Experts: Trade War Will Not Push China to Enforce Intellectual Property Laws
President Donald Trump's announcement of an additional $200 billion in tariffs on Chinese products has been viewed as a way to pressure the Chinese government to crack down on intellectual property theft but legal experts who have worked in China are skeptical of the strategy.
September 21, 2018 at 01:23 PM
3 minute read
President Donald Trump's announcement that an additional $200 billion in tariffs will be placed on Chinese products has been seen as a way to perhaps put pressure on the Chinese government to stop intellectual property theft and enforce its IP laws, however experts who have worked in China and studied the issue are skeptical the tariffs will change much.
Dan Harris, a partner at international law firm Harris Bricken, said a couple of weeks ago he was at a meeting with approximately 75 people, and most agreed that the tariffs were put in place to pressure to the Chinese government to confront intellectual property theft.
A report from the U.S. Patent and Trade Office in April found that China's IP protection was among the weakest in the world. Another report by brand and trademark protection company CompuMark released in May found that Chinese companies were filing for trademarks at a rate that is set to outpace companies in the U.S. Some experts also said, however, that many of the applications are paid for by the Chinese government and are for fake products that won't make it to store shelves.
“The goal here is to get China to really start enforcing its intellectual property laws and really open things up for the internet, banking and movies,” for U.S. businesses, Harris said.
“China is fine with enforcing its intellectual property laws when it comes to auto parts, television and clothing. But it's never going to stop taking key intellectual property such as artificial intelligence,” Harris said.
Another theory is that tariffs on Chinese imports are meant to encourage U.S. companies to manufacture their products in the U.S. instead of abroad, said Gerben Law Firm trademark attorney Eric Perrott. However, he said he believes it is unlikely that companies would shift manufacturing back to the United States.
As far as China's reaction to the tariffs, Perrott doesn't anticipate much change from the Chinese government in terms of cracking down on counterfeiting, for example. “The Chinese government could certainly do more to crack down on factories and counterfeiters. The penalties aren't as harsh as they could be,” Perrott said.
Perrott said that, for there to be real change, online retailers across the globe would have to vet who is putting products on their websites.
Harris said he believes the trade situation will remain the same for some time.
“For the Chinese government to stay in power, they believe they need to control anything that looks or smells like media and banking,” Harris said. “That includes the internet and includes the entire banking system. They're not going to back down from getting really important things that can help them militarily and economically.”
Harris also said he doesn't see the U.S. backing down from imposing and raising tariffs on China.
“This is the new normal,” Harris said.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllA Blueprint for Targeted Enhancements to Corporate Compliance Programs
7 minute readThree Legal Technology Trends That Can Maximize Legal Team Efficiency and Productivity
Corporate Confidentiality Unlocked: Leveraging Common Interest Privilege for Effective Collaboration
11 minute readTrending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250