February Highlights: Defending American Inventors Through the Special 301 Report
In just a few months, the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) will release the 2026 Special 301 Report — an annual assessment of global intellectual property laws, policies, and practices. The Special 301 Report is a cornerstone of U.S. innovation policy and a critical tool for defending American innovators. By identifying other countries whose IP policies are lacking or harmful by placing those countries on the report’s Watch List and Priority Watch List, U.S. policymakers can exert diplomatic pressure and set the stage for formal trade action that restores fair and predictable IP enforcement for U.S. companies and innovators operating abroad. As global threats to American innovators have multiplied over the past year, the need for a 2026 report that appropriately calls out concerning policies has only grown more urgent.
American companies whose technologies power global communications standards are facing a push in many countries, including China, the United Kingdom, and the European Union, to undermine the standard-essential patent licensing negotiation framework that ensures they receive fair compensation when their innovations are used by others. Life sciences companies confront growing market-access barriers and are often denied the full scope of IP protection needed to justify long-term R&D investment. Counterfeiters continue to flood global markets with fake goods that undermine U.S. companies and erode incentives to innovate. Threats like these endanger America’s IP-intensive industries that account for over 40% of U.S. economic output, support 62 million jobs, and anchor U.S. technological and scientific leadership.
Throughout February, C4IP advocated for a forceful, comprehensive Special 301 Report and informed USTR about the foreign policies harming U.S. inventors. Through public comments, testimony, and follow-up engagement with USTR, C4IP laid out a comprehensive roadmap for how this year’s report can defend U.S. jobs, protect companies investing in the next generation of medicines and technologies, and promote a more stable and competitive global innovation ecosystem.
- C4IP Executive Director Frank Cullen submitted public comments to the U.S. Trade Representative as part of the 2026 Special 301 Review, highlighting threats to IP from multiple jurisdictions — including the EU, UK, China, India, Brazil, Canada, and Mexico — that jeopardize American innovation and warrant Watch List or Priority Watch List designations in the final report.
- C4IP’s comments were featured in a Well News preview of the Special 301 Subcommittee’s hearing on February 18, which noted that C4IP was among several organizations urging USTR to take a stronger stance on IP enforcement.
- C4IP’s criticisms of recent developments in UK and EU standard-essential patent policy, which could shift SEP licensing practices away from a market-negotiation model and toward unilateral government rate-setting, were cited in analyses by IAM and MLex covering the international backlash to those policies.
- C4IP Chief Policy Officer and Counsel Jamie Simpson provided testimony before USTR’s Special 301 Subcommittee, outlining why the 2026 Special 301 Report should include Watch List or Priority Watch List designations for several jurisdictions whose recent laws or proposed policies undermine American innovators’ IP rights.
- Simpson’s testimony was covered in an IP Fray analysis of stakeholder concerns raised at the hearing.
- C4IP submitted a supplemental briefing to USTR following the February 18 hearing, addressing Subcommittee questions and expanding on concerns regarding the EU’s revised General Pharmaceutical Legislation (GPL), Brazil’s Productive Development Partnerships (PDP) system, shortcomings in Canada’s patent term adjustment and extension frameworks, and SEP-related judicial overreach in certain jurisdictions.
Additional Coalition Updates
- On February 26-28, C4IP Co-Chair David Kappos and C4IP Chief Policy Officer and Counsel Jamie Simpson were speakers on IP law panel discussions at the 19th Annual University of Akron School of Law Winter Institute in Lake Buena Vista, Florida.
- Kappos’s comments were featured in MLex’s coverage of the panel.
- On February 19, C4IP and the Alliance of U.S. Startups & Inventors for Jobs (USIJ) hosted a virtual roundtable on the Trump administration’s intellectual property and trade policy, featuring USPTO Deputy Director Coke Stewart and Deputy U.S. Trade Representative Rick Switzer alongside C4IP Co-Chair Andrei Iancu and former Deputy U.S. Trade Representative Jeffrey Gerrish.
- On February 12, C4IP published a blog post outlining its support for the proposed RESTORE Patent Rights Act, arguing that the bill’s restoration of injunctive relief as the default remedy for patent infringement is necessary to give inventors — especially small inventors and startups — meaningful protection against infringers.
- On February 10, C4IP Executive Director Frank Cullen issued a statement applauding Senators Adam Schiff and John Curtis for introducing the bipartisan Copyright Labeling and Ethical AI Reporting (CLEAR) Act, which would protect creators’ rights by requiring AI developers to disclose copyrighted works used to train generative AI models, enabling creators to seek appropriate compensation for the use of their work.
- C4IP’s support for the bill was noted in a Law360 article covering the legislation’s introduction.
- On February 5, C4IP Executive Director Frank Cullen gave a television interview to WFSB in Hartford, Connecticut, warning consumers about the health and financial dangers posed by counterfeit Super Bowl merchandise and offering tips on how to avoid purchasing fakes.
- On February 3, C4IP’s January event at UC Irvine Beall Applied Innovation, “Orange County Innovation Ecosystem: How Strong Patent Protections Enable Our County to Thrive,” was the subject of a UC Irvine article that touted the importance of IP protections in driving economic growth in Orange County and across America.
- On February 2, C4IP Executive Director Frank Cullen gave an interview to KTNV in Las Vegas about the threats that counterfeit products pose to innovators and consumers ahead of the Super Bowl.
Government Rundown
USPTO IP Attaché Program Webinar: IP and Social Media:
On February 25, the USPTO’s IP Attaché Program hosted a virtual webinar examining how social media is reshaping public perceptions of intellectual property and whether new narratives are needed to address misinformation and engage younger audiences. Dr. Meir Pugatch moderated the discussion, which featured Deborah Lashley-Johnson, Acting Director of the USPTO IP Attaché Program; Dr. Yoav Shechter, Head of Policy Innovation at Pugatch Consilium; Charisma Hampton, Attorney Advisor at the USPTO; and several regional IP attachés and specialists representing China, Europe, Southeast Asia, and Mercosur. The panel explored the growing influence of digital platforms on IP discourse and the role of international engagement in strengthening global innovation ecosystems. (USPTO IP Attaché Program, 2/25)
Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, Special 301 Subcommittee Hearing: 2026 Special 301 Review:
On February 18, the Special 301 Subcommittee of the Trade Policy Staff Committee held a public hearing ahead of the publication of the 2026 Special 301 Report, aiming to identify countries and policies that undermine U.S. intellectual property rights or deny fair market access to U.S. rights holders. C4IP Chief Policy Officer and Counsel Jamie Simpson testified at the hearing, expanding on C4IP’s public comment submission and outlining numerous harmful policies enacted by the European Union, the United Kingdom, and Brazil, among other countries, that merit those countries’ placement on the Special 301 Report’s Watch Lists. (Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, 2/18)
Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship Hearing: The Role of Entrepreneurship in Reducing the Wealth Gap:
On February 9, the Senate Small Business and Entrepreneurship Committee held a field hearing at Roxbury Community College in Boston, Massachusetts, examining why support for entrepreneurship and small business innovation is vital to strengthening minority communities. NBA stars Jaylen Brown and Jrue Holiday and former U.S. women’s soccer star Lauren Holiday — all of whom have leveraged their platforms as athletes to invest in entrepreneurship ventures in their communities — provided testimony. (Senate Small Business and Entrepreneurship Committee, 2/9)
USPTO Hour: Name, Image, and Likeness (NIL):
On February 4, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office hosted a special edition of its USPTO Hour webinar series focused on name, image, and likeness rights and branding for athletes, entertainers, and influencers. USPTO Director John Squires delivered opening remarks, and University of Virginia School of Law Professor John F. Duffy presented on the basics of NIL, including how athletes and influencers can protect their IP by availing themselves of trademark protections. (USPTO, 2/4)
Fact Check
Among the most consequential foreign policy developments is the European Union’s (EU’s) consideration of policies that could limit access to injunctive relief. Injunctions stop patent infringers from continuing to use protected technology without permission and have long been viewed as the most effective remedy for infringement, as monetary damages are often insufficient to compensate for the unique impact of losing exclusive rights.
U.S. leaders are increasingly recognizing the importance of injunctions to a functioning patent system, striving to correct course — including through bipartisan legislation like the RESTORE Patent Rights Act — from misguided court decisions that have eroded access to them in recent decades. EU policymakers should proceed cautiously and not risk repeating America’s missteps.
A recent study prepared for the European Commission on the Intellectual Property Rights Enforcement Directive (IPRED) — the EU’s framework for civil IP enforcement — raised concerns about whether widespread grants of injunctive relief may be unfair or harm innovation in Europe. Yet the most comprehensive evidence shows that injunctions are not only the fairest way to remedy infringement, but also essential to sustaining innovation and competition.
The study ultimately advises against reopening IPRED — a conclusion we agree is the wisest course. However, several key assumptions and methodological limitations in the analysis warrant closer examination:
| Claim: Widespread grants of injunctive relief are unwarranted and are causing harm to innovation in Europe. |
| In reality: There is no evidence that this is the case. Injunctions have long been considered the fairest and most effective remedy for patent infringement for good reason: exclusive patent rights are invaluable to small inventors, who use them as a foundation to raise capital and compete in the marketplace. Monetary damages are insufficient to replace the unique value of a patent, and this imbalance makes infringement a logical strategy for large companies when injunctions are unavailable. Put simply, it is reasonable that courts would grant injunctions in most cases when they find patents to be infringed.
Additionally, the IPRED study does not identify systemic harms caused by the EU’s current approach, relying instead on unsupported assumptions. A primary assumption made by many who support altering the EU’s approach to injunctive relief is that “patent assertion entities” (PAEs), companies that acquire patents in order to be able to raise revenue through litigation, are empowered by the widespread availability of injunctive relief. However, the study even concludes that PAEs’ “presence in the EU remains small” and that there is “no clear evidence of an increase in PAE activity in recent years.” |
| Claim: Limiting courts’ ability to grant injunctions will reduce abuse and protect innovation. |
| In reality: As America’s experience illustrates, reducing access to injunctions will harm inventors without addressing purported patent abuses. Reduced access to injunctions in the United States in recent years stems from the Supreme Court’s 2006 ruling in eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, which courts have interpreted as requiring a strict four-factor test before a patent injunction can be granted. Like the proposed IPRED revisions, the eBay decision was motivated in part by concerns about alleged abuse of the patent system by PAEs.
Following eBay, grants of permanent injunctions dropped by over 90% for patent holders that do not manufacture their own products, including universities and research institutions, and by two-thirds for other patent holders. Yet this did not affect PAE activity. The primary effect of the eBay decision has been to make patent rights practically unenforceable for many small inventors, harming their ability to raise capital and invest in innovation. It also incentivizes “predatory infringement” tactics under which large companies infringe smaller innovators’ patents, knowing that the value of doing so will likely outweigh any damages they may have to pay. The IPRED study itself acknowledges many of the widely recorded problems stemming from eBay. |
| Claim: The NO FAKES Act is made redundant by the 2025 “Take It Down” Act. |
| In reality: The “Take It Down” Act and the NO FAKES Act are both vital and serve entirely different purposes. The “Take It Down” Act was specifically designed to combat non-consensual intimate imagery and sexual deepfakes created by AI. However, it was not designed to protect an individual’s professional identity or the economic value of their likeness in other contexts, such as music, film, or advertisements. The NO FAKES Act would fill that gap by establishing a clear, enforceable, federally protected right for all individuals to have control over their own voice and likeness, regardless of the context in which it is used. EFF’s argument that lawmakers should “wait to see” whether the “Take It Down” Act succeeds at its goals before passing the NO FAKES Act misses the point. Nothing about the “Take It Down” Act — or any other bill focusing on combating harmful AI replicas that has been enacted to date — makes NO FAKES obsolete. However, waiting to pass the NO FAKES Act until AI exploitation of hardworking creators has grown impossible to ignore could allow IP thieves to severely damage the U.S. economy and the output of our world-leading creative industries.
Bottom Line: The study rightly advises against reopening IPRED in the end. But EU policymakers should still be mindful of its flaws in assumptions and methodology — and heed America’s experience when weighing any changes to injunction standards. |
Celebrating American Innovation
Inventor Spotlight
This month, C4IP is recognizing James West (born 1931) and Gerhard Sessler (born 1931), whose invention of the electret microphone transformed the way the world captures sound.
- West and Sessler came from different backgrounds — West from a Black family in Virginia, where his mother worked as a human computer or “Hidden Figure” for NASA, and Sessler from Germany — but the two teamed up at Bell Labs when they were assigned to develop a compact, durable, and inexpensive new form of microphone.
- In 1962, they patented their invention: an “electret” microphone that used a plastic film to retain an electrical charge rather than a battery, allowing it to be produced affordably and in very small sizes.
- West and Sessler’s microphone revolutionized numerous technologies, including recording devices, phones, hearing aids, and GPS devices.
- Ninety percent of the microphones produced today are estimated to be electret microphones.
- The invention of the electret microphone earned West the National Medal of Technology and Innovation in 2006, raising his profile as an advocate and role model for minorities and women becoming engaged in STEM.
- As smart technology develops, the economic impact of West and Sessler’s invention is only growing: in 2024, the global market for microphones was valued at over $4.3 billion.
[PHOTOS: Johns Hopkins University / TU Darmstadt]
What’s Happening in Congress
Democratic and Republican lawmakers continue to weigh legislation to prioritize strengthening IP protections, including the reintroduction of several significant bills from the previous Congress:
- The Patent Eligibility Restoration Act (PERA), which would revitalize innovation and investment in crucial high-tech sectors by reversing arbitrary, judicially created exceptions to patent eligibility.
- The Promoting and Respecting Economically Vital American Innovation Leadership (PREVAIL) Act, which would level the legal playing field for inventors and give them a fair chance to defend their patents from unauthorized infringement by larger competitors.
- The Realizing Engineering, Science, and Technology Opportunities by Restoring Exclusive (RESTORE) Patent Rights Act, which was reintroduced in both the House and Senate. This bipartisan, bicameral legislation would reestablish injunctive relief as the primary legal remedy for patent infringement, reaffirming innovators’ constitutional rights to the exclusive ownership of their inventions.
- The Nurture Originals, Foster Art, and Keep Entertainment Safe (NO FAKES) Act, which would protect all individuals from having their voice and visual likeness copied by generative AI without consent.
We will continue to track movement on these bills and provide updates on legislative developments in upcoming editions. In the interim, you can find resources on these key issues here.