China Remains Top Source of Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) Applications in 2024
According to data released by the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) on March 17, 2025, China remained the top source of PCT applications in 2024. Reversing a slight decrease in Chinese-originated PCT filings in 2023, China’s PCT filings increased to 70,160 applications up almost 1% on 2023. The United States follows China with 54,087 applications in 2024 – the third consecutive decline.
International patent applications by origin.
Huawei Technologies was the top PCT filer in 2024, with 6,600 published applications, followed by Samsung Electronics (Republic of Korea, 4,640 applications), Qualcomm (US, 3,848), LG Electronics (Republic of Korea, 2,083) and Contemporary Amperex Technology (China, 1,993). Other top Chinese filers include BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd., ranked sixth with 1,959 applications and Beijing Xiaomi Mobile Software Co., Ltd., ranked eighth with 1,889 applications.
Top PCT applicants
China’s education institutions also placed highly. Top Chinese universities include Tsinghua University, ranked third among educational institutions with 188 applications and Zhejiang University ranked fourth among educational institutions with 175 applications.
Top PCT applicants by educational institution
The full data set is available here.
Amendments to the Amparo Law
Para versión en español, haga clic aquí
On March 13, 2025, several amendments to the Amparo Law were published. These amendments intend to harmonize the Amparo Law with the recent modifications made to the structure and operation of the Federal Judicial System. The changes include:
Establishing that rulings in which amparo is granted against any law will only benefit the party who filed the respective lawsuit and cannot be extended to the rest of the persons. It is important that companies or individuals proceed in court against each authority or legislative act they consider unconstitutional.
Applying the new National Code of Civil and Family Procedures, which recently entered effect for the entire country, supplementarily to the Amparo Law.
Eliminating all references and attributions corresponding to the two Chambers of the Supreme Court as these were dissolved, and now the Supreme Court will only be integrated by a Plenum.
Eliminating references to the Federal Judiciary Board as the administrative and disciplinary officer of the Federal Judicial System replaced by the Judicial Administrative Body and the Court of Judicial Discipline.
Updating of the amounts owed in fines and eliminating references to the general minimum wage as a basis for calculation; Fines will now be calculated based on the Measurement and Updating Unit (Unidad de Medida y Actualización).
Using inclusive language in the wording of the various articles of the law.
Reforma a la Ley de Amparo
El 13 de marzo de 2025 se publicaron diversas reformas a la Ley de Amparo. Dichas reformas buscan armonizar esa ley con las recientes modificaciones que se hicieron a la estructura y funcionamiento del Poder Judicial de la Federación. Los cambios son, en esencia, los siguientes:
Se estableció expresamente que las sentencias en las que se otorga el amparo contra normas generales (leyes) solo beneficiarán a las personas que promovieron el juicio respectivo, por lo que el beneficio no se puede extender al resto de las personas, por lo tanto, es importante que las empresas o personas físicas acudan al juicio contra cada acto que consideren como inconstitucional.
Se hace referencia al nuevo Código Nacional de Procedimientos Civiles y Familiares mismo que recientemente entró en vigor para todo el País, lo anterior es relevante puesto que ahora dicho Código se aplicará supletoriamente a la Ley de Amparo.
Se eliminaron todas las referencias y atribuciones correspondientes a las dos Salas de la Suprema Corte puesto que éstas desaparecieron, siendo que ahora la Corte estará integrada solamente por un Pleno.
Se eliminan las referencias al Consejo de la Judicatura Federal como órgano administrativo y disciplinario del Poder Judicial ya que fue sustituido con el Órgano de Administración Judicial y el Tribunal de Disciplina Judicial.
Por lo que hace a las multas, éstas fueron actualizadas en montos y, además, se eliminaron las referencias al salario mínimo general como base para el cálculo, ahora dichas multas se calcularán con base en la Unidad de Medida y Actualización (UMA).
Se emplea un lenguaje inclusivo en la redacción de los diversos artículos de la ley.
Mexican Government Proposes Bill to Regulate the Energy Sector
On February 4, 2025, Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum submitted a bill to the Mexican Senate to revoke, issue, and amend various energy laws in accordance with the constitutional amendments passed in December 2024. This is part of her administration’s “Plan México” announced on January 13, 2025.
The bill was passed by the Senate on February 27 and by the House on March 12, the bill is on hold to be published in the Mexican Federal Register in order for the laws to become effective. This collection of legislative actions is consistent with the plan to streamline governmental processes that the current administration will be implementing in the upcoming years. This means that even though we do not know the specific content of the new laws, we could expect a completely new system of governmental processes that should differ from the currently used administrative methodology to obtain energy-related permits or any publicly related matter for the sector. The bill’s key point consist in strengthening the Electricity Commission (CFE) and PEMEX, designating them as State-Owned Entities (SOE) and consolidating their legal status as an SOE.
From this, the primary changes to the current Mexican legal framework consist in expediting eight (8) new secondary laws and the amendment of two (2) more to merge their content with the already passed constitutional amendments:
Law of SOE PEMEX and Law of SOE CFE: In order to eliminate monopolistic practices, protect energy sovereignty, and to embed the “energy justice concept” within the development of the new Mexican energy model, both PEMEX and CFE will change their legal status from productive state enterprises to public enterprises.
This change is aimed at establishing the basis for more efficient delivery of public services, favoring efficient use of energy (electricity and hydrocarbons) over economic interest and commercial speculation.
Biofuels Law: This law is created as a legal framework for the regulation of the production, storage, transportation, commercialization, import, export, distribution, and other commercial operations within the biofuels production chain that factor in its valuation. As part of this law, the authority of the Ministries of Energy, Environmental, and Agriculture are expanded to include research and development of technologies that allow for the greater use of animal and vegetable residues with which biomass is generated.
Electricity Sector Law: Repealing the Electricity Industry Law, this provision will govern the generation, transmission, distribution, and supply of electricity and the issuance of authorizations by the Ministry of Energy (SENER). This change will ensure that at least 54% of the annual average of supply of electricity to the grid is provided by state-owned companies.
Likewise, it establishes participation by privately-owned parties in the generation of electricity, individually or jointly, with CFE related to distributed generation or for the wholesale market, self-consumption, or cogeneration. The law also provides for self-consumption permits for electric generation plants between 0.7 MW and 20 MW as long as they are not connected to the national network.
Licenses granted under the repealed law will be allowed to operate under those terms. SENER, however, will promote ways for self-supply and cogeneration companies to implement the new provisions stated in this law.
National Energy Commission (CNE) Law: Through the authority conferred to the Energy Regulatory Commission and the National Hydrocarbons Commission, the CNE is a decentralized agency of SENER, with technical and operational autonomy, which will have the following functions: (i) Granting licenses for the generation of electricity; (ii) Granting licenses for the transportation, storage, and distribution of petroleum products, natural gas, and liquefied petroleum gas through pipelines; and (iii) Approving tariffs for the transmission, distribution, and basic supply of electricity and hydrocarbons.
The CNE will be led by a central board and a technical committee which will jointly adopt decisions.
Planning and Energy Transition Law: To guarantee equitable access to reliable, safe, and clean energy by the entire population, this law regulates the implementation of plans to improve the infrastructure of the energy sector, in order to expand electricity coverage to vulnerable populations. This objective will be led, promoted, and supervised by the Energy Planning Board.
Hydrocarbons Sector Law: By repealing the Hydrocarbons Law, this regulation intends to promote self-sufficiency in the hydrocarbons sector and specifies the way which private parties may participate in the exploration and extraction of hydrocarbons. PEMEX will choose the allocations and maintain the majority participation in these arrangements.
Additionally, it outlines the permits granted and supervised by SENER and the CNE regarding activities involving oil, petroleum products, petrochemicals, and natural gas.
Geothermal Law: As in the case of the new biofuels regulation, this regulation is also based on energy planning, strategic generation, and distribution for social purposes. It establishes a regulatory framework that will govern permits and usage, innovation in financing, exploration, and production of geothermal energy.
Other amendments: The final legal changes proposed by the bill can be divided into two main points: Mexico’s Petroleum Fund Law will now be adjusted in accordance to the public company status of PEMEX, along with the new regulations, and; the granting of powers to the new energy authorities to consolidate a true self-sufficient supply of energy. Both of these validate the new public administration regime which aims to reach energy sovereignty and provide a new market for private companies.
Big Law Redefined: Immigration Insights Episode 11 | Immigration Executive Actions and What This Means for Employers [Podcast]
Hosts Kate Kalmykov and Faraz Qaisrani delve into immigration directives, including increased visa scrutiny, changes to processing times, and new measures affecting business immigration. They address shifts in H-1B interpretation, treaty-based visa reforms, and the potential elimination of H-4 EADs. They also cover adjustments to consular visa operations that may disrupt employee travel, along with policies affecting TPS and humanitarian parole programs for specific countries like Ukraine, Venezuela, and Haiti.
The episode emphasizes the importance of employer preparedness, with recommendations such as conducting internal audits, training staff for compliance, and proactively planning for visa delays. Kate and Faraz also examine enforcement trends, including DHS site visits, I-9 audits, and possible workplace raids, outlining how businesses can mitigate risks and maintain good-faith compliance.
Additionally, strategies to address long-standing visa administrative processing delays, such as filing mandamus lawsuits, are discussed. As immigration policies remain fluid, Kate and Faraz note that employers should consider closely monitoring developments and seeking guidance from immigration counsel to anticipate challenges and ensure business continuity.
Department of State Reduces Period of Eligibility To Use the Dropbox For Visa Renewals
Prior to the terrorist attacks of 9/11 U.S. consular officers were able to process and approve many visa applications without interviews using the Dropbox procedure. After 9/11, when it became known that several of the terrorists who carried out the attacks had received visas in Saudi Arabia without personal interviews, the Department of State seriously curtailed access to the Dropbox for visa issuance and renewals, limiting these to diplomatic and official visa applicants.
Over the next two decades the Department gradually relaxed restrictions on visa processing without interview, allowing certain applicants applying to renew previously approved visas to do so in limited circumstances without requiring a personal interview. Qualifying applicants could submit their passports and documentation through the Dropbox for consular review and adjudication, thereby avoiding the need to come in for a personal interview. Persons seeking to use the Dropbox to reapply for visas in the same category could do so within the 12 months following the expiration of their previous visas.
During the COVID pandemic, in an effort to reduce the numbers of persons needing to come to consular sections for personal interviews, the Department extended the window for use of the Dropbox from 12 to 48 months, greatly expanding the number of individuals who could make use of it to renew their visas. It also allowed eligible applicants to apply through the Dropbox for other nonimmigrant visa categories. The policy proved highly popular both with the public and with consular personnel, as it reduced crowding and increased operational efficiency.
On February 18, 2025, the Department announced new guidelines for use of the Dropbox for visa renewal that reverted to the pre-pandemic 12-month limitation. Eligible applicants will also no longer be able to use the Dropbox to apply for visas in a category other than the one most recently obtained.
The immediate impacts of the changes to the Department’s Dropbox policy will be felt most strongly by those individuals previously eligible to utilize the Dropbox for up to 48 months who are outside the U.S. and wish to renew a visa issued to them more than 12 months ago. These applicants can no longer use the Dropbox and will instead have to apply in person to renew their visas and those issued to their family members. Moreover, a sudden decrease in the number of people eligible for Dropbox renewals will have a negative impact in the availability of in-person visa appointments at posts that previously processed large numbers of Dropbox renewals, such as India.
Individuals currently in the US in valid nonimmigrant status who want to travel outside the US and plan to renew their visas while abroad will need to arrange visa interview dates that will coincide with their planned travel; otherwise they may find themselves stuck outside the US and unable to obtain timely visa appointment dates to renew their visas. If the post where they must reapply has a considerable waiting period for visa appointments, this could prove disruptive to confirmed travel plans.
Employers should also be aware that increases in the number of individuals who require in-person visa interviews to renew their visas will also have a negative impact on first-time applicants who need to make appointments to receive employment-authorized non-immigrant visas. Consular resources are unlikely to increase to accommodate increased in-person interviews, and the inevitable result will be longer wait times and delays obtaining visas for valued employees. Both employers and employees alike need to prepare for challenging decisions in coming months on vacation travel, business travel, and emergency travel when doing so requires the traveler to renew existing visas in order to return to the U.S.
Make Protecting Your UK and EU Product Packaging and Labels Your New Year’s IP Resolution. Part 2: Combatting Dupes and Copycats in the United Kingdom
Everybody knows that trade marks are necessary to protect a brand’s logo and name, and a lot of people know that registered designs are a powerful tool in stopping counterfeit goods, but did you know these rights can also be used to help protect against unwanted “dupes” (also known as “copycat” or “lookalike” products)? Dupes/copycats deliberately mimic a successful product, and they imitate the look and feel to unfairly benefit from the goodwill attached to the product through the “halo effect,” i.e., the impression that if it looks like the original, it must be as good.
Dupes in the United Kingdom
However, there have been some useful cases over the last few years, including a very beneficial UK Court of Appeal case handed down in January this year, and each contains helpful guidance for brands looking to use registered designs and trade marks to protect against dupes and lookalikes:
There is ever a lament from brands that there are not enough legal tools in the United Kingdom to prevent copycats from using a hero product’s unique look, feel or effect to maximise their own sales. We can see this through a long line of caselaw where a passing off claim (an English law tort where a trader misrepresents its goods or services as being those of another) has failed to meet the high threshold of “misrepresentation,” i.e., consumers must actually be deceived and believe the goods to be those of the claimant.
In January 2025, Thatchers won its appeal against the decision in January 2024, and it successfully established that supermarket Aldi infringed its trade marks by selling a copycat cider with similar labelling to Thatchers’ cloudy lemon cider packaging (see our articles here and here).
Thatcher’s Trade MarkNote: The UK Court of Appeal found the judge had erred by not considering the three-dimensional use of the Thatchers’ mark as printed on the packaging and can.
Aldi’s Product
Key points to note:
The UK Court of Appeal found that the Aldi cider “rode on the coat-tails” of Thatchers’ cider, that Aldi purposefully intended to remind consumers of Thatchers’ trade mark, and that it was “entirely possible” to convey that a drink is lemon-flavoured without such a close resemblance; therefore, the similarity “cannot be coincidental.”
Aldi benefited by achieving significant sales with no promotional spending as a result of the “transfer of image,” which created an “unfair advantage.”
The Thatchers’ mark was found to have reputation despite a relatively short period of sales.
In March 2024, Lidl succeeded in upholding the decision that Tesco had infringed its trade marks (see our article here). Although this case it not a “dupe” or copycat case per se, it shows the power of clever trade mark registration strategies, as well as the importance of having trade mark registrations for key elements of branding.
Lidl’s Trade Marks
Tesco’s Sign
Key points to note:
The court found that a substantial number of customers would be misled into thinking that Tesco’s clubcard scheme and prices were a price-match to Lidl for equivalent goods.
In February 2024, the UK Court of Appeal upheld the decision that Aldi had infringed Marks & Spencer’s (M&S’s) registered designs, as their gin bottles did not create a different overall impression on the informed user (see our articles here and here).
M&S’s Design
Aldi’s Product
Key points to note:
The similarities between the designs were found to be “striking.”
A wide design freedom was found, which further highlighted the similarity between the products.
In 2021, William Grant & Sons, maker of Hendrick’s Gin, succeeded in its claim in Scotland for interim relief against the sale of Lidl’s Hampstead Gin. The claim was successful because they were able to show reputation in the Hendrick’s Gin trade mark and that the Hampstead product took unfair advantage of, or was damaging to, the distinctive character or the repute of the Hendrick’s Gin trade mark.
Key points to note:
The claim failed on passing off and a pure infringement claim.
Similarity was found in the dark, apothecary-style bottle, as well as the diamond label shape.
The claim was ultimately successful because of the reputation in the Hendrick’s Gin bottle, so there was no need to demonstrate customer confusion.
Key Learning for Brands
Designs
For new products, register a design wherever possible, as it is easier to succeed in a claim for infringement, and there is also no initial validity review of designs by the UKIntellectual Property Office.
There is no need to prove confusion or reputation for design infringement claims; a claimant only needs to show the same overall impression on the informed user. This can mean less legal spend on obtaining “confusion” and “reputation” evidence.
You can file a registered design in the United Kingdom (and the European Union, if relevant) with a deferred publication date if the release is not immediate to protect the design as soon as possible.
Designs can protect the product’s appearance in whole or in part for unique stylistic elements, such as lines, contours, colours, shapes, texture and materials (e.g., sole patterns on footwear).
Trade Marks
When developing a product or considering protection for a product already on the market, think about what trade marks could be filed to protect the look/feel of the label or product. In particular, consider the following:
The shapes and colours of the product and label.
Filing simplistic versions of the packaging or labelling design, e.g., filing a label without the brand name if certain elements are unique enough.
Filing monochrome versions of the marks, as well as colour marks if the pattern/imagery is distinctive.
Any stylistic positioning elements that could be filed as position marks (although careful drafting is necessary to make sure the trade mark is sufficiently clear to be enforceable (see Thom Browne v Adidas)).
If the overall shape of the product could be a 3D mark.
If it is a product with reputation, think carefully about what makes the product unique and how it stands out in the market.
A word of caution on trade marks: you must have an intention to use or already use the trade marks in some way and cannot only file the trade marks as a legal weapon.
We have not touched on copyright here, but if design and trade mark claims are not available, a claim under copyright could be another avenue to explore.
Part 1 of this series on protecting unique packaging designs in the European Union can be found here.
UK Sanctions Update: OFSI Releases Financial Services Threat Assessment – Part 2
Last month, the UK’s Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation’s (“OFSI”) published a Threat Assessment analyzing sanctions compliance involving UK financial services firms since February 2022, when Russia invaded Ukraine.
In the first of our two-part article (available here), we summarized the six key areas of risk that OFSI identified in its Threat Assessment.
In this concluding part, we consider next steps for UK financial services firms, including performing targeted lookbacks and assessing whether existing sanctions compliance programs and controls are properly attuned to the threats and vulnerabilities that OFSI identified, or whether urgent remediation is necessary.
Recapping the Key Threats
Briefly, according to OFSI’s “Threat Assessment” report[1], the six key sanctions-related threats posed to the UK by firms operating in the UK’s financial services sector are the following:
Failures to report suspected breaches to OFSI.
Frozen funds being improperly maintained, and license conditions being breached.
Usage of new professional and non-professional enablers to evade sanctions.
Usage of enablers to make the payments necessary to maintain the lifestyles or assets of Russian Designated Persons (“DPs”).
Enablers “fronting” for Russian DPs and claiming ownership of frozen assets.
Usage of alternative payment methods and intermediary countries.
Overall, OFSI’s report very clearly signals the growing sophistication of the sanctions evasive tactics being deployed by Russian DPs.
Next Steps for UK Financial Services Firms
Given the potential for serious civil penalties, including fines of up to GBP 1 million or 50% of the total value of each violation, whichever is higher, on a strict liability basis, criminal prosecutions and jail terms of up to seven years, and the indeterminate reputational damage that can follow from sanctions violations, all financial services firms subject to UK sanctions must carefully review their sanctions compliance frameworks in light of OFSI’s findings and recommendations to ensure that they are not falling short in any of the areas identified.
In particular, UK financial services firms would be well-advised to respond to the Threat Assessment by:
Self-reporting any suspected breaches of UK financial sanctions in a timely manner. This necessitates two action items and possibly the support of specialist counsel:
A lookback exercise to identify any past suspected breaches that might not have been reported but ought to have been.
Clear and reasoned internal policies and procedures to ensure efficient alert management and dispositioning, the timely escalation and investigation of suspicious activities or transactions, and the prompt regulatory reporting of suspected breaches on an ongoing basis.
Updating existing sanctions compliance training plans and materials to ensure they pay careful attention to OFSI’s insights and recommendations. Where necessary, firms should consider arranging external training by specialist counsel.
Closely monitoring transactions for indicators of violative conduct, and particularly the many red flags that OFSI identifies in its report, including:
New individuals or entities making payments to satisfy an obligation that previously was satisfied by a Russian DP.
Individuals associated with Russian DPs, including possible professional or non-professional enablers, receiving significant amounts without adequate explanation.
Frequent payments between companies owned or controlled by a DP.
Attempts to deposit large sums of cash without adequate explanation.
Crypto-to-fiat transactions (or vice versa) involving a Russian DP’s family members or associates.
4. Conducting appropriate due diligence on customers, scrutinizing arrangements for signs of “fronting”, and considering the following OFSI observations as triggers for enhanced due diligence:
Individuals with limited profiles in the public domain, including those with little relevant professional experience.
Inconsistencies in name spellings or transliterations, particularly those stemming from Cyrillic spellings.
Recently acquired non-Russian citizenships, including from countries which offer “golden visa” schemes.
Frequent or unexplained changes of name or locations of operation.
5. Determining which correspondent banks are part of the System for Transfer of Financial Messages (“SPFS”), which is Russia’s alternative to SWIFT and which has kept Russia connected to the international financial system and neutralized to some degree the intended effect of related restrictive measures. Since the European Counsel has banned EU banks operating outside of Russia from joining SPFS and since OFAC has warned in recent alerts that it will aggressively target foreign financial institutions who do so, it is important for financial services firms to factor into their sanctions risk assessments any ongoing transactional relationships with institutions using SPFS.
6. Understanding the requirements of all applicable sanctions regimes and remaining cognizant of the fact that there are many sanctions targets under the UK, EU, and US regimes that do not relate to Russia. For example, in its report, OFSI reminds UK financial services firms of the need to comply with sanctions relating to Iran, Libya, and North Korea.
7. Updating sanctions risk assessments to properly account for geographic exposure. For example, in its report, OFSI posits that, in the first quarter of 2024, of all the jurisdictions involved in breaches of UK financial sanctions, the UAE featured the most, followed by Luxembourg. This is valuable information and should be leveraged during any tailored and well-conducted risk assessment.
Additional Considerations
We understand that this is the first in a series of sector-specific assessments that OFSI plans to undertake, with the intention of assisting stakeholders in key UK sectors to understand and comply with UK sanctions. We will monitor for others and keep our readership updated.
[1] UK Government, Financial Services Threat Assessment, (February 2025).
Council of the EU Agrees on Negotiating Mandate on Plants Obtained by New Genomic Techniques
The Council of the European Union (EU) announced on March 14, 2025, that the Committee of the Permanent Representatives of the Governments of the Member States to the EU (Coreper) endorsed the Council’s negotiating mandate on the regulation on plants obtained by new genomic techniques (NGT) and their food and feed. The regulation proposed by the European Commission (EC) would create two ways for NGT plants to be placed on the market:
Category 1 NGT plants: Could occur naturally or through conventional breeding methods; they would be exempted from the rules currently set out in the genetically modified organism (GMO) legislation and would not be labeled; seeds produced through those techniques would have to be labeled, however; or
Category 2 NGT plants: All other NGT plants; rules under GMO legislation would apply (including a risk assessment and authorization before they are placed on the market); they would be labeled as such.
The proposed regulation would exclude the use of NGTs in organic production.
The press release states that the Council suggested the following changes in its negotiating mandate, including:
Cultivation and presence of new genomic techniques plants:
Opt-out from cultivation: Under the Council’s mandate, EU member states can decide to prohibit the cultivation of category 2 NGT plants on their territory;
Optional coexistence measures: EU member states can take measures to avoid the unintended presence of category 2 NGT plants in other products and will need to take measures to prevent cross-border contamination; and
The Council’s position also clarifies that, to avoid the unintended presence of category 1 NGT plants in organic farming on their territories, EU member states can adopt measures, in particular in areas with specific geographical conditions, such as certain Mediterranean island countries and insular regions.
Category 1 new genomic techniques plants and patenting: According to the press release, under the Council’s mandate, when applying to register a category 1 NGT plant or product, companies or breeders must submit information on all existing or pending patents. The patenting information must be included in a publicly available database created by the EC that lists all NGT plants that have obtained a category 1 status. The press release notes that the database would ensure transparency regarding NGT 1 plants and information about patents included in the database would be updated. The press release states that on a voluntary basis, companies or breeders could also report the patent holder’s intention to license the use of a patented NGT 1 plant or product under equitable conditions.
Patenting expert group: The Council’s mandate provides for the creation of an expert group on the effect of patents on NGT plants, with experts from all member states and the European Patent Office.
Study on patenting: The press release states that according to the Council’s mandate, one year after the entry into force of the regulation, the EC would be required to publish a study on the impact of patenting on innovation, on the availability of seeds to farmers, and on the competitiveness of the EU plant breeding sector. The study would also have a special focus on how breeders can have access to patented NGT plants. To produce the study, the EC would take into account the findings of the patenting expert group and input from the plant breeding sector. According to the press release, if appropriate, the EC would indicate what follow-up measures are needed or publish a legislative proposal to address any issues found in the study. The press release notes that if the first study does not foresee any follow-up measures or a new legislative proposal, the EC would be required to issue a second study four to six years after the publication of the first one.
Labeling: Category 2 NGT plants must contain a label indicating them as such, in line with the EC proposal. The press release states that the Council proposes that, in case information on modified traits appears on the label, it must cover all the relevant traits (e.g., if a plant is both gluten-free and drought-tolerant owing to genomic changes, either both of those features or neither of them should be mentioned on the label). The Council intends this proposal to ensure that consumers have access to accurate and comprehensive information.
Traits: The Council negotiating mandate states that tolerance to herbicides cannot be one of the traits for category 1 NGT plants. According to the press release, the Council proposes this change to ensure that such plants remain subject to the authorization, traceability, and monitoring requirements for category 2 NGT plants.
The agreement on the Council’s negotiating mandate allows its presidency to begin negotiations with the European Parliament (EP) on the final text of the regulation. The final text must be formally adopted by the Council and the EP before the regulation can enter into force.
April 2025 Visa Bulletin and EB-5 Retrogression
The April 2025 Visa Bulletin shows significant retrogression of over two years for EB-5 Unreserved Final Action Dates for China and India. The final action date for India retrogressed over two years from Jan. 1, 2022, in the March bulletin to Nov. 1, 2019, in the April Bulletin. The final action date for China retrogressed approximately two and a half years from July 15, 2016, in the March bulletin to Jan. 22, 2014, in the April 2025 bulletin.
According to the bulletin commentary section, “Increased demand and number use by applicants chargeable to China and India in the EB-5 unreserved visa categories, combined with increased demand and number use across other countries, made it necessary to retrogress the final action dates to hold number use within the maximum allowed under the FY-2025 annual limits.”
While other EB-5 unreserved categories remained current in the April 2025 bulletin, the notes indicate that may change later in the year with global retrogression forewarned. The bulletin states, “Please note that it may become necessary to establish a final action date for applicants chargeable to all other countries if demand and number use continues to increase such that this category becomes oversubscribed.”
The April 2025 Visa Bulletin does not include corresponding commentary regarding the EB-5 Set-Aside categories, which remain current at this time across all categories. However, given the limited number of set-aside visa numbers available and the possibility of future retrogression, investors should consider moving forward while these categories remain available, especially those from high-demand countries such as China and India.
New U.S. Regulations on Vehicle Connectivity and Automated Driving Systems: Compliance Starts Now!
Starting today, March 17, 2025, new U.S. regulations impose sweeping restrictions on the importation and sale of connected vehicles (CV) and related components with ties to China and Russia. Issued by the Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS), the Connected Vehicles Rule (CV Rule) aims to curb potential national security threats posed by foreign-made vehicle connectivity and automated driving systems. These restrictions, which will be phased in over the coming years, require businesses to conduct rigorous supply chain assessments and file compliance declarations. Importers and manufacturers must act now to ensure compliance and avoid steep penalties for violations.
Key components of the CV Rule are as follows:
Controls. The CV Rule focuses on two main categories: vehicle connectivity systems (VCS) and automated driving systems (ADS). VCS includes hardware and software that “directly enables” the transmission, reception, or processing of radio frequencies over 450 MHz. ADS encompasses hardware and software capable of performing the entire dynamic driving task for a connected vehicle.
Scope. Consistent with the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking published in September 2024 (NPRM), the CV Rule prohibits the import or sale of CVs and VCS hardware or ADS with a defined nexus, significant connection, or association to the People’s Republic of China (PRC) and Russia. This means the CV, VCS, or ADS was either (i) manufactured in the PRC or Russia, (ii) developed by companies based in the PRC or Russia, or (iii) supplied by entities with substantial ties to the PRC or Russia.
Implementation. Starting with Model Year (MY) 2027 for covered software and MY 2030 for VCS hardware, the CV Rule will be gradually implemented over the next several years to minimize supply chain disruptions. Specifically, the CV Rule will not apply to legacy software and components designed, developed, manufactured, or supplied in or from the PRC or Russia prior to March 17, 2026.
Declarations. Importers should conduct a supply chain assessment to document the origin of all hardware and software used in a connected vehicle. This supply chain assessment will allow for the identification and mitigation of risks while forming the basis for the BIS Declarations of Conformity (Declarations). BIS will require Declarations from importers and CV manufactures to certify compliance annually prior to importing or selling CVs with VCS hardware or covered software in the US.
Declarations may be filed using forms to be made available on the BIS website and should include:
Confirmation that the VCS hardware or covered software is not designed, developed, manufactured, or supplied by persons owned by, controlled by, or subject to the jurisdiction or direction of the PRC or Russia.
The importer has conducted due diligence to inform the Declaration and maintains supporting documents.
The importer has taken all possible measures to ensure all information is furnished to the BIS upon request.
The importer will submit material changes to Declarations within 60 days.
The importer will maintain records for 10-years.
Authorization. The BIS will issue general authorizations for parties to engage in otherwise prohibited transactions, provided the party meets certain conditions. The general authorizations and conditions will be published on the BIS website. Expected general authorizations include exemptions for (i) small businesses, (ii) CVs not used on public roads, (iv) CVs imported for display, testing, or research, and (iv) CVs imported for repair. Specific authorizations may also be provided by the BIS following an application and approval process. These specific authorizations may be granted for higher-risk transactions, where importers and manufacturers apply to the BIS for permission to engage in transactions that would otherwise be prohibited.
Advisory Opinions. Importers and manufacturers that remain unsure whether a transaction is subject to a prohibition or requirement under the CV Rule may request an Advisory Opinion from the BIS’s Office of Information and Communications Technology and Services.
Penalties. Persons who violate, attempt to violate, conspire to violate, or knowingly cause a violation of the CV Rule may be subjected to civil and/or criminal penalties under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. The maximum civil penalty is currently $368,136 per violation with the maximum criminal penalty of $1,000,000. If the BIS has reason to believe a violation has occurred, then BIS will inform the alleged violator with a written notice of the intent to impose a penalty. Alleged violators will then have 30 days to respond in writing and provide additional information to contest the penalty.
For importers of CVs, VCS, or ADS planning and supply chain due diligence will be critical in adapting to this new final rule.
Turning Up the Heat – Ofcom Ramps Up Pressure for Platforms under the Online Safety Act
From today, online platforms are expected to have risk assessments in place to understand how likely it is for its users to encounter illegal content on their service.
Over 100,00 services are estimated to be in scope under the Online Safety Act (OSA), whether they are user-to-user services or search engines. There is no requirement for service providers to have a physical presence in the UK to be in scope, only if they “have links to the UK”, so it is likely that most service providers that offer online services to UK customers must comply with the duties under the OSA.
In addition to the 17 priority illegal content that service providers must conduct a risk assessment for, there are also over 40 recommended measures that Ofcom expects service providers to implement over the course of the next few months and to ‘comply or explain’ if they are not implemented.
Under the Microscope
Ofcom is likely to take a pragmatic approach and prioritise larger sites as well asthose at a higher risk of presenting illegal harms. However, Ofcom has made it clear that everyone under the OSA must comply with their duties or else, they could pay fines of up to £18m or 10% of global turnover, whichever is higher
Suzanne Cater, Enforcement Director at Ofcom has made it clear that “Platforms must now act quickly to come into compliance with their legal duties … make no mistake, any provider who fails to introduce the necessary protections can expect to face the full force of our enforcement action.”
Ofcom has also opened an enforcement programme to review measures taken to prevent image-based child sexual abuse material from being published or disseminated. Given Ofcom has identified smaller file-sharing and file-storage providers, and written to them in relation to their OSA duties, this shows that everyone under the OSA will likely be reviewed and be under the microscope in terms of its compliance with the OSA.
Risk Assessments
There are a number of upcoming deadlines for risk assessments that service providers should be mindful of, including the 16 March deadline which has just passed. Upon completing the risk assessments, Ofcom have indicated there will be a ‘forbearance period’ of up to six months to implement the recommended measures and enforcement will be taken pragmatically.
16 March 2025: Platforms should have completed their illegal harms risk assessments and implement recommended measures by September 2025.
16 April 2025: Platforms to complete their children’s access risk assessment.
July 2025: Platforms must complete children’s risk assessments and implement appropriate safety measures by February 2026. All services that provide adult content must also implement highly effective age assurance.
On the Horizon
Further guidance is expected from Ofcom later this year as it seeks to implement the next phases of the OSA, this includes the protection of children, women and girls, and guidance for categorised services which is likely to include transparency reports much like the EU’s Digital Services Act.
The consultation on the draft guidance for how to protect women and girls online is also open to set out what measures can be taken by service providers. The consultation closes 23 May 2025 and is available here.
Next Steps
In the immediate short term, service providers should focus on completing the relevant risk assessments and begin implementing the recommended measures to the specifications outlined by Ofcom.
Ofcom has made it clear that although it will take a pragmatic approach with enforcement, everyone is expected to comply with their legal duties under the OSA and everyone will be reviewed one way or another. Therefore, it is vital that service providers make sure they comply with the OSA as soon as possible because Ofcom will be turning up the heat on enforcement.
European Commission Publishes Draft Clean Industrial Deal State Aid Framework and Calls for Feedback
The European Commission (the Commission) is proposing to adapt the rules governing Member State economic support to industry, changing the focus of the permitted subsidies that guide the EU economy to a great degree. The proposal forms part of a wave of initiatives aimed at improving the competitiveness of the EU.
On 11 March 2025, the Commission published a draft Commission Communication on a Framework for State Aid measures to support the Clean Industrial Deal (the draft State Aid Framework), setting out the latest evolution in the EU’s State aid policy. The draft State Aid Framework complements the existing EU State Aid guidelines, including the guidelines on State aid for climate, environmental protection and energy (CEEAG) by enabling and accelerating specific investments and activities. Competitiveness and sustainability constitute two pillars of the Commission’s overarching political objectives for the 2024-2029 legislature.
Until 25 April 2025, a window is open for stakeholders to share their views on the draft State Aid Framework as part of the public consultation being run by the Commission. Businesses that could benefit from aid measures, and businesses that compete with subsidized rivals, may have in an interest in submitting comments on the aspects that are most likely to affect them.
The Clean Industrial Deal and the State Aid Framework
The EC published on 26 February 2025 a Communication on a Clean Industrial Deal (the Clean Industrial Deal), which introduced a suite of sustainability and competitiveness measures to address challenges such as slow economic growth in the EU and technological competition, covered in our client alert.
The adoption of a modified State Aid Framework by Q2 2025 is one of the flagship actions laid out in the Clean Industrial Deal to improve EU investment levels and make energy more affordable in the EU. The new State Aid Framework is intended to replace the Temporary Crisis and Transition Framework, as amended, which has been in place in different forms since November 2022.
Under the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU (TFEU), State aid by EU Member States is generally prohibited, unless it is justified in order to support objectives such as economic development. EU State aid policy, which is managed by the Commission, aims to determine where the limits of the economic development justification lie. This is a key EU economic policy question, with serious consequences for the structure of the EU economy and the ability of non-EU companies to compete fairly on the EU market, for example.
The draft State Aid Framework proposes the following changes to EU State aid policy:
Compatibility Assessment under Article 107(3)(c) TFEU:
Subject to conditions, measures that are in line with the Clean Industrial Deal would tend to be more easily found to satisfy the positive and negative conditions of Article 107(3)(c) TFEU.
Aid under the draft State Aid Framework would generally be cumulable with other State aid, de minimis aid or centrally managed EU funds, subject to conditions.
Subject to detailed and extensive conditions, the Commission would generally deem compatible with the EU internal market (and thus greenlight) State aid to support the following activities:
Investments for the production of energy from renewable sources, including the production of renewable fuels of non-biological origin (RFNBOs), as well as investment in storage for RFNBOs, biofuels, bioliquids, biogas and biomass fuels obtaining at least 75% of its content from a directly connected production facility.
Electricity and thermal storage.
The promotion of non-fossil electricity flexibility.
Capacity mechanisms following a target model.
Investments contributing significantly to reductions of greenhouse gas emissions from industrial activities or leading to a substantial reduction in the energy consumption of industrial activities through the improvement of energy efficiency.
Investment projects creating additional manufacturing capacity to produce equipment relevant for the transition to a net-zero economy, its key components, and new or recovered related critical raw materials necessary for its production.
The acquisition of clean technology equipment through accelerated depreciation schemes.
The reduction of risks of private investments into portfolios of eligible projects in the renewable energy, industrial decarbonization and clean tech manufacturing areas.
The Public Consultation
The draft State Aid Framework has not been adopted yet. Rather, the Commission intends to adopt its definitive version by June 2025. As such, the content of the draft State Aid Framework is still subject to change.
From 11 March 2025 until 25 April 2025, the Commission’s Directorate-General for Competition, which is responsible for State aid enforcement and policy, is seeking feedback from citizens, organizations and public authorities concerning the draft State Aid Framework. To that effect, it is running a public consultation, to which contributions may be submitted here.
To the extent that the Commission seeks to simplify State aid rules, accelerate the rollout of renewable energy, deploy industrial decarbonization and ensure clean tech manufacturing capacity, the public consultation constitutes a good opportunity to share any views and suggestions in relation to those goals.