CNIPA November 2025 Press Conference: More Details on Examination of AI Patents and the Chinese IP Firm Rectification Campaign
On November 28, 2025, China’s National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA) held a press conference that provided more details about the recently revised Guidelines for Patent Examination for Artificial Intelligence (AI) and the recently announced Rectification Campaign on IP firms and IP practitioners that includes the Ministry of Public Security. Excerpts follow.
Regarding the Examination Guidelines:
Q: Lizhi News Reporter:
Director Jiang just mentioned that the recent revisions to the Patent Examination Guidelines further improve the examination standards for patent applications in the field of artificial intelligence. We have noticed that the Guidelines have been revised in several recent revisions, all of which have addressed related content. What is the relationship between this revision and previous revisions? What is the specific significance of these adjustments and changes?
A: Jiang Tong, Director of the Examination Business Management Department of the Patent Office
Thank you for your question. Accelerating the development of next-generation artificial intelligence is a strategic issue concerning whether my country can seize the opportunities presented by the new round of technological revolution and industrial transformation. Intellectual property plays a crucial dual role in serving the development of the artificial intelligence industry, providing both institutional and technological support. To promptly respond to the urgent needs of innovation entities for the protection of AI-related technologies, we have revised and improved the examination standards for patent applications in the field of artificial intelligence three times, and clarified them in the “Patent Examination Guidelines.”
The 2019 revision added a dedicated chapter on algorithmic features and clarified the standards for examining the subject matter eligibility, novelty, and inventiveness. The 2023 revision clarified the standards for examining the subject matter eligibility of artificial intelligence and big data, enriched the types of protectable topics, and for the first time introduced “user experience enhancement” as a factor in assessing inventiveness. This revision further improves the examination standards in the field of artificial intelligence, establishing a dedicated chapter for “artificial intelligence and big data” for the first time, mainly including three aspects:
First, we must strengthen ethical review of artificial intelligence. We should enhance the role of policy and legal safeguards, and in accordance with Article 5 of the Patent Law, which addresses the legality and ethical requirements of patent authorization, clarify that the implementation of AI-related technical solutions such as data collection and rule setting should comply with legal, social, and public interest requirements, thus solidifying the safety bottom line and guiding the development of AI towards “intelligent good.”
Second, the requirements for disclosing technical solutions in application documents are clarified. Addressing the “black box” nature of artificial intelligence models—that is, the public only knows the model’s inputs and outputs but not the logical relationship between them—and the potential problem of insufficient disclosure of technical solutions, the requirements for writing detailed descriptions in scenarios such as model construction and training are clarified, and the criteria for judging full disclosure are refined, thereby promoting the dissemination and application of artificial intelligence technologies.
Third, improve the rules for judging inventiveness. Clarify the inventiveness review standards for artificial intelligence technologies in different application scenarios and for different objects of processing, and use case studies to illustrate how to consider the contribution of algorithmic features to the technical solution, so as to further improve the objectivity and predictability of the review conclusions.
Going forward, we will continue to track the development of emerging industries and new business models such as artificial intelligence, and continue to improve our review standards in a timely manner to better adapt to the needs of technological development, providing a solid institutional guarantee for supporting the national strategic emerging industries layout and serving high-level scientific and technological self-reliance. Thank you.
Regarding the Rectification Campaign
Q: China Intellectual Property News Reporter:
Recently, the CNIPA, the Ministry of Public Security, and the State Administration for Market Regulation jointly launched a special campaign to rectify the intellectual property agency industry. What is the background to this special campaign? What are the main rectification measures to be taken?
A: Wang Peizhang, Director of the Department of Intellectual Property Utilization and Promotion
Thank you for your question. The intellectual property agency industry is a core component of the intellectual property service industry. High-quality agency services are crucial for achieving high-quality creation, efficient utilization, and high-standard protection of intellectual property. In recent years, the intellectual property agency industry has continued to develop and its service level has been continuously improving, making significant contributions to building a strong intellectual property nation. However, driven by profit, illegal and irregular activities in the intellectual property agency industry have also become increasingly frequent, seriously damaging the legitimate rights and interests of innovation entities, disrupting normal market order, and hindering the healthy development of the intellectual property cause. In response, the CNIPA attaches great importance to this issue and, in conjunction with the Ministry of Public Security and the State Administration for Market Regulation, has launched a three-month special rectification campaign.
This special rectification campaign adheres to the principles of problem-oriented approach, addressing both symptoms and root causes, implementing differentiated policies, and striving for practical results. It deploys 14 tasks across three aspects: severely cracking down on illegal and irregular activities, focusing on rectifying non-standard professional practices, and strengthening source governance. First, it severely cracks down on seven prominent illegal agency behaviors, including falsifying patent applicant information, fabricating patent applications, acting as an agent for a large number of abnormal patent applications, engaging in fraud, acting as an agent for malicious trademark applications, acting as an unqualified patent agent, and soliciting agency business through improper means. It also strengthens the connection between administrative and criminal law, transferring cases constituting crimes to public security organs for legal prosecution. Second, it focuses on rectifying the practice of agencies and personnel renting or lending their qualifications, accelerating the cleanup of agencies that have obtained agency qualifications through fraudulent means or no longer meet the conditions for practicing, and promoting the streamlining and improvement of the industry. Third, it comprehensively regulates the application, transfer, and operation behaviors of three types of entities: innovation entities, intellectual property buyers, and transaction operation platforms, and accelerates the optimization and adjustment of various assessment and evaluation policies related to patents. By strictly investigating and punishing illegal patent agencies and practitioners, rectifying and eliminating irregular practices, and publicly exposing typical illegal cases, a rapid deterrent effect is achieved. Simultaneously, the campaign emphasizes coordinated efforts from the application, examination, and agency ends to combat improper patent trading, curbing patent applications not based on genuine invention and patent trading not aimed at industrialization at the source. Overall, this special rectification campaign is not only a precise rectification of the problems exposed in the industry but also a powerful impetus for the long-term healthy development of the industry.
Next, we will strengthen organization and implementation, intensify rectification efforts, deepen source governance, and improve publicity and guidance to ensure that the rectification work achieves tangible results, promote the development of the intellectual property agency industry through standardization and improvement, and provide strong support for the high-quality development of the intellectual property cause. Thank you.
A full transcript of the press conference is available here (Chinese only).
C&I Solar Rooftop Installations are now Exempted from Building Modification Permit (Aor.1)
As Thailand seeks to streamline its processes related to the installation and adoption of renewable energy, the Thai government has announced Interior Ministerial Regulation No. 72, B.E. 2568 (2025), issued under the Building Control Act B.E. 2522 (1979). This regulation exempts the installation of solar rooftop panels weighing less than 20 kilograms per square meter from being classified as a “building modification”, thereby exempting the need to apply for a building modification permit for such installation.
What is the new regulation exactly?
Before this new regulation, a building modification permit was exempted for the installation of solar rooftops only on residential buildings and under certain conditions, as further detailed below.
The new regulation significantly broadens the scope of exemption for solar rooftop installations as follows:
Building Type: The exemption now applies to any type of building, whereas previously it was limited to just residential buildings and not commercial and industrial buildings.
Conditions: All previous conditions, such as area limit, structural safety certification, and prior notification, have been removed. The only remaining requirement is that the installation must not exceed 20 kilograms per square meter in weight.
Criteria
Old Exemption(Before November 19, 2025)
New Exemption(Effective November 19, 2025)
Building Type
Only residential buildings
Any type of building
Area Limit
Installation area not exceeding 160 sq.m.
No area limit specified
Weight Limit
Total weight not exceeding 20 kg per sq.m.
Total weight not exceeding 20 kg per sq.m. (unchanged)
Structural Safety Check
Must have structural stability inspection and certification by a licensed civil engineer
No requirement for structural safety certification mentioned
Notification to Local Officer
Must notify local authority before installation
No notification requirement mentioned
The exemption does not apply to ground-mounted or floating solar projects.
What effect will this have on solar C&I development in Thailand?
Based on (i) similar regulatory relaxations, such as the recent easing of factory licensing for solar rooftops and (ii) our discussion with officers from relevant governmental agencies, if the proposed solar rooftop projects meet the weight requirement, we anticipate the following:
Projects without submitted applications: Developers may proceed with installation and will not be required to submit a modification permit application.
Projects with pending applications: Applications that have already been submitted but not yet approved may be discontinued, with no further action required. The installation can commence regardless of the application status.
Area Coverage: This relaxation applies to projects both inside and outside industrial estate areas without further implementing regulations to be issued by the Industrial Estate Authority of Thailand.
It is essential to ensure that all projects remain fully compliant with all applicable energy-related laws, regulations, and standards throughout the development process. In addition, where required by law, developers must secure the appropriate licenses and permits from the Energy Regulatory Commission prior to commencing any construction activities. Failure to obtain these approvals may result in legal penalties, project delays, or suspension of operations.
Are there potential challenges for this regulation?
While the regulation has only been recently introduced, we have identified two practical concerns with the new regulation as follows:
Self-Assessment and Structural Assurance: The exemption removes permit and certification requirements entirely, introducing a self-assessment model similar to tax compliance. No authority or independent engineer is required to verify compliance with the 20 kg/sq.m. threshold. This raises a critical question for building owners: How can they ensure contractors have calculated weight correctly? Without oversight, errors or poor workmanship could lead to structural issues and legal liability.
To reduce risk, parties should consider:
Engaging reputable contractors or power producers with a track record of compliance and technical competence.
Addressing compliance obligations in contracts, including warranties and indemnities related to structural safety and weight limits.
Opting for a high-level technical review by an independent engineer, even though not legally required, to confirm that the installation meets the 20 kg/sq.m. threshold.
Aor. 5 Complications: Projects that previously required a building modification certificate (Aor. 5) because an Aor. 1 was issued under the old regulation may now face uncertainty. For example, if a solar rooftop project is installed on a mall or a large factory and the local authority required Aor. 5 under the old regime, the exemption of Aor. 1 under the new regulation logically suggests that Aor. 5 should also be exempted. However, local authorities may hesitate to forego Aor. 5 requirements for such projects, given their linkage to permits issued under the old regulation.
Until any further clarification/guideline from a governmental authority is issued, developers of existing projects should consult with the responsible local authority to confirm whether Aor. 5 is still required or can be exempted under the new regulation.
Protecting Personal Data in the Age of AI- Lessons from the Latest EDPS Guidance
The European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS) AI guidance for EU institutions has lessons for businesses. This includes when inputting personal information into these tools. The recommendations from the guidance fall into five categories, which businesses can take as potential principles. Namely:
Do your diligence. Know where personal information enters AI processes. Personal information can show up in training, during use, and in the results the AI gives. It is important to check every step for risks to personal data.
Be transparent. Do not just use public data and hope for the best. Privacy laws impose obligations to tell people why their information is being collected and how it will be used. They also require telling people who will handle their personal data.
Be accountable. This means making it clear who is responsible for decisions about personal data and keep accurate records. In the guide, the EDPS reminds EU Institutions that as AI changes, security risks like hacking become more common. So, businesses need to update their defenses often.
Respect the rights of individuals. Let people see, fix, or remove their data, even if the data is hidden in AI systems. This can be technically demanding, but the burden is on the business to make it possible.
Be thoughtful. Do not use a check-the-box approach to risk assessments. Before deploying a new generative AI system, conduct a full Data Protection Impact Assessment, question whether all data collection is genuinely necessary, and prefer anonymized or synthetic data where possible. Keeping up with regular checks for accuracy and bias, plus open communication with staff and users, helps build compliance.
Putting it into Practice: These recommendations were directed to EU Institutions, not private businesses. However, they may signal what regulators expect of businesses when implementing AI tools. As AI laws and obligations continue to develop, consider basing your privacy program on these principles from diligence to thoughtfulness. Taking a principle-based approach to compliance can allow your company to more nimbly react as laws develop and change.
Complying with the EU’s Forced Labor Regulation- Compliance Obligations for Business
The EU’s new Forced Labor Regulation (the “EUFLR” or “the Regulation”) was published in the EU’s Official Journal on December 12, 2024.[1] Under the new Regulation, products that have been created through the use of forced labor will no longer be allowed to be introduced into the EU market or permitted to be exported from it.[2] Although the EUFLR will not come into effect until December 2027, businesses are wise to begin taking steps to ensure that they are compliant well before that time.[3] The Regulation introduces substantial new compliance obligations on all businesses operating in the EU market (or exporting from it), which may require a significant effort from companies that are affected to ensure conformity.
In this post, we offer an overview of the relevant compliance obligations that businesses impacted by the EUFLR need to be aware of. This includes, but is not limited to, implied due diligence obligations that may not be readily apparent and that many companies may not have encountered before.
Who does the EUFLR apply to?
The EUFLR presents challenges to companies that are trying to comply because of how broad it is in scope. The Regulation applies to all companies regardless of size, and is product-based in its application regardless of the industry sector that is involved.[4] It bans products that have been created using forced labor in whole or in part, at any stage of the extraction, harvest, production or manufacturing process. It applies not only to the primary products that have been created using forced labor, but also to their components.[5]
Products of any origin are affected, whether they were manufactured within the EU, present or made available in the EU market, or exported from the EU.[6] The EUFLR also impacts products that are offered online or through other forms of “distance sales” to end-users in the EU.[7] It does not, however, apply to the withdrawal of products that have already reached end users in the EU market.[8]
The EUFLR will be enforced
The EUFLR will be enforced by various supervisory authorities designated by the EU Member States.[9] The supervisory authorities will conduct investigations, including field inspections, when they suspect forced labor has been involved in the extraction, harvest, production or manufacture of a product.[10] Following the completion of its investigation, the supervisory authority will either close the investigation or issue a decision if it determines that a company has violated the Regulation.[11] Other grounds for finding a violation include cases of bad faith on the part of the company, or when the company has failed or refused to provide requested information.[12] Companies are therefore encouraged to cooperate with the supervisory authorities during the course of the investigation.
When a potential violation of the EUFLR has been identified, supervisory authorities have broad powers to take an enforcement action against the company perceived to be in violation. This includes prohibiting the company from (1) placing products in the marketplace, (2) making products available to customers, or (3) exporting products internationally. Authorities may also order the business to withdraw the products from the EU market, or to dispose of the relevant products or components.[13]
The Member States will establish effective and proportionate penalties applicable to companies that fail to comply with decisions of the supervisory authorities.[14]
Relevant obligations, including implied due diligence obligations
Companies face a challenge in trying to ensure that their products have not been made using forced labor. The EUFLR states explicitly that it does not impose additional due diligence obligations on companies “other than those already provided for in Union or national law.”[15] This clarification might appear counterintuitive, given that identifying the risks of forced labor in value chains would seemingly require some form of due diligence. The EUFLR emphasizes that companies must already address forced labor risks through existing EU due diligence laws, including the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CS3D),[16] which the Regulation is designed to complement.
The CS3D (see our post here) requires companies to identify and address adverse human rights and environmental impacts in their own operations and value chain. The CS3D entered into force on July 25, 2024, but the legislation is currently pending after the Commission adopted an Omnibus package in February 2025 to simplify its due diligence requirements, among other things. The CS3D’s future is even more uncertain as the EU has agreed – within the framework of the EU-US Joint Statement on Transatlantic Trade and Investment (the “Joint Statement”) – to consult with the US on CS3D-related issues, with the intention of avoiding an unnecessary administrative burden.[17] The Joint Statement’s Q&A noted, however, that this cooperation will not lead to any changes to EU domestic rules.[18]
Current negotiations around the Omnibus package include a proposal to significantly raise the thresholds for the CS3D so that it applies only to very large companies. Because the EUFLR applies to all companies, if these thresholds are confirmed very few companies will be within the scope of both the CS3D and the EUFLR.
Taking compliance steps
The first step companies should take to ensure compliance with the EUFLR is to assess whether they fall under the scope of the modified CS3D (as soon as possible following the Omnibus negotiation). For companies that are not subject to the CS3D, companies should ensure that they identify, prevent, mitigate, end or remediate any potential risk of forced labor being used in their operations or supply chains.
Companies should also keep in mind that due diligence measures will play a significant role in how they are evaluated by supervisory authorities under the EUFLR. For example, during the preliminary phase, supervisory authorities will ask companies about the status of their due diligence measures.[19] These authorities will grant companies considerable flexibility regarding their due diligence framework, as the EUFLR provides a broad range of acceptable due diligence measures:
applicable EU or national law setting out due diligence and transparency requirements regarding forced labor,
guidelines issued by the Commission,
due diligence guidelines or recommendations of the UN, ILO, OECD or other relevant international organizations,
any other meaningful due diligence efforts related to forced labor in their supply chain.[20]
A supervisory authority should not initiative an investigation if it determines that there is no substantiated concern, or that any such concern has been addressed. Applying due diligence measures that effectively mitigate, prevent, or eliminate the risk of forced labor is the most effective way to prevent an investigation from being initiated.[21]
The Commission will publish guidelines in relation to forced labor by June 14, 2026.[22] These guidelines will be based on the July 2021 due diligence guidance for EU businesses to help address the risk of forced labor in operations and supply chains.[23]
Conclusion and how we can help
The EUFLR creates certain obligations that companies operating in the EU must be ready to comply with by December 14, 2027. Businesses must take preparatory steps, including embedding responsible business conduct into policies and management systems, identifying and assessing impacts in operations, supply chains and relationships, ceasing, preventing and mitigating adverse impacts, etc.
We stand ready to assist with your preparations for the EUFLR’s entry into force. From the drafting of internal policies and assessment of forced labor risks to the analysis of the international reaction to the EUFLR’s adoption and entry into force, compliance gap assessments, and internal investigations, our lawyers and full suite of services are ideally positioned to guide you throughout the Regulation conformity cycle.
[1] Regulation (EU) 2024/3015 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 November 2024 on prohibiting products made with forced labour on the Union market and amending Directive (EU) 2019/1937, available here.
[2] The EUFLR defines forced labor as all work or service that is exacted from any person under the menace of any penalty and for which the said person has not offered himself voluntarily. The EUFLR refers to the definition of Article 2 of International Labor Organization’s (ILO) Convention No 29.
[3] EUFLR, Article 39.
[4] EUFLR, Recital 18
[5] EUFLR, Article 2 and Recital 18.
[6] EUFLR, Article 3.
[7] EUFLR, Article 4. Distance sales refer to “products offered for sale online or through other means of distance sales shall be deemed to be made available on the market if the offer is targeted at end users in the Union. An offer for sale shall be considered to be targeted at end users in the Union if the relevant economic operator directs, by any means, its activities to a Member State.”
[8] EUFLR, Article 1.
[9] EUFLR, Article 5.
[10] EUFLR, Article 19. See also Article 17 for the preliminary phase of the investigations and Article 18 for investigations.
[11] EUFLR, Article 20, 1.
[12] EUFLR, Article 20, 2.
[13] EUFLR, Article 20.
[14] EUFLR, Article 37.
[15] EUFLR, Article 1(3).
[16] Directive (EU) 2024/1760 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 June 2024 on corporate sustainability due diligence and amending Directive (EU) 2019/1937 and Regulation (EU) 2023/2859, available here.
[17] European Commission, Questions and answers on the EU-US Joint Statement on Transatlantic Trade and Investment, 21 August 2025.
[18] European Commission, Questions and answers on the EU-US Joint Statement on Transatlantic Trade and Investment, 21 August 2025.
[19] EUFLR, Article 17.
[20] EUFLR, Article 17.
[21] EUFLR, Article 17(5).
[22] EUFLR, Article 11.
[23] EUFLR, Recital 36; European Union External Action, Guidance on due diligence for EU businesses to address the risk of forced labour in their operations and supply chains.
Adopting an “Orphan Works” Scheme: Proposals from the Copyright Amendment Bill 2025 (Cth)
The Federal Government recently announced Australia’s first statutory orphan works scheme by way of the Copyright Amendment Bill 2025 (Cth) (Bill).
Orphan works refer to copyright materials for which the owner cannot be identified or located. The policy considerations on orphan works are discussed at length in an earlier blog post, Proposed Copyright Reform in Australia – Limited Liability Scheme for Use of Orphan Works.
The Bill also clarifies the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) (Act) to permit use of copyright materials by schools in online teaching environments, as well as outlining other minor technical amendments to the Act.
Reasonably Diligent Searches
The Bill adds Division 2AAA to the Act, which limits the remedies available to copyright owners for copyright infringement if an owner could be identified or located at the time of infringement. Specifically, the Court cannot grant relief against an alleged infringer if:
They conducted a “reasonably diligent search” for the copyright owner;
The search was conducted within a reasonable period before the infringing use;
They maintained a record of the search;
The copyright owner could not be identified or located at the time of the infringing use and therefore permission could not be obtained; and
A clear and reasonably prominent notice was given in relation to the infringing use, stating that:
The copyright owner could not be located or identified; and
The orphan works scheme applies.
On the point of “reasonably diligent” searches, the Explanatory Memorandum explained:
Higher standards of search would be reasonably expected for types of material and uses that present a higher level of risk to rights holder interests, such as commercial uses, more vulnerable materials (including photographs and images) and culturally sensitive materials. Higher standards of search may also be required if the work is a foreign work and the copyright owner is likely to be residing overseas.
Implications of the Scheme
If a copyright owner is identified or located after allegedly infringing use, the scheme will allow the rights holder to seek reasonable payment for past use and for the parties to negotiate terms for continuing use. The scheme also empowers the Courts to set reasonable terms for continuing use or to provide injunctive relief.
However, it is explicitly stated that the scheme is not intended to support large-scale uses of orphan works for training large language models or other generative AI. Instead, the reasonable diligence conditions are likely to be too “administratively burdensome, time consuming and impractical”.1
Overall, the proposed orphan works scheme will provide copyright users with greater legal certainty and increased access to a larger collection of cultural, historical and educational works. Rights holders may also earn new income from works that have been unknowingly or unintentionally orphaned, but with which they are reunited as the owner through the diligent search requirements.
What Happens Next?
The Bill has been referred to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry, and the committee’s report is due on 19 December 2025.
FinReg Monthly Update November 2025
Welcome to the FinReg Monthly Update, a regular bulletin highlighting the latest developments in UK, EU and U.S. financial services regulation.
Key developments in November 2025:
Asset Management / Wealth Management
17 November – Liquidity Management RTS: The European Commission has adopted Delegated Regulations containing regulatory technical standards (RTS) on liquidity management tools under the Alternative Investment Fund Managers Directive (2011/61/EU) (AIFMD) and the UCITS Directive (2009/65/EC).
17 November – Fund Valuation Standards: The International Organization of Securities Commissions (IOSCO) published a consultation report on updated recommendations on valuing collective investment schemes.
17 November – Depositary Supervision Review: ESMA published a report on the outcome of a peer review of the supervision of depositary obligations.
Sustainable Finance / ESG
20 November – SFDR 2.0 Legislative Proposal Launched: On 20 November 2025, the European Commission officially launched their legislative proposal for the updates to the Sustainable Finance Disclosure Regulation (“SFDR”). In a significant departure from the current SFDR disclosure regime, the European Commission proposes a categorisation regime for funds in its place. Please refer to our dedicated article on this topic here.
13 November – CSRD / CSDDD Simplification Mandate: On 13 November 2025, the European Parliament adopted its negotiating mandate on the European Commission’s Omnibus proposal to reduce the scope of the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (EU) 2024/1760) and the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive ((EU) 2022/2464). Please refer to our dedicated article on this topic here.
13 November – NGFS Climate Scenario Guide: The Network for Greening the Financial System (NGFS) published an updated version of its guide to climate scenario analysis for central banks and supervisors.
11 November – Taxonomy Delegated Acts Review: The European Commission has published calls for evidence (CfEs) on two proposed Delegated Regulations amending the Taxonomy Climate Delegated Act ((EU) 2021/2139) and the Taxonomy Environmental Delegated Act ((EU) 2023/2486). Please refer to our dedicated article on this topic here.
10 November – ESRS ‘Quick Fix’ Regulation: Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2025/1416 amending Delegated Regulation (EU) 2023/2772 as regards the postponement of the date of application of the disclosure requirements for certain undertakings (referred to as the Quick Fix Regulation) was published in the Official Journal of the European Union, on 10 November 2025.
7 November – NGFS Climate Scenario Notes: The Network for Greening the Financial System (NGFS) published a series of explanatory notes to clarify and improve the usability of its long-term climate scenarios.
5 November – EBA Environmental Scenario Analysis: The EBA published a final report (EBA/GL/2025/04) on guidelines on environmental scenario analysis under the CRD IV Directive (2013/36/EU).
4 November – Updated SFDR Q&A: The Joint Committee of the European Supervisory Authorities (ESAs) published an updated version of its questions and answers (Q&A) (JC 2023 18) on the SFDR (EU) 2019/2088) and on Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2022/1288, which supplements the SFDR with regard to RTS on content and presentation of information (SFDR Delegated Regulation).
Securities / Capital Markets
28 November – Bond and Derivatives SI Regime: The FCA published a policy statement (PS25/17) on removing the systematic internaliser (SI) regime for bonds, derivatives, structured finance products and emission allowances.
27 November – Credit Builders and Data Collection: The FCA has published its regulation round-up for November 2025. Among other things, the FCA outlines its findings from a review of credit builder products, explains how it is standardising the way it collects financial data at the authorisation gateway and summarises its work on improved digital forms.
27 November – UK EMIR Margin Amendments: The PRA and the FCA published a joint policy statement on changes to the UK bilateral margin requirements for non-centrally cleared derivatives under UK EMIR (648/2012) (PRA PS23/25 / FCA PS25/16), which take the form of amendments to the binding technical standards (BTS) in the UK onshored version of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2016/2251, supplementing UK EMIR.
21 November – FCA Fees and Levies Consultation: The FCA published a consultation paper on policy proposals for its regulatory fees and levies for 2026/27 (CP25/33).
21 November – UK Transaction Reporting Reforms: The FCA published a consultation paper (CP25/32) on proposed improvements to the UK transaction reporting regime.
20 November – Regulated Activities Amendment Order: The Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Regulated Activities) (Amendment) Order 2025 (SI 2025/1205) has been published on legislation.gov.uk.
19 November – Market Conduct Codes Recognition: The FCA published an updated version of its webpage on recognised industry codes to reflect the fact it has extended its recognition of the FX Global Code, the UK Money Markets Code and version 2 of the Global Precious Metals Code.
19 November – Equity Consolidated Tape Consultation: The FCA published a consultation paper on the proposed framework for introducing an equity consolidated tape (CT) in the UK run by a consolidated tape provider (CTP) (CP25/31).
12 November – Neo-Brokers Final Report: The IOSCO published its final report on neo-brokers.
5 November – FCA Intragroup EMIR Changes: The FCA published a consultation paper (CP25/30) proposing changes to its BTS on the intragroup exemption regime under UK EMIR (648/2012). The relevant BTS are the UK version of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2016/2251 (BTS 2016/2251) and the UK version of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 149/2013 (BTS 2013/149).
5 November – UK EMIR Intragroup Amendments: HM Treasury published a draft version of the Over the Counter Derivatives (Intragroup Transactions) Regulations 2026, together with a policy note.
3 November – Overseas Recognition Regime Regulations: The Financial Services (Overseas Recognition Regime Designations) Regulations 2025 (SI 2025/1147) published on legislation.gov.uk.
3 November – Berne Agreement FCA Guidance: The FCA published guidelines for firms on the Berne Financial Services Agreement.
Financial Crime / Conduct / Sanctions
27 November – FOS 2026/27 Plans Consultation: The Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) published a consultation paper on its proposed plans and budget for 2026/27.
26 November – SFO Compliance Programme Guidance: The Serious Fraud Office (SFO) published updated guidance on evaluating corporate compliance programmes in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. The guidance outlines six scenarios where the SFO assesses an organisation’s compliance programme, including decisions on prosecution, deferred prosecution agreements (DPAs), compliance terms or monitorships in DPAs, defences under the Bribery Act 2010 and the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023, and sentencing considerations.
21 November – Updated SARs Best Practice: The National Crime Agency published UKFIU SARs best practice guidance on how to use the SAR portal to submit a SAR to the UKFIU, how to help reporters submit a high-quality SAR and how to help reporters seek a defence under Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (POCA) and the Terrorism Act 2000.
17 November – JMLSG AML/CTF Consultation: The Joint Money Laundering Steering Group (JMLSG) published, for consultation, proposed revisions to Part I of its anti-money laundering (AML) and counter-terrorist financing (CTF) guidance for the financial services sector.
14 November – FCA Regulatory Failure Investigations Policy: The FCA published a statement of policy on statutory investigations into regulatory failure and producing reports.
11 November – FCA Financial Crime Review Findings: The FCA published the findings from a multi-firm review focused on firms’ business-wide risk assessment (BWRA) and customer risk assessment (CRA) processes. The firms involved in the review included building societies, platforms, e-money firms and wealth management firms.
5 November – Financial Inclusion Strategy: HM Treasury published its new financial inclusion strategy, which sets out a national plan aimed at removing barriers to financial participation and building financial resilience.
5 November – BNPL Credit Broking Exemption: The Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Regulated Activities, etc.) (Amendment) (No 2) Order 2025 (SI 2025/1154) has been laid before Parliament and published on legislation.gov.uk with an explanatory memorandum. The Order will exempt domestic premises suppliers from credit broking regulation when they offer certain buy-now-pay-later (BNPL) credit products to customers.
3 November – Central Sanctions Enforcement Hub: A new sanctions enforcement action collections page launched by the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO), the Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation (OFSI), and the Office of Trade Sanctions Implementation (OTSI).
Cryptoassets / Payments
27 November 2025 – IRSG Response on Crypto Consultation: The International Regulatory Strategy Group (IRSG) published its response to the FCA’s September 2025 consultation paper on the application of its Handbook to regulated cryptoasset activities (CP25/25).
26 November – Stablecoin Sandbox Cohort: The FCA publisheda new webpage announcing the launch of a special cohort within its Regulatory Sandbox for firms issuing stablecoins.
25 November – EP Resolution on AI in Finance: The European Parliament adopted a resolution on the impact of AI on the financial sector.
20 November – Property (Digital Assets) Bill: On 19 November 2025, the Property (Digital Assets etc) Bill passedits third reading in the House of Commons with no amendments. It is now awaiting Royal Assent.
18 November – Confirmation of Payee Compliance Report: The Payment Systems Regulator (PSR) published a compliance report on Specific Direction 17, which relates to the confirmation of payee system.
12 November – Tokenised Asset Markets Report: The Investment Association, together with the Investment Management Association of Singapore, published a report examining the challenges and opportunities in tokenised asset markets across the UK and Singapore.
11 November – Tokenisation of Financial Assets Report: The IOSCO published a final report (FR/17/25) discussing observations from a monitoring exercise conducted by its Fintech Task Force to determine how tokenisation and distributed ledger technology (DLT) is being developed and adopted in capital markets products and services.
10 November – BoE Systemic Stablecoins Consultation: The Bank of England (BoE) published a consultation paper on regulating sterling-denominated systemic stablecoins for UK payments issued by non-banks.
7 November – Retail Payments Infrastructure Strategy: HM Treasury published an update on the work of the Payments Vision Delivery Committee.
Artificial Intelligence / Digital Regulation
18 November – DORA Critical ICT Providers List: The ESAs published a list of designated critical ICT third-party service providers under the Regulation on digital operational resilience for the financial sector ((EU) 2022/2554) (DORA).
12 November – ECON Report on AI in Finance: The European Parliament’s Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs (ECON) published a report on the impact of AI on the financial sector.
5 November – HM Treasury AI Skills Commission: HM Treasury published a letter to the Financial Services Skills Commission (FSSC) from Lucy Rigby MP, Economic Secretary to the Treasury, commissioning the FSSC to research and produce a report on AI skills needs, training and innovation in financial services.
Prudential / Remuneration
28 November – PRA Credit Union Assessment: The PRA published a letter it has sent to directors of credit unions, setting out the key findings from its 2025 assessment of these firms and the actions it expects firms to take.
26 November – MIFIDPRU Reporting Quality Review: FCA published its finding following a review of MIFIDPRU Reporting Quality.
26 November – FCA Reviews Data Quality in MIFIDPRU Prudential Reporting: The FCA published its findings on the quality of prudential regulatory reporting by MIFIDPRU investment firms, identifying good practice as well as areas for improvement including inconsistent data, incorrect firm classification and errors in reporting units.
25 November – IAIS Global Monitoring Exercise: The International Association of Insurance Supervisors (IAIS) published an updated version of its global monitoring exercise (GME) document for the period 2026-28, as well as a new set of ancillary risk indicators for the individual insurer monitoring (IIM) assessment methodology within the GME.
21 November – ComFrame and ICS Consultation: The IAIS published a consultation on developing its common framework for the supervision of internationally-active insurance groups (IAIGs) (ComFrame) to reflect the international capital standard (ICS). The related materials are available on the IAIS consultation webpage.
21 November – Joint Internal Model Authorisations ITS: Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/2338, amending Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/100 which contains implementing technical standards (ITS) on the joint decision process for internal models authorisation under the Capital Requirements Regulation (575/2013) (CRR), has publishedin the Official Journal of the European Union.
20 November – FSB Global Stability Priorities: The Financial Stability Board (FSB)published a letter from Andrew Bailey, FSB Chair, to G20 finance ministers and central bank governors ahead of their meeting on 22 and 23 November 2025.
18 November – EIOPA Macroprudential RTS: EIOPA published two final reports (report 1and report 2) containing draft RTS on new macroprudential tools that have been introduced under the Solvency II Directive (2009/138/EC), as amended by the Solvency II Amending Directive ((EU) 2025/2).
12 November – PRA Leverage Ratio Threshold: The PRA published a policy statement (PS22/25) on changes to the retail deposits threshold for application of the leverage ratio requirement.
7 November – CVA Risk Supervision Peer Review: The EBA published a peer review follow-up report analysing the effectiveness of the supervisory practices of competent authorities regarding their assessment of credit valuation adjustment (CVA) risk of the institutions under their supervision.
6 November – Market Risk Framework Consultation: The European Commission published a targeted consultation on the application of the market risk prudential framework.
3 November – Third-Country Branches Authorisation Guidelines: The EBA published a consultation paper on draft guidelines relating to the authorisation of third-country branches (TCBs) under the CRD IV Directive (2013/36/EU), as amended by the CRD VI Directive ((EU) 2024/1619).
Commission Payments / Motor Finance
5 November – Motor Finance Redress Scheme Update: The FCA published a statement providing an update on the progress and timing of its consultation (CP25/27) on a possible motor finance consumer redress scheme. The consultation deadline has been extended to 12 December 2025.
EU Financial Markets
28 November – MiCA Data Standards Statement: ESMA published a statement (ESMA75-1303207761-6284) on technical specifications for implementing a number of data standards and format requirements under the Regulation on markets in cryptoassets ((EU) 2023/1114) (MiCA).
24 November – AI Act Implications Factsheet: The EBA published a factsheet on the implications of the Artificial Intelligence Act ((EU) 2024/1689) (AI Act) for the EU banking and payments sector.
20 November – SFDR and PRIIPs Amendments Proposal: The European Commission adopted a proposed Regulation amending Regulation (EU) 2019/2088 on sustainability-related disclosures in the financial services sector and Regulation (EU) 1286/2014 on key information documents for packaged retail and insurance-based investment products (PRIIPs Regulation), and repealing Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2022/1288 (SFDR RTS) (COM(2025) 841 final) (2025/0361 (COD)).
19 November – CRR Market Risk Call for Evidence: The European Commission published a call for evidence on a delegated act on the own funds requirements for market risk under the Capital Requirements Regulation (575/2013) (CRR).
14 November – Gibraltar Market Access Extension: The Financial Services (Gibraltar) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2025 (SI 2025/1182) have been published on legislation.gov.uk, together with an explanatory memorandum.
U.S. Matters – Private Funds
20 November – CFTC: The US Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry advanced President Trump’s nominee for CFTC Chairman, Michael Selig, in his confirmation process. The nomination will now move to the full US Senate for consideration.
17 November – SEC Exams: The SEC’s Division of Examinations released its 2026 exam priorities. The SEC’s Division of Examinations’ priorities included adherence to fiduciary standards of conduct, particularly in business lines serving retail investors and focused on issues involving emerging technologies like artificial intelligence.
17 November – Rule 14a-8:The SEC’s Division of Corporation Finance published a statement that, during the 2025-2026 proxy season, it will generally not respond substantively to no-action requests from companies intending to rely on any basis for exclusion of shareholder proposals under Rule 14a-8, other than requests to exclude a proposal under Rule 14a-8(i)(1), which is typically used by companies seeking to exclude “ESG” related proposals.
12 November – U.S. Government Shutdown Ends:President Trump signed a bill to fund the government, ending the longest U.S. government shutdown in history and reopening the U.S. federal government. The SEC has resumed its operations, but SEC staff are currently working through a backlog of items received during the shutdown (e.g., reviewing new filings, resuming ongoing exams, etc.). The bill only funded the government until January 30, 2026, meaning the parties will need to reach agreement on an additional extension soon in order to avoid another shutdown.
Nathan Schuur, Robert Sutton, Rachel Lowe, Sasha Burger, Sulaiman Malik, and Michael Singh contributed to this article
“Ceci N’est Pas Une Indexation …”, Or Is It? Wage Indexation About to Get Quite Surreal in Belgium
We sighed a collective sigh of relief when the Belgian government finally reached the budget agreement last week. The negotiations had been really difficult, which is not surprising considering the challenges the government faces: €8 billion had to be found somewhere to keep Belgium’s debt at an acceptable level (acceptable as in not driving us Belgians straight to bankruptcy).
The relief was short-lived however, as details of some of the budgetary measures were released. One measure that has Belgian employers scratching their heads is the government’s decision that automatic wage indexation will not be fully implemented on two occasions during this legislative period.
Belgium indexes wages to inflation as part of its wage setting framework, on the basis of indexation mechanisms included in collective labour agreements that vary from sector to sector. This has created challenges in recent years, as high inflation levels have led to higher wages and this has been affecting Belgium’s international competitiveness.
January is traditionally the time when there are wage increases in a lot of sectors due to the automatic link to the index. The most notable sector in this regard is Joint Committee 200, which represents the largest number of employees in the country. However, under the new budget agreement, on both 1 January 2026 and 1 January 2028, only wages up to €4,000 will be indexed (the salary above €4,000 will not be increased). Companies will have to transfer half the benefit they derive from this measure to the state. This €4,000 ceiling will only apply to the first 2% of the index in a year. It will affect employees with a gross salary above €4,000, which is about 40% of Belgian employees.
The measure will only apply twice, but it will have a snowball effect on employees’ wages for the rest of their career with the same employer. In addition to the immediate impact, the measure will also have an indirect effect on subsequent indexations because these will be calculated on a lower gross salary each time.
While the measure may sound challenging enough to those of us who still have nightmares about their maths exams, things are about to get even worse if we zoom in on the fine print:
Timing: In Belgium, the principle of cost-of-living indexation is not laid down in legislation, but in collective labour agreements that vary from sector to sector. The majority of 1.2 million employees should receive their annual indexation on 1 January. Half of them are employees in Joint Committee 200 who, according to the latest forecasts, can expect 2.22% indexation. If the law introducing this measure is not in place on 1 January 2026, many employees will still receive the normal, full indexation of their wages in January. What happens then?
Diversity: Each sector applies indexation at different times: some annually in January, others whenever the index is exceeded, or even monthly. How will the measure be implemented in those sectors where salaries are index-increased at irregular intervals throughout the year?
Salary: How will the €4,000 be calculated? Monthly base salary only, or will holiday pay and thirteenth month pay also be included in the calculation of this amount? What about overtime pay?
The coming weeks should bring more clarity on this topic – or at least we hope so. One thing is certain though – and that is that this measure is a classic “compromise à la belge” – some political parties had entered the budget negotiations demanding that indexation be completely frozen for the coming years, which was unacceptable to others. And so we ended up with this compromise, which is a logistical nightmare waiting to happen …
Employer Protection Against the Safety Responsibilities of Workers with Overseas Activities—Part 2
Tools for Companies to Implement Preventive Measures, Ensuring Compliance With Protection Obligations and Related Responsibilities
The need for worker protection has as reference figures the Head of the Prevention and Protection Service, the occupational health company doctor (OHCD), and the corporate functions that manage the company’s work activity abroad, also making use of qualified external support on the subject of risk assessment, personal safety, or medical emergencies with the need for medical repatriation to Italy.
The ”Travel Risk Management-Guide for Organizations” (ISO 31030:2021), is a key reference for companies operating globally. This standard provides a structured framework for identifying, assessing, and mitigating risks associated with business travel, enabling organizations to take proactive preventive measures and ensure timely action in the event of an incident or emergency.
ISO 31030 is the essential guide outlining the critical factors to be considered in both risk analysis and the planning and implementation of prevention and management strategies.
This configures in travel risk management (TRM), a process resulting from a clear and detailed understanding of the factors that can influence the dynamics of risk management, broadly divided into two categories: so-called “external” risks and “internal” risks.
“External” risks include: the political, socioeconomic, religious, and legal environment of the destination country; the level of crime; the quality and reliability of transportation and communications; environmental factors; potential health risks; and the quality of the healthcare and housing system. “Internal” risks include: types of business travel; technical and human resources available for risk management; internal processes; corporate governance; organizational structure, roles, and responsibilities.
The path indicated by TRM enables companies to have detailed policies to define corporate strategies for (i) TRM and adoption of procedures for risk prevention and mitigation; (ii) definition of roles and responsibilities, as well as staff training programs. In this way, a clear corporate system of reference is built, enabling the company to protect the health and safety of its employees during missions abroad.
In these activities, the company profiles that manage safety and health protection, provided for by Legislative Decree 81/08—RSPP, OHCD, dedicated company functions—can avail themselves of consulting support from public or private facilities of proven competence and professionalism, which assist them in the assessment and management of risks related to working abroad.
A further application tool is represented by the September 2024 Guidelines of the Italian Society of Occupational Medicine (SIML), which focus on the articulated and specific aspects of health protection of Italian workers abroad and the mention of application tools that enable companies to fulfill their regulatory obligations punctually.
The “Professional Orientation Document for the Competent Physician: Practical-Management Aspects for Workers Abroad” represents a milestone in harmonizing scientific knowledge and experience and makes available indications on the health protocols to be adopted, consistent with international best practices and the company’s protection needs.
The document provides the health contribution to the process of risk assessment for work activity in critical geographical areas, highlighting the relevance of factors that can determine damage to the health of the worker working in that context and absent in the national territory (climate, infection vectors, general hygienic conditions). This is the aspect that requires the employer to extend its position of guarantee even regarding the “specific” risks of working abroad and, ultimately, to integrate the prevention measures adopted in the national territory of Italy.
The perimeter outlined by ISO 31030 and the SIML Guidelines makes available to employers and safety professionals the compliance parameters to be followed to structure an effective TRM policy aimed at minimizing travel-related health and safety risks for workers. These parameters are now commonly recognized internationally and represent a solid reference for the company to assess liability in case of litigation.
From Country Risk Assessment to Workers Health Surveillance: Implementation of the TRM Plan and Application Model
The risk assessment for working abroad, supported by the methodological indications of the SIML guidelines and ISO 31030, considers the geographical area and the country of destination with all its variables (climate, infection vectors, level of health care, geopolitical stability) and thus defines the so-called “country risk.” It follows with a progressive pathway for the health surveillance of personnel i.e., periodic medical checks according to country- or destination-specific health protocols, based on the parameters identified by the risk assessment.
It is necessary to identify within the company, with the support of the OHCD, functions of reference for the management of expatriate workers, which allow to manage the organization of the “TRM prevention system”, as suggested by the International Labor Office back in 1985.
Footnotes
ISO 31030:2021 guidelines;
Italian Society of Occupational Medicine Guideline: “Professional Orientation Document for the Competent Physician: Practical-Management Aspects for Workers Abroad” – 2024;
Proceedings of the 86th National Congress of Occupational Medicine – Pisa 2024, Italian Journal of Occupational Medicine and Ergonomics (GIMLE) 253–254.
Dr. Vincenzo Nicosia and Professor Paolo Bianco contributed to this article
Europe- UK FCA Looks to Accelerate Fund Tokenisation and Direct Dealing
The FCA has published Consultation Paper CP25/28 with a view to accelerating the adoption of tokenisation by UK authorised funds. The consultation also proposes changes to allow direct dealing models, which would facilitate tokenisation as well as improve the operating environment for UK authorised funds generally.
The consultation sets out a broader vision for the tokenisation of portfolio management. It describes not just the tokenisation of fund interests, but also the tokenisation of assets in a way that would make it viable for investors to hold assets directly without the complexity and expenses of an intermediate fund.
The more immediately relevant aspects of CP25/28 are the confirmation that UK authorised fund tokenisation is permissible under the current law, and the FCA’s proposed guidance on how distributed ledger technology (DLT) might be used, which includes:
Confirmation that the firm responsible for maintaining a DLT register must be able to make unilateral changes to the register, and suggesting different approaches to achieve this;
Clarifying that firms must be able to aggregate information on the DLT register in order to identify the total units held by an investor; and
Emphasizing the need to ensure compliance with anti-money laundering requirements even when investors may transfer tokenized units to third parties, and proposing approaches.
The proposed changes to introduce direct dealing for UK authorised funds are equally welcome. The current arrangement in the United Kingdom, where investors buy shares from and sell shares to the AFM, is not consistent with other major fund jurisdictions and creates operational complexity. Whilst direct to fund dealing is currently permissible, the FCA sees benefit in prescribing requirements around how this should work in practice, including requiring the maintenance of an Issues and Cancellations (IAC) Account.
Final rules and guidance are expected in the first half of 2026.
Implementation of New UK Subscription Contract Regime Delayed
On 20 November 2025 the UK government confirmed that the secondary legislation which is required to clarify and bring into force the new consumer subscription contract regime under the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 (DMCCA) [A New Era for Consumer Law and Regulation] will be delayed until autumn 2026 at the earliest. This marks a shift from the government’s earlier position that the new regime (which will impose new specific requirements on businesses offering consumers subscription contracts designed to ensure consumers understand what they are signing up to and can easily cancel) would come into force in spring 2026.
Why the delay?
The delay follows a government consultation which invited businesses to provide feedback on the new regime that closed in February 2025 [Consultation on the implementation of the new subscription contracts regime – GOV.UK]. Following an initial analysis of the responses to that consultation, the Department for Business and Trade (DBT) has written to respondents advising them that more time is required to analyse their responses and prepare a formal government response alongside an acknowledgement that businesses need more time to prepare for the new regime.
As a result, the government has announced that the new regime will not come into force until autumn 2026 at the earliest with further details of timings to be provided in the formal response to the consultation which the DBT is in the process of preparing.
Make your voice heard
This announcement reiterates that participating in government consultations on potential legislative changes is an important and cost effective way for businesses to influence potential changes affecting them – we have already seen this year the government announce that planned changes to the widely disliked Commercial Agents Regulations were being dropped as a result of a lack of responses to its consultation on those [Commercial Agents Regulations: Here to Stay] and it is clear that consultations will play an important part in future changes relating to artificial intelligence [Clock is Ticking for Responses to UK Government Consultation on Copyright and Artificial Intelligence].
Sirrul Choudhury contributed to this article
Poland Takes Next Steps Towards Implementing Pay Transparency Directive
On 25 November, the Polish government published the principles that will form the basis of its new legislation implementing the outstanding provisions of the Pay Transparency Directive. Readers of our blog will be aware that Poland has already published legislation to implement the transparency provisions in the Directive (see our previous blog) and these will come into force from 24 December 2025.
Poland will be implementing the Directive in a standalone piece of legislation rather than by making changes to the Polish Labour Code. As expected, it is clear that the aim of the legislators is not to go beyond the minimum requirements set out in the Directive and to implement it largely “as is”. In other words, as appears to be the case in many other European member states, there will be no “gold-plating” of this Directive.
Below is what we know so far about the new legislation:
Categories of worker: All employers (irrespective of size) will be required to have salary structures in place that allow them to determine whether employees are performing comparable work. Four basic criteria must be used for these purposes: skills, effort, level of responsibility and working conditions, but employers will also be able to use additional criteria, provided they are objective and gender neutral. As highlighted below, a failure to carry out this exercise will put employers at risk of fines.
Transparency of pay setting: Employers will be obliged to make any criteria for setting individual salaries, salary levels and pay progression easily available to employees. Employers with fewer than 50 employees will only be required to provide information about pay progression upon request from an employee.
Right to information: Employees will have the right to information about their own individual salaries as well as the average salary levels of other employees performing the same work or work of equal value.
Pay gap reporting obligations: Employers with at least 100 employees will be obliged to carry out gender pay gap analysis and reporting will be done using tools provided by the Central Statistical Office.
Employee representatives: Employers will be obliged to cooperate with trade unions and employee representatives in relation to joint pay assessments and when undertaking steps to remedy any gender pay gaps of 5% or more. These new employee participation rights reflect current practices in Poland, i.e. an employer must deal with a trade union (if it exists) and, if not, elected employee representatives. It is not yet clear whether employee representatives will have any other information and/or consultation rights.
Fines: Fines for non-compliance will range from PLN 2,000 to PLN 60,000 and will be payable where an employer (or a person acting on their behalf) fails to: assess the value of individual job positions or types of work; provide employees with access to information about the relevant pay criteria; provide employees with certain pay information upon request; prepare a gender pay gap report or perform a joint pay assessment; take remedial action to remedy a gender pay gap. Fines will also be payable if an employer includes provisions in an employment contract which seek to prevent an employee from disclosing the amount of remuneration they receive.
We are now waiting for the draft legislation to assess the specific obligations imposed on employers, but no date has yet been given as to when this will be published for consultation.
UKIPO Set to Increase Fees for the First Time in Years from April 2026
On 5 November 2025, the UK Intellectual Property Office (UKIPO) announced that, subject to legislative approval, fees for patents, trade marks and designs will rise from 1 April 2026. This marks the first major adjustment in years: trade mark fees have not increased since 1998, design fees since 2016 and patent fees since 2018.
Summary of Changes
Fees will increase by an average of 25% across all intellectual property rights. Some key changes are summarised below:
The trade mark application fee will increase from £170 to £205, with the fee for each additional class increasing from £50 to £60;
The trade mark renewal fee will increase from £200 to 245, with the fee for each additional class increasing from £50 to £60; and
The fees for single and multiple design applications will increase slightly, whilst design renewals will see a relatively larger increase in fees. In addition, the fee to register a deferred design will increase from £40 to £50 per design.
The UKIPO cites rising operational costs and inflation as the driving forces behind the changes. For the UKIPO’s full list of current and new fees, see here.
Timing and Transition
The new fees will take effect on 1 April 2026. Until then, current rates remain in place. The UKIPO will issue detailed guidance early next year to help businesses whose fees are due around that time navigate the transition.
Takeaways
These changes underscore the importance of proactive IP management. If you have filings or renewals on the horizon, consider accelerating them to benefit from current rates. If you wish to discuss how the new UKIPO fee structure could impact your portfolio, please contact us and we would be happy to advise on your specific circumstances.
Sophie Verstraeten contributed to this article