You can find my remarks below.

I also had the privilege of moderating a timely discussion on standard-essential patents and global licensing, featuring views from Guobin Cui, Mark Cohen, Zhang Guangliang, John Kinton, John F. Duffy, David Kappos, Ma Yide, Jing He, and Randall R. Rader.

The broader dialogue brought together leading judges, scholars, policymakers, practitioners, and industry representatives to consider artificial intelligence, digital content, pharmaceutical innovation, technology transfer, and international coordination in intellectual property protection.

My thanks to Renmin University of China, our partner institutions, the organizers, and all the participants who engaged seriously across differences, and helped ensure that dialogue leads not only to understanding, but also to action.

_

[Edited Remarks]

President Ma, Chief Judge Li, Vice President Yang, Dean Yang, Judge Rader, friends, ladies and gentlemen:

More than three centuries ago, Emperor Kangxi commissioned a scientific survey of China. Chinese scholars worked with European Jesuits, including Joachim Bouvet. They combined local knowledge with astronomical observation and triangulation. The resulting atlas (皇舆全览图), published in 1717, blended European geographic knowledge and Chinese cosmological tradition, setting the standard for the world.

Cooperation did not erase their differences. It made a more accurate map possible.

That is a useful image for our work. We are not here to make China and the United States see every issue in the same way.

As the Chinese classics teach, the principled seek harmony without demanding uniformity, while the narrow-minded demand uniformity without achieving harmony. It is from harmony that peace arises.

君子和而不同，小人同而不和；和谐则太平之所兴也.

We are here to draw a more accurate map of our differences, our interdependence, and what cooperation might make possible.

The United States recently marked its 250th year of independence.

But its constitutional system did not arrive fully formed in 1776. Eleven years later, delegates met in Philadelphia because the existing arrangements were not working. They began with disagreement, but stayed in the room long enough to imagine a new framework.

We can borrow something from that spirit.

Think of this gathering as a constitutional convention for US-China IP policy. Not a place where agreement is assumed, but a place where partners boldly imagine arrangements that none could design alone.

That work is urgent because direct human contact is diminishing.

The number of Americans studying in China has fallen from about 11,000 in 2019 to fewer than 2,000 in 2026. The number of Chinese students in the United States has also declined, from a peak of 370,000 to 260,000. The exchange is profoundly asymmetric, and both streams are drying up.

When face-to-face contact disappears, caricature fills the vacuum.

We need friends on both sides who know the other country’s people, history, and culture. All of us here have the responsibility to make that contact possible again. And hopefully establish rotating host schools for this dialogue in the US just like we do with IPSC and PatCon. It is good that Professors John Duffy (Virginia), Anupam Chander (Georgetown), and William Fisher (Harvard) are part of this program.

We can ask not only what advances a national position today, but what makes an international system legitimate and sustainable over time.

The recent controversy over the Molly Tea|LV ruling comes after two other recent trademark cases in China also sparked backlash online. Both cases involved well-known domestic consumer brands going after small family-run businesses for trademark infringement.

Concern over trademark bullying parallels concerns over patent bullying in the SEP space by owners or implementers depending on who you ask, and in the copyright space between developers and content creators.

Together with a delegation of U.S. stakeholders, I have traveled this week through Xi’an, Shenzhen, Hangzhou, and Beijing.

Dialogue must lead to action. It should help us understand where others stand, and then change what we are prepared to do.

This morning, we stand before a blank canvas:

If by our words and actions, we create new pathways for exchange, and a standing commitment to continue this work next year, we will have succeeded.

And if we succeed, none of us should leave unchanged. A real dialogue changes those who partake in it.

Let me close by saying that three centuries ago, China showed how cooperation made a new map possible.

Two hundred and fifty years ago, America showed how dialogue could become the basis for a new way of organizing ourselves.

Today, our words and can help ensure that we do not mistake rivalry for destiny.

Because 君子和而不同，小人同而不和；和谐则太平之所兴也.

The principled seek harmony without demanding uniformity, while the narrow-minded demand uniformity without achieving harmony. It is from harmony that peace arises.

Thank you.