Editing Intellectual property in China (section)

== U.S.–China relations ==
IP first became a significant negotiating point between the countries in establishing the U.S.-China Agreement on High Energy Physics and the U.S.-China Agreement on Trade Relations.<ref name=":4" />{{Rp|page=19}} Those agreements were reached in 1979.<ref name=":4" />{{Rp|page=19}} The two countries negotiated four bilateral [[Memorandum of understanding|memoranda of understanding]] dealing with IP issues over the period 1988 to 1996.<ref name=":4" />{{Rp|page=19}}

During the early 1990s, the U.S. often criticized China's IP protections and at times threatened unilateral retaliation.<ref name=":4" />{{Rp|page=184}} WIPO defended China's progress and in 1993 WIPO Director General [[Árpád Bogsch]] described China's intellectual property development as unprecedented in the history of intellectual property.<ref name=":4" />{{Rp|page=184}} China cited Bogsch's statement in responding to U.S. criticism and the dynamic led to growth in the China-WIPO relationship.<ref name=":4" />{{Rp|page=184}}

In 2007, the U.S. sued China in the WTO, resulting in China's further amendment of domestic IP laws to comply with the WTO panel's decision.<ref name=":4" />{{Rp|page=21}}

To streamline the patent application process for patentees filing under both the Chinese and United States systems, the [[State Intellectual Property Office of the People's Republic of China]] (SIPO) and the [[United States Patent and Trademark Office|U.S. Patent and Trademark Office]] (USPTO) established a [[Patent Prosecution Highway]] (PPH) pilot program on December 1, 2011.<ref name=":3" />{{Rp|page=141}}

In an effort to facilitate renewable energy research and development collaboration by providing more predictability to the patent process, the [[US–China Clean Energy Research Center|U.S.–China Clean Energy Research Center]] (CERC) established a novel Technology Management Plan to govern intellectual property issues arising under its projects.<ref name=":3" />{{Rp|page=|pages=130–131}} Within CERC, owners who brought IP to CERC retained "all right, title, and interest in their background IP" and were not required to license, assign, or transfer it.<ref name=":3" />{{Rp|page=131}} The CERC Technology Management Plan required, in the event of dispute, that the parties should attempt to reach a mutually agreeable resolution.<ref name=":3" />{{Rp|page=132}} If none could be reached, the Technology Management Plan required submission of the dispute to arbitration in accordance with the rules of the [[United Nations Commission on International Trade Law]].<ref name=":3" />{{Rp|page=132}} No instances of arbitration were ultimately required by CERC.<ref name=":3" />{{Rp|page=132}}

In 2014, the [[Office of the United States Trade Representative]] once again placed China on its "priority watch list" for [[intellectual property]] rights violations, along with other nations.<ref>{{cite web |url= https://ustr.gov/about-us/policy-offices/press-office/reports-and-publications/2014/2014-Special-301-Report | title = 2014 Special 301 Report}}</ref> In addition, the U.S., based on claims brought to it by the China Copyright Alliance (CCA)—a group of major copyright industry associations and select companies—brought two [[World Trade Organization]] (WTO) cases against China, one focused on intellectual property rights violations, and one based on market access deficiencies. In both cases, it was ruled that China must change its operating standards to comply with WTO rules; in the IPR case, a helpful standard was established as to the definition of "commercial scale" for which criminal penalties would be required, but found that the U.S. had not supplied sufficient evidence to show that China's 500 copy threshold for criminal liability left some "commercial scale" infringement cases without a criminal remedy.<ref>{{cite news |url= https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-usa-wto-idUSTRE52J3T920090320|title= China, U.S. trade barbs over WTO piracy case|date= 2009-03-20|publisher= Reuters}}</ref>

The [[American Chamber of Commerce in the People's Republic of China]] surveyed over 500 of its members doing business in China regarding IPR for its ''2016 China Business Climate Survey Report'', and found that IPR enforcement is improving, but significant challenges still remain. The results show that the laws in place exceed their actual enforcement, with patent protection receiving the highest approval rate, while protection of trade secrets lags far behind. Many US companies have said that Chinese companies have stolen their intellectual property some time between 2009 and 2019.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Rosenbaum |first=Eric |date=1 March 2019 |title=1 in 5 corporations say China has stolen their IP within the last year: CNBC CFO survey |url=https://www.cnbc.com/2019/02/28/1-in-5-companies-say-china-stole-their-ip-within-the-last-year-cnbc.html |website=CNBC}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Hungerford |first=Nancy |date=23 September 2019 |title=Chinese theft of trade secrets on the rise, the US Justice Department warns |url=https://www.cnbc.com/2019/09/23/chinese-theft-of-trade-secrets-is-on-the-rise-us-doj-warns.html |website=CNBC}}</ref> There are three main ways to address this issue. One is to bring a case to the WTO, which usually takes years to reach a final decision and requires a standard of proof against Chinese laws with respect to WTO rules that can be difficult to meet. Another avenue is unilateral restrictions on Chinese exports and investment, possibly leading to retaliations and a trade war. A third avenue is the negotiation of a bilateral investment treaty (BIT) with China that contains a dispute settlement mechanism between states and investors in order to ensure effective enforcement.<ref>{{Cite web |date=2017-10-03 |title=Section 301: US investigates allegations of forced technology transfers to China |url=https://www.eastasiaforum.org/2017/10/03/section-301-us-investigates-allegations-of-forced-technology-transfers-to-china/ |access-date=2023-10-25 |website=East Asia Forum |language=en}}</ref>

The 2020 U.S.-China Economic and Trade Agreement includes the highest IP enforcement standards of any U.S. bilateral agreement.<ref name=":4" />{{Rp|page=4}} It includes provisions on patent linkages, patent term extensions, data exclusivity, trade secrets, and higher criminal standards for infringement.<ref name=":4" />{{Rp|page=22}}

Although legal disputes between American and Chinese entities alleging mishandling or misappropriation of intellectual property occur, the most frequent basis for disputes stems from misunderstandings based on the differing IP rules and legal systems of the two countries.<ref name=":3" />{{Rp|page=141}}