GAO 

United States Government Accountability Office

Report to Congressional Requesters

INTELLECTUAL 

PROPERTY 

Enhanced Planning by 

U.S. Personnel 

Overseas Could 

Strengthen Efforts 

September 2009 

GAO-09-863 
What GAO Found

United States Government Accountability Office

Why GAO Did This Study

Highlights

Accountability Integrity Reliability

September 2009

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY 

Enhanced Planning by U.S. Personnel Overseas

Could Strengthen Efforts

Highlights of GAO-09-863, a report to 

congressional requesters 

Intellectual property (IP) 

protection and enforcement is 

inadequate in parts of the world, 

resulting in significant losses to 

U.S. industry and increased public 

health and safety risks. GAO was 

asked to evaluate U.S. government 

efforts to enhance protection and 

enforcement of IP overseas. Using 

a case study approach, this report 

(1) describes the key IP protection 

and enforcement issues at four 

posts in China, India, and Thailand; 

(2) assesses the extent to which the 

U.S. Patent and Trademark Office 

(USPTO) IP attachés and the 

Department of Justice (DOJ) IP 

Law Enforcement Coordinator 

(IPLEC) effectively collaborate 

with other agencies at the posts; 

and (3) evaluates the extent to 

which each of the posts has 

undertaken interagency planning in 

collaborating on its IP-related 

activities. GAO examined U.S. 

government documents and 

interviewed headquarters and post 

agency officials as well as U.S. 

private-sector and host-country 

representatives. 

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends that the 

Secretary of State direct post 

leadership to work with the USPTO 

IP attachés in countries with such 

attachés to: develop annual IP 

interagency post work plans with 

input from relevant agencies that 

set objectives and identify activities 

for addressing the key IP issues 

identified by the U.S. government. 

The Department of State and 

USPTO agreed with GAO’s 

recommendation. 

The U.S. government has identified weak enforcement as a key IP issue in the 

three case study countries; however, weaknesses also persist in their IP laws 

and regulations. According to the U.S. government, enforcement of existing 

IP laws and regulations and adjudication of suspected infringements are 

limited and inconsistent, and penalties are not typically sufficient to serve as 

an effective deterrent. U.S. government documents and U.S. officials we 

interviewed cited several factors that contribute to this limited and 

inconsistent enforcement, including flawed enforcement procedures; a lack of 

technical skills and knowledge of IP among police, prosecutors, and judges; a 

lack of resources dedicated to IP enforcement efforts; and the absence of 

broad-based domestic support for strong IP enforcement. 

The USPTO IP attachés were generally effective in collaborating with other 

agencies at the four posts, primarily by acting as IP focal points, while the 

DOJ IPLEC collaborated with both post agencies and agency headquarters via 

IP forums. The IP attachés shared common characteristics that made them 

effective, such as IP expertise, the ability to work full time on IP, and having 

roles and responsibilities for which there was general agreement among post 

agencies and leadership. At two posts, several agency officials stated that the 

IP attachés were instrumental in establishing and maintaining interagency IP 

working groups to share ideas and coordinate on activities, enabling the 

agencies to speak with one voice on IP. The IPLEC collaborated through 

country and regional IP forums that provided technical assistance to foreign 

law enforcement agencies and judges on IP law enforcement issues and 

facilitated a network among U.S. and foreign government officials for sharing 

information on IP criminal investigations. The IPLEC also collaborated on 

case work for an array of mostly non-IP criminal activities, including money 

laundering, fraud, human trafficking, and child exploitation, in fulfilling his 

other duties as DOJ attaché. 

While the four posts have adopted several practices to collaborate effectively 

on IP, three out of the four have not adopted interagency plans to address key 

IP issues. Current policy guidance on IP at the posts, such as the annual 

Special 301 report and embassy mission strategic plans, is high level and not 

generally used for planning agencies’ day-to-day IP efforts. Posts could 

potentially enhance collaboration by developing joint strategies to translate 

the key IP issues identified by the U.S. government into specific objectives 

and activities. One post, the U.S. embassy in New Delhi, has developed a joint 

strategy in the form of an interagency IP work plan with specific objectives 

and prescribed activities for addressing key IP issues. Joint strategies can 

help agencies prioritize existing efforts, avoid duplication of efforts, formulate 

a common IP message to foreign governments, and maintain focus on IP given 

competing issues and personnel changes at posts. 

View GAO-09-863 or key components. 

For more information, contact Loren Yager at 

(202) 512-4128 or yagerl@gao.gov. 
Page i GAO-09-863 

Contents 

Letter 1

Background 4 

While Weak Enforcement Is a Key IP Issue, Weaknesses also 

Persist in IP Laws and Regulations 11 

The IP Attachés Generally Collaborated Effectively with Others at 

the Posts; the IPLEC Collaborated Via IP Forums 19 

Three of the Four Posts Do Not Have Interagency Plans Addressing 

the Key IP Issues 28 

Conclusion 32 

Recommendations for Executive Action 33 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 34 

Appendix I Scope and Methodology 35 

Appendix II Comments from the Department of State 39 

Appendix III Comments from the U.S. Patent and Trademark 

Office 41 

Appendix IV Comments from the Department of Commerce 43 

Appendix V GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 44 

Tables 

Table 1: Number of IP Attaché Positions, Country and Post 

Locations, and Geographic Areas of Coverage, as of July 

2009 8 

Table 2: Types of IP-Related Activities Undertaken by U.S. 

Personnel in China, India, and Thailand 10 

Table 3: Interviews with U.S. Agencies and Agency Sections by 

Post 36 

 Intellectual Property 
Abbreviations 

ASEAN Association of Southeast Asian Nations 

CBP Customs and Border Protection 

Commerce Department of Commerce 

DHS Department of Homeland Security 

DOJ Department of Justice 

FBI Federal Bureau of Investigation 

FCS Foreign Commercial Service 

FDA Food and Drug Administration 

HHS Department of Health and Human Services 

ICE Immigration and Customs Enforcement 

IP intellectual property 

IPCEN Intellectual Property Crimes Enforcement Network 

IPLEC Intellectual Property Law Enforcement Coordinator 

MSP Mission Strategic Plan 

State Department of State 

TRIPS Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual 

Property Rights 

USAID United States Agency for International Development 

USDA United States Department of Agriculture 

USPTO United States Patent and Trademark Office 

USTR Office of the United States Trade Representative 

WTO World Trade Organization 

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety 

without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain 

copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be 

necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately. 

Page ii GAO-09-863 Intellectual Property
Page 1 GAO-09-863 

 

United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548 

 

September 30, 2009 

The Honorable John Conyers, Jr. 

Chairman 

The Honorable Lamar S. Smith 

Ranking Member 

Committee on the Judiciary 

House of Representatives 

The Honorable Howard L. Berman 

House of Representatives 

The Honorable Howard Coble 

House of Representatives 

Intellectual property (IP)1

 is an important component of the U.S. economy, 

and the United States is an acknowledged global leader in its creation. The 

protection and enforcement of IP rights is inadequate in some parts of the 

world, making U.S. goods subject to substantial counterfeiting and piracy 

activity abroad. Transnational IP crimes have been increasing, with 

infringers attracted by high-profit potential, ease of market entry, and 

relatively low risk of detection and prosecution. U.S. government efforts to 

protect and enforce IP rights overseas are crucial to preventing significant 

losses to U.S. industry and IP rights owners resulting from the trade in 

counterfeit and pirated goods. Additionally, many IP-violating products, 

such as counterfeit pharmaceuticals, have the potential to threaten public 

health and safety in the United States and abroad. However, federal IP 

protection and enforcement is complex and cuts across a wide range of 

functions and U.S. agencies. Federal agencies are placing new emphasis 

on IP protection—improving countries’ IP laws and regulations—and on 

enforcement of those laws and regulations. For instance, the U.S. Patent 

and Trademark Office (USPTO) created eight IP attaché positions and the 

Department of Justice (DOJ) created two Intellectual Property Law 

Enforcement Coordinator (IPLEC) positions in U.S. embassies overseas. 

1

IP is a category of legal rights that grant owners certain exclusive rights to intangible 

assets or products of the human intellect, such as inventions; literary and artistic works; 

and symbols, names, images, and designs. 

 Intellectual Property 
 

Congress is concerned about the effectiveness of U.S. government efforts 

to protect and enforce IP rights overseas and recently passed the 

Prioritizing Resources and Organization for Intellectual Property Act of 

2008.2

 Title III of that legislation created a new interagency intellectual 

property enforcement advisory committee composed of representatives of 

specified departments and agencies involved in IP enforcement. It 

authorizes the President to appoint an Intellectual Property Enforcement 

Coordinator position within the Executive Office of the President to chair 

the new advisory committee. Among other things, the new Coordinator is 

to lead the committee in the development of a joint strategic plan to 

reduce counterfeiting and other types of IP infringement, and to assist in 

the implementation of the joint strategic plan when requested by advisory 

committee members. 

At your request, to help the new Coordinator assess the resources 

available to promote and protect IP rights overseas, we issued a report in 

February 2009 that describes the federal agencies that have personnel 

posted overseas who conduct activities related to IP enforcement and 

protection and their respective roles and responsibilities.3

 As the second 

part of that same request, this report examines U.S. government efforts to 

enhance protection and enforcement of IP overseas by focusing on four 

posts in three countries: Beijing and Guangzhou, China; New Delhi, India; 

and Bangkok, Thailand.4

 The U.S. government has identified each of these 

countries as having significant IP problems and each is an area of focus for 

U.S. IP efforts overseas. Specifically, this report (1) describes the key IP 

protection and enforcement issues that the U.S. government has identified 

in China, India, and Thailand; (2) assesses the extent to which the USPTO 

IP attachés and the DOJ IPLEC effectively collaborated with other 

agencies at posts in China, India, and Thailand to improve IP protection 

and enforcement; and (3) evaluates the extent to which each of the four 

posts has undertaken interagency planning in collaborating on their IPrelated activities. 

 

2

Prioritizing Resources and Organization for Intellectual Property Act, 2008 (Pub. L. No. 

110-403). 

3

See GAO, Overseas U.S. Government Personnel Involved in Efforts to Protect and 

Enforce Intellectual Property Rights, GAO-09-402R (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 26, 2009). 

4

The posts in Beijing, New Delhi, and Bangkok are U.S. embassies; the post in Guangzhou is 

a U.S. consulate. 

Page 2 GAO-09-863 Intellectual Property
 

To address these objectives, we interviewed U.S. government officials and 

obtained and reviewed documentation on overseas U.S. government 

personnel and their IP activities from the Departments of Commerce 

(Commerce), Health and Human Services (HHS), Homeland Security 

(DHS), Justice (DOJ), and State (State), and from the Office of the U.S. 

Trade Representative (USTR). We also collected and analyzed 

documentation from these agencies that discussed key IP protection and 

enforcement issues around the world and that identified those countries 

where the U.S. government believes IP problems are most acute, including 

the Special 301 reports for 2008 and 2009. We also reviewed other 

documents discussing key IP issues, including the 2008 and 2009 National 

Trade Estimate Report on Foreign Trade Barriers, talking points from 

presentations, internal U.S. government IP newsletters, agency reports to 

their headquarters offices, and materials produced to assist U.S. 

businesses. Our discussion on foreign laws and regulations is based 

primarily on interviews with U.S. officials and U.S. government 

documentation. Determining that a case study approach was the best way 

to focus our work, we selected three case study countries using a set of 

criteria that included: the extent to which the U.S. government has 

identified the country and its region as having significant IP problems, the 

types and range of IP problems that exist in the country, and the presence 

of U.S. government personnel posted in the country involved in IP 

activities, including USPTO IP attachés; CBP, ICE, and FBI attachés; and 

DOJ personnel, particularly the IPLEC in Asia. Based upon our criteria, we 

conducted fieldwork at posts in Beijing and Guangzhou, China; Bangkok, 

Thailand; and New Delhi, India, in March 2009. 

In each location, we met with those U.S. government personnel from 

Commerce, HHS, DHS, DOJ, State, USTR, and the Department of 

Agriculture (USDA) that were present at the post and performed IP-related 

functions. We held these meetings to learn about the types of IP activities 

they undertake, the factors that drive their work, and how the USPTO IP 

attachés and the DOJ IPLEC collaborated with their counterparts at the 

post and in headquarters, with the private sector, and with their host 

government. We also met with representatives from various industry 

associations and individual companies in each location to obtain their 

perspectives on the key IP issues in the country and to learn about how 

they seek to protect their IP, including through collaboration with the U.S. 

government and the host government. Finally, in each location, we met 

with foreign government officials to learn about the challenges they face in 

improving IP protection and enforcement and to obtain their perspectives 

on the effectiveness of their collaboration with the U.S. government on IP 

issues. We also obtained and reviewed documents from each post that 

Page 3 GAO-09-863 Intellectual Property
 

outlined IP problems in the countries, strategies and plans for addressing 

the problems, and the types of IP-related activities that are being 

undertaken. Using the information from our interviews and the 

documentation we collected at each post, we evaluated the extent to 

which the USPTO attachés and DOJ’s IPLEC have adopted good practices 

to collaborate with other agencies at the posts on promoting IP protection 

using the following GAO criteria: agreeing upon agency roles and 

responsibilities; establishing compatible policies, procedures, and other 

means to operate across agency boundaries; identifying and addressing 

needs by leveraging resources; and establishing mutually reinforcing or 

joint strategies.5

 We broke out the last criteria–establishing mutually 

reinforcing or joint strategies–to evaluate the extent to which the posts 

have undertaken interagency planning to guide their IP collaboration 

efforts. This report covers only the IP attachés’ activities in the three case 

study countries–China, India, and Thailand—and not their regional 

responsibilities. Because we utilized a case study approach, our findings 

cannot be generalized and do not necessarily apply to countries or posts 

other than those we visited. We solicited comments from all the key 

agencies discussed in the report and incorporated their comments as 

appropriate. 

We conducted this performance audit from August 2008 through 

September 2009 in accordance with generally accepted government 

auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the 

audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable 

basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We 

believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our 

findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. 

Generally, individual countries grant and enforce IP rights. Intellectual 

property is any innovation, commercial or artistic, or any unique name, 

symbol, logo, or design used commercially. Intellectual property rights 

protect the interests of the creators of these works by giving them 

property rights over their creations. 

Background 

• Patent: Exclusive rights granted to inventions for a fixed period of time, 

whether products or processes, in all fields of technology, provided they 

 

5

See GAO, Results-Oriented Government: Practices That Can Enhance and Sustain 

Collaboration among Federal Agencies, GAO-06-15 (Washington, D.C.: October 2005). 

Page 4 GAO-09-863 Intellectual Property
 

are new, not obvious (involve an inventive step), and have utility (are 

capable of industrial application). 

• Copyright: A set of exclusive rights subsisting in original works of 

authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression now known or later 

developed, for a fixed period of time. For example, works may be literary, 

musical, or artistic. 

• Trademark: Any sign or any combination of signs capable of 

distinguishing the source of goods or services is capable of constituting a 

trademark. Such signs, in particular, words including personal names, 

letters, numerals, figurative elements and combinations of colors as well 

as any combination of such signs are eligible for registration as 

trademarks. 

• Trade secret: Any type of valuable information, including a formula, 

pattern, compilation, program device, method, technique, or process that 

gains commercial value from not being generally known or readily 

obtainable; and for which the owner has made reasonable efforts to keep 

secret. 

• Geographical indication: Indications that identify a good as originating in 

a country, region, or locality, where a given quality, reputation, or other 

characteristic of the good is essentially attributable to its geographic 

origin. 

“Pirated copyright goods” means any goods that are copies made without 

the consent of the right holder or person duly authorized by the right 

holder. “Counterfeit goods” means any goods, including packaging, 

bearing, without authorization, a trademark that is identical to a 

trademark validly registered for those goods, or that cannot be 

distinguished in its essential aspects from such a trademark, and that 

thereby infringes the rights of the owner of the trademark in question.6

While determining the exact magnitude of the problem is difficult, industry 

groups suggest that counterfeiting and piracy are on the rise and that an 

increasingly broad range of products, from auto parts to razor blades, and 

from vital medicines to infant formula, are subject to counterfeit 

 

6

For the terms—intellectual property, patent, copyright, trademark, trade secret, 

geographical indication, pirated copyright goods, and counterfeit goods—we used 

definitions provided by USPTO. 

Page 5 GAO-09-863 Intellectual Property
 

production. High profits and low risk have drawn in organized criminal 

networks and technology has facilitated the manufacture and distribution 

of counterfeit and pirated products, resulting in a global illicit market that 

competes with genuine products. Although the public is often not aware of 

the issues and consequences surrounding IP theft, many counterfeit 

products raise serious public health and safety concerns, and the annual 

losses that companies face from IP violations are substantial. 

Legal protection of IP varies greatly around the world, and several 

countries, including China, India, and Thailand are havens for the 

production and sale of counterfeit and pirated goods. Under its annual 

Special 301 process,7

 the United States has designated China, India, and 

Thailand as Priority Watch List countries, meaning that they are not 

providing an adequate level of IP protection or enforcement, or market 

access for persons relying on IP protection. Priority Watch List countries 

are the focus of increased bilateral attention regarding IP issues. China, 

India, and Thailand are also members of the World Trade Organization 

(WTO) and must comply with the WTO’s Agreement on Trade-Related 

Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS), which provides minimum 

standards for IP protection and enforcement.8

Seven federal agencies, and entities within them, undertake the primary 

U.S. government activities in support of IP rights overseas. These agencies 

are: Commerce, State, DOJ, DHS, HHS, USTR, and the U.S. Agency for 

International Development (USAID).9

 Key entities include Customs and 

 

7

“Special 301” refers to certain provisions of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended by the 1988 

Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act (Pub. L. 100-418), that require USTR to annually 

identify foreign countries that deny adequate and effective protection of intellectual 

property rights or fair and equitable market access for U.S. persons who rely on intellectual 

property protection. USTR identifies these countries with substantial input from interested 

persons and in consultation with U.S. agencies, and publishes the results of its reviews in 

an annual report. 

8

TRIPS came into force as part of the WTO in 1995. Under TRIPS, all WTO member 

countries are obligated to establish laws and regulations that meet a minimum standard for 

protecting copyrights, trademarks, patents, and other forms of IP rights. It also provides for 

enforcement measures for members. Developed countries were required to implement the 

TRIPS Agreement fully as of January 1, 1996. Developing countries were given a transition 

period for many obligations until January 1, 2000. Least-developed countries were granted 

a longer transition period, until January 1, 2006, with a possibility of a further extension. 

Additionally, for pharmaceutical patent obligations, least-developed countries have until 

January 1, 2016. 

9

The U.S. Copyright Office and the International Trade Commission also play roles in IP 

protection, but do not have personnel overseas. 

Page 6 GAO-09-863 Intellectual Property
 

Border Protection (CBP), the Food and Drug Administration (FDA),10

Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), the Federal Bureau of 

Investigation (FBI), the International Trade Administration (ITA) and 

USPTO.11

USPTO and DOJ recently established positions overseas that have IP 

protection and enforcement as their primary mission, in order to enhance 

U.S. efforts. USPTO created its IP attaché program to address countryspecific and regional IP problems in key parts of the world.12 USPTO’s first 

IP attaché was posted in Beijing, China, in 2004. USPTO added an attaché 

in Beijing, China, in 2006; and an attaché in Guangzhou, China, in 2007. 

During 2006 and 2007, USPTO also expanded the program to five other 

countries: Egypt, Thailand, Russia, Brazil, and India. Since then, the Egypt 

position has been eliminated and a new position in Doha, Qatar, is in the 

planning stages. Table 1 shows the current IP attaché positions, their 

country and post locations, and their geographic areas of coverage. The IP 

attachés work on a range of IP activities in coordination with other federal 

agencies, U.S. industry, and foreign counterparts.13

 

10FDA’s primary mission is to ensure public health and safety. It has both regulatory and 

law enforcement authorities and responsibilities. FDA’s Office of Criminal Investigations 

pursues counterfeit product investigations in furtherance of the agency’s public health 

mission. 

11USDA can at times also be involved in IP issues. For example, USDA sponsors programs 

supporting the development of biotechnology overseas that can include an IP component. 

12Although the IP attaché program is managed by USPTO, the attachés are posted overseas 

as Foreign Commercial Service officers and report to the Senior Commercial Officer at 

their respective posts. For each attaché position, USPTO has entered into a memorandum 

of understanding with the International Trade Administration’s U.S. & Foreign Commercial 

Service, to outline certain roles and responsibilities associated with the position. 

13According to USPTO, the IP attachés are tasked with advocating U.S. government IP 

policy, interests and initiatives; assisting U.S. businesses on IP protection and enforcement; 

improving IP protection and enforcement by conducting training activities with host 

governments; advising officials from other U.S. agencies on the host government’s IP 

system; advising representatives of the host government or region on U.S. intellectual 

property law and policy; helping to secure strong IP provisions in international agreements 

and host country laws, and working to monitor the implementation of these provisions; and 

performing limited commercial service duties as necessary, such as representing the 

commercial service at host government functions and advising U.S. companies on the local 

IP environment. 

Page 7 GAO-09-863 Intellectual Property
 

Table 1: Number of IP Attaché Positions, Country and Post Locations, and 

Geographic Areas of Coverage, as of July 2009 

Country Post 

Number of 

positions Geographic area of coverage 

China Guangzhou 1 Most of southeastern China, 

including Fujian, Guangdong, and 

Guangxi Provinces, and Hainan 

Island. 

China Beijing 2 All of China excluding the parts of 

southeastern China listed above. 

Thailand Bangkok 1 Southeast Asia and Association of 

Southeast Asian Nations (ASEANBrunei, Burma, Cambodia, 

Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, the 

Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, 

and Vietnam). 

India New Delhi 1 South Asia (India, Pakistan, 

Bangladesh, Nepal, Bhutan, Sri 

Lanka, and the Maldives). 

Brazil Rio de Janeiro 1 Central and South America, Mexico, 

and the Caribbean. 

Russia Moscow 1 Russia. 

Qatar (in 

planning stages)

Doha 1 Middle East and North Africa. 

Source: USPTO. 

At the time of our audit work overseas in March 2009, both IP attaché 

positions in Beijing were vacant, with the two IP attachés departing in 

August and November of 2008, respectively. According to USPTO, the IP 

attaché in Guangzhou helped manage the office in Beijing in the absence 

of an IP attaché there; and from December 2008 through August 2009, on a 

regular basis, USPTO headquarters sent attorneys with expertise and 

experience on China IP matters from the Office of IP Policy and 

Enforcement to Beijing on short-term assignments to manage the office. In 

March 2009, USPTO officials told us that a candidate had been selected to 

fill one of the vacant attaché positions. The new attaché arrived in early 

September 2009. USPTO stated that it intends to fill the other vacancy in 

Beijing and will be putting out a vacancy announcement in the near future. 

DOJ placed two federal prosecutors with IP expertise to serve as IPLECs, 

in Bangkok, Thailand, and Sofia, Bulgaria, in January 2006 and November 

Page 8 GAO-09-863 Intellectual Property
 

2007, respectively.14 The IPLECs are tasked with advancing the criminal 

enforcement of laws in their respective regions through a combination of 

training, technical assistance, and outreach.15 The IPLEC in Thailand also 

serves as a DOJ attaché and thus, according to DOJ officials, performs 

case work, including investigations on IP. Although IP is a central part of 

the mission of the IPLEC in Thailand, as DOJ attaché, this person is also 

responsible for a range of DOJ functions beyond IP.16

In addition to the IP attachés and the IPLECs, there are a variety of other 

types of U.S. government personnel posted overseas who perform IP 

functions. For instance, State economic, political, and public affairs 

officers may be involved in IP activities at posts. ICE and CBP attachés 

may also be involved. Other personnel such as FBI legal attachés, 

Commerce’s Foreign Commercial Service (FCS) officers, FDA 

investigators and technical experts, and USDA Foreign Agricultural 

Service officers are among the other U.S. government personnel that may 

be involved in IP activities at posts. 

As described in our February 2009 report, the various U.S. personnel 

posted overseas conduct a range of activities related to IP enforcement 

and protection within their agencies’ respective roles and responsibilities. 

These responsibilities generally include advancing U.S. IP policy, 

dialoguing with foreign counterparts on IP, providing training and 

technical assistance, supporting U.S. companies, facilitating enforcement 

 

14The IPLEC in Bangkok, Thailand, covers the ASEAN countries, China, and India. The 

IPLEC in Sofia, Bulgaria, covers over 20 nations in Central and Eastern Europe and has 

provided guidance to officials in Ukraine and Russia. 

15According to DOJ officials, the IPLEC in Asia is expected to develop relationships with 

foreign law enforcement agencies and prosecutors in the area, provide legal and technical 

assistance to foreign law enforcement agencies on IP, coordinate investigations and 

prosecutions of IP offenders located in the region, and assist federal prosecutors in the 

United States working on IP cases involving Asia; and examine IP crime trends in the 

region. According to State officials, the IPLEC in Sofia is funded wholly by the Department 

of State and therefore has a different mission in that the IPLEC is not authorized to do 

criminal case work. Specifically, the activities of the Sofia IPLEC include a greater amount 

of IP enforcement training and technical assistance to foreign officials, and guidance to 

U.S. government officers in the region on IP training issues than the IPLEC in Bangkok. 

16According to DOJ officials, the DOJ attachés work with U.S. and foreign law enforcement 

officials, prosecutors, and judges on a range of criminal cases and investigations, including 

those related to IP violations. DOJ officials stated that among other things, attachés are 

responsible for collecting evidence, locating fugitives, and working to extradite suspects. 

DOJ officials also stated that a key part of the attachés’ job is to build relationships with 

their foreign counterparts and provide advice and assistance on investigative matters. 

Page 9 GAO-09-863 Intellectual Property
 

of IP laws and regulations, and conducting public awareness campaigns. 

Table 2 elaborates on these responsibilities and the types of activities they 

entail, and provides examples of how such activities are undertaken by 

U.S. personnel in China, India, and Thailand. 

Table 2: Types of IP-Related Activities Undertaken by U.S. Personnel in China, India, and Thailand 

Primary IP responsibilities 

of U.S. government 

personnel overseas Types of activities 

Examples of specific activities undertaken 

by U.S. personnel in China, India, and 

Thailand 

Advancing U.S. IP policy • Negotiating new bilateral and multilateral IP 

agreements. 

• Monitoring foreign countries’ implementation 

of existing IP agreements. 

• Assessing and reporting on weaknesses in 

foreign countries’ IP protection and 

enforcement regimes. 

• In all three countries, submitted reports on 

the status of IP in their host country as part 

of the annual Special 301 process. 

Dialoguing with foreign 

counterparts on IP issues 

• Participating in bilateral working groups. 

• Participating in international organizations 

such as the World Customs Organization or 

the World Trade Organization. 

• Conducting ongoing discussions with foreign 

counterparts. 

• In China, helped plan for and participate in 

the Joint Commission on Commerce and 

Trade. 

• In Thailand, helped create an IP Crimes 

Enforcement Network to encourage 

collaboration and information sharing 

among law enforcement officials in the 

region. 

Providing training and 

technical assistance for 

foreign counterparts 

• Holding seminars and workshops for foreign 

counterparts to instruct them on IP protection 

and enforcement matters. 

• Advising foreign governments on the drafting 

of strengthened IP laws and regulations. 

• Educating foreign counterparts on the U.S. 

system for protecting and enforcing IP. 

• Conducting longer-term programs to build 

capacity among foreign counterparts to protect 

and enforce IP laws. 

• In India, worked with the host government 

to establish alternative dispute resolution 

centers to help reduce the backlogs in the 

court system that result in lengthy delays 

in cases including those related to IP. 

• In China, conducted training sessions for 

local judges that featured presentations on 

IP cases by visiting U.S. judges. 

Supporting U.S. companies • Counseling individual companies on options 

available to protect their intellectual property 

overseas. 

• Producing materials to educate companies on 

the steps they need to take to protect their IP 

in countries. 

• Conducting seminars and workshops to 

educate companies on the steps they need to 

take to protect their IP in countries. 

• Raising U.S. industry IP concerns with foreign 

governments. 

• In all three countries, helped develop IP 

Toolkits to assist businesses to protect 

their IP. 

• In India, met with visiting U.S. trade 

delegations to provide information on the 

status of IP protection in the country. 

• In China, submitted letters to the host 

government when U.S. companies’ cases 

have stalled in the court system. 

Page 10 GAO-09-863 Intellectual Property
 

Primary IP responsibilities 

of U.S. government 

personnel overseas Types of activities 

Examples of specific activities undertaken 

by U.S. personnel in China, India, and 

Thailand 

Facilitating enforcement of IP 

laws and regulations 

• Gathering information in support of U.S. based 

IP investigations. 

• Working with foreign law enforcement officials 

to generate investigative leads concerning 

suspected IP violators. 

• Assisting foreign law enforcement officials 

conduct operations against IP violators. 

• Helping foreign counterparts target shipments 

suspected to contain IP-violating goods. 

• Preparing international litigation against 

countries violating IP agreements. 

• In China, helped gather information on 

weaknesses in China’s IP regime in 

support of the U.S. government’s WTO 

dispute against China. 

• In China, helped coordinate a joint 

investigation between U.S. and Chinese 

law enforcement officials involving 

counterfeit software. 

• In Thailand, worked with the national 

government to extradite a pharmaceutical 

counterfeiter to the U.S. for prosecution. 

Promoting public awareness 

of IP issues 

• Working to increase awareness of the harms 

associated with IP-violating goods among the 

public in foreign countries. 

• Educating foreign companies on how strong IP 

protections in their countries benefit them. 

• In Thailand, hosted a concert featuring 

domestic artists to raise awareness of the 

importance of IP for such artists. 

• In China, helped organize a student 

contest to write a public service message 

on movie piracy and held a media event to 

recognize the winner. 

Source: GAO analysis of agency data. 

The U.S. government has identified weak enforcement as a key IP issue in 

the three case study countries; however, weaknesses also persist in their 

IP laws and regulations. According to the U.S. government, enforcement of 

existing IP laws and regulations and adjudication of suspected 

infringements are limited and inconsistent and penalties are not typically 

sufficient to serve as an effective deterrent. U.S. government documents 

and U.S. officials we interviewed cited several factors that contribute to 

this limited and inconsistent enforcement including flawed enforcement 

procedures; a lack of technical skills and knowledge of IP among police, 

prosecutors, and judges; a lack of resources dedicated to IP enforcement 

efforts; and the absence of broad-based domestic support for strong IP 

enforcement. While acknowledging progress in recent years, the U.S. 

government also continues to cite various weaknesses in the three 

countries’ IP laws and regulations that need to be addressed. 

While Weak 

Enforcement Is a Key 

IP Issue, Weaknesses 

also Persist in IP 

Laws and Regulations 

Page 11 GAO-09-863 Intellectual Property
 

The U.S. government has identified weak enforcement as a key IP issue in 

China, India, and Thailand.17 According to the U.S. government, the extent 

to which existing IP laws and regulations are enforced and pursued 

through the courts in the three case study countries is limited and 

inconsistent. According to various U.S. officials we interviewed overseas, 

enforcement tends to be particularly weak and inconsistent outside of 

major commercial centers. For instance, some U.S. officials in China noted 

that cases of IP enforcement are much more common in large cities such 

as Beijing and Shanghai than in other parts of the country. In India, U.S. 

officials noted that IP enforcement is weak in much of the country with 

significant variations in the level of enforcement among India’s 28 states. 

Limited and Inconsistent 

IP Enforcement Is 

Influenced by a Variety of 

Factors 

While the three countries have taken some steps to demonstrate an 

increased emphasis on IP enforcement, various U.S. officials in the three 

countries stated that there continues to be an uneven commitment to such 

efforts. A range of U.S. officials and private-sector representatives we met 

with made the point that all three countries are increasingly looking to be 

centers of innovation and that there is a growing awareness that domestic 

production of IP is important for their economic development. As this 

process occurs, various U.S. officials and private-sector representatives 

we interviewed believe that the three countries will have a greater 

incentive for strong IP enforcement. At this point though, various U.S. 

officials and private-sector representatives noted that the three countries’ 

continue to not be fully committed to strong and sustained enforcement 

efforts. For instance, in the 2009 Special 301 Report, the U.S. government 

reported that during the 2008 Beijing Olympics, China took unprecedented 

steps to crackdown on the unauthorized retransmission of broadcasts and 

other infringing activities over the Internet; however, the report also noted 

the need for China to demonstrate this type of resolve more generally in 

combating piracy and counterfeiting on the Internet. Additionally, the U.S. 

government reported in the 2009 Special 301 Report that an innovative 

agreement brokered by the Beijing municipal courts between IP rights 

holders and the landlord of a commercial center that was a well-known 

 

17The Special 301 process serves as the U.S. government’s primary mechanism for 

identifying IP issues around the world. As Priority Watch List countries, China, India, and 

Thailand are each discussed individually in the 2009 Special 301 report. The U.S. 

government also discusses IP issues in the three countries in other globally-focused 

documents such as the 2009 National Trade Estimate Report on Foreign Trade Barriers and 

in country-specific documents such as the IP Toolkits produced by the U.S. embassies in 

each location. Key IP issues are also identified by the U.S. government in the context of 

bilateral dialogues such as the U.S./China Joint Commission on Commerce and Trade and 

the U.S./India Trade Policy Forum. 

Page 12 GAO-09-863 Intellectual Property
 

source for an array of violating goods has not been enforced despite initial 

optimism. In India, 23 states have created specialized IP units within their 

police forces, but U.S. officials we interviewed stated that only a few of 

these units are currently operational. Furthermore, the officials noted that 

even these specialized units have other priorities, with IP not always being 

at the top of the list. Thailand has set up a specialized IP court, but the U.S. 

embassy in Thailand has reported that the court is not living up to its full 

potential with most convictions resulting in minimal sentences, such as 

small fines or required community service. The U.S. embassy in Thailand 

has also reported that Thai authorities have labeled parts of Bangkok and 

other Thai cities that are well-known retail centers for infringing products 

as “red zones;” however, the embassy noted that since the designations, 

there have not been any sustained efforts to reduce the availability of 

pirated and counterfeit goods in these zones. 

U.S. government documents and U.S. officials we interviewed cited several 

factors that contribute to this limited and inconsistent enforcement. Some 

of these factors are unique to IP enforcement, while others are symptoms 

of larger, systemic problems that the countries face. These factors include: 

The U.S. government has identified a variety of problems with the 

countries’ IP enforcement procedures and subsequent judicial proceedings 

that limit the effectiveness of actions against infringers. For instance, 

several U.S. officials in China stated that high thresholds for criminal 

violations mean that most cases are handled using administrative 

enforcement actions, rather than criminal prosecutions that have the 

potential to result in more serious punishments for violators. With an 

administrative enforcement action, the violator is ordered to stop 

performing the infringing activity and is levied a fine. The 2009 Special 301 

report states that administrative fines are not consistently levied in China 

and are too low to be an effective deterrent for infringers with most seeing 

the fines simply as part of the cost of doing business. In the 2009 National 

Trade Estimate Report on Foreign Trade Barriers, the U.S. government 

reported that documentary and procedural requirements in India have 

created impediments to the prosecution of IP violators. The 2009 National 

Trade Estimate Report on Foreign Trade Barriers also stated that in 

Thailand, police are at times reluctant to involve themselves in raids due 

to limited legal protections, even when acting in an official capacity. 

Flawed Enforcement 

Procedures 

Enforcement is also hampered by a lack of technical skills and knowledge 

of IP among police, prosecutors, and judges in the three countries. For 

example, a U.S. law enforcement official we interviewed in India stated 

that a lack of basic technical skills and awareness of investigative 

Lack of Technical Skills and 

Knowledge of IP among Police, 

Prosecutors, and Judges 

Page 13 GAO-09-863 Intellectual Property
 

techniques limits the Indian police’s ability to successfully conduct IP 

enforcement actions. Additionally, the U.S. embassy in India has noted 

that many government prosecutors lack even a basic awareness of IP 

rights. In Thailand, a representative from the private sector said that Thai 

police are uncertain as to what to do after they have conducted a raid and 

are reluctant to do the necessary paperwork that is required to turn a 

strong case over to a prosecutor. In China, U.S. officials stated that 

historically, Chinese judges were not required to have law degrees, with 

many judicial appointees being former army officers. While some U.S. 

officials we interviewed noted that China has increased the requirements 

for judges in recent years, the officials said that there continues to be a 

great deal of inconsistency in judges’ knowledge level and competency. 

One representative from the private sector noted as an example that there 

is a need for more IP case law to be published in China since many judges 

have little awareness of previous IP cases and cannot capitalize on 

precedent to guide them in their decisions. 

The three countries are also faced with limited resources that challenge 

their ability to dedicate sufficient time and energy to IP enforcement, 

particularly given other competing priorities. For example, the U.S. 

embassy in Thailand has reported that the Thai police generally lack the 

resources to undertake enforcement actions apart from those cases 

initiated by rights holders, with the Thai police typically relying on rights 

holders to perform the majority of investigative work and evidence 

collection. Additionally, the embassy has noted that rights holders are 

generally required to pay the costs of such raids. As a consequence, rights 

holders often find it cost-prohibitive to seek out police action in areas 

much beyond Bangkok. In India, the U.S. embassy has reported that the 

courts are extremely backlogged with it taking years before cases are 

resolved; however, U.S. officials noted that India has taken some steps to 

reduce the backlog of IP cases in the criminal courts in Delhi and 

Bangalore. In China, the U.S. government has noted that the National 

Copyright Administration, which is responsible for administrative 

enforcement actions against copyright violators, does not have sufficient 

personnel to carry out such actions on a wide scale. 

Limited Resources for IP 

Enforcement 

Support for strong IP enforcement among politicians and government 

officials, domestic industry, and the general public is also lacking in the 

three countries. For instance, a U.S. official we interviewed noted that in 

India there has been a long history of anti-IP rights sentiment among many 

in the government. According to U.S. embassy officials, this attitude has 

started to change among some senior Indian officials in the last few years; 

however, the U.S. embassy in India has reported that it has not yet 

Lack of Domestic Support for 

IP Enforcement 

Page 14 GAO-09-863 Intellectual Property
 

translated into concrete action at the national level. In Thailand, a U.S. 

official noted that political instability over the last few years has made it 

challenging to get the Thai government to focus on IP enforcement at the 

national level. Increased enforcement is also at times viewed as 

contributing to economic harm and as being counter to local interests. For 

instance, in the 2009 Special 301 Report, the U.S. government reported that 

some Chinese officials are encouraging more lenient enforcement of IP 

laws due to concerns about the financial crisis and the potential loss of 

jobs. U.S. government officials also stated that while companies in all 

three countries are increasingly looking to be innovators and create their 

own intellectual property, domestic industry has not always been a strong 

voice for IP enforcement and has at times seen it as being counter to their 

interests. For instance, a U.S. official and a private-sector representative in 

India noted that India’s generic pharmaceutical industry has often been at 

odds with international innovating companies over strong enforcement of 

IP patent rights. Finally, various U.S. officials we interviewed stated that 

members of the general public in the three countries are not always 

supportive of strong IP enforcement. For instance, a U.S. official we met 

with in China noted that a view expressed by some Chinese citizens is that 

IP is simply a tool to help the rich get richer at the expense of ordinary 

citizens. 

Weaknesses in IP Laws 

and Regulations Persist 

despite Some 

Improvements 

The U.S. government generally believes that all three countries have made 

progress in strengthening their IP laws and regulations in recent years. For 

instance, U.S. officials have noted that at this point, all three countries 

have made progress bringing their laws into compliance with the WTO’s 

TRIPS agreement. The U.S. government has also cited other positive 

developments. For instance, China has established rules that now require 

computers sold in the country to be pre-installed with licensed operating 

system software in an effort to reduce purchases of pirated software. In 

2008, India passed a law strengthening penalties for spurious and 

adulterated pharmaceuticals. Additionally, India has approved initiating 

action for accession to the Madrid Protocol18 and has passed a bill to 

 

18The Protocol Relating to the Madrid Agreement Concerning the International Registration 

of Marks (Madrid Protocol) is an international agreement that permits a trademark owner 

to seek registration in any of the countries that have joined the Madrid Protocol by filing a 

single application. This application is referred to as an international application. The World 

Intellectual Property Organization administers the international registration system. The 

resulting “international registration” serves as a means for seeking protection in member 

countries, each of which applies its own rules and laws to determine whether or not the 

mark may be protected in its jurisdiction. 

Page 15 GAO-09-863 Intellectual Property
 

amend provisions of its trademark law to reflect this accession. Thailand 

has implemented provisions of its 2007 Film and Video Act that target the 

unauthorized sale of DVDs. 

While acknowledging progress, the U.S. government has identified 

additional improvements that need to be made in each country’s legal 

regime for IP. Although there are key differences in the legal systems in 

place in each country, there are many commonalities among the issues 

raised by the U.S. government across the three countries. Issues raised by 

the U.S. government include: 

The U.S. government has cited various weaknesses in the three countries’ 

legal protections for copyrighted works. For instance, India and Thailand 

have not yet joined the World Intellectual Property Organization’s 

Copyright Treaty or its Performances and Phonograms Treaty.19 These two 

treaties, which are commonly referred to as the World Intellectual 

Property Organization Internet Treaties, are designed to protect digital 

works and works distributed over the Internet. The U.S. government cites 

Thailand and India’s accession to these treaties and the revision of their 

copyright laws to implement the treaties as key steps that the two 

countries must take to ensure adequate protections for copyrighted works 

given advances in technology. Another key area of concern the U.S. 

government has in all three countries relates to the production of optical 

disks, such as CDs and DVDs. For instance, one U.S. official at the 

embassy in Thailand noted the need for Thailand to amend its Optical Disk 

Manufacturing Act to increase the government’s power to shut down 

operations where illegal infringements are occurring. In its WTO case 

against China, the U.S. government alleged that China’s Copyright Law did 

not protect copyrighted works, such as movies, that did not meet China’s 

content review standards. The U.S. government contended that this 

blanket denial of protection limited certain rights holders’ ability to pursue 

enforcement actions to prevent infringing copies from being produced in 

China and distributed there or exported to other markets. The WTO 

subsequently ruled in favor of the United States on this issue, finding that 

this denial of protection was impermissible under TRIPS. 

Copyrights 

 

19The World Intellectual Property Organization, which was established in 1967, is a 

specialized United Nations agency that promotes the use and protection of IP. Both the 

Copyright Treaty and the Performances and Phonograms Treaty were established by World 

Intellectual Property Organization in 1996. 

Page 16 GAO-09-863 Intellectual Property
 

The U.S. government has also raised several issues with the laws 

governing patent protections in the three countries. For instance, while 

the U.S. government has credited India for several positive changes made 

as part of the revisions to its patent law in 2005, it has also raised concerns 

that many pharmaceutical companies’ applications for incremental patents 

are not patentable under the revised law. According to a U.S. official in 

India, this is problematic because much of the pharmaceutical innovation 

that occurs today is incremental in nature and builds upon existing 

patents. U.S. officials also cited problems with the structure of India’s 

system for challenging patent applications. According to these officials, 

under India’s current system, patents cannot be granted until all 

challenges made by parties are resolved and India’s patent law and 

implementing regulations do not set a specific time frame in which such 

challenges can be brought against a patent application. Thus, parties can 

file sequential challenges to significantly delay patent approvals. 

Patents 

The U.S. embassies in India and Thailand also noted concerns with patent 

linkage issues in the two countries.20 For instance, a U.S. official in India 

stated that India’s Ministry of Health has been at odds with India’s Patent 

Office and has granted approvals for generic drugs to be brought onto the 

market while the innovating drugs were still eligible for exclusive 

marketing rights under the terms of the patent granted by the Patent 

Office. Similar issues exist in Thailand where the U.S. embassy has 

reported that there is not a formal system in place to prevent generic 

producers from being given approval to bring their products to market 

while the originals are still under patent. 

In addition, the U.S. government has raised concerns or sought 

clarification regarding China, India, and Thailand’s protections against the 

unfair commercial use of undisclosed test and other data generated to 

obtain marketing approval for pharmaceutical and agricultural chemical 

products. For instance, the 2009 National Trade Estimate Report on 

Foreign Trade Barriers reports that Indian law does not provide for 

effective protection against the unfair commercial use of test or other data 

that companies have submitted in order to get government approval for 

their pharmaceutical and agricultural chemical products. 

 

20Under a patent linkage system, the regulatory authority responsible for granting 

marketing approvals for pharmaceuticals may not grant marketing approval for a generic 

version of a drug without the permission of the patent holder, if a valid patent is still in 

effect. 

Page 17 GAO-09-863 Intellectual Property
 

The U.S. government has also raised concerns or sought clarification 

regarding compulsory licensing in China, India, and Thailand.21 For 

example, Thailand has issued several compulsory licenses in recent years 

on pharmaceutical products, although no new licenses have been issued in 

2009. The Thai government maintains that its actions did not violate its 

WTO commitments and the U.S. government has acknowledged Thailand’s 

right to issue compulsory licenses; however, the U.S. government has 

raised concerns regarding the transparency of the process and has noted 

industry complaints regarding the Thai government’s unwillingness to 

negotiate in good faith with rights holders before issuing the licenses. In 

the 2009 Special 301 Report, the U.S. government noted concerns with the 

scope and role of compulsory licensing under China’s revised patent law, 

which will go into effect on October 1, 2009. 

Recently, the U.S. government has raised fewer concerns with the three 

countries’ existing trademark laws and regulations than with those 

protecting other types of intellectual property; however, the U.S. continues 

to identify certain issues. For instance, the U.S. embassy in Thailand has 

reported that Thailand has not implemented the Madrid Protocol on 

Trademarks, which allows trademark owners the ability to apply for 

trademark protection in all of the Protocol’s signatory countries through 

the filing of a single application in their own national trademark offices. In 

China, the U.S. government has reported that there are no requirements to 

provide evidence of prior use or ownership when filing a trademark 

application, resulting in “trademark squatting” whereby third parties are 

able to register popular foreign trademarks for their own use. 

Trademarks 

The U.S. government has also cited certain market barriers, in China in 

particular, as being key areas of concern, since it believes that some of 

these barriers create incentives for piracy and counterfeiting. For instance, 

the 2009 Special 301 Report and U.S. officials we interviewed stated that 

China’s restrictions on the number of foreign films allowed to enter its 

market every year minimize access to legitimate versions of films, which in 

turn drives up the demand for pirated versions. The U.S. government has 

also noted in the 2009 Special 301 Report that China needs to add, on a 

regular basis, new drugs to its national formulary, which determines which 

medicines consumers will be able to legally access. 

Market Barriers 

 

21The WTO Secretariat defines compulsory licensing as when a government allows 

someone else to produce a patented product or process without the consent of the patent 

owner. 

Page 18 GAO-09-863 Intellectual Property
 

The USPTO IP attachés were generally effective in collaborating with 

other agencies at the four posts primarily by acting as IP focal points, 

establishing IP working groups, and leveraging resources through joint 

activities. The DOJ IPLEC collaborated on IP with post and agency 

headquarters personnel via country and regional forums such as training 

U.S. and foreign, police, prosecutors, and customs officials on 

enforcement practices. While the IPLEC collaborated with FBI and ICE 

officials at the posts and with DOJ headquarters on criminal casework, the 

cases mostly involved non-IP criminal activities under the IPLEC’s dual 

role as DOJ attaché. 

The IP Attachés 

Generally 

Collaborated 

Effectively with 

Others at the Posts; 

the IPLEC 

Collaborated Via IP 

Forums 

Posts Have Adopted 

Several Practices That Can 

Enhance Collaboration 

GAO has found that while collaboration among federal agencies can take 

different forms, practices that generally enhance collaboration include 

agreeing upon agency roles and responsibilities; establishing compatible 

policies, procedures, and other means to operate across agency 

boundaries; and identifying and addressing needs by leveraging 

resources.22 We found several instances where the IP attachés 

demonstrated these practices in collaborating with other agencies at the 

posts: agreeing on roles; establishing policies and procedures; and 

leveraging resources. (The practice of “establishing mutually reinforcing 

or joint strategies” is discussed later in this report under our third 

objective regarding interagency planning.) 

Several agency officials in each of the four posts noted common factors 

that were important to enabling the IP attachés to serve as effective focal 

points. First, agreement on roles and responsibilities of the IP attachés 

particularly vis-à-vis the State economic section and post leadership, while 

challenging, was achieved in most posts. Prior to the creation of the 

attaché position at the four posts, State economic officers had primary 

responsibility for IP; now, they are the most involved in IP issues after the 

IP attachés. Thus, it was important that State officials and the IP attaché at 

each post agree on their respective roles. State economic officers in 

Guangzhou and Beijing raised some challenges regarding such agreement, 

but they and the IP attachés have successfully worked out their 

appropriate roles on IP, including dealing with the Chinese government. 

Agreeing on Roles Contributed 

to the IP Attachés’ 

Effectiveness as Focal Points 

 

22GAO, Results-Oriented Government: Practices That Can Enhance and Sustain 

Collaboration among Federal Agencies, GAO-06-15 (Washington, D.C.: October 2005). 

Page 19 GAO-09-863 Intellectual Property
 

For example, in Guangzhou, the economic officer said that he gathered 

information and applied diplomacy to convince the Chinese to improve 

their IP protection and that IP attaché played a similar role, but also 

offered the host government practical means, such as technical assistance. 

The economic officer in Beijing said it took some work, but he was able to 

balance his role with the subject matter expertise of the attaché, for 

example, deciding when the IP attaché should use his expertise to support 

the economic officer’s diplomatic efforts and when the IP attaché should 

work directly with the Chinese government. However, at the post in 

Thailand, the lack of consensus between the IP attaché and the economic 

section and post leadership on the attaché’s role negatively affected 

collaboration. For instance, a State economic officer expressed the view 

that the IP attaché should primarily provide training and technical 

assistance on IP and should have little involvement in policy and 

diplomacy matters as the economic section was the primary U.S. face to 

the Thai government on IP. According to USPTO officials, the regional role 

of the IP attaché may have contributed to the perception that the attaché 

was not intended to be the IP focal point at the post. Although the IP 

attaché was able to promote IP protection and enforcement through 

technical assistance programs, the attaché wanted to be more fully 

included in the embassy’s IP policy considerations, such as more 

opportunities to provide her expertise during all phases of the Special 301 

process. As a result, one private-sector representative and another U.S. 

agency official at the post with whom we spoke expressed confusion 

about who to contact on IP at the embassy. 

Another element that contributed to the IP attachés’ ability to serve as 

effective focal points was that they imparted their subject matter 

expertise. For example, IP attachés pro-actively shared their IP expertise 

among the other agencies such as providing updates on IP laws and 

regulations, which had increased awareness of the issue at the posts. A 

Foreign Agricultural Service official in Bangkok said that with the IP 

attaché’s expertise, he was able to identify and address IP violations of 

agricultural products. He gave an example where an agricultural 

cooperator contacted him about the packaging and labeling of one of its 

products being copied and sold on host country grocery shelves. The 

Foreign Agricultural Service official said that without the IP attaché’s help, 

he would have sent a sample to Washington where it likely would have 

been considered a labeling issue rather than the more accurate 

designation of counterfeiting. 

In addition, the IP attachés had the advantage of working full time on IP. 

Several agency officials from all four posts said that they had multiple 

Page 20 GAO-09-863 Intellectual Property
 

responsibilities required by their broad portfolios, and some officials in 

some posts said they spent relatively little time on IP. In particular, the 

officials from the law enforcement agencies, such as ICE and FBI, at the 

posts where they had a presence, stated that IP was not a top priority 

given all the other issues they address such as counterterrorism and 

internet fraud. A State economic officer in Beijing said that the IP attaché 

compelled agency officials at the post to make time for IP despite other 

competing demands, while a State economic officer in New Delhi said that 

having the IP attaché take the lead on IP had been very helpful and an ICE 

official said that the arrival of the IP attaché had energized the same post 

on IP issues. 

Finally, agency officials cited working with other agencies as a team and 

fostering trust and support among U.S. agency and host country 

government counterparts as key elements contributing to the attachés’ 

successful role as focal points. For instance, two agency officials at one 

post said that the IP attaché was a team player who really encouraged 

communication on IP with the agencies at the posts. At another post, an 

agency official said that the IP attaché was very effective in building 

relationships with the host government, which, in turn, gave other U.S. 

agencies entrée to state their case on IP with the host government 

officials. 

At the embassies in New Delhi and Beijing, the IP attachés played a key 

role in creating interagency IP working groups soon after their arrival. 

Several agency officials at these two posts said that the multiple duties, 

heavy demands in terms of official visitors, and the large number of 

personnel at the post made it difficult to rely solely on informal 

communications to address IP. Accordingly, the IP attachés facilitated the 

formation of IP working groups for agencies to meet and share 

information on IP and update each other on their respective IP activities. 

The meetings were usually led by the IP attaché and might include 

attendees from USTR, the State economic section, the Foreign Agricultural 

Service, and the FCS as well as enforcement agencies such as ICE, CBP, 

FBI, and DOJ, depending on the agencies located at the two posts. 

Some IP Attachés Created IP 

Working Groups as 

Mechanisms for Collaboration 

Several agency officials in New Delhi and Beijing said that the working 

groups provided several advantages. For instance, the working group 

meetings allowed agencies to learn, on a regular basis, of each other’s 

upcoming activities on IP, hear about news and trends in IP, and 

complement each other’s efforts such as arranging to attend each other’s 

training programs to lend their particular expertise. One agency official 

said that when she first arrived at the post in Beijing, the working group 

Page 21 GAO-09-863 Intellectual Property
 

helped her get up to speed on the IP issues and priorities and take 

advantage of opportunities to raise them in her meetings with the host 

government. 

The importance of the IP working group and the role of the attaché in 

Beijing was demonstrated when the working group became inactive after 

the attaché left the post in August 2008 and the position became vacant. 

Two agency officials at the post said that presently without these 

meetings, there was less focus on IP at the post. One of these two officials 

said that although agency officials had actively exchanged emails since the 

attaché’s departure, a more formal collaborative process would be useful 

to ensure that the embassy spoke with one voice on IP. In addition, the 

same official said that the meetings were particularly important to 

maintain connection with the enforcement side, which he said tends to be 

more reluctant to share information with other agencies at the post. At the 

consulate in Guangzhou, one agency official said that he had participated 

in the embassy’s working group meetings in Beijing by phone until they 

were discontinued with the departure of the IP attaché; he hoped that the 

embassy working group meetings would be resumed when the IP attaché 

vacancy was filled, saying that the meetings kept him informed of IP 

events at the capital. 

In Thailand, IP issues are covered in two regular, large interagency 

meetings at the post: the Economic Cluster and the Law Enforcement 

Working Group. In addition, according to the IP attaché, for the past 

couple of years, the attaché held periodic informal meetings on IP with 

officials from State, DOJ, and DHS to discuss IP issues. The IP attaché said 

that although participants’ regional responsibilities and travel schedules 

prevented regularly scheduled meetings, this group met at least 10 times 

from October 2006 to the end of 2008. In late 2008, the IP attaché worked 

with the Deputy Chief of Mission to establish a more formal IP working 

group. The first meeting of the IP working group was in January 2009, 

chaired by the Deputy Chief of Mission, and coordinated by the IP attaché. 

As of June 2009, USPTO had instituted a new requirement that the IP 

attachés and State Department embassy staff in all the posts where IP 

Page 22 GAO-09-863 Intellectual Property
 

attachés are posted form an “IPR[ights] task force” that meets on a regular 

basis.23

The IP attachés complemented the efforts of other agencies to enhance IP 

protection and enforcement at all four posts by leveraging resources 

through joint IP activities with other agency officials. For example, the IP 

attachés helped FCS’ efforts to assist and encourage individuals to do 

business in the country by providing advice on how to avoid IP problems, 

and answering IP-related questions. For example, the attaché explained 

host country IP regulations to U.S. companies in order to avoid customs 

related delays, and produced educational materials on IP for industry 

trade shows. In China, an FCS official and the IP attaché from Guangzhou 

said these efforts helped avoid situations that would lead to more WTO 

dispute settlement cases down the road. An FCS official in New Delhi said 

that the IP attaché has worked to remove the silos between FCS and 

USPTO at post, such as providing FCS clients with information on the IP 

situation in India. 

The IP Attachés also Leveraged 

Resources through Joint 

Activities 

Economic officers in two posts provided examples of where the IP 

attachés expertise enhanced the officers’ access to and relationship with 

host country officials on IP. For instance, the economic officer in New 

Delhi said that the IP attaché had used his expertise to build trust and 

rapport with the host government on IP issues and complement the 

economic officer’s diplomacy with details on potential solutions. 

Another economic officer in Guangzhou said that he worked closely with 

the IP attaché on a daily basis to sell the idea that IP rights and their 

enforcement was important and that the attaché facilitated this joint effort 

by cutting through the bureaucratic layers in the host government. 

A public affairs officer in Guangzhou said that he had worked with the IP 

attaché on a series of public affairs events and that the attaché has also 

met with other stakeholders such as academics, students, and industry 

groups on IP that provided the public affairs officer with new contacts for 

 

23In its June 2009 Operating Plan, USPTO required that “USPTO and State Department staff 

form an informal ‘IPR[ights] Task Force’ that meets on a regular basis, possibly at least 

once a month. The task force will help to better delineate the roles and responsibilities of 

and cooperation between the Economic Officer and the IPR[rights] Attaché. The regular 

meetings of the task force could cover the following topics: (1) reporting on IPR[ights]-

related meetings and activities; (2) input of IPR[ights] Attachés in the Special 301 Review 

process; and (3) IPR[rights] Attaché collaboration and coordination on the posts’ mission 

strategic plans.” 

Page 23 GAO-09-863 Intellectual Property
 

his work. He said that the IP attaché had been very successful in 

amplifying the issue by making sure that IP was being discussed in the 

media. The public affairs officer in Bangkok said that the IP attaché 

provided talking points on IP for the U.S. ambassador at media events. 

Also in Bangkok, the IP attaché worked with CBP counterparts on 

customs enforcement training. 

The IPLEC Collaborated 

on IP with Post and 

Headquarters Personnel 

through Forums, and 

Primarily Addressed NonIP Casework 

The IPLEC collaborated on IP primarily through IP forums with other U.S. 

agency officials posted in several countries in the region, including 

Thailand and to a lesser extent China and India, as well as with agency 

headquarters personnel. With regard to case work, his primary focus was 

on his responsibilities as the DOJ attaché in which he works with U.S. and 

foreign law enforcement officials, prosecutors, and judges on an array of 

mostly non-IP criminal cases and investigations in the region that involve, 

among other things, money laundering, fraud, human trafficking, and child 

exploitation.24

The IPLEC collaborated with other post and headquarters officials via 

regional and country IP forums. According to the IPLEC, an important part 

of his collaborative efforts was creating an IP Crimes Enforcement 

Network (IPCEN), establishing a network of law enforcement officials in 

the region. To facilitate the IPCEN, the IPLEC hosted a 4-day and a 3-day, 

regional IPCEN conference, held in 2007 and 2009, respectively, in 

Bangkok, Thailand. The 2007 conference was co-organized by USPTO, 

DOJ, and ASEAN; 25 and the 2009 conference by USPTO and DOJ.26 Both 

conferences were funded by the State’s Bureau for International Narcotics 

The IPLEC Collaborated on IP 

with Post and Headquarters 

Agencies through IP Forums 

 

24According to DOJ officials, the agency did not have funding to post an additional person 

overseas in Thailand, but capitalized on the fact that the newly appointed DOJ Attaché 

already in Bangkok was an experienced IP crimes prosecutor. Thus, DOJ took advantage of 

the existing resource and designated this person as the IPLEC. The IPLEC in Thailand 

continues to have attaché duties that extend beyond IP. 

25The ASEAN member countries include Brunei, Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, 

Myanmar, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, and Vietnam. 

26Attendees at the 2007 IPCEN came from the United States, China, Australia, Brunei, 

Cambodia, Indonesia, Japan, Laos, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, South Korea, 

Thailand, and Vietnam. Countries represented at the 2009 IPCEN came from the United 

States, Australia, Hong Kong, Indonesia, Japan, Macao, Malaysia, Singapore, South Korea, 

and Thailand. 

Page 24 GAO-09-863 Intellectual Property
 

and Law Enforcement Affairs.27 The goals of the two IPCEN conferences 

were to work directly with police, prosecutors, and customs officials 

attending from the United States and numerous countries in the region to 

share best practices on fighting IP crimes. The IPCEN conferences were 

also meant to create a vehicle through which participants could develop 

relationships and opportunities for sharing information on transnational IP 

criminal investigations. In addition, the IPCEN conferences were meant to 

strengthen communication channels in the law enforcement community 

and promote coordinated, multinational prosecutions of the most serious 

IP offenders. 

In hosting the IPCEN conferences, the IPLEC collaborated with 

enforcement agencies at posts in the region, including CBP, ICE, and 

FBI.28 In addition, the Deputy Chief of Mission in Bangkok spoke at

conferences, and the IP attaché from Thailand assisted in arranging both 

IPCEN conferences and spoke at the conference in 2007. The IP attachés 

from China and India were not involved in either conference. In addition, 

an official from USPTO headquarters was a moderator in 2009. Non-U.S. 

government speakers at the conferences included law enforcement 

officials and investigators from several countries including China, South 

Korea, Australia, and Japan, and some ASEAN countries as well as U.S. 

rights holders from a range of industries.

 both 

 

29

In addition to the IPCENs, the IPLEC said he also collaborated with post 

law enforcement personnel, including from CBP, ICE, and FBI and with 

27The Bureau for International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs’ training and 

technical assistance program facilitates U.S. government assistance to, and cooperation 

with, key foreign nations on matters involving cyber crime, critical information 

infrastructure protection, and IP crime. Bureau for International Narcotics and Law 

Enforcement Affairs programs combat IP violations by building capacity among foreign 

border and customs officials, investigators, law enforcement officials, prosecutors, and 

judges to detect, investigate, prosecute, and prevent IP crimes. 

28The 2007 IPCEN speakers included an FBI legal attaché and a CBP attaché from Bangkok, 

and an assistant ICE attaché from Beijing. The 2009 IPCEN included an assistant ICE 

attaché and an FBI legal attaché from Bangkok, an assistant ICE attaché from Beijing, an 

ICE attaché from Hong Kong, and an ICE attaché and FBI legal attaché from Seoul, South 

Korea. 

29Examples of topics at the IPCENs included effective strategies for prosecuting internetbased piracy, illegal production of optical discs, and retail piracy; developing positive 

relations between investigators and prosecutors; effective border enforcement strategies; 

and presentations on the perspectives of several countries regarding effective IP rights 

criminal enforcement strategies. 

Page 25 GAO-09-863 Intellectual Property
 

headquarters officials from DOJ and USPTO on more than 50 IP programs 

(2006-2009), providing legal and technical assistance to foreign law 

enforcement agencies and judges on IP law enforcement issues in multiple 

countries in the ASEAN region. Examples included IP workshops and 

seminars for U.S. and foreign judges, prosecutors, and investigators, and 

for U.S. business groups. 

With regard to collaboration with State officials and IP attachés at the 

posts, the IPLEC said that he sometimes attended host government 

meetings with the State economic officers in Bangkok and also attended 

several Bangkok IP working group meetings. However, he said that while 

he had attended some IP programs sponsored by the IP attachés earlier in 

his tenure in Bangkok, more recently he had not collaborated regularly 

with the IP attachés in Bangkok, Guangzhou, Beijing, or New Delhi. The 

IPLEC collaborated frequently with USPTO headquarters, specifically with 

an official from the Office of Intellectual Property Policy and 

Enforcement, which organized most IP events in the region from 2006 to 

2009. This USPTO official, who worked closely with the IPLEC, 

commented that the IPLEC’s expertise as a prosecutor added depth and 

perspective to the programs. The IPLEC said that he had collaborated less 

with the IP attachés due to his many responsibilities working on regional 

forums and his role as a DOJ attaché, commenting that he was one person 

in a large region and that they had a broader set of concerns on IP than his 

more narrow focus on law enforcement. The IP attachés in Bangkok, New 

Delhi, and Guangzhou said that they viewed the IPLEC as a valuable 

resource and that, ideally, they would like to take advantage of his 

expertise more often, but found him busy with other priorities. One IP 

attaché commented that the IPLEC was “stretched thin” and another 

observed that he had a “full plate” due to the wide region and many issues 

he covered in addition to IP. 

With regard to case work, the IPLEC said he collaborated with other law 

enforcement agencies at the posts on a daily basis, including the FBI and 

ICE attachés in Thailand and other ASEAN countries, but primarily on 

non-IP cases in his role as DOJ attaché. The IPLEC also said he 

collaborated with the CBP attachés, though somewhat less. The FBI 

attaché in Thailand told us that he works with the IPLEC on a regular 

basis on various non-IP extradition cases, but knew of no recent IP cases. 

According to the IPLEC, since his arrival in Bangkok, there has been one 

IP case involving the extradition of a criminal from Thailand, in March 

The IPLEC also Collaborated 

on Criminal Case Work, but 

Mostly Non-IP Related 

Page 26 GAO-09-863 Intellectual Property
 

2008, for counterfeit pharmaceuticals, the first ever related to 

pharmaceuticals in the region.30 According to DOJ officials, extraditions 

based on IP offenses are very rare. The IPLEC assists U.S. prosecutors and 

investigative agencies develop cases by facilitating evidence and 

extradition requests as well as communication between U.S. authorities 

and foreign law enforcement. 

The IPLEC said that one focus of the IPCENs was to promote 

collaboration among U.S. and regional law enforcement authorities on IP 

cases. The IPLEC said that feedback from IPCEN attendees has been 

positive in terms of case-related communication. However, according to 

DOJ officials, the IPCEN network does not have a means to track any 

resulting sharing of evidence and other information, or resulting joint 

investigative efforts on IP cases. Ultimately, the IPLEC said that he would 

like to continue working on IP cases with his foreign counterparts, but 

finding areas where their interests coincide with those of the United States 

is challenging.31 The IPLEC further explained that although targeted 

prosecution of the most egregious IP offenders could result in higher 

sentences and have the greatest deterrent effect, countries such as 

Thailand have sought to improve the perception of their enforcement 

efforts by bringing a large number of low-value cases to trial. 

The IPLEC maintained that his two roles, IPLEC and DOJ attaché, were 

complementary in that wearing the DOJ attaché hat gave him more 

credibility as the IPLEC to push countries to investigate and prosecute IP 

criminals. First, host country officials could see that as a prosecutor he 

understood that IP was one among many large-scale crimes in the region 

and that addressing them, given scarce resources, was a challenge. 

Second, other types of criminal cases have been known to generate IP 

cases, as IP is often intertwined with money laundering, fraud and other 

criminal activities. He said that his main goal as both IPLEC and DOJ 

attaché is to convince countries to target their criminal investigations on 

the most egregious transnational cases, ideally for IP crimes, but 

 

30According to DOJ, a 40-year old citizen of the Republic of the Philippines was sentenced 

to prison for his role in a scheme to manufacture, import and distribute counterfeit 

pharmaceutical drugs in the United States. Charged by criminal complaint in June 2006, 

this individual was the first foreign national to be extradited to the United States for 

conspiring to import and distribute counterfeit pharmaceuticals. 

31According to DOJ officials, the types of activities pursued as criminal cases in Thailand 

are different than some of the larger cross-border cases the United States has handled 

elsewhere. 

Page 27 GAO-09-863 Intellectual Property
 

realistically not restricted to them, which in the long run would result in 

reducing piracy and counterfeiting along with other crimes. 

While the four posts have adopted several practices to collaborate 

effectively on IP, only one has adopted an interagency plan to address key 

IP issues. Existing post guidance on IP is high level and does not generally 

guide agencies’ day-to-day efforts to reach IP goals. Agencies can plan by 

using joint strategies that translate high level goals into specific objectives 

and activities. At one post, agencies collaborated to develop a joint 

strategy in the form of an interagency IP work plan that has established 

specific IP objectives and helped agencies at the working level identify and 

implement IP activities that address the key IP issues identified by the 

United States. Joint strategies can help agencies prioritize among existing 

IP efforts, avoid duplication of IP efforts, convey a common message on IP 

to foreign governments, and maintain focus on IP given numerous 

competing issues and periodic changes in key IP personnel at the posts. 

Three of the Four 

Posts Do Not Have 

Interagency Plans 

Addressing the Key IP 

Issues 

Post Guidance on IP Lacks 

Specificity to Guide IP 

Efforts 

Agencies at the posts are provided high-level guidance on IP issues, 

including guidance from U.S. headquarters’ interagency mechanisms and 

post-wide plans in which IP is included among other relevant issues. 

Individual agencies may also have their own IP guidance for a country. 

However, overall, existing guidance is generally either too high level to be 

applied to agencies’ day-to-day IP efforts to achieve IP goals or not shared 

widely among the agencies at the posts. 

The annual Special 301 report provides the posts guidance on key IP 

issues, although there are significant differences in the level of detail 

provided for each country. For instance the section on China in the Special 

301 report has in recent years been longer than the sections for India and 

Thailand. USTR headquarters officials reported that in addition to the 

report, USTR sends cables to posts identifying IP priorities for their host 

countries. However, U.S. officials we interviewed at the four posts did not 

generally report that they utilized either the final Special 301 report or 

subsequent cables to guide them in conducting their IP activities on a dayto-day basis. As part of the Special 301 process, posts are also responsible 

for submitting a cable that outlines their perspectives on the key IP issues 

in their host countries. At the posts we visited, this effort was led by the 

State economic section with assistance from the IP attachés and input 

from other agencies. While these submissions identify a wide range of 

issues in each country, posts did not report that they utilized this 

interagency effort at the post level as a foundation from which to establish 

specific IP objectives to guide their IP efforts. 

The Special 301 Process, 

Bilateral Forums, and Mission 

Strategic Plans Provide High 

Level Guidance 

Page 28 GAO-09-863 Intellectual Property
 

The outcomes of bilateral forums such as the U.S./China Joint Commission 

on Commerce and Trade32 and the U.S./India Trade Policy Forum33 also 

provide high-level guidance to posts on IP issues that the U.S. government 

is seeking to collaboratively address with its foreign counterparts. For 

instance, in the context of the Trade Policy Forum, the United States and 

India agreed to work together to build enforcement agencies’ awareness of 

IP laws and systems in each country by, among other things, exchanging 

information on best practices and undertaking capacity building programs. 

While some U.S. officials we met with at the posts noted that these forums 

help establish U.S. policy goals for IP, as with the Special 301 process, post 

officials did not generally report relying on the outcomes of these forums 

to drive their IP activities on a day-to-day basis. 

Each U.S. embassy in the three countries also has a fiscal year 2010 

Mission Strategic Plan (MSP) that discusses IP.34 While the mention of IP 

in the MSPs indicates that the embassy leadership in that country views IP 

as a priority, MSPs are designed to set general goals for posts rather than 

provide extensive guidance on particular issues. Thus, the MSPs are not 

meant to guide agencies’ day-to-day IP efforts. For example, India’s MSP 

has a general statement about supporting improved protection of 

intellectual property to attract more foreign direct investment and one IPrelated performance target that relates to a reduction in the software 

piracy rate. To the extent that IP is discussed in the three countries’ MSPs, 

it is primarily within the sections on economic issues rather than in the 

sections on law enforcement. Only the MSP for Thailand mentions IP as a 

law enforcement issue. Even there, the discussion is limited to a broad 

statement about IP violations being one of a list of crimes that the mission 

will combat in partnership with the Thai government and does not include 

any specific categories of violations or potential strategies related to 

criminal IP enforcement in the law enforcement section of the plan. 

 

32The U.S./China Joint Commission on Commerce and Trade was established in 1983 as a 

high-level government-to-government forum for discussing trade and investment issues. 

Commerce and USTR lead the U.S. government delegation to the Commission. 

33The U.S./India Trade Policy Forum was established in 2005 and is the principal trade 

dialogue between the two countries. USTR leads the U.S. government delegation to the 

Forum. 

34MSPs cover a 3-year period. Embassies’ fiscal year 2010 plans cover fiscal years 2008 

through 2010. 

Page 29 GAO-09-863 Intellectual Property
 

While other agencies may have broader plans that discuss IP, USPTO is 

the only agency we identified that has developed its own IP-specific plans 

for each of the three countries. USPTO’s headquarters-based country 

teams have developed IP plans for China, India, and an ASEAN regional 

plan that covers several countries, including Thailand. Additionally, the 

India, Thailand, and Guangzhou IP attachés have developed individual IP 

work plans for their areas of responsibility. However, USPTO officials 

stated that these plans tend to serve primarily as internal guidance and are 

not widely shared with officials from other U.S. agencies. Some USPTO 

headquarters officials we interviewed acknowledged that there would be 

benefits to having the IP attachés work with other relevant agencies on a 

post-wide IP plan at each location where there is an IP attaché. The 

officials stated that this would help ensure that agencies’ IP activities at 

the posts are in alignment with agreed upon long-term objectives and that 

there is a clear assignment of responsibilities. Additionally, the officials 

noted that such buy-in is essential since USPTO does not have the 

authority to direct the U.S. agenda at a post, with the ambassador having 

final say on the priorities. At the time of our review, however, USPTO had 

decided to give the attachés the discretion to determine whether or not to 

work with agencies at the post to develop such a plan, rather than making 

it a requirement. A USPTO headquarters official stated that this allowed 

the attachés greater flexibility in deciding how best to work with other 

agencies at post. 

USPTO Has IP Plans, but These 

Are Not Widely Shared with 

Other Agencies 

One Post Has a Joint 

Strategy in the Form of an 

Interagency Work Plan to 

Guide Agencies’ Efforts on 

IP 

GAO has found that agencies can enhance collaboration by establishing 

mutually reinforcing or joint strategies that articulate clear objectives and 

align activities, core processes, and resources to achieve a common 

outcome.35 While the four posts have adopted several practices to 

collaborate on IP, only one has adopted such a joint strategy. 

The U.S. embassy in New Delhi has developed a joint strategy in the form 

of an interagency IP work plan that translates key IP issues into a clear set 

of objectives and provides details on the post’s planned IP activities. The 

IP attaché in New Delhi led the effort to draft the plan under the auspices 

of the IP working group. Completed in December 2008, the plan 

incorporated input from several agencies at the embassy, including 

USPTO, CBP, ICE, FCS, and the State economic section. The interagency 

 

35GAO, Results-Oriented Government: Practices That Can Enhance and Sustain 

Collaboration among Federal Agencies, GAO-06-15 (Washington, D.C.: October 2005). 

Page 30 GAO-09-863 Intellectual Property
 

work plan lists specific IP objectives that the working group intends to 

work towards in India, such as the implementation of an optical disk law 

and the implementation of a meaningful system for protecting undisclosed 

data against unfair commercial use. The plan also identifies specific dayto-day activities in support of each objective that the IP working group 

hopes to undertake. For instance, it discusses meetings that the post 

intends to hold with various Indian ministries, outreach it plans to perform 

with the private sector, IP training it plans to provide, and data it plans to 

collect to bolster the U.S. position on certain IP issues. 

As the plan had been in place for a relatively short period of time when we 

conducted our fieldwork in New Delhi, in March 2009, the IP working 

group had not yet assessed progress that had been made. Agency officials 

told us that they intended to revisit the plan at the 6-month point, assess 

progress, and determine what revisions, if any, were needed. As of the end 

of July 2009, the IP attaché reported that he had met with the State 

economic section to discuss updates to the plan and that the full IP 

working group would discuss the plan at an upcoming meeting in August 

with intentions to finalize the revisions shortly after that. In revising the 

plan, he said that he expected that the working group would maintain the 

original objectives in the plan, which are long term in nature, but that 

there would likely be some minor modifications to the approach outlined 

for meeting them. 

Using Joint Strategies to 

Collaborate on IP at the 

Posts Can Have Several 

Benefits 

While agencies at the four posts have undertaken IP activities that are 

relevant and support U.S. interests, joint strategies such as interagency 

work plans can potentially assist posts in prioritizing among their various 

demands and help ensure that their activities are part of a strategic 

approach to address key IP issues identified by the U.S. government. 

Various U.S. officials and private-sector representatives stated that the 

level of IP activity has increased at the posts in recent years in large part 

due to the arrival of the IP attachés and the attention they bring to IP 

issues. However, agency officials generally noted that on a day-to-day 

basis their activities were not undertaken as part of the implementation of 

particular plans to address key IP issues. For example, one agency official 

in China stated that his strategy for IP was to simply “juggle” issues as they 

arose. 

The development of interagency work plans can also help to encourage 

sustained attention to key IP activities. Some agency officials noted that 

the long-term nature of many IP efforts—such as implementing optical 

disk laws, developing public outreach to convince consumers of the 

Page 31 GAO-09-863 Intellectual Property
 

importance of IP rights, or building the relationships with foreign law 

enforcement officials necessary to conduct joint IP investigations—require 

sustained and focused attention over time. In the absence of such 

sustained attention, the impacts of U.S. efforts can be diminished. For 

instance, an official at one post noted that he had observed a cycle where 

the post would exert pressure on the host country’s police to more 

aggressively enforce IP laws, and enforcement would increase; however, 

after a time, pressure would ease and previous enforcement levels would 

return. An official in Beijing noted the challenges to staying focused on 

particular issues at such a large post. Whereas, a written plan has helped 

the embassy stay on target and not loose focus on IP issues, according to 

an official in New Delhi. A different official in New Delhi stated that the 

plan would allow the post to keep up momentum on IP and helped ensure 

that all the relevant agencies were engaged. Post-level plans can also 

minimize the reduction in focus on IP as agency officials transfer in and 

out of posts. For instance, one U.S. official in Beijing noted that the IP 

attaché had driven the post’s day-to-day IP activities, and that when he left 

the post, there was no plan to consult to help ensure that agencies 

continued to focus on key IP issues. In addition, new personnel can 

consult joint strategies to help them more quickly contribute to IP issues. 

Given the cross-cutting nature of IP, interagency post work plans may also 

assist agencies in identifying opportunities to avoid redundant activities or 

divergent messages, particularly given the multiple agencies at each of the 

posts we visited that play some role in IP activities. For example, we 

identified over 10 agencies or agency sections that perform IP-related 

work at the embassy in Beijing. An agency official in Beijing stated that 

there was not a cohesive embassy strategy on IP, with agencies tending to 

pursue their individual projects. In addition, we found evidence of 

disagreement among agencies in Thailand regarding the appropriate 

strategy for working with the host government and upon what issues to 

focus. An agency official in Thailand stated that an IP work plan for the 

post would help ensure that agencies at the post were knowledgeable 

about what was happening on IP and would reduce the risk of duplicative 

efforts or inconsistent messages to the host government. An agency 

official in India stated that, through the work plan, the post hoped to 

maintain a common message on IP. 

Improving IP protection and enforcement overseas is challenging because 

IP issues are complex and multifaceted. Many IP issues are symptoms of 

broader problems the countries face such as weak government institutions 

or the lack of a strong historical respect for the rule of law. Addressing the 

Conclusion 

Page 32 GAO-09-863 Intellectual Property
 

many challenges associated with improving countries’ IP laws and 

regulations and strengthening their enforcement efforts requires extensive 

knowledge of a country’s IP regime and the ability to influence a complex 

web of policies and procedures under an array of legislative, 

administrative, and judicial authorities. The best ways for the United 

States to motivate change are not always obvious, particularly while 

seeking to preserve good relations and pursue other foreign policy goals. 

Adding to the complexity, multiple U.S. agencies are involved in IP and 

most of their overseas personnel do not consider IP their primary mission 

because they have numerous and more pressing responsibilities. 

U.S. agencies at the four posts are generally collaborating effectively and 

have adopted certain key practices to enhance and sustain collaboration, 

with the exception of developing joint strategies such as interagency IP 

work plans. Such plans can further improve collaboration and maximize 

the effectiveness of U.S. government IP efforts at posts by bringing 

agencies together to develop and commit to specific objectives and 

activities that address the key IP issues. Interagency IP work plans 

increase the likelihood that interagency efforts will be sustained 

throughout the inevitable shifts in key IP personnel at overseas posts, and 

despite the competing demands placed on many agencies for which IP is 

not their main mission. By acting as focal points, IP attachés have already 

spearheaded collaboration among the agencies by facilitating joint U.S. 

agency IP efforts and, in some cases, generating mechanisms like IP 

working groups for sharing ideas and planning IP events. Recognizing the 

importance of such mechanisms, USPTO has recently required that all 

posts with IP attachés form such working groups. However, currently, 

neither the IP attachés nor any other post agency official has the 

responsibility for facilitating post-wide planning on IP. Instead, planning to 

address the key IP issues is dependent on the individual initiative of post 

personnel and, thus, to date has been limited to only one of the four posts. 

To more effectively ensure that activities at U.S. posts with USPTO IP 

attachés consistently address the key IP protection and enforcement 

issues identified by the U.S. government, we recommend that the 

Secretary of State direct post leadership in countries with USPTO IP 

attachés to work with the USPTO IP attachés to take the following action: 

Recommendation for 

Executive Action 

• Develop annual IP interagency work plans to be used by the post IP 

working groups with input from relevant agencies, which set objectives 

and identify activities for addressing key IP protection and enforcement 

issues defined by the U.S. government, taking into account the range of 

Page 33 GAO-09-863 Intellectual Property
 

expertise of responsible agencies, available resources, and agency specific 

IP goals. 

We provided a draft of this report to the Secretaries of Commerce, Health 

and Human Services, Homeland Security, and State; the Attorney General; 

the U.S. Trade Representative; and the Director of the U.S. Patent and 

Trademark Office. We received written comments from the Department of 

State Assistant Secretary and Chief Financial Officer, the Department of 

Commerce Acting Under Secretary for International Trade, and the Acting 

Chief Financial Officer of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, which are 

reprinted in appendices II through IV. The Department of State and the 

U.S. Patent and Trademark Office officials concurred with our 

recommendation. The Departments of State, Commerce, Justice, and 

Health and Human Services; the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office; and the 

Office of the U.S. Trade Representative chose to provide technical 

comments. We modified the report where appropriate. The Secretary of 

Homeland Security chose not to provide comments. 

Agency Comments 

and Our Evaluation 

We are sending copies of this report to appropriate congressional 

committees and the Secretaries of Commerce, Health and Human 

Services, Homeland Security, and State; the Attorney General; the U.S. 

Trade Representative; and the Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark 

Office. In addition, the report will be available at no charge on the GAO 

Web site at http://www.gao.gov. 

If you or your staff has any questions about this report, please contact me 

at (202) 512-4347 or yagerl@gao.gov. Contact points for our Office of 

Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page 

of this report. GAO staff who made major contributions to this report are 

listed in appendix V. 

Loren Yager 

Director, International Affairs and Trade 

Page 34 GAO-09-863 Intellectual Property
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology Appendix I: Scope and Methodology 

To address Congress’ concern about U.S. government efforts to protect 

and enforce intellectual property (IP) rights overseas and assist the new 

advisory committee headed by the Intellectual Property Enforcement 

Coordinator, recently created by the Congress, this report evaluates U.S. 

government efforts to enhance protection and enforcement of IP overseas 

in three countries at four posts, including posts in Beijing and Guangzhou, 

China; New Delhi, India; and Bangkok, Thailand. Specifically, this report 

(1) describes the key IP protection and enforcement issues that the U.S. 

government has identified in China, India, and Thailand; (2) assesses the 

extent to which the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) IP 

attachés and the Department of Justice (DOJ) Intellectual Property Law 

Enforcement Coordinator (IPLEC) effectively collaborated with other 

agencies at posts in China, India, and Thailand to improve IP protection 

and enforcement; and (3) evaluates the extent to which each of the four 

posts has undertaken interagency planning in collaborating on their IPrelated activities. 

Overall, to determine the scope of our work, we obtained documentation 

and interviewed cognizant officials from the Departments of Commerce 

(Commerce), Health and Human Services (HHS), Homeland Security 

(DHS), Justice (DOJ), and State (State); and from the Office of the U.S. 

Trade Representative (USTR). We reviewed documentation on overseas 

U.S. government personnel and their IP activities, including which 

countries had personnel dedicated to IP issues. We collected and analyzed 

documentation that discussed key IP protection and enforcement issues 

around the world and that identified those countries where the U.S. 

government believes IP problems are most acute, such as documents 

related to the Special 301 process, and other agency assessments of 

countries’ IP laws and regulations. We determined that our scope would 

focus on IP efforts at the embassy/post level and that we would utilize a 

case study approach, focusing on selected countries. To select the case 

study countries, we used a set of criteria that included: the extent to which 

the U.S. government has identified the country and its region as having 

significant IP problems, the types and range of IP problems that exist in 

the country, and the presence of U.S. government personnel posted in the 

country involved in IP activities, including USPTO IP attachés and 

coverage by a DOJ IPLEC. Based upon our criteria, we chose China, India, 

and Thailand. We then conducted fieldwork in Beijing and Guangzhou, 

China; Bangkok, Thailand; and New Delhi, India; in March 2009. Because 

we utilized a case study approach, our findings cannot be generalized and 

do not necessarily apply to countries or posts other than those we visited. 

Page 35 GAO-09-863 Intellectual Property 
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology 

To address all three objectives, we met with U.S. government personnel in 

all four locations who perform IP-related functions to learn about the 

types of activities they undertake, the factors that drive their work, and 

how they collaborate with their counterparts at the post and in 

headquarters, with the private sector, and with their host government. 

Table 3 lists the agencies and agency sections we met with at each post. 

Table 3: U.S. Agencies and Agency Sections Where We Conducted Interviews, by 

Post 

Post U.S. government agency and agency section 

Beijing • U.S. Patent and Trademark Office 

• State Economic and Public Affairs sections 

• USTR 

• DHS, Immigration and Customs Enforcement 

• DHS, Customs and Border Protection 

• DOJ, Federal Bureau of Investigation 

• DOJ, Resident Legal Advisor 

• Commerce, U.S. Foreign Commercial Service 

• Commerce, Market Access and Compliance Unit 

• Dept. of Agriculture, U.S. Foreign Agricultural Service 

• HHS, Food and Drug Administration 

Guangzhou • U.S. Patent and Trademark Office 

• State Economic and Public Affairs sections 

• DHS, Immigration and Customs Enforcement 

• Commerce, U.S. Foreign Commercial Service 

• Dept. of Agriculture, U.S. Foreign Agricultural Service 

Bangkok • U.S. Patent and Trademark Office 

• State Economic, Political, Public Affairs, and Transnational 

Crime Affairs sections 

• DHS, Immigration and Customs Enforcement 

• DHS, Customs and Border Protection 

• DOJ, IPLEC 

• DOJ, Federal Bureau of Investigation 

• Commerce, U.S. Foreign Commercial Service 

• Dept. of Agriculture, U.S. Foreign Agricultural Service 

New Delhi • U.S. Patent and Trademark Office 

• State Economic, Public Affairs, and Science sections 

• DHS, Immigration and Customs Enforcement 

• DHS, Customs and Border Protection 

• DOJ, Federal Bureau of Investigation 

• Commerce, U.S. Foreign Commercial Service 

• Dept. of Agriculture, U.S. Foreign Agricultural Service 

• U.S. Trade Development Agency 

• HHS 

Source: GAO. 

Page 36 GAO-09-863 Intellectual Property
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology 

We also met with representatives from various industry associations and 

individual companies in each location to obtain their perspectives on the 

key IP issues in the country and to learn about how they seek to protect 

their IP, including through collaboration with the U.S. government and the 

host government. Finally, in each location, we met with foreign 

government officials to learn about the challenges they face in improving 

IP protection and enforcement and to obtain their perspectives on the 

effectiveness of their collaboration with the U.S. government on IP issues. 

To address the first objective, we reviewed U.S. government documents 

identifying key IP protection and enforcement issues in each of the case 

study countries, including each embassy’s Special 301 submission for 2009 

and also the final Special 301 reports for 2008 and 2009. Additionally, we 

reviewed the 2009 National Trade Estimate Report on Foreign Trade 

Barriers. We also reviewed other post documentation discussing key IP 

issues, including talking points from presentations, internal U.S. 

government IP newsletters, agency reports to their headquarters offices, 

and materials produced to assist U.S. businesses. Additionally, we 

interviewed U.S. government personnel and private-sector representatives 

in each of the countries to obtain their perspectives on the key IP 

protection and enforcement issues. Our discussion on foreign laws and 

regulations in the objective is based primarily on interviews with U.S. 

officials and U.S. government documentation, rather than GAO analysis of 

those laws. 

To address the second objective, we used information from our interviews 

and documentation we collected at each post to evaluate the extent to 

which the USPTO attachés and DOJ’s IPLEC have adopted good practices 

to collaborate with other agencies at the posts on promoting IP protection. 

Documents included attaché activity summaries, IP seminar agendas, the 

IPCEN agendas, IP working group minutes, and technical assistance work 

plans. In evaluating the collaboration practices at the four posts, we relied 

upon past work that GAO has done that identified key practices that 

agencies can adopt in order to sustain and enhance collaboration.1

 For this 

objective, we examined select key practices and assessed the extent to 

which agencies followed them in carrying out their IP activities at the 

posts. Specifically, we evaluated the extent to which agencies at the four 

posts had identified and addressed needs by leveraging resources, agreed 

 

1

GAO, Results-Oriented Government: Practices That Can Enhance and Sustain 

Collaboration among Federal Agencies, GAO-06-15 (Washington, D.C.: October 2005). 

Page 37 GAO-09-863 Intellectual Property
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology 

on role and responsibilities, and established compatible policies, 

procedures, and other means to operate across agency boundaries. 

To address the third objective, we reviewed the 2008 and 2009 Special 301 

Reports to determine the extent to which they provide guidance to posts 

on IP activities to undertake. We also reviewed each embassy’s fiscal year 

2010 Mission Strategic Plan and assessed the extent to which the plans 

discuss IP. We assessed the submissions of the embassies in Thailand and 

India for the 2009 Special 301 report to determine the extent to which the 

embassies had prioritized among various IP issues and set actionable 

objectives as well. Additionally, we reviewed the USPTO headquarters 

country plans covering the three countries and the USPTO IP attachés’ 

individual work plans and analyzed the types of objectives established in 

these plans and the actions that plans call for to address these objectives. 

We also reviewed the IPR Working Group Action Plan for the embassy in 

New Delhi and assessed the extent to which it serves as a reasonable 

guide for the posts’ IP activities. We interviewed U.S. government officials 

at all four posts to determine how they select IP activities to undertake 

and the extent to which they use interagency planning to guide their 

efforts. Based on the information collected through document review and 

interviews, we evaluated the extent to which the four posts have utilized 

interagency planning on IP to establish mutual reinforcing or joint 

strategies. This is a key practice that GAO has identified as contributing to 

enhanced and sustained collaboration. Finally, we utilized evidence 

collected in our interviews, as well as findings from past GAO work, to 

identify potential benefits the posts might achieve by performing 

interagency planning to establish joint strategies. 

We conducted this performance audit from August 2008 through 

September 2009 in accordance with generally accepted government 

auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the 

audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable 

basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We 

believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our 

findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. 

Page 38 GAO-09-863 Intellectual Property
Appendix II: Comments from the Department Appendix II: Comments from the Department of State 

of State 

Page 39 GAO-09-863 Intellectual Property 
Appendix II: Comments from the Department 

of State 

Page 40 GAO-09-863 Intellectual Property
Appendix III: Comments from the U.S. Patent Appendix III: Comments from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office 

and Trademark Office 

Page 41 GAO-09-863 Intellectual Property 
Appendix III: Comments from the U.S. Patent 

and Trademark Office 

Page 42 GAO-09-863 Intellectual Property
Appendix IV: Comments from the Department Appendix IV: Comments from the of Commerce 

Department of Commerce 

Page 43 GAO-09-863 Intellectual Property
Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 

Acknowledgments 

Loren Yager (202) 512-4128 or yagerl@gao.gov

In addition to the individual named above, Christine Broderick, Assistant 

Director; Nina Pfeiffer; and Ryan Vaughan made significant contributions 

to this report. Shirley Brothwell, Elizabeth Curda, Martin De Alteriis, 

Karen Deans, and Ernie Jackson also provided assistance. 

Page 44 GAO-09-863 Intellectual Property

GAO Contact 

Staff 

Acknowledgments 

(320623) 
GAO’s Mission The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and 

investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its 

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; 

and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help 

Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s 

commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability. 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost 

is through GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday afternoon, GAO 

posts on its Web site newly released reports, testimony, and 

correspondence. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products, 

go to www.gao.gov and select “E-mail Updates.” 

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony 

Order by Phone The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of 

production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the 

publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and 

white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s Web site, 

http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or 

TDD (202) 512-2537. 

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, 

MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional information. 

Contact: 

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470 

Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov, (202) 512-4400 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125 

Washington, DC 20548 

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs 

Congressional 

Relations 

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, DC 20548 

Public Affairs 

Please Print on Recycled Paper