If the US implements all Huawei equipment, and China sanctions the US from receiving support/updates/parts from Huawei (or worse, go to war and use it as a weapon), then the US telecommunication infrastructure is at risk.
Most major corporations deal with this by just registering IP in multiple jurisdictions simultaneously and litigating internationally, which can also be done in China just as you would do it in France or the UK. Redundancy is easier to manage than cross-border cooperation with foreign court orders.
That may be true in the strictest legal sense when a Chinese company is the one doing the stealing from a Western corporation. But in reality, that's so laughably incorrect that it makes me question why you said it.
Put simply, American courts have no authority over Chinese in China, Chinese courts have no authority over Americans in the US, and our courts do not cooperate reciprocally as they do in other countries with alternative diplomatic and legal relations.
Fortunately, this is of no significant barrier.
It is not a barrier because we, in the US, can ban their hardware anyways, and cause serious economic damage to them anyway.
So it doesn't particularly matter if we use IP law itself, in the courts, against china, when we have other options, such as simply banning their products in this other way.
No we wouldn't. Literally we are commenting in an article, about what I am suggesting is happening.
So the stuff that the article says is already happening, is what I suggested.
Could it go faster? Maybe. But like I said, we are literally commenting on an article, about how US telecoms are being required to replace certain equipment.
To my knowledge this has not previously been used as punishment for theft of trade secrets (Hwawei was sanctioned for doing business in Iran), but the legal mechanism is there.
So for example, in France, there are many acts which are trademark infringement in France that are not trademark infringement in the US. A Frenchman can accuse an American of trademark infringement for an act that is not trademark infringement in the United States, but is infringement in France. They can bring a lawsuit in France, win, and potentially enforce that judgment on assets in the US with the cooperation of an American court despite the fact that the American did not, by the definitions of American law, infringe on anyone's intellectual property.
There are no such cooperative arrangements between the US and China despite recent attempts to set them up. There are also only limited agreements on what is and what isn't permitted.
Mass population is moved by fear, but is that how concordance is manufactured across the executives of a set of countries: a few terrifying top-secret presentations, and IC has successfully reputation-assassinated a foreign company? Why would these countries agree if there was no breach and a cheaper price? What offer or threat besides a more expensive but more secure infra? I suppose if you view telcoinfra as defense assets then it's a no-brainer, but was this the calculus? Blackmail/Mafioso-tactics would be a good one, maybe: You have to buy from us, or we will reveal/do such-and-such horrible thing.
But if it's true this is economic, not security, and also that Huawei has superior value for money, then is it not just these countries accelerating their already decaying infrastructure, for the sake of pride?
"The phones are down." "Yeah, whaddayagonnado? At least we're not paying the Chinese to make them work."
Replace phones with other critical things China makes better for a better price, and the future of these countries may look like the past of the former-Soviet ones: a whole bunch of weird anachronistic tech resulting from an (in this case self-imposed) embargo. But at least it will be 100% built by subjects of approved countries. I suppose that is one strategy to fight back against the dominance of Chinese industry: just outlaw it.
The hilarious thing is, probably all these "approved suppliers" will have to purchase significant inventory from what is essentially Huawei's supply chain anyway. Seems much more like the tail wagging the dog, with corporate dishonesty dictating so-called natsec policy. Could it really be so twisted?
Governments don't operate exclusively through sticks. The US has plenty of carrots to give out.
It should be noted that up until early 2020, US campaign against Huawei had spanned 10+ years long, and only secured a few committments to ban Huawei, not even all of FVEYS. It was a spectacular failure. It wasn't until successive US sanctions against Huawei access to semiconductors that countries relented, not due to security concerns but Huawei's ability to supply hardware long term due to sanctions.