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, 8137-8139 [2010-3539]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 35 / Tuesday, February 23, 2010 / Notices
that each application accurately
describes all material terms of the
transaction which is the subject of the
exemption.
Signed at Washington, DC, this 17th day of
February, 2009.
Ivan Strasfeld,
Director of Exemption Determinations,
Employee Benefits Security Administration,
U.S. Department of Labor.
[FR Doc. 2010–3444 Filed 2–22–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510–29–P
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
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES
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
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:25 Feb 22, 2010
Jkt 220001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00107
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
8137
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
E:\FR\FM\23FEN1.SGM
23FEN1
8138
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 35 / Tuesday, February 23, 2010 / Notices
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.
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES
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
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:25 Feb 22, 2010
Jkt 220001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00108
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
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 attaches 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 attaches;
g. Department of Homeland Security/
Immigration and Customs Enforcement
and Department of Homeland Security/
´
Customs and Border Patrol attaches and
other representatives;
h. Department of State’s Foreign
Service officers and post leadership; and
i. Office of the U.S. Trade
´
Representative IP attache.
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
E:\FR\FM\23FEN1.SGM
23FEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 35 / Tuesday, February 23, 2010 / Notices
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.
SUMMARY: This notice sets forth the
agenda of the forthcoming meeting of
the National Museum and Library
Services Board. This notice also
describes the function of the Board.
Notice of the meeting is required under
the Sunshine in Government Act.
TIME AND DATE: Tuesday, February 23,
2010 from 9:30 a.m. until 1 p.m.
AGENDA: Nineteenth Meeting of the
National Museum and Library Services
Board.
I. Welcome.
II. Approval of Minutes.
III. Financial Update.
IV. Legislative Update.
V. Board Program.
VI. Board Updates.
VII. Closing Remarks by the Director.
VIII. Adjourn.
(Open to the Public.)
PLACE: The meetings will be held in the
Room MO–9 of the Old Post Office,
located at 1100 Pennsylvania Avenue,
NW., Washington, DC 20506.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Elizabeth Lyons, Director of Special
Events and Board Liaison, Institute of
Museum and Library Services, 1800 M
Street, NW., 9th Floor, Washington, DC,
20036. Telephone: (202) 653–4676 or Email: elyons@imls.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
National Museum and Library Services
Board is established under the Museum
and Library Services Act, 20 U.S.C. 9101
et seq. The Board advises the Director of
the Institute on general policies with
respect to the duties, powers, and
authorities related to Museum and
Library Services.
If you need special accommodations
due to a disability, please contact:
Institute of Museum and Library
Services, 1800 M Street, NW., 9th Fl.,
Washington, DC 20036. Telephone:
(202) 653–4676; TDD (202) 653–4614 at
least seven (7) days prior to the meeting
date.
Dated: February 18, 2010.
Victoria A. Espinel,
United States Intellectual Property
Enforcement Coordinator.
Dated: February 16, 2010.
Kate Fernstrom,
Chief of Staff.
[FR Doc. 2010–3539 Filed 2–22–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7036–01–P
[FR Doc. 2010–3306 Filed 2–22–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3110–01–P
NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION
SAFETY BOARD
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES
NATIONAL FOUNDATION ON THE
ARTS AND THE HUMANITIES
Sunshine Act Meeting
Institute of Museum and Library
Services; Sunshine Act Meeting of the
National Museum and Library Services
Board
AGENCY: Institute of Museum and
Library Services (IMLS), NFAH.
ACTION: Notice of meeting.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:25 Feb 22, 2010
Jkt 220001
TIME AND DATE: 9:30 a.m., Tuesday,
March 9, 2010.
PLACE: NTSB Conference Center, 429
L’Enfant Plaza, SW., Washington, DC
20594.
STATUS: The one item is open to the
public.
PO 00000
Frm 00109
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
8139
MATTER TO BE CONSIDERED: 7954A
Safety Study—Introduction of Glass
Cockpit Avionics into Light Aircraft.
NEWS MEDIA CONTACT: Telephone: (202)
314–6100.
The press and public may enter the
NTSB Conference Center one hour prior
to the meeting for set up and seating.
Individuals requesting specific
accommodations should contact
Rochelle Hall at (202) 314–6305 by
Friday, March 5, 2010.
The public may view the meeting via
a live or archived webcast by accessing
a link under ‘‘News & Events’’ on the
NTSB home page at https://
www.ntsb.gov.
FOR MORE INFORMATION CONTACT: Candi
Bing, (202) 314–6403.
Friday, February 19, 2010.
Candi R. Bing,
Alternate Federal Register Liaison Officer.
[FR Doc. 2010–3692 Filed 2–19–10; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 7533–01–P
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
[NRC–2010–0055]
Biweekly Notice; Applications and
Amendments to Facility Operating
Licenses Involving No Significant
Hazards Considerations
I. Background
Pursuant to section 189a.(2) of the
Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended
(the Act), the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (the Commission or NRC)
is publishing this regular biweekly
notice. The Act requires the
Commission publish notice of any
amendments issued, or proposed to be
issued and grants the Commission the
authority to issue and make
immediately effective any amendment
to an operating license upon a
determination by the Commission that
such amendment involves no significant
hazards consideration, notwithstanding
the pendency before the Commission of
a request for a hearing from any person.
This biweekly notice includes all
notices of amendments issued, or
proposed to be issued from January 28,
2010, to February 10, 2010. The last
biweekly notice was published on
February 9, 2010 (75 FR 6408).
Notice of Consideration of Issuance of
Amendments to Facility Operating
Licenses, Proposed No Significant
Hazards Consideration Determination,
and Opportunity for a Hearing
The Commission has made a
proposed determination that the
E:\FR\FM\23FEN1.SGM
23FEN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 35 (Tuesday, February 23, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8137-8139]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing 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