• Home
  • About Us
    • About Us
    • Subscribe
    • Privacy Policy
  • Advertise
    • Advertise On IP Watch
    • Editorial Calendar
  • Videos
  • Links
  • Help

Intellectual Property Watch

Original news and analysis on international IP policy

  • Copyright
  • Patents
  • Trademarks
  • Opinions
  • People News
  • Venues
    • Bilateral/Regional Negotiations
    • ITU/ICANN
    • United Nations – other
    • WHO
    • WIPO
    • WTO/TRIPS
    • Africa
    • Asia/Pacific
    • Europe
    • Latin America/Caribbean
    • North America
  • Themes
    • Access to Knowledge/ Open Innovation & Science
    • Food Security/ Agriculture/ Genetic Resources
    • Finance
    • Health & IP
    • Human Rights
    • Internet Governance/ Digital Economy/ Cyberspace
    • Lobbying
    • Technical Cooperation/ Technology Transfer
  • Health Policy Watch

US Complaints About Technology Transfer In China: Negotiating The Endgame

24/01/2019 by Intellectual Property Watch 2 Comments

Share this:

  • Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
  • Click to email this to a friend (Opens in new window)
  • Click to print (Opens in new window)

The views expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and are not associated with Intellectual Property Watch. IP-Watch expressly disclaims and refuses any responsibility or liability for the content, style or form of any posts made to this forum, which remain solely the responsibility of their authors.

By Dean A. Pinkert, Partner, Hughes Hubbard

The United States Trade Representative (USTR) has been open about its view of the difficulties faced by US companies who claim – generally anonymously – that they have been forced to transfer technology to Chinese entities: “The fact that China systematically implements its technology transfer regime in informal and indirect ways makes it ‘just as effective [as written requirements], but almost impossible to prosecute.’”[1]  As I explain in this article, I believe such informality is not merely a barrier to prosecutions; it also presents conceptual challenges for US trade negotiators as they attempt to craft effective means to address the concerns of US companies doing business in China.

The Underlying Issue

The Trump Administration has delayed a further increase in tariffs on imports of Chinese goods until March 1, 2019, while the United States and China continue to negotiate to resolve US complaints about Chinese acts, policies, and practices related to technology transfer, intellectual property, and innovation.  High on that list of complaints is what USTR characterized in its March 2018 investigative report under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 as the Chinese regime of forced technology transfer with respect to inbound investment.[2]  For such purposes, USTR defined “technology” broadly to include knowledge and information necessary to produce goods and services, including information protected by patents, copyrights, trade secrets, and other types of intellectual property protection, along with “know-how,” such as production processes, management techniques, etc.[3]

USTR concluded that China uses foreign ownership restrictions to require or pressure US companies to transfer technology to Chinese entities.  It also concluded that China uses “discretionary and non-transparent administrative reviews and licensing processes” as a means to force technology transfer and/or require the disclosure of sensitive technical information.[4]  According to USTR, the broad discretion that enables Chinese authorities to use administrative reviews and licensing processes in this manner flows from vague wording in administrative regulations and uncertainty about the rules applied by agencies at the central, provincial, and municipal levels.[5]

In a follow-up report completed in November 2018, USTR found that foreign ownership restrictions work hand-in-hand in China’s technology transfer regime with other mechanisms, including (1) using local courts to invalidate patents and licensing arrangements, (2) deploying antitrust and other investigators to apply pressure to foreign businesses, and (3) structuring regulatory panels to serve as conduits for the disclosure of foreign industrial secrets to Chinese companies.[6]

Conceptual Challenges

Eliminating explicit, strict foreign ownership restrictions in China is a relatively straightforward matter – they are already being relaxed.[7]  I believe it is more difficult to address concerns about informal practices in China.

Vague wording in administrative regulations, uncertainty about the applicable rules, and the provision of broad discretion to administrative and judicial authorities are by no means unique to China or to the informal implementation of technology transfer policies.  For this reason, a direct attack on the discretion enjoyed by Chinese authorities could backfire and perhaps be used to make arguments against US institutional arrangements.  Moreover, it would probably be ineffective on its own terms, as it is unclear how one might measure and limit administrative and judicial discretion.

In any event, according to USTR, administrative and judicial discretion is exercised in China in the service of national economic planning, and central, provincial, and municipal authorities therefore know how they are expected to interpret and apply the legal instruments at their disposal.  Given this understanding of the situation, one way of addressing US complaints would be for China to embark on a reform effort designed to result in as transparent a decision-making process as possible in which authorities are permitted to operate independently of one another.  Because such reforms would require a very long-term commitment, and, once again, would present measurement difficulties, I do not believe it is an approach that would be acceptable to US negotiators.

Practical Approaches

There are, however, two practical approaches worth considering: (1) a parallel legal regime – perhaps modeled on investment arbitration – for US companies doing business in China (but this might evoke negative historical associations with lost sovereignty on the Chinese side); and (2) a mutually acceptable outcome-based metric, with a defined threshold for success, implemented by a bi-national authority that is tasked with evaluating whether pressure continues to be applied to US businesses in China to transfer their technology to Chinese entities.  Survey data, economic data and analysis, and/or confidential interviews might be used to make this determination on a periodic basis.

Finally, it should not be forgotten that it is not merely the United States that has expressed concerns about technology transfer in China.  Other World Trade Organization members with actual or potential business interests in China might also be included in any agreed resolution of the dispute.

Conclusion

The tone of recent trade negotiations between the United States and China has been good.  As is often the case, however, the details matter, and this is especially true in regard to US concerns about technology transfer in China.  Companies concerned about forced technology transfer are advised to stay tuned for the possibility that US and Chinese negotiators will explore creative approaches in attempting to address those concerns.

Dean Pinkert

Dean A. Pinkert is a partner in Hughes Hubbard’s International Trade practice. He is a former Commissioner of the US International Trade Commission. Dean was nominated by President Bush and confirmed by the US Senate in 2007, and was designated Vice Chairman by President Obama in 2014. Before his appointment, Dean was a senior attorney in the Office of Chief Counsel for Import Administration at the Commerce Department.

 

[1] Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, Findings of Investigation into China’s Acts, Policies, and Practices Related to Technology Transfer, Intellectual Property, and Innovation Under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 at 21 (March 22, 2018) (citing ITIF report dated Mar. 2017).

[2] See generally, id.

[3] Id. at 6.

[4] Id. at 22.

[5] Id. at 36.

[6] Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, Update Concerning China’s Acts, Policies, and Practices Related to Technology Transfer, Intellectual Property, and Innovation at 27 (November 20, 2018).

[7] Id. at 22.

 

Image Credits: Hughes Hubbard

Share this:

  • Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
  • Click to email this to a friend (Opens in new window)
  • Click to print (Opens in new window)

Related

Creative Commons License"US Complaints About Technology Transfer In China: Negotiating The Endgame" by Intellectual Property Watch is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

Filed Under: Features, Inside Views, IP Policies, Language, Themes, Venues, Asia/Pacific, Bilateral/Regional Negotiations, Enforcement, English, IP Law, Innovation/ R&D, North America, Patents/Designs/Trade Secrets, Regional Policy, Technical Cooperation/ Technology Transfer, WTO/TRIPS

Comments

  1. Bashar H. Malkawi says

    09/02/2019 at 1:50 pm

    The United States could set up an office that examine complaints raised by U.S. companies against forced technology transfer by Chinese counterparts. Detecting violation by looking at the formal language of the laws and regulations should not be difficult. However, it could prove difficulty when used in an informal manners and in practice. This is in addition to acts by regional and local bodies. Documenting violation are needed to buttress the U.S case. other countries support the U.S. in such efforts. Bashar H. Malkawi

    Reply

Trackbacks

  1. Szabadkereskedelem és IP #2.2 – COPY21 says:
    27/02/2019 at 12:02 pm

    […] szóltak, hogy az amerikai és a kínai delegációk megkezdték (lásd itt) és folytatták (lásd itt és itt és itt) a tárgyalásokat a két ország közötti kereskedelmi feszültségek […]

    Reply

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

  • Email
  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn
  • RSS
  • Twitter
  • Vimeo
My Tweets

IPW News Briefs

Saudis Seek Alternative Energy Partners Through WIPO Green Program

Chinese IP Officials Complete Study Of UK, European IP Law

Perspectives on the US

In US, No Remedies For Growing IP Infringements

US IP Law – Big Developments On The Horizon In 2019

More perspectives on the US...

Supported Series: Civil Society And TRIPS Flexibilities

Civil Society And TRIPS Flexibilities Series – Translations Now Available

The Myth Of IP Incentives For All Nations – Q&A With Carlos Correa

Read the TRIPS flexibilities series...

Paid Content

Interview With Peter Vanderheyden, CEO Of Article One Partners

More paid content...

IP Delegates in Geneva

  • IP Delegates in Geneva
  • Guide to Geneva-based Public Health and IP Organisations

All Story Categories

Other Languages

  • Français
  • Español
  • 中文
  • اللغة العربية

Archives

  • Archives
  • Monthly Reporter

Staff Access

  • Writers

Sign up for free news alerts

This site uses cookies to help give you the best experience on our website. Cookies enable us to collect information that helps us personalise your experience and improve the functionality and performance of our site. By continuing to read our website, we assume you agree to this, otherwise you can adjust your browser settings. Please read our cookie and Privacy Policy. Our Cookies and Privacy Policy

Copyright © 2022 · Global Policy Reporting

loading Cancel
Post was not sent - check your email addresses!
Email check failed, please try again
Sorry, your blog cannot share posts by email.