By Kevin E. Noonan –

On April 26th, Ambassador Katherine Tai, U.S. Trade Representative (USTR), issued the 2023 Special 301 Report.  In a press release, the USTR stated that "[i]nnovation and creativity are at the heart of American competitiveness.  That is why the Biden-Harris Administration's new story on trade includes lifting up the 60 million jobs and workers in our IP-intensive industries through robust IP protection and enforcement in foreign countries."  The press release mentions the Biden Administration's support for the WTO IP waiver and that it had asked the U.S. International Trade Commission to "conduct an investigation into COVID-19 diagnostics and therapeutics and provide information on market dynamics to help inform the discussion around supply and demand, price points, the relationship between testing and treating, and production and access" which is due on October 17, 2023.

The press release accompanying the release of the Report notes that its review of Ukraine, which has frequently been criticized particularly with regard to copyright infringement of music, movies, and other media IP, continues to be suspended due to "Russia's premeditated and unprovoked further invasion of Ukraine" since February 2022.  It mentions the addition of Belarus to the Watch List due to that country having passing legislation permitting "unlicensed use of certain copyrighted works" if the right holder is from a foreign state "committing unfriendly actions" as well as sanctioning "their role in Russia's unprovoked invasion of Ukraine."  The press release also announces placing Bulgaria on the Watch List for not "sufficiently address[ing] deficiencies in its investigation and prosecution of online piracy cases" as it did last year and that the USTR will commence an "out-of-cycle" review of Bulgaria "to assess whether [that country] makes material progress" on these matters.  The USTR voices "serious concerns regarding IP protection and enforcement in China," citing slowing pace of IP reforms despite China's "continued implementation of amendments to the Patent Law, Copyright Law, and Criminal Law" as well as continued concerns about "the adequacy and effective implementation of these measures, as well as about long-standing issues like technology transfer, trade secrets, bad faith trademarks, counterfeiting, online piracy, and geographical indications."  Singled out for praise are Thailand and Tunisia for acceding to the WIPO Copyright Treaty, and Chile for acceding to the Madrid Protocol on international trademarks.  But the EU is criticized once again this year for its "aggressive promotion of its exclusionary geographical indications (GI) policies (the recent destruction of Miller High Life for containing reference to it being the "champagne" of beers cannot help in this regard).  And the press release reiterates the USTR's "ongoing concerns" regarding online piracy, its efforts to use bilateral engagement to improve IP protection and enforcement, and engagement with "diverse and inclusive groups of stakeholders to consider their perspectives on IP issues."

According to the Executive Summary of the Report, it is as it was last year "[a] priority of this Administration is to craft trade policy in service of America's workers, including those in innovation-driven export industries."  The Summary further contains the exhortation that:

The Report serves a critical function by identifying opportunities and challenges facing U.S. innovative and creative industries in foreign markets and by promoting job creation, economic development, and many other benefits that effective IP protection and enforcement support.  The Report informs the public and our trading partners and seeks to be a positive catalyst for change.  USTR looks forward to working closely with the governments of the trading partners that are identified in this year's Report to address both emerging and continuing concerns and to build on the positive results that many of these governments have achieved.

The Report is promulgated pursuant to Section 182 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended by the Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988 and the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (enacted in 1994).  The Trade Representative is required under the Act to "identify those countries that deny adequate and effective protection for IPR or deny fair and equitable market access for persons that rely on intellectual property protection."  The Trade Representative has implemented these provisions by creating a "Priority Watch List" and "Watch List."  Placing a country on the Priority Watch List or Watch List is used to indicate that the country exhibits "particular problems . . . with respect to IPR protection, enforcement, or market access for persons relying on intellectual property."  These Watch Lists are reserved for countries having "the most onerous or egregious acts, policies, or practices and whose acts, policies, or practices have the greatest adverse impact (actual or potential) on the relevant U.S. products."

The Report notes the USTR's continued efforts to enhance public engagement.  As in past years during the pandemic, these efforts were limited to written submissions and the responses posted online (www.regulations.gov, docket number USTR-2022-0016).  The Report notes that the USTR received submissions from 71 non-government stakeholders and 17 foreign governments.

The USTR reviewed "more than 100" of this country's trading partners and identified six countries on a "Priority Watch List" (decreased by one from last year) and another 22 countries on the "Watch List" (increased by two from last year), all relating to deficiencies in intellectual property protection in these countries.  The Priority Watch List in the 2023 Report includes Argentina, Chile, China, India, Indonesia, Russia, and Venezuela (review of Ukraine was suspended in view of the war with Russia).  Countries on this list "present the most significant concerns this year regarding insufficient IP protection or enforcement or actions that otherwise limited market access for persons relying on intellectual property protection."  On the Watch List this year are Algeria, Barbados, Belarus, Bolivia, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, Colombia, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, Guatemala, Mexico, Pakistan, Paraguay, Peru, Thailand, Trinidad & Tobago, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, and Vietnam (Belarus and Bulgaria being added to the list this year).

The Report contains two Sections (on "Developments in Intellectual Property Rights Protection and Enforcement" and "Country Reports") and two Annexes on particular issues (the statutory bases of the Report, and government technical assistance and capacity building efforts).

The Report cites (and emphasizes) significant progress in several U.S. trading partners, including:

• Japan, on the basis of amendments to its Trademark Act that "address concerns over Japan's personal use exemption for imported goods, which was used increasingly to send counterfeit items to individuals in Japan via postal and courier services";

• Saudi Arabia, which was moved from the Priority Watch List last year, "continued to take steps to improve IP protection and enforcement." These included an IP Respect Council "to facilitate communication between government entities and private sector stakeholders" as well as launch of a national IP strategy;

• Malaysia, for adopting amendments to its Copyright Act with new criminal provisions protecting streaming technology;

• Canada, which increased it copyright protection term to life of the author plus 70 years (an obligation under the US-Mexico-Canada Agreement;

• Thailand, which also amended its Copyright Act by adding provisions against circumventing technology protection measures;

• Vietnam, which amended its IP Code to include illegal uploading and streaming of cinematographic works as a violation of communication rights; and

• Nigeria, which adopted a Copyright Act that contained provisions for implementing several WIPO treaties on protecting content on the internet.

Also acknowledged in this section of the Report are the 112 members who have acceded to the WIPO Performance and Phonogram Treaty, 114 parties to the WIPO Copyright Treaty, and 61 members to the 1991 Act of the International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants Convention (UPOV 1991), which protects breeders rights in new plant varieties.

Another Section of the Report involves "illustrative best practices" by U.S. trading partners.  These include "cooperation and coordination among national government agencies involved in IP issues is an example of effective IP enforcement," citing Thailand, India, Saudi Arabia, Brazil, Indonesia, Uzbekistan, the Dominican Republic and Romania for these efforts, which included India's creation of "IP enforcement toolkits" for training law enforcement; Saudi Arabia' creation of a permanent National Committee for the Enforcement of Intellectual Property for coordinating IP enforcement in the Kingdom; Indonesia's expansion of its Intellectual Property Enforcement Task Force for coordinating IP enforcement and protection among several ministries of its government; and the Dominican Republic's creation of a National InterMinisterial Council of Intellectual Property to similarly coordinate ministries of its government to enforce IP protections.

Also pointed out in the Report were "specialized IP enforcement units," in Malaysia; "IP awareness and educational campaigns" in Algeria, the United Arab Emirates, Thailand, Japan, Korea, the Philippines, Nigeria, and the Côte d'Ívoire; and "active participation of government officials in technical assistance and capacity building" in Romania, Algeria, Tunisia, the Philippines, Thailand, and Turkmenistan.  Micro-, small- and medium-sized enterprises (MSMEs) were particularly noted as "contribut[ing] widely to innovation, trade, growth, investment, and competition" and thus the Report applauds efforts in the UK and Thailand to support these businesses.

Multilateral and bilateral initiatives are discussed in the Report.  These include Trade and Investment Framework Agreements (TIFAs) with more than 50 U.S. trading partners, which include Taiwan, Algeria, Argentina, Paraguay, Bangladesh, Thailand, Egypt, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and a group of Central Asian countries.  Regional initiatives included in the Report are the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) Intellectual Property Experts Group having the theme of "Creating a Resilient and Sustainable Future for All" and "discussions with APEC economies on effective practices for enforcement against illicit streaming in a U.S.-led initiative on illicit streaming."  Also noted are a series of workshops, including a "Roundtable on Copyright and Creativity in the Digital Economy," a "Workshop on Geographical Indications and Preservation of Common Names," and one on "Leveraging Industrial Design Protections for Small-and-Medium Sized Enterprises."  Regarding what the Report terms "trade preference programs," including the Generalized System of Preferences (GSP) program, the African Growth and Opportunity Act, the Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act, and the Caribbean Basin Trade Partnership Act, the Report mentions ongoing examination of IP practices in participants in these programs, in particular reviews of practices in South Africa and Indonesia.

Turning to specific issues of concern, trademark counterfeiting is said to harm consumers "particularly [with regard to] medicines, automotive and airplane parts, and food and beverages that may not be subject to the rigorous good manufacturing practices used for legitimate products."  The Report accuses infringers, motivated by higher profit margins, of disregarding product quality and performance.  The Report recites a litany of negative consequences to legitimate producers and their employees (diminished revenue and investment incentives), adverse employment impacts, and reputational damage when consumers purchase fake products, as well as increased costs for firms to enforce their intellectual property rights and loss of tax revenues generated by legitimate businesses to governments.  Countries particularly called out in the Report in this regard include China, India, and Turkey, from whom counterfeit "semiconductors and other electronics, chemicals, medicines, automotive and aircraft parts, food and beverages, household consumer products, personal care products, apparel and footwear, toys, and sporting goods" enter the global stream of commerce.  Also involved are "transit hubs" in countries including Hong Kong, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Singapore, and Turkey that distribute counterfeit goods to third-country markets that include Brazil, Kenya, Nigeria, Paraguay, and Russia.  Citing a 2021 Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) study entitled Global Trade in Fakes:  A Worrying Threat the Report states that the "global trade in counterfeit and pirated goods reached $464 billion in 2019, accounting for 2.5% of the global trade in goods for that year," with China (and Hong Kong) being the largest country of origin for counterfeit and fake goods.  Also of concern in the Report is Singapore border enforcement for weakness and "lack of coordination between Singapore's Customs authorities and the Singapore Police Force's Intellectual Property Rights Branch" (concerns voiced last year and earlier).

Counterfeit pharmaceuticals remain a particular concern as a growing problem with "important consequences for consumer health and safety [that are] exacerbated by the rapid growth of illegitimate online sales . . . [and] contributes to the proliferation of substandard, unsafe medicines that do not conform to established quality standards."  Most of these goods confiscated by the U.S. were sourced from China, India, and Turkey, the Report alleges, and transshipped through China, India, Pakistan, Indonesia, the Philippines, and Vietnam.  These statistics include COVID-19 test kits and personal protective equipment (PPE) such as N-95 and equivalent masks (wherein over 5.8 million counterfeit masks were seized in 142 incidents in 2022).  The Report also states that counterfeit brand-name medicines amount to 38% of global counterfeit medicine seizures and that "substandard or falsified medical products comprise 10% of total medical products in low- and middle-income countries."  These trends are increasingly exacerbated by use of on-line pharmacies, with illicit providers comprising "between 67% to 75% of web-based drug merchants."  And these counterfeit items are being distributed by "legitimate express mail, international courier, and postal services to ship counterfeit goods in small consignments" rather than large cargo ships, making detection and enforcement more difficult.

The Report addresses these concerns by summarizing U.S. efforts to combat these counterfeits:

The United States continues to urge trading partners to undertake more effective criminal and border enforcement against the manufacture, import, export, transit, and distribution of counterfeit goods.  The United States engages with its trading partners through bilateral consultations, trade agreements, and international organizations to help ensure that penalties, such as significant monetary fines and meaningful sentences of imprisonment, are available and applied to deter counterfeiting.  In addition, trading partners should ensure that competent authorities seize and destroy counterfeit goods, as well as the materials and implements used for their production, thereby removing them from the channels of commerce.  Permitting counterfeit goods, as well as materials and implements, to re-enter the channels of commerce after an enforcement action wastes resources and compromises the global enforcement effort.

The Report identifies countries such as Columbia, Ecuador, Indonesia, Mexico, Turkey, Pakistan, and Turkmenistan as having practices that fall short of adequate efforts to stem the flow of counterfeit goods across borders.

Online and broadcast piracy are also discussed, the Report noting that "[t]he increased availability of broadband Internet connections around the world, combined with increasingly accessible and sophisticated mobile technology, has been a boon to the U.S. economy and trade."  But such "technological developments have also made the Internet an extremely efficient vehicle for disseminating pirated content, thus competing unfairly with legitimate e-commerce and distribution services that copyright holders and online platforms use to deliver licensed content."  Sources of counterfeit optical disks mentioned in the Report include China, India, Mexico, and Pakistan.  While optical disc piracy continues in many countries, including China, India, Mexico, and Pakistan, Argentina, Bulgaria, Canada, Chile, China, Colombia, the Dominican Republic, India, Mexico, the Netherlands, Pakistan, Romania, Russia, Switzerland, Thailand, Ukraine, and Vietnam were identified as "hav[ing] high levels of online piracy and lacking effective enforcement," estimated as costing the U.S. economy "at least $29.2 billion and as much as $71 billion in lost revenue each year."

A particular form of copyright piracy (particularly of music), termed "stream-ripping," is practiced (or ineffectively prevented) in Canada, India, Korea, Mexico, Russia, Switzerland, Ukraine, and the United Arab Emirates, the Report asserts.  Illicit streaming devices (ISDs) "continue to pose a direct threat to content creators, sports leagues, and live performances, as well as legitimate streaming, on-demand, and over-the-top media service providers" while illicit Internet Protocol Television (IPTV) services "unlawfully retransmit telecommunications signals and channels containing copyrighted content through dedicated web portals and third-party applications that run on ISDs or legitimate devices."  These technologies contribute "notable levels of piracy" in high levels in Argentina, Brazil, Canada, Chile, China, Guatemala, Hong Kong, India, Indonesia, Iraq, Jordan, Mexico, Morocco, Singapore, Switzerland, Taiwan, Thailand, Tunisia, and Vietnam.  And signal theft remains a problem in Brazil, Argentina, and Honduras.

Also noted were the use of camcorders to produce expropriated contend, in Russia, India, and China, with impediments to counteracting such illicit activities found in Argentina, Brazil, Ecuador, India, Peru, and Russia (which don't effectively criminalize such activities), in contrast to laws now in effect in Canada, Japan, the Philippines, and Ukraine.

The significance of the problem was synopsized in the Report as follows:

In addition to the distribution of copies of newly released movies resulting from unauthorized camcording, other examples of online piracy that damage legitimate trade are found in virtually every country listed in the Report and include:  the unauthorized retransmission of live sports programming online; the unauthorized cloning of cloud-based entertainment software through reverse engineering or hacking onto servers that allow users to play pirated content online, including pirated online games; and the online distribution of software and devices that allow for the circumvention of technological protection measures, including game copiers and mod chips that allow users to play pirated games on physical consoles.  Piracy facilitated by online services presents unique enforcement challenges for right holders in countries where copyright laws have not been able to adapt or keep pace with these innovations in piracy.

Difficulties in trade secret protection has its own subsection of the Report.  The problems of adequately protecting trade secrets have arisen "in a wide variety of industry sectors, including information and communications technology, services, pharmaceuticals and medical devices, environmental technologies, and other manufacturing sectors, rely on the ability to protect and enforce their trade secrets and rights in proprietary information" and include theft of "business plans, internal market analyses, manufacturing methods, customer lists, and recipes" that "are often among a company's core business assets," according to the Report.  The Report states that trade secret protection (or lack of it) is a particular problem in Russia, China, and India.  Certain U.S. trade partners have made successful efforts (including the EU, Chile, and Taiwan), but the Report notes that a pending change in the law, the Data Act, would mandate disclosure of trade secrets "in some circumstances" without the rights holder having an opportunity to object or appeal.

The USMCA (mentioned above) also has "the most robust protection for trade secrets of any prior U.S. trade agreement" according to the Report.  The United States-China Economic and Trade Agreement (Phase One Agreement) has several trade secret commitments, according to the Report, including "expanding the scope of civil liability, covering acts such as electronic intrusions as trade secret theft, shifting the burden of producing evidence, making it easier to obtain preliminary injunctions to prevent use of stolen trade secrets, allowing criminal investigations without need to show actual losses, ensuring criminal enforcement for willful misappropriation, and prohibiting unauthorized disclosure of trade secrets and confidential business information by government personnel or third-party experts."  The Report reiterates the U.S. government's support for continued work by international organizations (including the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) to support trade secret protections.

Another subsection of the Report involved "forced" technology transfer, indigenous innovation, and preferences for indigenous IP.  These include the following activities, many of which involved governmental action:

• Requiring the transfer of technology as a condition for obtaining investment and regulatory approvals or otherwise securing access to a market or as a condition for allowing a company to continue to do business in the market;

• Directing state-owned enterprises in innovative sectors to seek non-commercial terms from their foreign business partners, including with respect to the acquisition and use or licensing of IP;

• Providing national firms with an unfair competitive advantage by failing to effectively enforce, or discouraging the enforcement of, U.S.-owned IP, including patents, trademarks, trade secrets, and copyright;

• Failing to take meaningful measures to prevent or to deter cyber intrusions and other unauthorized activities;

• Requiring use of, or providing preferences to, products or services that contain locally developed or owned IP, including with respect to government procurement;

• Manipulating the standards development process to create unfair advantages for national firms, including with respect to participation by foreign firms and the terms on which IP is licensed; and

• Requiring the submission of unnecessary or excessive confidential business information for regulatory approval purposes and failing to protect such information appropriately.

China and Indonesia are particularly recognized for such practices.

As in other years, geographical indications (i.e., country or region of origin limitations primarily for wine and foodstuffs) are discussed, specifically in the EU.  This is particularly troubling for trademarks, the Report stating that "[t]he EU GI  system raises concerns regarding the extent to which it impairs the scope of trademark protection, including exclusive rights in registered trademarks that pre-date the protection of a GI."  These practices are particularly troublesome for medium-sized enterprises (MSME)s, according to the Report, because their trademarks are "among the most effective ways for producers and companies . . . to create value, to promote their goods and services, and to protect their brands."  The Report specifically calls out EU protections for cheese varieties (including feta, danbo, and Havarti) as instances where EU protections fly in the face of these names having been used extensively throughout the world (Argentina, South Africa, and Uruguay for danbo; Australia, New Zealand, the United States, among others, for havarti), which actions undermine the benefits of international standards under the Codex Alimentarius.  The resulting trade deficits between the U.S. and EU caused by these restrictions are also mentioned, wherein the EU exported more than $1.1 billion of cheese to the United States last year while the United States exported only about $8.1 millions of cheese to the EU.

The EU's efforts are expanding to expand the reach of these GIs from agricultural products and foodstuffs to "apparel, ceramics, glass, handicrafts, manufactured goods, minerals, salts, stones, and textiles," according to the Report.  The EU has also used instruments of international organizations (like WIPO) through the Lisbon Agreement for the Protection of Appellations of Origin and the Geneva Act thereof to expand the reach of GIs.

While having little luck dissuading the EU from continuing and expanding its GI practices, the Report cites several bilateral agreements (with Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, Chile, China, Ecuador, Indonesia, Japan, Kenya, Korea, Malaysia, Mexico, Moldova, Morocco, New Zealand, Paraguay, the Philippines, Singapore, Tunisia, Uruguay, and Vietnam, and others) that have a number of provisions aimed at curtailing some of the deleterious effects of GI protection.

With regard to pharmaceuticals and medical devices and market access for U.S. products, the Report contends that "[t]he COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the importance of pharmaceutical, medical device, and other health-related innovation, as well as a lack of widespread, equitable distribution of these innovations," including the need for fighting current as well as future pandemics.  The Report thus seems to seek to strike a balance between "adequate and effective protection for pharmaceutical and other health-related IP around the world to ensure robust American innovation in these critical industries to fight" this and future pandemics and "access to medicines in developing economies is important to development itself."

The Report cites (negatively) tariffs and other taxes levied by countries including Brazil, India, and Indonesia, as well as "unreasonable regulatory approval delays and non-transparent reimbursement policies" that "discourage the development and marketing of new drugs and other medical products."  The Report recites successful efforts in Canada, Mexico, China, Japan, and India to address issues of transparency and fairness in this sector.  On the other hand, the Report also notes that stakeholders have "expressed concerns" about practices in Algeria, Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, Colombia, Japan, Korea, New Zealand, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Tunisia, and Turkey, "on issues related to pharmaceutical innovation and market access."

Trademark issues are also noted in the Report for Brazil, China, Ecuador, Egypt, Spain, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan, for "impos[ing] unnecessary administrative and financial burdens on trademark owners and creat[ing] difficulty in the enforcement and maintenance of trademark rights," and in Algeria, China, Indonesia, Iraq, Jordan, and the United Arab Emirates, for requiring formalities for filing documents such as intellectual property (IP) applications, registration maintenance, transfer of ownership submissions, and in opposition and cancellation proceedings."

In copyright, the Report cites "flawed or non-operational" copyright management organizations in several countries, naming Kenya and Nigeria, despite efforts in countries including the UAE to improve matters in this regard.

Software concerns included in the Report involve government use of unlicensed software (costing $46 billion globally in 2018 according to The Software Alliance).  This issue is particularly noted in Argentina, China, Guatemala, Indonesia, Moldova, Pakistan, Paraguay, Romania, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, and Vietnam, but the Report states that "[t]he United States continues to work with other governments to address government use of unlicensed software, particularly in countries that are modernizing their software systems or where there are infringement concerns."  The Report also notes that the U.S. will continue to monitor copyright issues in the EU stemming from its directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market.

As in prior years, the Report sets forth subsections on IP and the environment (stating that "[s]trong IP protection and enforcement are essential to promoting investment in innovation in the environmental sector" which "not only promotes economic growth and supports jobs, but also is critical to responding to environmental challenges) and IP and health.  This latter discussion is focused (perhaps inevitably) on the COVID pandemic.  The Reports states that "[t]he United States has made significant efforts toward ending the acute phase of the pandemic in the United States and around the world," "work[ing] to fight COVID-19 in more than 120 countries and is committed to building back a better world, one that is prepared to prevent, detect, and respond to future biological threats, and where all people can live safe, prosperous, and healthy lives."  The Report asserts that the Biden Administration "encourages voluntary licensing and technology transfer agreements on mutually agreed terms to promote greater access to pandemic response products," including participating in the Medicines Patent Pool (MPP), inter alia, having "licensed critical U.S.-owned COVID-19 technologies to the MPP through the COVID-19 Technology Access Pool (C-TAP)."

This portion of the Report includes an extensive discussion of the provisions of the TRIPS agreement, the Doha Declaration, and Article 31 TRIPS regarding compulsory licenses.  The USTR through this Report states that the U.S. "strongly supports the WTO General Council Decision on the Implementation of Paragraph 6 of the Doha Declaration on the TRIPS Agreement and Public Health" (which permits member states to issue compulsory licenses to export pharmaceuticals to countries who cannot produce these drugs themselves).  Also included in the Report is a section devoted to implementation of the TRIPS Agreement with regard to the requirement for "certain minimum standards of IP protection and enforcement."  Also mentioned is U.S. support for the IP waiver under the TRIPS agreement adopted by the WTO last year.

Finally, the Report notes that "notwithstanding provisions on the protection of undisclosed test or other data, a Party (i.e., member nation) "may take measures to protect public health in accordance with the Doha Declaration on the TRIPS Agreement and Public Health, or any waiver or amendment of the TRIPS Agreement to implement the Doha Declaration on the TRIPS Agreement and Public Health."  Further, the Report asserts that "the USTR will continue its close cooperation with relevant agencies to ensure that public health challenges are addressed and IP protection and enforcement are supported as one of various mechanisms to promote research and innovation."

The last but one subsection of Section I of the Report involve implementation of WTO agreement on TRIPS, relating to extending the "transition period" for least developed countries (LDCs) under Article 66.1 to July 1, 2034.  And the last section discusses dispute settlement and enforcement, specifically calling out "a range of unfair and harmful Chinese acts, policies, and practices related to technology transfer, intellectual property (IP), and innovation" and food-associated issues with the EU's GI regime.

Section II of the Report is a detailed, country-by-country discussion for each country on the Priority Watch List and the Watch List, relating to the activities (or lack thereof) of each country that results in placement of that country on these lists.

As it has for the past several years (and across otherwise very different Administrations), the U.S. Trade Representative Special 301 Report provides insights into both the concerns of U.S. IP rights holders and the Administration's intentions to work with other countries to increase protection for IP rights of U.S. IP rights holders.  This by itself make the Report informative reading.