This year, the United States has accused China of "forced technology transfer" and unilaterally launched a trade war against China. Protecting intellectual property rights is a consistent and clear stance of China, and the US accusations of inadequate intellectual property protection by China are inconsistent with the facts. The US actions are driven by self-interest and have a negative impact on international intellectual property protection. The currently accepted international rules for intellectual property protection are a legal order formed through years of practice in the international economic and trade field. Although this system has its imperfections and shortcomings, it has played a positive role in promoting economic globalization and maintaining the international order of intellectual property. All contracting parties should strive to reform and improve this system to make it more fair and just, and should not abandon it for their own narrow interests. In the future, China will attach greater importance to intellectual property protection and make positive contributions to improving global intellectual property governance.

This year, the United States unilaterally launched a trade war against China, not only imposing tariffs on goods from China but also releasing the so-called "Section 301 investigation report," accusing China of implementing "unfair trade" practices related to intellectual property. The US's use of such unsubstantiated claims is related to its misinterpretation and misjudgment of China's intellectual property protection laws and practices. At a deeper level, it stems from the US's narrow-minded stance of prioritizing its own interests.

Protecting intellectual property rights has always been China's stance.

As early as around the time of its accession to the World Trade Organization (WTO) in 2001, China revised its relevant laws, regulations, policies, and judicial interpretations, ensuring that China's intellectual property protection was consistent with international rules in terms of legislative spirit, rights content, protection standards, and legal remedies. These rules include the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) and the WTO's investment and trade rules. This fully demonstrates China's openness and sense of responsibility.

It should be clarified that there are currently no multilateral rules governing technology transfer in the international community. Even so, China made a commitment upon joining the WTO that government approval of foreign investment would not be contingent on technology transfer. However, the government will not interfere with the independent cooperation between joint venture partners. There are no provisions in relevant Chinese laws mandating technology transfer. Article 43 of the Implementing Regulations of the Law on Sino-Foreign Joint Ventures contains binding clauses on technology transfer agreements, including technology usage fees, agreement term, continued use of technology after expiration, and reciprocal exchange of improved technologies between the parties. However, it does not mandate that foreign enterprises must transfer their technology to Chinese enterprises. Article 27 of the Regulations on the Administration of Technology Import and Export stipulates that during the validity period of a technology import contract, the improved technology belongs to the improving party. Based on the principle of "whoever creates, owns," the clause regarding the improving party's rights to the improved technology is unassailable. Moreover, the improving party here can be the technology transferor, the technology transferee, or both parties to the agreement. Article 29 of the Regulations on the Administration of Technology Import and Export contains restrictive clauses in technology import contracts, such as prohibiting restrictions on the transferee's improvement of the technology provided by the transferor, restrictions on the transferee's use of the improved technology, and restrictions on the transferee obtaining similar or competing technologies from other sources. These are common practices in international technology transfer and do not involve the issue of forced technology transfer.

The Chinese government and judicial departments have strictly fulfilled China's commitments upon joining the World Trade Organization, making them exemplary members of the WTO. Over the past decade, China has continuously strengthened intellectual property protection and significantly improved its business environment. As early as June 2008, China issued the "National Intellectual Property Strategy Outline," specifically outlining a strategic plan to implement a strict intellectual property protection system. In terms of legal system construction, revisions have been made to the Patent Law, Copyright Law, Trademark Law, and Anti-Unfair Competition Law, constructing an intellectual property legal system that conforms to World Trade Organization rules and China's national conditions, providing legal guarantees for intellectual property protection. Regarding the judicial system, China has established intellectual property courts in Beijing, Shanghai, and Guangzhou, and intellectual property tribunals in 15 cities. The "three-in-one" system (combining court, administrative, and judicial processes) has been widely implemented in courts nationwide, promoting the unification of standards and criteria for adjudicating intellectual property cases and improving their quality. In particular, in the past five years, courts nationwide have concluded nearly 800,000 civil, administrative, and criminal intellectual property cases. In terms of administrative enforcement, the State Intellectual Property Office has been reorganized, enforcement capabilities have been strengthened, enforcement efforts have been increased, and joint administrative enforcement and cross-regional enforcement cooperation mechanisms have been established. It can be said that a comprehensive, strict, rapid, and equal protection framework for intellectual property has been basically formed. In 2018, the State Council issued the "Notice on Several Measures for Actively and Effectively Utilizing Foreign Investment to Promote High-Quality Economic Development," emphasizing strengthened intellectual property protection, a crackdown on infringement and counterfeiting, and increased penalties for intellectual property infringements frequently reported by foreign-invested enterprises, including trade secret infringement, malicious trademark squatting and unfair competition through confusing commercial logos, patent infringement and counterfeiting, and online piracy. The notice reiterated that the conditions for technological cooperation in foreign investment should be agreed upon by all investing parties, and that government officials at all levels are prohibited from using administrative means to force technology transfer.

It is clear that protecting intellectual property rights is a consistent and firm stance of the Chinese government. In foreign investment activities, China has not implemented forced technology transfer through laws, policies, or administrative approval procedures. Technology transfers by some enterprises or individuals are normal commercial activities and a manifestation of the autonomy of market entities. If these activities involve intellectual property disputes, they are individual cases and should be adjudicated by relevant judicial organs based on the facts. The US accusations against China for inadequate intellectual property protection are inconsistent with the facts.

Unilateralism is detrimental to global intellectual property governance.

The United States unilaterally initiates trade disputes primarily based on its domestic laws, the Trade Act of 1974 and the Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988, launching so-called "Section 301" and "Special 301" investigations. Section 301 investigations cover all "unfair trade" practices, while Special 301 investigations are specifically focused on intellectual property. These investigation reports often emphasize the realization of US interests and are not objective or impartial. The US government uses these reports to determine whether foreign policies and actions harm its trade interests and decides whether to impose sanctions. Before the establishment of the World Trade Organization (WTO), the US imposed unilateral sanctions based on its domestic laws when intellectual property conflicts arose with other countries; after the WTO's establishment, the US has, in most cases, resorted to the WTO's multilateral dispute settlement mechanism.

In recent years, unilateralism and trade protectionism have risen in some countries, becoming a negative factor affecting international intellectual property protection. The currently accepted international rules for intellectual property protection are a legal order formed through years of practice in the international economic and trade field. These rules, along with international trade rules and international investment rules, constitute the fundamental rules of the World Trade Organization.

The international intellectual property protection system, centered on the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS), has two key characteristics: First, consistency in protection rules. Based on the principle of "minimum protection standards" in international conventions, each contracting party must provide intellectual property protection in its domestic law that is no less than the minimum standards stipulated in the convention. The "minimum protection standards" are a consistent standard, encompassing basic norms regarding the objects, acquisition, content, and protection of intellectual property. It is the universal application of this principle that has promoted the formation of a unified international intellectual property protection framework. Second, the binding nature of the dispute settlement mechanism. The TRIPS Agreement stipulates dispute resolution procedures including consultation, mediation, adjudication, appeal, and enforcement. In the event of an intellectual property dispute between contracting parties, the parties should first consult or request mediation from a third party; if consultation or mediation fails, an application for panel adjudication may be made; if dissatisfied with the panel adjudication, an appeal to the Appellate Body for a final ruling may be requested; once a final ruling is made, both parties must comply. This rule stipulates that all contracting parties must handle intellectual property disputes in accordance with the World Trade Organization's dispute settlement mechanism, and cannot resort to unilateral trade retaliation.

Over the past 40 years, intellectual property-related disputes have frequently arisen in the development of Sino-US economic and trade relations. Before China's accession to the WTO in 2001, the two countries had several intellectual property conflicts, but all were ultimately resolved through agreements. After China's accession to the WTO, most intellectual property disputes between the two countries were resolved through consultations; if consultations failed, they were submitted to the WTO for adjudication. However, since March of this year, the United States has directly taken retaliatory trade actions. This unilateral approach of abandoning the dispute settlement mechanism deviates from the basic spirit of the WTO and has greatly disappointed the international community.

The United States and China are respectively the world's largest developed country and the largest developing country, and are at different stages of development in terms of economy, technology, and intellectual property. Since its reform and opening up, China has gradually transformed from a follower and adherent of international rules into a participant and promoter, making continuous positive contributions to the international community. The United States has always touted itself as the leader and dominant force in the process of economic globalization and intellectual property integration, yet today, driven by its own selfish interests, it has repeatedly become a violator of international rules. This not only affects the effectiveness and authority of relevant international rules, but also brings great uncertainty to the international intellectual property protection system. (Wu Handong | People's Daily)

(The author is the Honorary Director and Professor of the Intellectual Property Research Center at Zhongnan University of Economics and Law)