Julie Creswell, The New York Times, September 24, 2006.

16 PwC, “2007 Patent and Trademark Damages Study,” Pricewaterhouse Coopers, 2007, p. 14.

17 Innovation Alliance, “Not Patently Obvious: The Innovation Alliance’s Position on Proposed Patent Reform

Legislation,” March 2007.

18 Ames Wilding and Andy Bridle, “Statistics on EPO Oppositions,” Euromoney Institutional Investor, March 2007.
47

19 “Ex Parte Reexamination Filing Data,” December 31, 2006, and “Inter Partes Reexamination,” December 31,

2006l. Office of the Commissioner of Patents, USPTO. 2007.

20 “Statistics,” United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, 1997-FY 2006.

21 “Small Entities and the ‘First to Invent’ Patent System: An Empirical Analysis,” Gerald J. Mossinghoff, The

Washington Legal Foundation, 2005.

22 “Legal Certainty for Patent System Users,” Presentation by the Intellectual Property Owners Association, Trilateral

Offices and Users Conference, Tokyo Japan, November 16, 2006.

23 Pat Choate, Hot Property, Alfred A. Knopf (2005).