The Trump administration’s 2026 Special 301 Report marks an important shift in how the U.S. approaches intellectual property. For the first time in the report’s history, the Report dedicates a standalone section to Intellectual Property Standards — and recognizes that attacks on standard-essential patents are a trade issue, not just technical legal disputes.
That’s welcome news. But recognition alone won’t protect the next generation of American inventors.
For years, foreign governments have systematically devalued American patents. From 5G and WiFi to advanced manufacturing and the tech powering AI, standard-essential patents, or SEPs, underpin industries that the U.S. has spent decades building. But some foreign regulators have made it harder for patent owners to enforce their property rights, shifting the economic rewards of innovation away from the companies and investors who took the risks to create it.
The Special 301 Report finally acknowledges this reality. The challenge is now turning that recognition into effective policy.
That starts with trade negotiations. The U.S. should seek concrete commitments from trading partners to respect patent rights, including meaningful access to injunctive relief for SEP holders under established FRAND principles.
But diplomacy shouldn’t be the only tool. Section 301 investigations exist for a reason: to address foreign practices that unfairly disadvantage American industry. If countries continue depressing the value of U.S. intellectual property, the USTR should be prepared to use its enforcement powers.
The U.S. also needs to align its own policies with the position it is advancing abroad. America’s trade posture loses credibility when agencies at home send conflicting signals. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, the Department of Justice, and the Federal Trade Commission should ensure the American positions on SEP enforcement reinforce the principles outlined in the Special 301 Report.
Congress has a role to play as well. The bipartisan RESTORE Patent Rights Act would strengthen patent enforcement by reinstituting a statutory rebuttable presumption of injunctive relief in cases where a U.S. court has issued a final finding of infringement. That would help bring U.S. law closer to the principles reflected in the Special 301 Report: patent rights are only meaningful if they can be effectively enforced.
Protecting intellectual property is ultimately about protecting the incentives that make innovation possible. The U.S. has long relied on inventors, startups, universities, and research institutes to develop the technologies that drive economic growth. But those innovators compete in a global marketplace, and the value of their ideas increasingly depends on whether governments protect their inventions.
The Special 301 Report correctly identifies the problem. But reports don’t change behavior. Policy does. If this year’s report is to be remembered as more than an important acknowledgement, the Trump administration, Congress, and relevant agencies must now follow it with concrete action.
You can learn more in our new one-pager: https://usij.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/08/Turning-Special-301-Into-Concrete-Results-for-U.S.-Innovators.pdf