Intellectual property is an important component of the U.S. economy, and the United States is an acknowledged global leader in its creation. However, the legal protection of intellectual property varies greatly around the world, and several countries are havens for the production of counterfeit and pirated goods. Technology has facilitated the manufacture and distribution of counterfeit and pirated products, resulting in a global illicit market that competes with genuine products and complicates detection and actions against violations. High profits and low risk have drawn in organized criminal networks, with possible links to terrorist financing. The public is often not aware of the issues and consequences surrounding IP theft. Industry groups suggest that counterfeiting and piracy are on the rise and that a broader range of products, from auto parts to razor blades, and from vital medicines to infant formula, are subject to counterfeit production. Counterfeit products raise serious public health and safety concerns, and the annual losses that companies face from IP violations are substantial. Given the increasing threats to America’s economy, health, and safety, U.S. government agencies have undertaken numerous efforts to protect and enforce intellectual property rights, and a structure to coordinate these IP enforcement efforts evolved. In 1999, Congress created the interagency National Intellectual Property Law Enforcement Coordination Council (NIPLECC) as a mechanism to coordinate U.S. efforts to protect and enforce IP rights in the United States and overseas. In October 2004, the Bush Administration announced the Strategy Targeting Organized Piracy (STOP) to “smash criminal networks that traffic in fakes, stop trade in pirated and counterfeit goods at America’s borders, block bogus goods around the world, and help small businesses secure and enforce their rights in overseas markets.” Although both NIPLECC and STOP were created to improve the United States’ IP enforcement and protection efforts, they were established under different authorities – NIPLECC as a congressional mandate and STOP as a presidential initiative led by the White House under the auspices of the National Security Council. Table 1 compares NIPLECC and STOP. STOP and NIPLECC share similar goals, including coordination of IP protection and enforcement, and involve nearly the same agencies. NIPLECC’s membership is designated by statute and includes specific positions by agencies, whereas agencies that participate in STOP overlap with NIPLECC members, but do not designate any specific positions. (See figure 1.) The U.S. government has a coordinating structure for IP enforcement, but the structure’s effectiveness is hampered by a lack of clear leadership and permanence, and despite some progress, it has not been developed in a manner that makes it effective and viable for the long term. NIPLECC and STOP form the central coordinating structure for IP enforcement across federal agencies. However, NIPLECC continues to have problems in providing leadership despite enhancements made by Congress, and STOP’s authority and influence, which result from its status as a presidential initiative, could disappear after the current administration leaves office. While the current IP enforcement coordinating structure has contributed to some progress – particularly in increasing attention to IP enforcement domestically and abroad through STOP – NIPLECC’s commitment to implementing STOP as a strategy remains unclear, creating a challenge for effective accountability and the long-term viability of IP enforcement. In 1999, Congress created NIPLECC to coordinate domestic and international intellectual property law enforcement among U.S. federal and foreign entities. The council’s membership is designated by statute and includes six federal agencies. The Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks (USPTO) and Assistant Attorney General, Criminal Division from the Department of Justice serve as NIPLECC’s co-chairs. NIPLECC’s authorizing legislation included no specific dollar amount for funding or staff. Congress also required NIPLECC to report its coordination efforts annually to the President and various Congressional committees. Our September 2004 report noted that NIPLECC had struggled to define its purpose, had little discernible impact, and had not undertaken any independent activities, according to interviews with both industry officials and officials from its member agencies, and as evidenced by NIPLECC’s own annual reports. From 1999 through the end of 2004, NIPLECC produced three annual reports that did little more than provide a compilation of individual agency activities. We also concluded in our 2004 report that if Congress wished to maintain NIPLECC and take action to increase its effectiveness, it should consider reviewing the council’s authority, operating structure, membership, and mission. Congress addressed NIPLECC’s lack of activity and unclear mission in the 2005 Consolidated Appropriations Act in December 2004. The act called for NIPLECC to (1) establish policies, objectives, and priorities concerning international IP protection and enforcement; (2) promulgate a strategy for protecting American IP overseas; and (3) coordinate and oversee implementation of the policies, objectives, and priorities and overall strategy for protecting American IP overseas by agencies with IP responsibilities. It also created the position of the Coordinator for International Intellectual Property Enforcement, also known as the “IP Coordinator,” to head NIPLECC. The IP Coordinator is appointed by the President and may not serve in any other position in the federal government. The co-chairs for NIPLECC are required to report to the IP Coordinator. Unlike NIPLECC, STOP from its beginning has been characterized by a high level of active coordination and visibility. In October 2004, the President launched STOP, an initiative led by the White House under the auspices of the National Security Council, to target cross-border trade in tangible goods and strengthen U.S. government and industry IP enforcement actions. STOP members are the same agencies that house NIPLECC members, except that STOP includes the Food and Drug Administration. According to a high-level official who participated in the formation of STOP, the initiative was intended to protect American innovation, competitiveness, and economic growth. It stemmed from the recognition that U.S. companies needed protection from increasingly complex and sophisticated criminal counterfeiting and piracy. As part of STOP, agencies began holding meetings, both at working levels and higher, to coordinate agency efforts to tackle the problem. STOP is viewed as energizing U.S. IP protection and enforcement efforts and is generally praised by agency officials and industry representatives. The IP Coordinator stated in congressional testimony that STOP has built an expansive interagency process that provides the foundation for U.S. government efforts to fight global piracy. Several agency officials participating in STOP said that it gave them the opportunity to share ideas and support common goals. Many agency officials with whom we spoke said that STOP had brought increased attention to IP issues within their agencies and the private sector, as well as abroad, and attributed that to the fact that STOP came out of the White House, thereby lending it more authority and influence. One agency official pointed out that IP was now on the President’s agenda at major summits such as the G8 and European Union summits. In addition, most private sector representatives with whom we spoke agreed that STOP was an effective communication mechanism between business and U.S. agencies on IP issues, particularly through the Coalition Against Counterfeiting and Piracy (CACP), a cross- industry group created by a joint initiative of the Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers. The structure that has evolved to coordinate U.S. efforts to protect and enforce IP rights, NIPLECC and STOP, lacks clear leadership and permanence. Our November 2006 report noted that, despite the re- energized focus on IP enforcement as a result of STOP, the ambiguities surrounding NIPLECC’s implementation of STOP as a strategy create challenges for the long-term viability of a coordinated federal IP enforcement approach. While NIPLECC adopted STOP as its strategy for protecting IP overseas in February 2006, its commitment to implementing STOP as a successful strategy remains unclear. For instance, it is not clear how NIPLECC will provide a leadership role in implementing STOP. While NIPLECC’s most recent annual report describes many STOP activities and the IP Coordinator’s direct involvement in them, it does not explain how the NIPLECC principals and the IP Coordinator plan to carry out their oversight responsibilities mandated by Congress to help ensure successful implementation of the strategy. In addition, while the current STOP strategy document (March 2007) states that the NIPLECC annual report provides details on interagency collaboration to achieve STOP goals, STOP does not mention NIPLECC’s oversight role or articulate a framework for oversight and accountability among the STOP agencies carrying out the strategy. Although Congress enhanced NIPLECC’s powers through the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2005, we found that NIPLECC retains an image of inactivity within some of the private sector. For example, representatives of almost half of the 16 private sector groups with whom we spoke expressed the opinion that NIPLECC was inactive or a nonplayer. In addition, representatives from 10 of these groups were unclear about NIPLEC’s role, and many said that they were unclear about the difference between NIPLECC and STOP. In July 2006, Senate appropriators expressed concern about the lack of information provided to Congress by NIPLECC on its progress. In contrast with NIPLECC, agency officials and members of the private sector attribute STOP’s effectiveness to its status as a White House initiative and its resulting authority and influence. However, it lacks permanence since it is a presidential initiative and may disappear after the current administration leaves office. Furthermore, while agency officials we interviewed generally considered STOP to be the U.S. government’s IP strategy, NIPLECC officials have sent mixed signals about effectively implementing STOP.