高度关注：美国正式通过《2022 年保护美国知识产权法》，主要针对中国盗窃商业秘密

根据美国国会网站的信息，2023年1月5日，美国总统已经签署了《2022 年保护美国知识产权法》，该法案正式成为美国法律。

《2022 年保护美国知识产权法》要求总统每六个月向美国国会提交一份报告，列明从事、受益于或协助窃取重大的美国商业秘密的个人或公司， 如果盗窃对美国的国家安全、外交政策、经济健康或金融稳定构成重大威胁。

此外，该法案要求：对于向国会提交的报告中确定的任何公司，总统必须从制裁清单中选择至少五项制裁措施，对其予以制裁，制裁手段包括添加到实体清单、财产冻结，出口禁令，禁止美国和国际金融机构贷款，采购制裁以及禁止银行交易等。对于向国会提交的报告中确定的任何个人，总统必须实施财产冻结制裁，并且必须禁止该个人进入美国。

该法案极大加强了美国行政制裁商业秘密盗窃行为的权利，使得美国行政机关可以不经法院审理，直接对盗窃商业秘密的实体或个人予以严厉制裁。

今天分享的文章对该法案进行了更加详细的介绍，后附中文翻译，仅供参考。

需要提醒的是，该法案采用了美国刑法中防止盗用商业秘密一节中对“商业秘密”的广义定义：几乎所有所有者采取措施保密的商业信息以及所有者从中获得独立经济价值的商业信息都包括在内。

因此，中国的企业与个人，特别是与美国有经贸往来的企业，需要高度关注该法案，更加注重商业秘密合规，降低或规避被制裁的风险。

此前我们也曾关注过该法案的立法进度，相关阅读：

美国参议院通过《2020保护美国知识产权法案》，主要针对中国窃取商业秘密 | 每日IP英文第408期


NEW ACT AUTHORIZES SANCTIONS FOR TRADE SECRET THEFT
January 6, 2023 | Morgan Lewis - Giovanna M. Cinelli Kenneth J. Nunnenkamp Eli Rymland-Kelly Lucas S. Evans

Congress recently passed and sent to the president the Protecting American Intellectual Property Act of 2022. The act mandates sanctions on entities and individuals identified by the executive branch as having committed “significant thefts of trade secrets,” including those who facilitate or provide support for such thefts, where the trade secret theft is “reasonably likely to result in, or has materially contributed to, a significant threat to the national security, foreign policy, or economic health or financial stability of the United States.”

The Protecting American Intellectual Property Act of 2022 (PAIP Act) introduces a new realm of sanctions and IP protection designed to increase the punishments associated with thefts of US companies’ or individuals’ trade secret intellectual property by foreign entities and individuals.

While the co-sponsors’ statements point to the People’s Republic of China, the PAIP Act is not limited to acts by foreign nationals and entities of particular countries and applies to any trade secret thefts. As a result, the PAIP Act adds new tools to the US government’s kit to address significant IP issues first addressed in the Section 301 Report issued under former US Trade Representative Lighthizer. While export laws may also address technology and IP that is covered by those regulations, this approach expands sanctions jurisdiction and authorities to further limit access to US technology and IP if the executive branch designates parties as having committed such thefts.

The PAIP Act requires no judicial findings predicate to the exercise of this new sanctions authority. Rather, it allows for the imposition of sanctions upon a presidential determination that a theft of trade secrets has occurred. Once the president makes that determination and notifies Congress, sanctions are mandatory—they “shall” be imposed. As a result, sanctions will be imposed even if no criminal or civil charges are brought and even if a court ultimately determines that the trade secret theft either did not occur or has not been proven in a US court of law. Further, there is no requirement that the sanctions be removed if, for example, a US court determines that the theft did not occur or that there were no legally recognizable trade secrets.

Given that a trade secret case can take years to conclude, the threat of sanctions alone could force a foreign party to relinquish any judicial rights it may have. Moreover, if sanctions are in fact imposed, they will likely make settlements less desirable and less achievable, since the parties will not be able to control the lifting of those penalties and can only wait for the long and uncertain agency reconsideration process.

SCOPE AND REPORTING REQUIREMENT

Scope

Much like the process used by the Hong Kong Autonomy Act (Public Law 116-149) (HKAA), the PAIP Act requires the president to identify in a report to Congress those companies and individuals who the president determines:

have knowingly engaged in significant theft of trade secrets of US persons;

have provided significant support, or goods or services, to support or benefit that theft;

are owned or controlled by, or have acted on behalf of any foreign person; or

are the chief executive officers or board members of any foreign entities.

Persons and entities will be identified and sanctioned if the president determines that the trade secret theft is “reasonably likely to result in, or has materially contributed to, a significant threat to the national security, foreign policy, or economic stability of the United States.”

The PAIP Act continues the recent legislative trend of including important terms without defining them. In this case, Congress chose not to define the terms “significant threat,” “economic stability,” or even “materially,” instead leaving that to executive branch implementation. The result is an executive branch with broad authority to impose sanctions and limited avenues for judicial oversight, since the PAIP Act intones presidential authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), which further limits judicial review.

The PAIP Act also adopts the broad definition of “trade secret” contained in the section of the US criminal code protecting against misappropriation of trade secrets: virtually all types of business information the owner takes measures to keep secret and from which the owner derives independent economic value are covered. Despite including the term “Intellectual Property” in its name, the PAIP Act does not cover patent, trademark, and copyright infringement.

REPORTS TO CONGRESS

Like the HKAA, the PAIP Act requires regular reports to Congress, the first of which is due no later than 180 days after the enactment of the act, and at least annually thereafter. The report must identify foreign persons determined to have knowingly engaged in or benefited from thefts of US persons’ trade secrets. It must also include a description of the nature, objective, and outcome of the theft of trade secrets by each foreign person and entity identified. The report itself must be unclassified but it may contain a classified annex.
Unlike the HKAA, the PAIP mandates that the president impose sanctions on parties identified in the report.

SANCTIONS

Entities

The president must choose at least five of the following sanctions to impose upon any entity identified in the report:

Block and prohibit all transactions relating to US property and property interests.

Designation to the Entity List.

Prohibit the US Export-Import Bank from taking part in the financing of any exports to the entity.

Prohibit any US financial institution from making a loan in excess of $10 million to the entity in any given year.

Instruct US representatives at international financial institutions to oppose any loan from the international institution that benefits the entity.

If the entity is a financial institution: (1) prevent the entity from becoming or continuing as a primary dealer in US government debt instruments; and/or (2) prevent the entity from serving as an agent of the US government or repository for government funds.

Prevent the US government from procuring any goods or services from the entity.

Prohibit transactions in foreign exchanges subject to US jurisdiction.

Prohibit transfers of credit or payments between financial institutions to the extent those transactions are subject to US jurisdiction.

Ban US persons from investing in or purchasing significant amounts of equity or debt instruments of the entity.

Deny visas to and exclude entry of corporate officers, principals, or shareholders with controlling interests in the entity.

Impose any sanctions included in the act on corporate officers or individuals performing similar functions.

For individuals named in the report, the president must block all property and interests in property of the individual, while also prohibiting all transactions in or related to that property. Further, the person immediately becomes ineligible for entry into the United States and ineligible to receive any type of visa.

The specific agency involved will turn on the specific sanction chosen by the president. For example, blocking sanctions are implemented by the Department of Treasury while designation to the Entity List is a Department of Commerce action.

WAIVER

While the president may waive the imposition of sanctions upon individuals and entities if he determines it is “in the national interests” of the United States, that threshold is not easily met. Since the PAIP Act can applied to any person or entity from any country, the administration will need to consider whether to grant broader waivers than those for individual actions alone.

Alternatively, if the PAIP Act becomes law, the president may choose to issue an accompanying signing statement about how the administration intends to work around the broad impact of the statute.

While the administration has waived otherwise mandatory sanctions in the past, including those against the company owning and operating the Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline, it is more likely that the administration will seek to use inclusion in the report to Congress as a trigger point, rather than waiving sanctions on a person or entity identified as having engaged in the prohibited activity. If the statute is functionally rewritten by the executive in a manner to allow for national exemptions, it raises significant issues as to its survivability against a judicial challenge.

CONCLUSION

The PAIP Act grants the president broad authority to sanction foreign individuals and companies the administration determines have engaged in significant thefts of US trade secrets. While the PAIP Act’s sponsors state that it was introduced to counter theft by Chinese individuals and entities, the act’s language is not nearly as restrictive and in fact mandates application to any foreign person identified as having engaged in trade secret theft.

Moreover, untethering the determination of trade secret theft from the judicial system raises significant rule of law issues and may result in retaliatory actions from both allies and adversaries alike.

参考翻译：

新法案授权制裁商业秘密盗窃

January 6, 2023 | Morgan Lewis - Giovanna M. Cinelli Kenneth J. Nunnenkamp Eli Rymland-Kelly Lucas S. Evans

国会最近通过并向总统发送了《2022 年保护美国知识产权法》。该法案规定对行政部门确定为犯有“重大商业秘密盗窃”的实体和个人进行制裁，包括那些为此类盗窃提供便利或支持的人，其中商业秘密盗窃“合理地可能导致或已实质性促成对国家安全、外交政策的重大威胁， 或美国的经济健康或金融稳定。

《2022 年保护美国知识产权法》（PAIP 法案）引入了一个新的制裁和知识产权保护领域，旨在加大与外国实体和个人盗窃美国公司或个人商业秘密知识产权相关的处罚。

虽然共同发起人的声明指出了中国，但PAIP法案不限于特定国家和实体的行为，而是适用于任何商业秘密盗窃。因此，PAIP法案为美国政府的工具包增加了新的工具，以解决前美国贸易代表莱特希泽发布的301条款报告中首次提及的重大知识产权问题。虽然出口法也可能涉及这些法规所涵盖的技术和知识产权，但这种方法扩大了制裁管辖权和权力，如果行政部门指定有关方犯下此类盗窃行为，则可以进一步限制其对美国技术和知识产权的获取。

PAIP法不要求对行使这一新的制裁权力作出司法裁决。相反，它允许对总统认定发生了盗窃商业机密的行为实施制裁。一旦总统做出决定并通知国会，制裁是强制性的——它们“应该”被实施。因此，即使没有提起刑事或民事指控，即使法院最终确定商业秘密盗窃没有发生或尚未在美国法院得到证实，也会实施制裁。此外，如果美国法院确定盗窃没有发生或没有法律上可识别的商业秘密，则不要求取消制裁。

鉴于商业秘密案件可能需要数年时间才能结案，仅制裁的威胁就可能迫使外国当事人放弃其可能拥有的任何司法权利。此外，如果确实实施制裁，制裁可能会使和解变得不那么可取和更难实现，因为各方将无法控制取消这些处罚，只能等待漫长和不确定的机构复议进程。

范围和报告要求

PAIP法案要求总统在提交给国会的报告中确认总统确定的公司和个人：

明知故犯地严重窃取美国人的商业秘密;

提供重要支持或商品或服务，以支持或使盗窃受益;

由任何外国人拥有或控制，或代表任何外国人行事;或

是任何外国实体的首席执行官或董事会成员。

如果总统确定商业秘密盗窃“合理地可能导致或已对美国的国家安全、外交政策或经济稳定构成重大威胁”，个人和实体将被识别和制裁。

PAIP法案延续了最近的立法趋势，即包括重要术语而不对其进行定义。在这种情况下，国会选择不定义“重大威胁”、“经济稳定”甚至“实质性”等术语，而是将其留给行政部门实施。其结果是一个行政部门，拥有实施制裁的广泛权力和有限的司法监督途径，因为PAIP法案根据《国际紧急经济权力法》（IEEPA）规定了总统的权力，这进一步限制了司法审查。

PAIP法案还采用了美国刑法中防止盗用商业秘密一节中对“商业秘密”的广义定义：几乎所有所有者采取措施保密的商业信息以及所有者从中获得独立经济价值的商业信息都包括在内。尽管名称中包含“知识产权”一词，但PAIP法案并未涵盖专利，商标和版权侵权。

向国会提交的报告

PAIP法案要求定期向国会提交报告，其中第一份报告的截止日期不迟于该法案颁布后180天，此后至少每年提交一次。该报告必须识别故意从事盗窃美国人商业秘密或从中受益的外国人。它还必须包括对每个被识别的外国人和实体窃取商业秘密的性质、目标和结果的描述。报告本身必须是非机密的，但可以包含机密附件。

PAIP要求总统对报告中确定的相关方实施制裁。

制裁

实体

总统必须选择以下至少五项制裁措施，对报告中确定的任何实体实施制裁：

阻止和禁止所有与美国财产和财产利益有关的交易。

指定到实体清单。

禁止美国进出口银行参与对该实体的任何出口的融资。

禁止任何美国金融机构在任何一年向该实体提供超过1000万美元的贷款。

指示美国驻国际金融机构代表反对国际机构提供的任何有利于该实体的贷款。

如果实体是金融机构：（1） 阻止该实体成为或继续作为美国政府债务工具的主要交易商;和/或 （2） 阻止该实体充当美国政府的代理人或政府资金的存储库。

阻止美国政府从该实体采购任何商品或服务。

禁止受美国管辖的外汇交易。

禁止金融机构之间的信贷或付款转移，只要这些交易受美国管辖。

禁止美国人投资或购买该实体的大量股权或债务工具。

拒绝签证并禁止在实体中拥有控股权的公司高管、负责人或股东入境。

对履行类似职能的公司高管或个人实施该法中包含的任何制裁。

对于报告中提到的个人，总统必须冻结个人的所有财产和财产权益，同时禁止与该财产有关的所有交易。此外，该人立即失去进入美国的资格，也没有资格获得任何类型的签证。

所涉及的具体机构将开启总统选择的具体制裁。例如，封锁制裁由财政部实施，而指定实体清单是商务部的行动。

豁免

虽然如果总统确定符合美国“国家利益”，他可以豁免对个人和实体实施制裁，但这一门槛并不容易达到。由于PAIP法案可以适用于任何国家的任何个人或实体，政府需要考虑是否给予比单独行动更广泛的豁免。

或者，如果PAIP法案成为法律，总统可以选择发布随附的签署声明，说明政府打算如何围绕该法规的广泛影响开展工作。

虽然政府过去曾豁免其他强制性制裁，包括对拥有和运营Nord Stream 2天然气管道的公司实施的制裁，但政府更有可能寻求将纳入国会报告中作为触发点，而不是豁免对被确定从事被禁止活动的个人或实体的制裁。如果行政部门以允许国家豁免的方式对法规进行职能改写，这会引起重大问题，即其能否在司法挑战中生存。

结论

PAIP法案赋予总统广泛的权力，可以制裁政府认定从事重大盗窃美国商业机密的外国个人和公司。虽然PAIP法案的发起人表示，该法案的引入是为了打击中国个人和实体的盗窃行为，但该法案的语言没有那么严格，实际上要求适用于任何被认定从事商业秘密盗窃的外国人。
此外，将商业秘密盗窃的认定从司法系统中解脱出来，引发了重大的法治问题，并可能会导致盟友和对手的报复行动。

来源：大岭IP公众号