Abstract
The United States has long been the primary driver of changes to international intellectual property (IP) rules, promoting higher global standards of IP protection and enforcement by strategically linking IP with foreign trade. Over years of practice, the U.S. has skillfully leveraged both early multilateral mechanisms, such as the TRIPS Agreement, and more recent approaches involving selective multilateral, minilateral, and bilateral free trade agreements to enhance global IP protection standards. This has culminated in a globally coordinated IP protection network tightly integrated through U.S. domestic legislative, administrative, and judicial branches.
The U.S. frequently employs Section 301 and its annual Special 301 Reports as instruments to systematically exert IP-related pressure on its trading partners, compelling them to adopt IP systems aligned with U.S.-led rulemaking. Using 33 editions of the Special 301 Reports issued by the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) from 1989 to 2022 as primary materials, this article analyzes the evolution of U.S. IP pressure on China and forecasts future trends.
The study finds that China's adjustments to its IP system have exhibited cyclical patterns in response to sustained external pressure from the U.S. This pressure continues to focus on areas such as international IP rules and domestic legal frameworks, the enforcement system of national IP protection, counterfeiting, piracy and global enforcement cooperation, as well as the expanding intersection of national security and high-tech industrial competition. The analysis indicates that while the U.S. will persist in addressing traditional IP issues, its pressure will increasingly shift toward domains involving national security and industrial competitiveness.
Looking ahead, China and the U.S. are expected to engage in more intense competition over key IP issues related to high-tech industries, the digital economy, and market access for information and communication technology products. In this context, China should proactively assess the evolving landscape of global IP governance, strengthen its pilot reform mechanisms for IP protection and national innovation initiatives, develop targeted responses to foreseeable areas of pressure, and formulate a science-based national IP foreign policy to effectively participate in global IP governance.
Keywords
Intellectual Property; U.S. Special 301 Report; National Security; TRIPS Agreement
Author Profiles
Mao Hao, Professor, Shanghai International College of Intellectual Property, Tongji University
Zhao Xiaofeng, Master's Student, Shanghai International College of Intellectual Property, Tongji University
Wei Qia, Ph.D. Candidate, Shanghai International College of Intellectual Property, Tongji University
