I appreciate the specifics. Most people just throw out that they are stealing IP. That can mean a lot of things. It can mean freely infringing IP rights without much enforcement. That problem is as old as the hills, and is slowly getting better. It can also mean "industrial espionage" (you've got some examples). This is actually stealing the technology, as opposed to merely the economic benefit of the technology. Your specifics are helpful.
Just to recap the first two paragraphs - a Chinese subsidiary of a U.S. company has high tax rates. They can lower it by transferring patents (I assume Chinese patents?). If they have technology and only license it to the subsidiary, they still have the same tax rate. If they have technology and assign it to the subsidiary, then they get a lower tax rate (assuming they show how it is used). I guess I don't understand what triggers the higher tax rate in the first place. If you have no technology (you make lollipops or toothbrushes), do you pay the higher rate anyway because you have no IP to transfer? Also, is the requirement of showing use merely a variant of our "Best Mode" requirement? Isn't the quid pro quo of patents to disclose how the invention is made or used?
As far as the trade secrets, that kind of industrial espionage stuff is no doubt a problem. I just don't see what could be in a trade deal to solve it. Countries can sign anything they want. If they are going to be dishonest, then they will be dishonest.
The court battles are the same. 30 years ago you would not have dreamed of winning a case in China. Now, they are taking baby steps toward a more even playing field. It may be going slowly, but again, I don't know what "official" thing they can promise to do that will change that culture.
The last problem appears to be one that is addressable and specifically codifiable. I was not aware of government agents being in law firms, but I suppose it doesn't surprise me. This seems like a specific problem that can be addressed.