Top Counterfeiting Risks Manufacturers Face in 2016

20 January 2016 Manufacturing Industry Advisor Blog

The global market for all counterfeit items is booming, with the value of goods seized by U.S. Customs and Border Protection in fiscal year 2014 exceeding $1.2 billion. Moreover, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security reported that the number and value of seizures of counterfeit automotive parts increased by 83 percent and 66 percent, respectively, over the previous year. In addition, counterfeiters have become extremely sophisticated and the risk of counterfeiting extends to electronic parts, mechanical parts, and industrial fasteners. The bottom line: Counterfeit parts are an increasing threat to manufacturers’ supply chains.

Manufacturers need to have systems and procedures in place to detect and avoid the use of counterfeit parts. Effective counterfeit prevention procedures require coordination among several functions in a company, including purchasing, quality, and legal. Companies also need to incorporate counterfeit detection and avoidance requirements into the terms and conditions they impose on suppliers.

To address the risk posed by counterfeit parts, manufacturers should take at least the following steps:

Identify and Address Both Supplier and Item Risk

An effective counterfeit detection and avoidance system can be “risk-based” — that is, companies do not have to adopt a “one-size-fits-all” approach that subjects every incoming part to the same level of scrutiny. Rather, it can be tailored based on the level of risk that the part may be counterfeit. There are two primary types of risks that should be taken into account in such a risk assessment: supplier risk and item risk.

“Supplier risk” refers to the risk of counterfeiting associated with the entity that is supplying the part. The original manufacturer of the part would be a low-risk supplier, as there would be clear traceability of the part back to the original manufacturer and little opportunity or economic incentive for the original manufacturer to counterfeit its own part. Conversely, if the supplier is a “gray market” independent distributor, particularly one that is unable to provide documentation tracing the part back to the original manufacturer, the risk that the part received may be a counterfeit would be higher. Accordingly, one of the universally accepted best practices for counterfeit parts mitigation is to require that purchases of parts be made, whenever possible, only from the original manufacturer or one of its authorized distributors or dealers.

“Item risk” refers to the degree of risk posed by the part itself, both in terms of the risk to safety and reliability if the part at issue were counterfeit, and the risk that the part at issue is a target for counterfeiting. Item risk is largely a factor based on a part’s:

  • Economic value
  • Criticality to safety or performance
  • Volume of use/sales
  • Production status
  • Ease of duplication or manufacture

One category of parts that is recognized as posing an increased risk of counterfeiting is out-of-production parts, often referred to as “obsolete parts.”

Develop Procedures to Deal With the Unique Issues Posed by Counterfeits

Under typical commercial terms and conditions, a buyer rejecting a nonconforming item is frequently required to return the rejected item to the seller. That practice is problematic when the “nonconformity” at issue is that the part is suspected of being counterfeit. Returning a suspect counterfeit to the party that supplied it runs the risk that the counterfeit part will remain in the supply chain and simply be passed off to another customer that may not be as vigilant. Therefore, an effective anti-counterfeiting system requires the ability to quarantine and impound suspected counterfeit parts, without returning them to the supplier for refund or replacement until they are confirmed as authentic.

Companies should also develop appropriate reporting mechanisms to report the discovery of a suspected counterfeit, both internally to appropriate company officials and externally to the appropriate authorities.

For more insight on critical issues in the automotive industry, check out the Foley Automotive Industry Team’s 2016 Automotive White Paper.

This blog is made available by Foley & Lardner LLP (“Foley” or “the Firm”) for informational purposes only. It is not meant to convey the Firm’s legal position on behalf of any client, nor is it intended to convey specific legal advice. Any opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of Foley & Lardner LLP, its partners, or its clients. Accordingly, do not act upon this information without seeking counsel from a licensed attorney. This blog is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Communicating with Foley through this website by email, blog post, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship for any legal matter. Therefore, any communication or material you transmit to Foley through this blog, whether by email, blog post or any other manner, will not be treated as confidential or proprietary. The information on this blog is published “AS IS” and is not guaranteed to be complete, accurate, and or up-to-date. Foley makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, as to the operation or content of the site. Foley expressly disclaims all other guarantees, warranties, conditions and representations of any kind, either express or implied, whether arising under any statute, law, commercial use or otherwise, including implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Foley or any of its partners, officers, employees, agents or affiliates be liable, directly or indirectly, under any theory of law (contract, tort, negligence or otherwise), to you or anyone else, for any claims, losses or damages, direct, indirect special, incidental, punitive or consequential, resulting from or occasioned by the creation, use of or reliance on this site (including information and other content) or any third party websites or the information, resources or material accessed through any such websites. In some jurisdictions, the contents of this blog may be considered Attorney Advertising. If applicable, please note that prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Photographs are for dramatization purposes only and may include models. Likenesses do not necessarily imply current client, partnership or employee status.

Related Services

Insights

California Statute Offers Dramatic Change to Independent Contractor, Franchise-Franchisee Relationships
20 September 2019
Legal News: Distribution & Franchise
AI Ouch! AI Job Interview Law Starting in 2020!
20 September 2019
Internet, IT & e-Discovery Blog
RCE PTA Carve-Out Resumes After Interference
18 September 2019
PharmaPatents
The Ninth Circuit Expected to Rule that Doctors Can Be Wrong in the Winter v. Gardens False Claims Act Case
18 September 2019
Legal News: Government Enforcement Defense & Investigations
Lacktman, Ferrante Cited in mHealth Intelligence About Ryan Haight Act
19 September 2019
mHealth Intelligence
Vernaglia Comments on AHA v Azar Decision
18 September 2019
MedPage Today
Tinnen Discusses How Viewpoint Diversity Helps Businesses Thrive
18 September 2019
InsideTrack
Lach Comments on Launch of New Group
16 September 2019
BizTimes Milwaukee
MedTech Impact Expo & Conference
13-15 December 2019
Las Vegas, NV
Review of 2020 Medicare Changes for Telehealth
11 December 2019
Member Call
BRG Healthcare Leadership Conference
06 December 2019
Washington, D.C.
CTeL Telehealth Fall Summit 2019
04-06 December 2019
Washington, D.C.