A bill to expand the sharing of information with respect to suspected violations of intellectual property rights in trade.
Latest action (Aug 10, 2026) — Held at the desk.
What it does
Congressional Research Service, Aug 1, 2025This bill expands the authority of U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to provide information to certain persons (e.g., trademark or copyright owners) regarding suspected violations of intellectual property rights in trade.
Under current law, if CBP suspects that merchandise is being imported in violation of certain trademark and copyright laws, it may request assistance from specified persons when determining whether the merchandise is imported in violation of these laws. To permit the party to conduct examination and testing, CBP must provide them with specified information that appears on the merchandise and its packaging and labels.
This bill (1) expands the definition of person to allow CBP to request assistance from any other appropriate party with an interest in the imported merchandise, and (2) expands the scope of information that CBP is authorized to share with others to include information on and images of packing materials and shipping containers.
The bill allows CBP to request this assistance if it has a reasonable suspicion (currently, suspects) that the merchandise being imported is in violation of certain trademark and copyright laws.
Additionally, CBP may provide a person with nonpublic information about the imported merchandise that was generated by an online marketplace or similar market platform, express consignment operator, freight forwarder, or any other entity that plays a role in the sale, importation, or facilitation of the merchandise into the United States and has been provided to, shared with, or obtained by CBP.
Face Value
as introducedHow much of this bill its name accounts for.
- Every bill starts at100
- Nothing counted against it: one area of law, and short enough that length doesn't register.
Face Value measures reach, not honesty. A big bill can be accurately named, and a low score is not an accusation — it means the contents reach further than any short title could describe. Count it yourself ↗ How this is worked out
Who lobbied on this
1 organizationThese organizations told Congress, in their own quarterly disclosures, that they were lobbying on this bill.
- National Association of Manufacturersno position stated
“Bayh-Dole Act HR 4930, S 2677 re. counterfeiting and customs HR 6687 DRIVER Act HR 1566, REPAIR Act March-in rights NIH Licensing guidelines Patent registration fees Patent…” filing ↗
Most filings say only that an organization lobbied on a bill, not which side it took — where that's the case we say so rather than guessing. Quotes are verbatim from the filing. How this is built.
Discussion
0 commentsSign in to join the discussion and put your vote on the record.
No comments yet. Be the first to make the case.