WASHINGTON — The landscape of intellectual property (IP) rights protection is in constant evolution, and today, the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) unveiled its 2025 Special 301 Report. This annual review assesses the effectiveness of U.S. trading partners in safeguarding and enforcing IP rights. In a world where innovation is a cornerstone of economic growth, this report underscores the challenges and victories in protecting the creations of American innovators.
Ambassador Jamieson Greer expressed the sentiment shared by many Americans, noting, “Americans take great pride as the world’s leading innovators and creators.” The Ambassador stressed the importance of addressing concerns highlighted in the report, urging trading partners to safeguard the intellectual property of hardworking businesses and individuals. This report, he outlines, serves as a platform for potential trade enforcement actions against countries that fail to uphold fair practices.
This year’s Special 301 Report examined over 100 countries, reflecting significant research and enhanced stakeholder engagement. A few noteworthy findings emerge from the annual assessment. For instance, the USTR has moved Mexico from the Watch List to the Priority Watch List. This shift is largely attributed to unresolved IP concerns related to the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA). Key issues include inadequate enforcement against trademark counterfeiting and copyright piracy, insufficient protection for pharmaceutical IP, and an ambiguous approach to damages related to copyright infringement.
In a positive development, Turkmenistan was removed from the Watch List this year, with stakeholders noting an absence of significant concerns regarding IP protection and enforcement during the past few years. This illustrates that collaborative efforts in improving IP standards can yield tangible benefits.
The report places eight countries on the Priority Watch List for severe IP protection issues. China, for instance, continues to face scrutiny for its slow reforms concerning technology transfer and trade secrets. Issues like online piracy, counterfeiting, and bad faith trademarks are also prominently featured. Despite commitments made under the United States-China Economic and Trade Agreement (Phase One Agreement), many concerns remain only partially addressed.
Indonesia’s inclusion on the Priority Watch List highlights ongoing challenges, chiefly the rampant piracy and counterfeiting prevalent in the digital marketplace. Stakeholders have expressed concerns about ineffective enforcement and a growing local manufacturing base for counterfeit goods. Key issues surrounding pharmaceutical IP and patent law also complicate the situation.
Another significant segment of the report focuses on 18 countries placed on the Watch List, indicating they merit further bilateral attention. Vietnam, despite certain improvements in criminal enforcement, remains a major source of online piracy, with serious IP issues still unaddressed, including those relating to counterfeit goods.
Brazil, too, faces challenges with widespread counterfeit imports and sales, compounded by delays in patent grants and a lag in joining relevant international treaties aimed at modernizing copyright protections. The USTR emphasized that these systemic problems require focused strategies for resolution.
The report shines a spotlight on cross-cutting issues affecting IP rights globally. Notably, online piracy remains the most pressing copyright enforcement challenge in many markets, threatening the livelihoods of countless stakeholders in the creative industries. The importance of robust copyright protection and enforcement cannot be overstated, as it directly influences economic stability for these sectors.
Counterfeit products, often entering the marketplace from regions like China, pose a dual threat to both consumers and legitimate producers. The USTR’s concerns are echoed in ongoing dialogues with international partners to enhance border, criminal, and online enforcement strategies.
Another area of concern is the forced technology transfer, particularly noted in China’s market practices. Government measures often condition market access and benefits on the transfer of IP, raising ethical and economic questions that need addressing in policy conversations.
The report also discusses the European Union’s promotion of exclusionary geographical indications, which continues to raise concerns for U.S. exporters. Ensuring fair access for American products branded under common names or previously registered trademarks remains a critical goal as negotiations progress.
Pharmaceuticals and medical devices are highlighted in the report as sectors where IP protection remains contentious across various trading partners. Issues related to enforcement, market access, and consistent IP regulations are flagged for further bilateral discussions.
To explore the full details of the Special 301 Report, interested parties can find it published online. This comprehensive document reflects USTR’s ongoing effort to defend American innovation on the global stage.
Background Context
The Special 301 Report represents an annual review mandated by Section 182 of the Trade Act of 1974, designed to assess the state of IP protection worldwide. This year, the USTR’s review involved rigorous assessments of over 100 trading partners, categorizing 26 on the Priority Watch List or Watch List. Notably, the review of Ukraine has been suspended amid ongoing conflict.
The countries on the Priority Watch List this year include Argentina, Chile, China, India, Indonesia, Mexico, Russia, and Venezuela, necessitating intensive engagement in the upcoming year. Meanwhile, 18 countries have been flagged for the Watch List, meriting attention to address existing IP concerns.
Public Engagement Initiatives
Enhancing public engagement was a significant focus of this year’s Special 301 process. USTR actively sought input from the public through an open submission process initiated in December 2024. A public hearing conducted in February 2025 allowed various stakeholders, including representatives from foreign governments and industries, to testify on pertinent issues. The volume of submissions—45 from non-government stakeholders and 19 from foreign governments—illustrates the extensive interest in and importance of intellectual property discussions.
Access to the feedback collected can be found online, highlighting the collaborative spirit that underpins the Special 301 review process.