On July 8, 2026, the US Department of Justice issued a press release containing the remarks of Deputy Assistant Attorney General Dina Kallay at the Hudson Institute Forum for Intellectual Property. The remarks describe the US Department of Justice’s position on numerous cases in which the Department has filed a statement of interest. Notably, the remarks also address IP and global competition:
Intellectual Property Enforcement Strengthens Global
Competition
Now that we have discussed an example of our domestic IP
dance, I want to turn to an international example which demonstrates that
strong protection of IP rights benefits robust market competition worldwide.
Each year the Office of the United States Trade
Representative (USTR) issues a Special 301 Report, as required by Congress,
which is a review of the global state of IP rights protection and enforcement.[29] Internationally,
failure to enforce IP laws as required under the World Trade Organization
Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights[30] (“WTO
TRIPS Agreement”) creates barriers to trade that negatively impact U.S.
companies and consumers. Without robust IP protection and enforcement globally,
American innovators cannot “defend their rights when their IP is stolen or
infringed” and, consequently, the benefits of that IP cannot flow back to the
United States economy.[31] Effectively,
failure to enforce IP laws creates a non-tariff barrier to trade, as it can
subsidize domestic industry or increase costs on foreign industry.
The recently issued 2026 Special 301 Report, highlighted
several “emerging global trends [that] have the potential to improperly and
unfairly harm U.S. innovators” related to patents and standards. The
Intellectual Property and Standards section of the report[32] underscores
the importance of IP protection to U.S. leadership in developing
next-generation technologies, and states unequivocally that “American
innovation leadership, economic competitiveness, and national security are
threatened by proposals or actions that undermine the effective enforcement of
patent rights.” The Report went on to identify three emerging global trends
that improperly harms U.S. innovators:
- Court rulings called “anti-suit injunctions” that bar
U.S. companies from enforcing their patents anywhere else in the
world;
- Judicial or administrative procedures that compel
innovators to grant, without their consent, global licenses to patented
technologies on terms set by the court or the government; and
- Judicial or legislative efforts to prohibit the
seeking or availability of injunctions against patent infringement, the
core remedy that allows patent holders to enforce their rights.
The Report’s findings dovetail with the antitrust policy
principles I highlighted earlier, including the importance of robust
intellectual property protection both domestically and globally; an unfettered
intellectual property marketplace; and the unhindered availability of
injunctions and other remedies against infringement. They are also consistent
with globally recognized WTO treaty obligations.[33] So
it’s a case where, while arriving from different angles, antitrust and
international trade policies converge around the same principles.
The full remarks are available, here.
