[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 35 (Tuesday, February 23, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8137-8139]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-3539]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
Coordination and Strategic Planning of the Federal Effort Against
Intellectual Property Infringement: Request of the Intellectual
Property Enforcement Coordinator for Public Comments Regarding the
Joint Strategic Plan
AGENCY: Office of Management and Budget, Executive Office of the
President.
ACTION: Request for written submissions from the public.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Federal Government is currently undertaking a landmark
effort to develop an intellectual property enforcement strategy
building on the immense knowledge and expertise of the agencies charged
with enforcing intellectual property rights. By committing to common
goals, the Government will more effectively and efficiently combat
intellectual property infringement. In this request for comments, the
Government, through the office of the Intellectual Property Enforcement
Coordinator (``IPEC''), invites public input and participation in
shaping an effective intellectual property enforcement strategy.
This new effort is mandated by the Prioritizing Resources and
Organization for Intellectual Property Act of 2008, Public Law 110-403
(Oct. 13, 2008) (``the PRO IP Act'' or ``the Act'') which created,
within the Executive Office of the President, the position of the IPEC.
The Act requires the IPEC to chair an interagency intellectual property
enforcement advisory committee in order to develop an Administration
strategy for enforcement against intellectual property infringement:
The Joint Strategic Plan. The IPEC is currently working with the
interagency advisory committee to develop this intellectual property
enforcement strategy.
This request for comments and for recommendations for an improved
enforcement strategy is divided into two parts. In the first, the IPEC
seeks written submissions from the public regarding the costs to the
U.S. economy resulting from intellectual property violations, and the
threats to public health and safety created by infringement. In the
second part, the IPEC requests detailed recommendations from the public
regarding the objectives and content of the Joint Strategic Plan and
other specific recommendations for improving the Government's
intellectual property enforcement efforts. Responses to this request
for comments may be directed to either of these two parts, or both, and
may include a response to one or more requests for information found in
either part.
DATES: Submissions must be received on or before Wednesday, March 24,
2010, at 5 p.m.
ADDRESSES: All submissions should be sent electronically via
intellectualproperty@omb.eop.gov.
Publication and Confidential Information
Submissions filed in response to this request will be made
available to the public by posting them on the Internet. For this
reason, please do not include in your comments information of a
confidential nature, such as sensitive personal information or
proprietary information. If you have confidential business information
that would support your recommendation or that you believe would help
the Government formulate an effective enforcement strategy, please let
us know, and we may request that additional information.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas L. Stoll, Office of the
Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator, at (202) 395-1808.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Through the PRO IP Act, Congress created the
IPEC, to serve within the Executive Office of the President, and an
interagency advisory committee specifically tasked with formulating and
implementing a Joint Strategic Plan to improve the effectiveness of the
U.S. Government's efforts to protect the rights of intellectual
property owners and to reduce the costs of and threats posed by
intellectual property infringement, in the U.S. and in other countries.
The IPEC seeks public input, in the form of written comments, on the
formulation of a Joint Strategic Plan and on the U.S. Government's
intellectual property enforcement efforts.
Part I
The Joint Strategic Plan must contain an analysis of the threat
posed by violations of intellectual property rights, including the
costs to the U.S. economy resulting from such violations, and the
threats to public health and safety created by infringement. Thus, the
IPEC seeks written submissions from the public identifying the costs to
the U.S. economy resulting from infringement of intellectual property
rights, both direct and indirect, including any impact on the creation
or maintenance of jobs.
In addition, the IPEC seeks written submissions identifying threats
to public health and safety posed by intellectual property
infringement, in the U.S. and in other countries.
Submissions directed to the economic costs of violations of
intellectual property rights must clearly identify the methodology used
in calculating the estimated costs and any critical assumptions relied
upon, identify the source of the data on which the cost estimates are
based, and provide a copy of or a citation to each such source.
Submissions directed to threats to public health or safety must
include a detailed description of the threat, identify the source of
the information substantiating the existence of that threat and provide
a copy of or a citation to each such source.
The issues and challenges that pertain to adequate and appropriate
enforcement of intellectual property are changing rapidly. Therefore,
if desired, submissions may also identify and discuss emerging or
future threats to the U.S. economy or to health and safety over the
next five to ten years.
Part II
The IPEC requests written submissions from the public that provide
specific recommendations for accomplishing one or more of the
objectives of the Joint Strategic Plan, or other specific
recommendations for significantly improving the U.S. Government's
enforcement efforts. Recommendations may include, but need not be
limited to: Proposed legislative changes, regulations, executive
orders, other executive action, guidelines, or changes in policies,
practices or methods.
Recommendations should include a detailed description of a
preferred method for accomplishing the recommendation. If a submission
includes multiple recommendations, the IPEC requests that the
submission rank the recommendations in order of priority, where
possible.
The objectives of the Joint Strategic Plan include:
Reducing the supply of infringing goods, domestically and
internationally;
Identifying weaknesses, duplication of efforts, waste, and
other unjustified
[[Page 8138]]
impediments to effective enforcement actions;
Promoting information sharing between participating
agencies to the extent permissible by law;
Disrupting and eliminating infringement networks in the
U.S. and in other countries;
Strengthening the capacity of other countries to protect
and enforce intellectual property rights;
Reducing the number of countries that fail to enforce
intellectual property rights;
Assisting other countries to more effectively enforce
intellectual property rights;
Protecting intellectual property rights in other countries
by:
Working with other countries to reduce intellectual
property crimes in other countries;
Improving information sharing between law enforcement
agencies in the U.S. and in other countries; and
Establishing procedures for consulting with interested
groups within other countries.
Establishing programs to enhance the enforcement efforts
of foreign governments by providing training and technical assistance
designed to:
Enhance the efficiencies and minimize the duplication of
U.S. Government training and assistance efforts;
Prioritize deployment of U.S. Government resources to
those countries in which programs can be carried out most effectively
and will have the greatest impact on reducing the number of infringing
products in the relevant U.S. market, protecting the intellectual
property rights of U.S. rights holders, and protecting the interests of
U.S. persons otherwise harmed by infringements in other countries.
Supplemental Comment Topics
In addition to the foregoing, the IPEC requests information and/or
recommendations on the following list of additional supplemental
topics. The submission of responses to one or more of the following
topics below is entirely optional.
1. Suggest methods to improve the adequacy, effectiveness and/or
coordination of the various Federal departments, agencies and programs
that are charged with enforcement of intellectual property.
2. Identify specific existing enforcement actions, methods,
procedures or policies employed by the U.S. Government or governments
of other countries that have been particularly effective at curtailing
or preventing infringement (including, if possible, specific examples
illustrating the effectiveness of those methods).
3. Identify specific existing processes involving cooperation
between stakeholders and the U.S. Government (or between stakeholders
and other governments) that have been particularly effective at
curtailing or preventing infringement.
4. Provide examples of existing successful agreements, in the U.S.
or abroad, that have had a significant impact on intellectual property
enforcement, including voluntary agreements among stakeholders or
agreements between stakeholders and the relevant government.
5. Suggest methods for strengthening information sharing between
stakeholders and U.S. Government agencies to improve intellectual
property rights enforcement efforts, including methods the U.S.
Government can use to obtain more accurate information concerning the
identities, corporate structures and locations of those suspected of
intellectual property infringement.
6. Suggest new methods for rights holders and importers to provide
information to U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) on distribution
and supply chains. Such information could enable CBP to increase the
effectiveness of its process for selecting (``targeting'') imports for
inspection by creating a segment of trusted imports, which would allow
CBP to better focus its targeting on high risk imports and imports for
which advance information is lacking.
7. Describe existing technology that could or should be used by the
U.S. Government or a particular agency or department to more easily
identify infringing goods or other products.
8. Suggest approaches for increasing standardization among
authentication tools and technologies applied by rights holders to
products to enable identification of these goods as genuine through a
physical examination of the goods or product.
9. Suggest how state and local law enforcement authorities could
more effectively assist in intellectual property enforcement efforts,
including whether coordination could be improved, if necessary, and
whether they should be vested with additional authority to more
actively participate in prosecutions involving intellectual property
enforcement.
10. Describe the adequacy and effectiveness of the reporting by the
various agencies responsible for enforcing intellectual property
infringements, such as the reporting of investigations, seizures of
infringing goods or products, prosecutions, the results of
prosecutions, including whether any further voluntary reporting of
activities should be made, in keeping with other federal law.
11. Suggest methods to improve the adequacy, effectiveness and/or
coordination of U.S. Government personnel stationed in other countries
who are charged with enforcement of intellectual property, including
but not limited to:
a. Department of Justice IP Law Enforcement Coordinator (IPLEC)
program;
b. U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Intellectual Property
attach[eacute]s program;
c. Food and Drug Administration foreign country offices;
d. Foreign Agricultural Service;
e. Department of Commerce International Trade Administration
Foreign Commercial Service officers;
f. Department of Commerce International Trade Administration
compliance attach[eacute]s;
g. Department of Homeland Security/Immigration and Customs
Enforcement and Department of Homeland Security/Customs and Border
Patrol attach[eacute]s and other representatives;
h. Department of State's Foreign Service officers and post
leadership; and
i. Office of the U.S. Trade Representative IP attach[eacute].
12. Suggest ways to improve the adequacy, effectiveness and/or
coordination of the enforcement training and technical assistance
provided by the U.S. Government, including (but not limited to):
a. Identification of specific countries or geographical regions
that could benefit from U.S. Government training and technical
assistance and the program areas where training and assistance should
focus;
b. Suggestions for how to leverage resources or partnerships to
broaden the impact of U.S. Government training and assistance; and
c. Suggestions to enhance industry participation in relevant
training programs.
13. Suggest specific measures to further secure the domestic and
international supply chains to minimize the threat posed by infringing
goods or products.
14. Suggest specific methods to limit or prevent use of the
Internet to sell and/or otherwise distribute or disseminate infringing
products (physical goods or digital content).
15. Provide information on the various types of entities that are
involved, directly or indirectly, in the distribution or dissemination
of infringing products and a brief
[[Page 8139]]
description of their various roles and responsibilities.
16. Discuss the effectiveness of recent efforts by educational
institutions to reduce or eliminate illegal downloading over their
networks. Submissions should include recent specific examples.
17. Suggest specific strategies for reducing the threats to public
health and safety caused by the use or consumption of infringing goods
(for example, counterfeit drugs, medical devices, biologics, and
ingested consumer products).
18. Discuss the possible application of World Trade Organization
provisions, including, but not limited to, those on anti-dumping,
subsidies, standards and safeguard measures in cases where failure to
enforce intellectual property laws in other jurisdictions produces
unfair cost or other advantages for the production or distribution of
goods and services or otherwise disadvantages U.S. right holders.
19. Suggest specific strategies to significantly reduce the demand
for infringing goods or products both in the U.S. and in other
countries.
20. Provide specific suggestions on the need for public education
and awareness programs for consumers, including a description of how
these programs should be designed, estimates of their cost, whether
they should focus on specific products that pose a threat to public
health, such as counterfeit pharmaceuticals, or whether should they be
general infringement awareness programs.
The above list of topics for discussions and recommendations is not
intended to limit the scope of the submissions. Rather, the public is
encouraged to submit any detailed concrete recommendation for
significantly improving intellectual property rights enforcement.
Dated: February 18, 2010.
Victoria A. Espinel,
United States Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator.
[FR Doc. 2010-3539 Filed 2-22-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3110-01-P