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
© 2025 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 AllAI Disclosures Under the Spotlight: SEC Expectations for Year-End Filings
5 minute readA Blueprint for Targeted Enhancements to Corporate Compliance Programs
7 minute readThree Legal Technology Trends That Can Maximize Legal Team Efficiency and Productivity
Trending Stories
- 1Trending Issues in Florida Construction Law That Attorneys Need to Be Aware Of
- 2The Importance of Judicial Elections
- 3Ephemeral Messaging Going Into 2025:The Messages May Vanish But Not The Preservation Obligations
- 4Decision of the Day: Trial Court's Sidestep of 'Batson' Deprived Defendant of Challenge to Jury Discrimination
- 5Is Your Law Firm Growing Fast Enough? Scale, Consolidation and Competition
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
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