What Next for Diversity and Inclusion Initiatives in Financial Services? (UK)
As was widely reported in the press, the FCA and Prudential Regulation Authority both recently issued announcements (FCA announcement / PRA announcement), the contents of which are variously being reported as “a retreat from efforts to help under-represented groups” (as per the Guardian) and, by contrast, a welcome “response to criticism that [the proposed new rules on D&I] would add an onerous reporting burden for firms and create overlap with government proposals to legislate in this area” (as per the Financial Times).
So is the FCA abandoning its D&I efforts, reducing the heat under them, or simply aligning its efforts with Prime Minister Starmer’s aims of reducing regulatory burdens and boosting economic growth?
Of course, the proof of the pudding is in the eye of the beholder, or something like that (please excuse the potentially messy mixed metaphor), so to assist in sorting fact from fiction, here is our high-level summary of what has been announced and what it means, probably.
Joint FCA and PRA update on D&I – proposed changes not going ahead
In 2023 the PRA and FCA each published a consultation paper entitled, respectively, “D&I in PRA-regulated firms” and “D&I in the financial sector – working together to drive change”. The proposals within the papers were largely aligned but did diverge in some respects. Their stated aim was to “drive change” by linking D&I to a firm’s overall strategy, ensuring that strategy is embedded in the firm’s day-to-day operations and culture, requiring firms to gather extensive D&I data to inform improvement, and developing an understanding of “what good looks like” across the sector. These proposals were fairly complicated and imposed some potentially very onerous requirements (see our Roadmap published at the time here for a reminder: D&I in the Financial Sector Roadmap).
At that stage, it looked very likely that the rule changes would go ahead – it was very much a “when”, not an “if”. Soon thereafter, however, the House of Commons Treasury Committee Report on “Sexism in the City” on 5 March 2024 pushed back on the extensive data gathering and reporting requirements under the regulators’ proposals.
“We welcome the focus of the PRA and FCA on diversity and inclusion in financial services, and agree they have a role to play. We have concerns, however, about their proposals to require firms to implement strategies, collect and report data and set targets. These requirements would be costly for firms to implement and have unclear benefits, while not capturing the many smaller firms that we have heard have some of the worst cultures and levels of diversity. We are also concerned that the requirements would be treated by many firms as another ‘tick-box’ compliance exercise, rather than necessarily driving the much-needed cultural change. Instead, we recommend that all financial services firms, particularly private businesses, hedge funds and other smaller firms, sign up to the voluntary Women in Finance Charter. We recommend that the regulators drop their plans for extensive data reporting and target setting. In our view, a lack of diversity is a problem that the market itself should be able to solve without such extensive regulatory intervention. Boards and senior leadership of firms should take greater responsibility for improving diversity and inclusion given that it should lead to a competitive advantage in the development of talent. Firms that perform best on diversity and inclusion and have the best cultures should be able to benefit from the clear business advantages this provides, leaving those that perform badly in these areas to suffer the consequences for their reduced competitiveness and profitability.”
In short, whilst the Treasury Committee was very much in favour of increased D&I in financial services, it did not believe that extensive reporting of data and target setting was the way to achieve that.
Since then, there has been a significant political sea-change in the UK with the new Labour government holding a significant mandate to make sweeping legislative changes, many of which deal with D&I. As such, it is perhaps not surprising that the regulators have reconsidered their positions and the FCA and PRA have now confirmed that “in light of the broad range of feedback received, expected legislative developments and to avoid additional burdens on firms at this time, the FCA and PRA have no plans to take this work further”.
Our view: Undoubtedly, the proposals made by the FCA and PRA would have placed a significant regulatory burden on financial services firms. The announcements made refer expressly to the pushback from Treasury Committee, but equally both reiterate that D&I within regulated firms can “deliver improved internal governance, decision making and risk management”, i.e their position is that they are not turning their back on D&I, just on the onerous reporting requirements. In terms of those “expected legislative developments” (as per the FCA and PRA’s statements), Labour has indeed announced various proposals in this regard, including ethnicity and disability pay gap reporting (see here for a recap: Labours New Employment Rights Bill – Key Changes UK). There is arguably some sense in waiting until that legislation is passed before moving forward (if at all) with any specific new rules for the financial services sector. That said, as some of the press coverage notes, this does come amidst a wave of D&I rollbacks in the US. There had been speculation about what impact those rollbacks might have in other jurisdictions. While this decision from the PRA and FCA does not seem to be a direct result of the situation in the US, it does undoubtedly add to the overall geopolitical picture, where the perceived value of D&I initiatives is increasingly scrutinised.
The proposed new Non-Financial Misconduct (NFM) rules remain on the agenda, but are given some more thought
Another aspect of D&I high on the FCA’s agenda in recent years has been NFM, following trenchant criticism from regulated firms and professional advisers. Specifically, the FCA has taken flak for its new rhetoric on bullying and discrimination being noticeably at odds with the types of NFM about which it took most enforcement action in the past (this was largely confined to serious criminal activity and dishonesty). That mismatch, combined with a lack of a clear definition or guidance or obvious understanding of the nuances of either bullying or harassment at law, has made it difficult for firms to know the relevance of NFM to their fitness and propriety assessments and when giving regulatory references in any particular set of circumstances.
However, the FCA has committed to fixing this issue and the consultation paper referred to above (“D&I in the financial sector – working together to drive change”) included a very lengthy explanation of how NFM should be defined and when it would be relevant to fitness and propriety (see Appendix 1 to the consultation paper).
Towards the end of last year, the FCA suggested that it was prioritising proposals to tackle NFM and that final rules on its definition and relevance would be published early in 2025. However, while the FCA has confirmed that tackling NFM remains a priority, it has now stated that it “is important that [the] approach is proportionate and aligned with planned legislation. The legislative landscape has also changed since [it] consulted”. The commitment to provide detail on next steps is now only “by the end of June”.
Our view: It seems very likely that the NFM proposals will proceed in some form. The loss of regulatory face if they do not would be too great. However, we note the reference to the importance of the approach being “proportionate” and “aligned with planned legislation”. Labour’s new Employment Rights Bill includes various proposed changes to the rules on harassment which might be relevant to NFM. For example, it is proposed that the new mandatory duty to take reasonable steps to prevent sexual harassment in the workplace (which came into force only in October) will be amended to require employers to take “all” reasonable steps. Labour have also proposed the re-introduction of a new statutory obligation also to take such steps to prevent harassment of employees by third parties. In addition, workers who report sexual harassment will qualify for whistleblowing protection. The view might conveniently be taken that the new law is broad enough to minimise the need for much more work on the position of D&I within NFM.
Most of the ERB is not expected to come into force until 2026 and we note that the commitment made by the FCA is not to provide the new rules by this June, but merely an update on next steps – so while we can expect some further clarity at that time, it is unlikely to be the final answer. It is to be hoped, though not particularly expected, that any revised guidance floated at that time would sufficiently reflect those nuances and allow employers to make proportionate calls on the impact of certain behaviours on regulatory fitness and propriety based on the actual facts of the situation, not its legal definition.
So-called “naming and shaming” changes not going ahead
More briefly, there had been a proposal to increase the circumstances in which investigations into firms were publicised as part of a drive to increase enforcement transparency – however, considerable concerns were expressed and so these plans have been abandoned. The FCA will stick to publicising investigations in exceptional circumstances only, as is currently the case.
Our view: The proposal to “name and shame” investigated firms was subject to widespread criticism from the industry, including concerns about the impact on consumer confidence and various other unintended consequences. In consumers’ eyes, being “named and shamed” would clearly imply the company to be guilty until proven innocent, except that even being found innocent would not remove the stigma of the original publication. For many, this will be seen as a victory. However, we note that the final policy will be published by the end of June and so it remains to be seen exactly how the “exceptional circumstances” provision for publicising investigations will be defined.
Global Focus on Anti-Corruption Increases
While the United States has announced a pause on Foreign Corrupt Practices Act enforcement, the rest of the world is increasing its focus on prosecuting corrupt activities. This is a reminder to companies with a global footprint, including those headquartered in the U.S. that may not have physical operations overseas, that foreign activities likely fall under jurisdictions where foreign bribery and corruption are still enforcement priorities with sizeable penalties.
On March 20, 2025, the United Kingdom’s Serious Fraud Office, France’s Parquet National Financier and the Office of the Attorney General of Switzerland announced a new anti-corruption alliance, the International Anti-Corruption Prosecutorial Taskforce, affirming their shared commitment to addressing international bribery and corruption and strengthen cross-border collaboration. The announcement noted that all three countries have wide-reaching anti-bribery legislation with jurisdiction to prosecute criminal conduct, even if that activity occurs overseas, provided there is a link to the prosecuting country. The Taskforce’s founding statement may be found here.
UK, France, and Switzerland Form International Anti-Corruption Prosecutorial Task Force to Combat Anti-Corruption
On February 5, 2025, Attorney General Pamela Bondi issued a memo requiring DOJ’s Foreign Corrupt Practice Act (“FCPA”) Unit to “prioritize investigations related to foreign bribery that facilitates the criminal operations of cartels and Transnational Criminal Organizations (TCOs),” and to “shift focus away from investigations and cases that do not involve such a connection.” On February 10, 2025, the Trump administration issued an executive order directing a pause on initiation of new FCPA enforcement, a review of all existing FCPA investigations or enforcement, and updated guidelines or policies on new FCPA matters going forward.
On February 21, when we discussed the implications of these policy changes, we predicted that foreign regulators may step up enforcement to fill the perceived vacuum in domestic anti-corruption enforcement. On March 20, 2025, the UK’s Serious Fraud Office (SFO), France’s Parquet National Financier (PNF) and the Office of the Attorney General of Switzerland (OAG) formed the “International Anti-Corruption Prosecutorial Task Force” (the “Task Force”) to pool resources on strategic priorities, cooperation, and “operational collaboration.” The Task Force also stated that it would “invite other like-minded agencies” to join. Equipped with a Leaders’ Group, facilitating “the regular exchange of insight and strategy,” and a Working Group, for “devising proposals for co-operation on cases,” SFO Director Nick Ephgrave reported that the Task Force should help ensure “there is no daylight between our agencies,” preventing criminals from taking advantage of any potential gaps between partner enforcement authorities. While not in direct response to the administration’s recent shift in FCPA enforcement priorities as planning for the Task Force was already underway, the message is clear that the SFO, PNF, and OAG are seeking collaboration and partnership to most effectively and efficiently combat cross-border corruption, leaving the door open for other agencies to join.
The Task Force demonstrates a renewed commitment to tackling international bribery and corruption. Many of these foreign agencies, such as the French Anti-Corruption Agency (Agence française anticorruption or AFA), publish Guidelines in English that detail compliance policies, enforcement priorities, and objectives. Other countries also have enforceable anti-bribery and anti-corruption regulations. As we reported, compliance still matters and the Task Force is the latest demonstration of that fact. Companies operating in relevant jurisdictions should be mindful of these latest enforcement activities, their impact on cross-border investigations, and continue to evaluate and enhance their corporate compliance programs.
EU CSDDD Under US Pressure: Some Insights on the PROTECT USA Act
The European Commission’s (EC) recent announcement of the Omnibus Simplification Proposals signals that it has heard the challenges and objections raised by companies affected by the new requirements of the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) and Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD). But in the US, Senator Bill Hagerty (R-TN), a member of the Senate Banking Committee, has introduced legislation that could impose substantial challenges to CSDDD compliance for US companies.
As a reminder, the EC proposed amendments for the implementation and transposition deadlines of the CSRD and CSDDD, as well as amending the scope and requirements of the CSRD and CSDDD. But the Prevent Regulatory Overreach from Turning Essential Companies into Targets Act of 2025 (PROTECT USA Act)[1] proposed by Senator Hagerty targets “foreign sustainability due diligence regulation” such as the CSDDD, and would prohibit US companies from being forced to comply with the CSDDD. If enacted as currently drafted, US companies will be faced with a significant conflict in complying with the PROTECT USA Act and the CSDDD.
Further, the PROTECT USA Act intends to protect US companies from any enforcement action by the EU or its member states for non-compliance with the CSDDD. Section 5(a) of the PROTECT USA Act states: “No person may take any adverse action towards an entity integral to the national interests of the United States for action or inaction related to a foreign sustainability due diligence regulation.”[2] And § 5(b) prevents U.S. federal or state courts from enforcing any judgment by a foreign court relating to any foreign sustainability due diligence regulation “unless otherwise provided by an Act of Congress.”[3]
The PROTECT USA Act could apply to a significant number of US companies, defining “an entity integral to the national interest of the United States” as “any partnership, corporation, limited liability company, or other business entity that does business with any part of the Federal Government, including Federal contract awards or leases.”[4] It also includes entities:
[O]rganized under the laws of any State or territory within the United States, or of the District of Columbia, or under any Act of Congress or a foreign subsidiary of any such entity that—
(i) derives not less than 25 percent of its revenue from activities related to the extraction or production of raw materials from the earth, including—
(I) cultivating biomass (whether or not for human consumption);
(II) exploring or producing fossil fuels;
(III) mining; and
(IV) processing any material de-rived from an activity described in subclause (I), (II), or (III) for human use or benefit;
(ii) has a primary North American Industry Classification System code or foreign equivalent associated with the manufacturing sector; or
(iii) derives not less than 25 percent of its revenue from activities related to the mechanical, physical, or chemical transformation of materials, substances, or components into new products;
(iv) is engaged in—
(I) the production of arms or other products integral to the national defense of the United States; or
(II) the production, mining, or processing of any critical mineral.[4]
And the PROTECT USA Act has a catch-all that will apply to any entity “the President otherwise identifies as integral to the national interests of the United States.”[5]
The PROTECT USA Act builds on opposition to the CSDDD raised during the Biden Administration and, given the Republican majorities in both the US House and Senate, advances the argument that the CSDDD challenges US sovereignty. In a February 26, 2025 bicameral letter to Scott Bessent, the Secretary of the US Department of the Treasury and Kevin Hassett, the Director of the White House National Economic Council, legislators described the CSDDD as “a serious and unwarranted regulatory overreach, imposing significant economic and legal burdens on U.S. companies.”[6] Thus, the PROTECT USA Act may serve as an incentive to further limit the scope of the CSDDD.
We recently reviewed how companies should address CSRD requirements while the EC works through the Omnibus Simplification Proposals.[7] The PROTECT USA Act adds an additional layer of complexity for US companies in navigating the uncertainty of the EC’s legislative process along with the significant limits the PROTECT USA Act might present. SPB’s policy experts in the US and EU can support companies in making prudent business decisions in a rapidly changing legislative environment.
[1] https://www.hagerty.senate.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/HLA25119.pdf
[2] Id.
[3] Id.
[4] Id.
[5] Id.
[6] https://www.banking.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/csddd_letter_to_treasury-nec_draft_22525_zg.pdf.pdf
[7] https://natlawreview.com/article/what-should-companies-do-csrd-while-they-wait-eu-make-its-mind
New Decree for Patent Linkage by the Mexican Government.
On March 6, 2025, a Decree providing guidelines about the technical collaboration between the Mexican Institute of Industrial Property (IMPI) and the Federal Commission for Protection against Health Risks (COFEPRIS) was published in the Federal Official Gazette. This Decree follows the draft published on February 12, 2025, noted in our newsletter dated February 19, 2025. https://natlawreview.com/article/draft-decree-patent-linkage-mexican-government.
In brief, the key points of the Decree under report are the following:
Establishing the rules for communications between IMPI and COFEPRIS.
Guidelines for new “forms,” which will be published on the official web site of both authorities. Up to the date of circulation of this newsletter, these “forms” have not been published yet.
The information that should be included in the Allopathic Medicines Gazette and the corresponding technical communications between COFEPRIS and IMPI.
COFEPRIS will publish a list of Marketing Authorizations (MA) Applications for generics and biosimilars. This list (with no rules on temporality and forms) will be considered as a warning to the public for purposes of detecting potential harm to patent rights.
In case of potential harm to patent rights, an opposition “form” can be filed by the patent owner or its licensee and/or sublicensee before COFEPRIS within the statutory term of 10 working days after the publication date of such list.
The communication rendered by COFEPRIS to IMPI, concerning the technical communication should attach the “opposition form”, along with the information provided by the patent owner or its licensee and/or sublicensee.
The most relevant provisions included within the decree are the publication of the list of MA applications and the “opportunity” to file an opposition by the patent owner if he considers that a patent right is affected by the MA applications.
The Decree is legally founded on certain provisions of the IP Law, Health Regulations, and the USMCA. It seems that the decree intends to comply with the provisions of the USMCA, where it is provided that if a person/company (patent owner) is directly affected by a proceeding, in this case, the MA applications, they must be given with a reasonable opportunity to present facts and arguments, prior to issuing the corresponding decision on the MA application.
In OLIVARES, we consider that the USMCA establishes the burden to the State Party to provide the corresponding notice to the patent holder who would be directly affected by the marketing authorization application proceeding, on the contrary, this Decree imposes on the patent holders the burden of identifying themselves as affected parties without being personally notified by COFEPRIS or IMPI.
In addition, it seems that the opposition opportunity will take place before COFEPRIS and not IMPI, even though IMPI is the patent office, i.e., the authority that handles the information related to the owner or its licensee and/or sublicensee, namely, those who could be directly impacted by the patent linkage mechanism. Nevertheless, it is expected that the details of this matter should be described later, through other official texts.
The guidelines provided are a step forward in the Mexican Linkage System, as it clarifies the information to be exchanged by these authorities. Nonetheless, for the reasons commented, we consider that the Decree does not observe the obligations of proper notice established in the USMCA for the Mexican Patent Linkage. This conclusion could be summarized in the sense that the legal burden, obligations, and formalities of a notice process are different from an opposition system.
The Decree will come into force within the next 60 working days of its publication; namely, it will enter into force on June 3, 2025.
At OLIVARES, we will continue to follow up on the upcoming changes and application of this Decree, and we will keep our clients closely informed on this matter, monitoring how the decree will be implemented within practice.
Corporate Transparency Act 2.0 – Narrowing Reporting Requirements
On March 21, 2025, the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (“FinCEN”) issued an interim final rule that significantly changes the reporting requirements under the Corporate Transparency Act (“CTA”). This alert summarizes the key changes to the reporting requirements and what they mean for your business.
Key Takeaways
Domestic companies1 are now exempt from all reporting requirements.
Foreign companies and foreign pooled investment vehicles no longer need to report U.S. person beneficial owners2 (but will need to report any non-U.S. person beneficial owners).
Compliance is still effectively voluntary as FinCEN has announced it will not be enforcing penalties and this rule is not yet effective.
Exemption for Domestic Companies
All domestic reporting companies are now completely exempt from the requirement to:
File initial beneficial ownership information (“BOI”) reports.
Update previously filed BOI reports.
Correct previously filed BOI reports.
FinCEN states that this reduction of requirements will eliminate the substantial compliance burdens for millions of U.S. businesses whose information would not be “highly useful” in the efforts to “detect, prevent, or prosecute money laundering, the financing of terrorism of terrorism, proliferation finance, serious tax fraud, or other crimes.”3
Changes for Foreign Companies
Foreign companies still must report beneficial ownership information, but with two important exemptions:
Foreign companies are exempt from reporting beneficial ownership information for any U.S. persons who are beneficial owners.
U.S. persons are exempt from providing their beneficial ownership information to foreign companies.
Foreign companies with only U.S. beneficial owners will not need to report any beneficial owners.
Changes for Foreign Pooled Investment Vehicles
Foreign pooled investment vehicles now only need to report:
Non-U.S. individuals who exercise substantial control over the entity (not an individual who has the greatest authority over the strategic management of the entity).
If multiple non-U.S. individuals exercise control, only the non-U.S. person with the greatest authority must be reported.
Foreign pooled investment vehicles with only U.S. beneficial owners will not need to report any beneficial owners.
Extended Deadline
Foreign reporting companies and pooled investment vehicles will have until the later of 30 days after this rule is published in the federal register, or 30 days after their registration to do business in the United States.
Next Steps
FinCEN is accepting comments on this interim final rule. The agency will assess these exemptions based on public comments and plans on issuing a final rule later this year.
1 See our prior advisories on the general application of the CTA and its specific application for those with entities for estate planning purposes for information on what is a domestic reporting company, a foreign reporting company, and beneficial owner information.
2 As a reminder, generally a beneficial owner is any individual who (directly or indirectly) (a) exercises substantial control over the company or (b) owns or controls at least 25% of the company’s ownership interests.
3 Please see full rule and explanation from FinCEN here.
Ex officio interventions by the Anti-Corruption and Good Government Ministry in public tenders in México
As part of the verification powers of the Anti-Corruption and Good Government Ministry in the bidding and contracting processes of the Public Sector, the Law on Acquisitions, Leases, and Services of the Public Sector allows it to carry out ex officio interventions to review the legality of public tender procedures.
As part of this function and in response to complaints filed by some pharmaceutical companies regarding the possible commission of acts of corruption, mainly related to the price offered for medicines, the aforementioned Ministry is carrying out an ex officio intervention to the convening authority called Laboratorios de Biológicos y Reactivos de México (BIRMEX) of the procedure of the open international public tender for the consolidated acquisition of medicines, therapeutic goods, healing material and diagnostic aids for fiscal years 2025 and 2026 in order to detect possible irregularities, and as part of said procedure, the entities who were awarded are being required to appear as third interested parties to make statements and to be able to provide information they consider relevant regarding the aforementioned tender process.
These ex officio interventions are not common, and the authorities are carrying them out with greater emphasis to supervise and document the bidding process, and if necessary, they could cancel purchases related to the codes that have not complied with the rules of the process.
Canada Releases Final State of PFAS Report and Proposed Risk Management Approach
On March 5, 2025, Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC) announced the availability of its final State of Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) Report (State of PFAS Report) and proposed risk management approach for PFAS, excluding fluoropolymers. The State of PFAS Report concludes that the class of PFAS, excluding fluoropolymers, is harmful to human health and the environment. To address these risks, on March 8, 2025, Canada published a proposed order that would add the class of PFAS, excluding fluoropolymers, to Part 2 of Schedule 1 to the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 (CEPA). ECCC states in its March 5, 2025, press release that it will prioritize the protection of health and the environment while considering factors such as the availability of alternatives. Phase 1, starting in 2025, will address PFAS in firefighting foams to protect better firefighters and the environment. Phase 2 will focus on limiting exposure to PFAS in products that are not needed for the protection of human health, safety, or the environment. ECCC notes that this will include products like cosmetics, food packaging materials, and textiles. ECCC states that it will publish a final decision on the proposed addition of 131 individual PFAS to the National Pollutant Release Inventory (NPRI) with reporting to take place by June 2026 for PFAS releases that occurred during the 2025 calendar year. ECCC states that these data will improve its understanding of how PFAS are used in Canada, help it evaluate possible industrial PFAS contamination, and support efforts to reduce environmental and human exposure to harmful substances. Comments on the proposed risk management approach and the proposed order to add the class of PFAS, excluding fluoropolymers, to CEPA Schedule 1 Part 2 are due May 7, 2025.
State of PFAS Report
The State of PFAS Report provides a qualitative assessment of the fate, sources, occurrence, and potential impacts of PFAS on the environment and human health to inform decision-making on PFAS in Canada. The term PFAS refers to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development’s definition, which is: “fluorinated substances that contain at least one fully fluorinated methyl or methylene carbon atom (without any H/Cl/Br/I atom attached to it), that is, with a few noted exceptions, any chemical with at least a perfluorinated methyl group (–CF3) or a perfluorinated methylene group (–CF2–) is a PFAS.” The class of PFAS is comprised of substances meeting this definition. ECCC states that the definition captures substances with a wide range of structures and properties, from discrete chemicals, such as perfluorocarboxylic acids, perfluorosulfonic acids, and fluorotelomer alcohols, to side-chain fluorinated polymers, perfluoropolyethers, and fluoropolymers. According to ECCC, some PFAS on the market also possess structural attributes other than perfluoroalkyl chains (for example, inclusion of ether linkages or chlorine atoms in the fluorinated hydrocarbon chains).
The State of PFAS Report notes that there is evidence to suggest that fluoropolymers may have significantly different exposure and hazard profiles when compared with other PFAS in the class. ECCC defines fluoropolymers as “polymers made by polymerization or copolymerization of olefinic monomers (at least 1 of which contains fluorine bonded to 1 or both of the olefinic carbon atoms) to form a carbon-only polymer backbone with fluorine atoms directly bonded to it.” According to ECCC, given information suggesting their differences from the other PFAS in the class, additional work on fluoropolymers is warranted. ECCC does not address PFAS meeting the definition of fluoropolymers within the State of PFAS Report. ECCC plans to consider them in a separate assessment.
According to the State of PFAS Report, the following is known on the basis of current information:
The broad use of PFAS, their transport in the environment, and their ubiquitous presence have resulted in continuous environmental and human exposure to multiple PFAS, a finding that is supported by both environmental monitoring and human biomonitoring studies, including higher exposures in certain human subpopulations;
Given that PFAS are extremely persistent and have a broad range of uses leading to continued releases to the environment, the amount of PFAS in the environment is expected to increase;
Exposure to well-studied PFAS can affect multiple systems and organs in both humans and wildlife. Recent information demonstrates that effects on human health occur at lower levels than indicated by previous studies;
Some well-studied PFAS have demonstrated the potential to bioaccumulate and biomagnify in food webs to an extent that can cause adverse effects in biota, even at low environmental concentrations; and
Potential for cumulative exposure and effects are important considerations as most humans and wildlife exposures occur to unknown mixtures of PFAS.
On the basis of what is known about well-studied PFAS and the potential for other PFAS to behave similarly, and on the expectation that combined exposures to multiple PFAS increase the likelihood of detrimental impacts, ECCC states that it concludes that the class of PFAS, excluding fluoropolymers, meets the criteria under CEPA Section 64(a) as these substances are entering or may enter the environment in a quantity or concentration or under conditions that have or may have immediate or long-term harmful effects on the environment or its biological diversity. ECCC concludes that the class of PFAS, excluding fluoropolymers, does not meet the criteria under CEPA Section 64(b), however, as these substances are not entering the environment in a quantity or concentration or under conditions that constitute or may constitute a danger to the environment on which life depends.
According to the State of PFAS Report, on the basis of what is known about well-studied PFAS and the potential for other PFAS to behave similarly, and on the expectation that combined exposures to multiple PFAS increase the likelihood of detrimental impacts, ECCC concludes that the class of PFAS, excluding fluoropolymers, meets the criteria under CEPA Section 64(c) as these substances are entering or may enter the environment in a quantity or concentration or under conditions that constitute or may constitute a danger in Canada to human life or health.
ECCC therefore concludes that the class of PFAS, excluding fluoropolymers, meets one or more of the criteria set out in CEPA Section 64.
According to the State of PFAS Report, well-studied PFAS meet the persistence criteria set out in the Persistence and Bioaccumulation Regulations of CEPA. Based on available information and structural similarities, ECCC expects that other substances within the class of PFAS are also highly persistent or transform to persistent PFAS. ECCC states that it therefore determines that the class of PFAS meets the persistence criteria as set out in the Persistence and Bioaccumulation Regulations of CEPA. ECCC notes that given that fluoropolymers have been excluded from this assessment, they are also excluded from this determination with regard to the Persistence and Bioaccumulation Regulations of CEPA.
ECCC states that there is a high concern identified for the biomagnification (BMF) and trophic magnification (TMF) potential of well-studied PFAS in air-breathing organisms; the numeric criteria for bioaccumulation, outlined in the Persistence and Bioaccumulation Regulations, however, are based on bioaccumulation data for freshwater aquatic species that do not account for biomagnification potential. Therefore, application of the criteria would not reflect the concern for dietary-based biomagnification, the primary route of food web exposure identified for well-studied PFAS. As a result, according to ECCC, the bioaccumulation potential of PFAS cannot reasonably be determined according to the regulatory criteria set out in the Persistence and Bioaccumulation Regulations of CEPA.
Proposed Risk Management Approach
ECCC concludes that the class of PFAS, excluding fluoropolymers, meet the criteria under CEPA Sections 64(a) and (c), as these substances are entering or may enter the environment in a quantity or concentration or under conditions that have or may have immediate or long-term harmful effects on the environment or its biological diversity, and that constitute or may constitute a danger in Canada to human life or health.
For the purpose of CEPA Section 77(6)(c)(i), ECCC proposes the following new risk management actions through a phased prohibition under CEPA:
Phase 1: Prohibition of the use of PFAS, excluding fluoropolymers, not currently regulated in firefighting foams, due to high potential for environmental and human exposure.
Phase 2: Prohibition of the uses of PFAS, excluding fluoropolymers, not needed for the protection of health, safety, or the environment, which includes consumer applications. ECCC states that prioritization of uses for prohibition is based on, and will take into account, costs and benefits, availability of suitable alternatives, and other socio-economic considerations. Proposed uses to be regulated in Phase 2 include:
Cosmetics;
Natural health products and non-prescription drugs;
Food packaging materials, food additives, and non-industrial food contact products such as paper plates, bowls, and cups;
Paint and coating, adhesive and sealant, and other building materials available to consumers;
Consumer mixtures such as cleaning products, waxes, and polishes;
Textile uses (including in personal protective equipment (PPE) such as firefighting turnout gear); and
Ski waxes.
Phase 3: Prohibition of the uses of PFAS, excluding fluoropolymers, requiring further evaluation of the role of PFAS for which currently there may not be feasible alternatives and taking into consideration socio-economic factors, including:
Fluorinated gas applications;
Prescription drugs (human and veterinary);
Medical devices;
Industrial food contact materials;
Industrial sectors such as mining and petroleum; and
Transport and military applications.
ECCC states that at each phase of risk management it will consider exemptions, when necessary, with attention to feasible alternatives and socio-economic factors. To inform ECCC’s risk management decision-making, information on the following topics should be provided by May 7, 2025):
Availability of alternatives to PFAS, or lack thereof, in products and applications in which they are currently used;
Estimated timeframe to transition to alternatives to PFAS, including any challenges;
Socio-economic impacts of replacing PFAS, including costs and feasibility of elimination or replacement; and
Quantities and concentrations of PFAS (including Chemical Abstracts Service Registry Number® (CAS RN®), units of measurement, and applications) in products manufactured in, imported into, and sold in Canada (if not already provided through the July 27, 2024, Section 71 notice).
Commentary
Canada’s release of the State of PFAS Report, proposed risk management approach, and proposed order to add PFAS, excluding fluoropolymers, to Part 2 of CEPA Schedule 1 follows soon after the January 29, 2025, deadline for mandatory reporting for 312 PFAS. In its July 27, 2024, Canada Gazette notice, Canada stated that it required information for the purpose of assessing whether the 312 PFAS listed in the notice “are toxic or are capable of becoming toxic, or for the purpose of assessing whether to control, or the manner in which to control the listed substances.” The March 8, 2025, proposed order acknowledges that “[t]he annual quantity of PFAS used in Canada is unknown, as the information required to estimate this parameter (for example type and concentrations of PFAS in products available to consumers and in commercial and industrial applications) was not identified at the time of this analysis.” Canada states that it anticipates that the mandatory survey will “provide insight on annual quantities of PFAS used in Canada,” but it may be more likely that the survey will highlight the complexity of the supply chain and the difficulty in obtaining information from suppliers.
Stakeholders should carefully review the proposed risk management approach. Canada requests information on the availability of PFAS alternatives, the estimated timeframe to transition to alternatives, the costs and feasibility of elimination or replacement, and the quantities and concentrations of PFAS in products manufactured in, imported into, and sold in Canada (if not already reported through the mandatory survey). It is unlikely many entities will volunteer such specific information on PFAS in their products and companies that were not subject to the mandatory survey may not know. Yet without evidence on the critical use of PFAS in products and the lack of alternatives, Canada may begin prohibiting uses.
Most agree that ultimately the proposal will succeed, and PFAS will be deemed CEPA toxic and listed on Part 2 of CEPA Schedule 1. Given the PFAS risk evaluations of many other authoritative bodies, it is more likely than not that ECCC’s scientific determination is defensible. That the proposal seeks to exempt fluoropolymers is noteworthy, however, and stakeholders may wish to support the exemption.
Regulations on the Implementation of the Anti-Foreign Sanctions Law of the People’s Republic of China – Foreign-Owned Intellectual Property Can Be Seized
On March 23, 2025, the State Council of the People’s Republic of China promulgated the Regulations on the Implementation of the Anti-Foreign Sanctions Law of the People’s Republic of China (实施〈中华人民共和国反外国制裁法〉的规定). Article 7 of the Regulations specifically allows for the seizure of intellectual property of those that “directly or indirectly participate in the drafting, decision-making, or implementation of the discriminatory restrictive measures in Article 3 of Anti-Foreign Sanctions Law.” Paragraph 2, Article 3 of the Law reads, “Where foreign nations violate international law and basic norms of international relations to contain or suppress our nation under any kind of pretext or based on the laws of those nations to employ discriminatory restrictive measures against our nation’s citizens or interfere with our nation’s internal affairs, our nation has the right to employ corresponding countermeasures.”
Article 7 of the Regulations reads:
The seizure, detention, and freezing referred to in Paragraph 2 of Article 6 of the Anti-Foreign Sanctions Law shall be implemented by the public security, finance, natural resources, transportation, customs, market supervision, financial management, intellectual property and other relevant departments of the State Council in accordance with their duties and powers.
Other types of property in Article 6, Paragraph 2 of the Anti-Foreign Sanctions Act include cash, bills, bank deposits, securities, fund shares, equity, intellectual property rights, accounts receivable and other property and property rights.
Relevant Articles of Law follow:
Article 3: The People’s Republic of China opposes hegemony and power politics and opposes any country’s interference in China’s internal affairs by any means and under any pretext.
Where foreign nations violate international law and basic norms of international relations to contain or suppress our nation under any kind of pretext or based on the laws of those nations to employ discriminatory restrictive measures against our nation’s citizens or interfere with our nation’s internal affairs, our nation has the right to employ corresponding countermeasures.
Article 4: The relevant departments of the State Council may decide to enter persons or organizations that directly or indirectly participate in the drafting, decision-making, or implementation of the discriminatory restrictive measures provided for in article 3 of this Law in a countermeasure list.
Article 5: In addition to the individuals and organizations listed on the countermeasure list in accordance with Article 4 of this Law, the relevant departments of the State Council may also decide to employ countermeasures against the following individuals and organizations:
(1) The spouses and immediate relatives of individuals listed on the countermeasure list;
(2) Senior managers or actual controllers of organizations included in the countermeasures list;
(3) Organizations in which individuals included in the countermeasure list serve as senior management;
(4) Organizations in which persons included in the countermeasure list are the actual controllers or participate in establishment and operations;
Article 6: In accordance with their respective duties and division of labor, the relevant departments of the State Council may decide to employ one or more of the following measures against the individuals and organizations provided for in Articles 4 and 5 of this Law, based on the actual situation:
(1) Not issuing visas, denying entry, canceling visas, or deportation;
(2) Sealing, seizing, or freezing movable property, real estate, and all other types of property within the [mainland] territory of our country;
(3) Prohibiting or restricting relevant transactions, cooperation, and other activities with organizations and individuals within the [mainland] territory of our country;
(4) Other necessary measures.
The full text of the Regulations is available here (Chinese only). A translation of the Anti-Foreign Sanctions Law is available from NPC Observer here.
How the Trump Administration’s War on Cartels Will Reshape the Financial Sector
On March 11, 2025, the Treasury Department’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) issued a Geographic Targeting Order (GTO) aimed at disrupting drug trafficking and money laundering along the southwestern border. The GTO significantly lowers the Currency Transaction Reports (CTR) threshold from $10,000 to $200 for money service businesses (MSBs) operating in 30 zip codes across California and Texas. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent emphasized the move as part of a broader effort to curb cartel influence, underscoring “deep concern with the significant risk to the U.S. financial system [from] the cartels, drug traffickers, and other criminal actors along the Southwest border.”
Despite its broader deregulatory agenda, the Trump administration has made clear that financial crime regulations — particularly those targeting money laundering, sanctions compliance, and illicit financing — are exceptions to its broader policy shift. The administration’s intensified crackdown on drug cartels underscores the financial sector’s growing role in national security and foreign policy enforcement. Banks and regulated institutions operating along the U.S.-Mexico border, or with substantial exposure to Mexico and Central America, must prepare for heightened compliance and due diligence expectations.
The Southwest Border GTO: A Glimpse into FinCEN’s Enforcement Priorities
GTOs compel financial institutions to implement heightened monitoring and reporting measures within specific high-risk regions. These orders, typically in effect for 180 days with the possibility of renewal, serve as a key intelligence-gathering and enforcement tool to disrupt illicit financial flows.
The March 11 GTO affects MSBs — including foreign exchange dealers, check cashers, issuers of traveler’s checks, and money transmitters — rather than banks. However, its implications extend far beyond these institutions. The drastic reduction of the CTR threshold to $200 reflects the cartels’ ability to efficiently launder drug proceeds through small, frequent transactions that evade traditional detection mechanisms.
Should the data gathered from this GTO indicate widespread illicit activity, regulators may extend its reach to regional and community banks, imposing even greater compliance burdens. More critically, the order signals heightened regulatory scrutiny on financial institutions’ roles in detecting and preventing cartel-related transactions. Banks with exposure to high-risk sectors must proactively enhance monitoring systems, train staff on emerging threats, and prepare to demonstrate robust compliance measures during regulatory examinations.
Drug Cartels as Terrorist Organizations: A Paradigm Shift for Financial Institutions
On his first day in office, President Trump signed an executive order initiating the designation of certain drug cartels as Foreign Terrorist Organizations (FTOs). On February 20, the State Department formally classified eight cartels under this designation, triggering sweeping legal and financial consequences.
Under U.S. law, FTO designation prohibits financial institutions from conducting transactions with these organizations and mandates the immediate blocking or freezing of assets linked to them. The move significantly expands the enforcement scope of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC), which oversees sanctions on terrorist organizations and other prohibited entities.
For financial institutions, this shift requires a fundamental reassessment of compliance strategies. Banks must refine sanctions screening processes, update risk management frameworks, and bolster due diligence measures to ensure they do not inadvertently facilitate transactions tied to these entities. Even transactions that do not explicitly list cartel-affiliated individuals or businesses may pose risks, necessitating enhanced scrutiny of financial flows originating from cartel-controlled regions.
In addition to shifting compliance strategies, the new FTO designation carries with it a risk for increased civil litigation against banks under the Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA). From approximately 2014 to present, federal courts throughout the country have seen an increase in civil matters against banks for providing financial services to FTOs and/or their affiliates, and therefore aiding and abetting acts of terrorism. While these claims ordinarily involve foreign banks predominantly located in the Middle East, Russia, China, and Europe, this new designation and the accompanying GTO could result in similar lawsuits against U.S. depository institutions.
Cartels have embedded themselves in diverse sectors — including agriculture, mining, transportation, and even financial services — complicating compliance efforts. Institutions that fail to adapt face increased criminal and civil liabilities, underscoring the urgent need for proactive risk mitigation measures.
The Road Ahead: Navigating an Intensified Regulatory Landscape
As the Trump administration intensifies efforts to dismantle cartel financial networks, financial institutions must brace for a rapidly evolving regulatory environment. Enhanced reporting obligations, stricter compliance requirements, and expanded due diligence mandates are set to redefine risk management strategies across the sector.
Institutions operating along the U.S.-Mexico border will be particularly affected, navigating the dual pressures of FinCEN’s GTO mandates and broader cartel-related sanctions. Strengthening internal controls, refining anti-money laundering frameworks, and integrating advanced transaction monitoring tools will be critical in maintaining compliance and mitigating legal risks.
While these regulatory shifts may impose short-term costs, they ultimately safeguard financial institutions from unwitting involvement in illicit activities. More importantly, they reinforce the industry’s pivotal role in national security efforts, ensuring that the financial system remains a bulwark against transnational crime.
By staying ahead of regulatory developments and embracing a proactive compliance posture, banks and financial institutions can not only protect themselves but also contribute meaningfully to the broader fight against cartel-driven financial crime.
OFSI Takes Enforcement Action Against UK Charities
On 14 March 2025, the Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation (OFSI) issued a “Disclosure” against UK-registered and regulated charities Sahara Hands, Peculiar Peoples’ Palace Ministries, and Impact Planet for breaching Regulation 36 (6) of the Counter Terrorism (International Sanctions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 (the Regulations) by failing to respond to OFSI’s requests for information (RFI).
In accordance with the Regulations, OFSI can request information from any person if it believes that person can provide details to establish (a) the nature, amount, or quantity of any funds or economic resources owned, held or controlled by a designated person; or (b) the nature, amount, or quantity of any funds, economic resources or financial services made available to or for the benefit of a designated person; or (c) the nature of any financial transactions entered into by a designated person. This information must be provided where OFSI believes it is necessary for monitoring compliance, detecting evasion, and investigating financial offenses under Part 3 of the Regulations. Information must be provided within a specified or reasonable time, or in accordance with any ongoing obligations.
OFSI made several attempts to contact the charities via email and post, but no response was received within the stated timeframes from any of the charities, which, according to OFSI, hindered its ability to monitor compliance with the Regulations.
OFSI assessed the breach as moderately severe, though it did not warrant a monetary penalty. Publishing details of the financial sanctions breach via the Disclosure regime was considered the suitable enforcement response, given the specific nature and circumstances of the violation. The Disclosure highlights that the charities’ failure to respond to the RFIs, despite OFSI’s repeated attempts at communication, and the importance of the RFIs for monitoring compliance with the Regulations, were aggravating factors in its decision. Although OFSI acknowledged that a failure by the charities to update their contact information could be viewed as a mitigating factor, it ultimately did not accept this as a valid excuse.
The Disclosure confirmed that all other charities contacted by OFSI complied with the Regulations by responding to the RFI. However, OFSI noted that it had identified multiple charities where contact information was not updated, or incoming correspondence was not regularly monitored. OFSI recommended that charities ensure contact information is up to date and incoming correspondence is regularly monitored.
Takeaway
The Disclosure highlights the investigative steps taken by OFSI and its commitment to enforcement beyond merely relying on self-reports.
CNIPA and 6 Other Chinese Government Bodies Issue Opinions on Further Improving the Business Environment in the Field of Intellectual Property – New Trademark Law Coming?
On March 21, 2025, China’s National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA) and 6 other government bodies released the “Opinions of the State Intellectual Property Office, the Ministry of Education, the Ministry of Science and Technology, the State Administration for Market Regulation, the State Financial Regulatory Administration, the National Copyright Administration and the Chinese Academy of Sciences on further optimizing the business environment in the field of intellectual property” (国家知识产权局 教育部 科技部 市场监管总局 金融监管总局 国家版权局 中国科学院关于进一步优化知识产权领域营商环境的意见).
Some highlights include:
performing in-depth credit evaluation of patent and trademark agencies, and promptly disclose the evaluation results of agencies and practitioners to provide guidance for enterprises and the public to choose agencies;
standardize the standards and procedures for the identification and listing of serious untrustworthy entities in the field of intellectual property rights, and impose penalties on serious untrustworthy entities in the field of intellectual property rights in accordance with laws and regulations;
formulate licensing guidelines for standard essential patents, promote fair and reasonable licensing of standard essential patents, and prevent companies from using standard essential patents to implement monopoly behavior;
establish a special database on standard essential patents to facilitate access to information on standard essential patents;
accelerate the revision and deliberation of the new round of trademark law and its implementing regulations, strengthen the obligation to use trademarks, and further strengthen the regulation of malicious preemptive registration and other behaviors;
issue typical cases of abnormal patent applications to guide the improvement of patent quality; and
strictly restrain behaviors that disrupt market order such as vicious low-price competition.
The original text is available here. A translation follows.
To the competent departments for intellectual property, education, science and technology, market supervision, and copyright of all provinces, autonomous regions, municipalities directly under the Central Government, and the Xinjiang Production and Construction Corps, all regulatory bureaus of the Financial Regulatory Administration, and all units under the Chinese Academy of Sciences:
This Opinion is formulated to thoroughly implement the decisions and arrangements of the CPC Central Committee and the State Council on optimizing the business environment and the overall requirements for intellectual property work, promptly respond to the expectations of the public and business entities, continuously reduce institutional transaction costs, further strengthen policy support and service guarantees for business entities, help create a first-class business environment, and better promote high-quality development.
I. General requirements
Guided by Xi Jinping Thought on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era, we will adhere to the combination of problem-oriented and goal-oriented approaches, adhere to the dual-wheel drive of institutional innovation and digital empowerment, and work together online and offline. We will benchmark against international advanced practices and experience, take creating a first-class business environment as the main line, promote the market-oriented, law-based, internationalized and convenient development of the business environment in the field of intellectual property rights, focus on the needs of innovation and development and the concerns of business entities, further optimize the business environment in the field of intellectual property rights, better play the institutional role of intellectual property rights in stimulating innovation internally and promoting openness externally, and fully stimulate the endogenous motivation and vitality of innovation and creation of various entities.
By 2027, the marketization, legalization, internationalization and facilitation of the business environment in the field of intellectual property will be significantly improved, the overall quality of intellectual property creation, utilization efficiency, protection effectiveness, management level and service capabilities will be improved, intellectual property government services will be further optimized, the satisfaction and sense of gain of enterprises and the public will continue to increase, and the role of the business environment in the field of intellectual property in promoting high-quality development will be more prominent.
II. Improve the market-oriented mechanism of intellectual property rights and help build a high-standard market system
(I) Improve the incentive mechanism for intellectual property innovation. Improve the distribution system oriented towards increasing the value of knowledge, expand the autonomy of universities and research institutes in disposing intellectual property through transfer, licensing or investment, and promote the realization of intellectual property value. Strengthen the standardized management of service inventions, deepen the reform of empowering service scientific and technological achievements, improve the intellectual property income distribution mechanism with equal rights and obligations among units, scientific researchers and technology transfer institutions, and improve the due diligence exemption and fault tolerance mechanism for patent transformation. Promote the deep integration of industry, academia and research, strengthen guidance on the formulation of intellectual property-related clauses in industry-university-research cooperation agreements, and guide all parties to reasonably agree on the organizational form of cooperation, division of tasks, capital investment, ownership of intellectual property rights, distribution of rights and interests, risk sharing and liability for breach of contract. Support universities and research institutions in establishing intellectual property management funds and operating funds. (The Ministry of Science and Technology, the Ministry of Education, the National Intellectual Property Administration, the National Copyright Administration, and the Chinese Academy of Sciences are responsible according to their respective duties)
(II) Promote the healthy and orderly development of the intellectual property service industry. Actively promote the supervision of patent agency delegation, entrust the supervision functions of provincial patent agencies to the municipal (districts under the jurisdiction of municipalities directly under the Central Government) level, and strengthen grassroots supervision. Carry out in-depth credit evaluation of patent and trademark agencies, and promptly disclose the evaluation results of agencies and practitioners to provide guidance for enterprises and the public to choose agencies. Strengthen the standardized management of the copyright agency industry. Strengthen administrative law enforcement, credit supervision and punishment for breach of trust for illegal and irregular intellectual property agency behaviors in accordance with laws and regulations. Improve the relevant self-discipline rules for intellectual property agencies, strictly restrain behaviors that disrupt market order such as vicious low-price competition and improper promises, and maintain a good industry ecology. (The State Administration for Market Regulation, the National Intellectual Property Administration, and the National Copyright Administration are responsible for their respective duties)
(III) Improve the market-oriented pricing and trading mechanism of intellectual property rights. Improve the intellectual property value assessment standards, continuously publish patent implementation license statistics and copyright registration data, and guide patent holders to scientifically, fairly and reasonably estimate license royalties. Carry out internal assessment pilot projects for bank intellectual property pledge financing, and guide financial institutions to improve their independent assessment capabilities. Encourage innovation in financial products such as intellectual property insurance and credit guarantees, and give full play to the role of financial support for intellectual property transformation. Accelerate the establishment and improvement of the intellectual property trading market, improve the liquidity and disposal convenience of intellectual property assets, and promote standardized intellectual property transactions. (The Financial Supervision Administration, the National Intellectual Property Administration, and the National Copyright Administration are responsible for their respective duties)
(IV) Strengthen the coordinated protection of intellectual property rights. Increase the protection of original innovation of private small, medium and micro enterprises. Strengthen the administrative law enforcement protection of intellectual property rights, and crack down on intellectual property infringements in accordance with the law. Improve the linkage of intellectual property administrative adjudication and infringement rapid processing mechanisms such as the transfer of intellectual property administrative adjudication cases, assistance in investigations, and delivery of execution, as well as the rapid coordinated protection mechanism of central-local cooperation. Improve the intellectual property credit supervision system, standardize the standards and procedures for the identification of the list of serious untrustworthy entities in the field of intellectual property rights, and impose penalties on serious untrustworthy entities in the field of intellectual property rights in accordance with laws and regulations. Relying on the national enterprise credit information disclosure system, strengthen the collection and disclosure of information such as trademarks, patents, intellectual property pledge registrations, enterprise-related administrative licenses, and administrative penalties. Strengthen anti-monopoly supervision and law enforcement, prevent and stop the abuse of intellectual property rights to exclude and restrict competition, protect fair competition in the market, and promote innovation and development. (The State Administration for Market Regulation, the National Intellectual Property Administration, and the National Copyright Administration are responsible for their respective duties)
(V) Promote collaborative innovation between standards and patents. Strengthen the linkage between patent examination and standard setting, formulate policy guidelines for patents related to promotion standards, and guide innovation entities to integrate their own intellectual property rights into technical standards. Formulate licensing guidelines for standard essential patents, promote fair and reasonable licensing of standard essential patents, and prevent companies from using standard essential patents to implement monopoly behavior. Establish a special database on standard essential patents to facilitate access to information on standard essential patents. (The State Administration for Market Regulation and the National Intellectual Property Administration are responsible for their respective duties)
III. Strengthen legal protection of intellectual property rights to better support comprehensive innovation
(VI) Improve intellectual property laws and regulations. Accelerate the revision and deliberation of the new round of trademark law and its implementing regulations, strengthen the obligation to use trademarks, and further strengthen the regulation of malicious preemptive registration and other behaviors. Accelerate the revision of supporting regulations for the Copyright Law. Improve the regulations on integrated circuit layout design. Promote special legislation for geographical indications, and improve a unified geographical indication protection system that coordinates special protection with trademark protection. Guide and strengthen the construction of the local intellectual property law system. (The National Intellectual Property Administration and the National Copyright Administration are responsible for the division of responsibilities)
(VII) Improve the rules for intellectual property protection in new areas. Promote research on intellectual property protection rules in cutting-edge technology fields, and do a good job in intellectual property protection in emerging fields. Carry out pilot work on data intellectual property rights in depth, and accelerate the establishment of data intellectual property protection rules. Explore and improve open source standards and specifications, study and formulate information technology open source intellectual property compliance standards, open source community code contribution rules and standards, and improve the level of open source intellectual property protection. (The National Intellectual Property Administration and the National Copyright Administration are responsible for their respective duties)
(VIII) Innovate the diversified examination model for patents and trademarks. Comprehensively use various examination models such as priority examination to serve the key core technology research and development. According to the needs of regional development and local key industries, further expand the pre-examination field of local intellectual property protection centers to better meet the needs of innovative entities for rapid patent confirmation and pre-examination. Optimize the rapid examination model for trademark registration applications, allow rapid examination of graphic trademarks, improve the implementation of priority examination decisions in trademark rejection reviews and objection applications, and better support parties to quickly safeguard their legitimate rights and interests. Accelerate the establishment of a trademark examination collaboration evaluation mechanism to continuously improve the quality and efficiency of examinations. (The State Intellectual Property Office is responsible)
(IX) Improve the patent and trademark examination rules. Issue the “Patent Application Guidelines” and typical cases of abnormal patent applications to guide the improvement of patent quality. Deepen the agency quality monitoring and trigger-type supervision mechanism with the rectification of abnormal patent applications as the core, and achieve precise crackdowns and precise policies. Promote the establishment of a conflict resolution mechanism for corporate names, abbreviations and trademark rights, and increase regulatory efforts. On the premise of ensuring data security, promote the sharing of patent, trademark information and business entity information, deepen the coordination between trademark examination and business entity registration in the business field, explore the establishment of a registered trademark marking and disposal mechanism for the demise of the right holder, release trademark registration resources in a timely manner, and help solve the problem of difficult trademark registration. (The State Administration for Market Regulation and the National Intellectual Property Administration are responsible according to their respective duties)
(10) Improve the copyright registration system and mechanism. Promote the establishment of a unified national copyright registration system, and further standardize the registration of works, computer software copyright registration, copyright pledge registration, foreign-related copyright contract registration, copyright exclusive license use contract and transfer contract filing. Refine copyright registration standards, study and build a copyright data service information platform, improve the level of copyright registration digitization, gradually realize online copyright registration, improve copyright registration publicity query, data submission and statistical analysis systems, promote the integration of copyright registration, query, monitoring and protection, and provide better quality and convenient services for the development of related industries. (National Copyright Administration is responsible)
IV. Improving the internationalization level of intellectual property services and effectively promoting opening up
(XI) Deepen international exchanges in the field of public services. Continue to strengthen cooperation with intellectual property examination institutions of various countries and deepen the sharing of examination information. Promote cooperation on intellectual property information and data resource projects with countries and regions participating in the joint construction of the “Belt and Road”. Support qualified Technology and Innovation Support Centers (TISCs) to carry out international exchanges on public services of intellectual property information. Encourage high-level foreign institutions to provide intellectual property services in China. Deepen international cooperation on geographical indications, encourage research on foreign language versions of geographical indication-related standards, and enhance the international influence of China’s geographical indication brands. Guide and support Chinese companies to enhance the added value and competitiveness of trademark brands, improve the international operation capabilities of trademark brands, and shape a good image of Chinese trademark brands. Continue to strengthen cooperation with copyright departments of various countries to enhance the influence and voice of copyright. (The National Intellectual Property Administration and the National Copyright Administration are responsible for their respective duties)
(XII) Strengthen guidance on overseas intellectual property dispute response. Encourage local governments to set up intellectual property guidance stations in countries and regions with intensive trade exchanges. Rely on overseas intellectual property dispute response guidance sub-centers to provide enterprises with professional and efficient overseas dispute response guidance services. Organize a list of key export enterprises by industry and increase assistance in rights protection. Support insurance institutions to develop and launch more overseas intellectual property insurance products, promote the establishment of overseas intellectual property rights protection assistance funds, and help enterprises reduce rights protection costs. Timely collect and publish information on foreign intellectual property legal systems, build a database of foreign intellectual property litigation cases, conduct typical case analysis and research, and provide information support for enterprises to deal with foreign-related intellectual property disputes. Increase the cultivation of foreign-related intellectual property legal service institutions, strengthen the construction of foreign-related intellectual property legal talent teams, and enhance the professionalism and pertinence of enterprises’ overseas dispute response guidance. (The Financial Regulatory Administration, the National Intellectual Property Administration, and the National Copyright Administration are responsible for their respective duties)
V. Promote the convenience of government services for intellectual property rights and enhance the benefits to enterprises and the public
(XIII) Promote the optimization of service processes and innovation of models. Continue to reduce the processing cycle of patent and trademark changes. Under normal circumstances, changes in recorded items involving the transfer of patent rights should be reviewed within 1 month, and trademark transfers and changes should be reviewed for the first time within 40 days and 20 days respectively. Fully implement the notification and commitment process in the reduction of patent fees, improve the post-verification and risk prevention mechanism, and further facilitate business and public affairs. Relying on the resource aggregation advantages of regional government service centers and government service platforms, promote the “one form application, one set of materials, and one window acceptance” for changes in enterprise registration matters and trademark changes, explore the integrated processing of other departments’ businesses that have a strong correlation between intellectual property business and the entire life cycle of enterprises, and provide more “one-stop service for one type of affairs” services for enterprises and the public. Standardize the government service hotline of the National Intellectual Property Administration, continuously improve the hotline connection rate and the ability level of responding personnel, establish and improve the “handle complaints immediately” mechanism, better play the role of the service hotline as a window directly facing enterprises and the public, and promptly understand problems and suggestions and respond to the demands of enterprises and the public. (The State Administration for Market Regulation and the National Intellectual Property Administration are responsible according to their respective duties)
(XIV) Deepen the digital empowerment of public services. Relying on the national intellectual property protection information platform and copyright-related information platforms, build an exclusive service space for rights holders to facilitate one-click query of all patents, trademarks, copyrights, geographical indications, and integrated circuit layout design information under their names, and timely push reminders of payment deadlines, service progress and other information. Explore the application of technologies such as natural language large models to improve the intention recognition and accurate answering capabilities of online intelligent customer service, optimize intelligent question and answer, intelligent search, intelligent guidance and other services, and better guide enterprises and the public to handle affairs efficiently and conveniently. Accelerate the construction of a national intellectual property digital comprehensive public service platform, deepen data sharing and business collaboration in the fields of intellectual property and economy, science and technology, administrative law enforcement, judicial protection, market supervision, etc., further promote the sharing and application of intellectual property electronic certificates and licenses data, and realize the interoperability and mutual recognition of electronic certificates and licenses across regions and departments. (The National Intellectual Property Administration and the National Copyright Administration are responsible for their respective duties)
(XV) Optimize the public intellectual property rights service system that is convenient for the people and beneficial to enterprises. Continue to improve the public intellectual property rights service network, further enhance the service efficiency of the National Intellectual Property Rights Information Service Center (TISC) of Colleges and Universities and the National Intellectual Property Rights Information Public Service Outlets, and strengthen service support for strategic scientific and technological forces and key industries. Support public intellectual property rights service institutions to set up service stations in key industrial parks and science and technology parks to achieve full coverage of key parks for public intellectual property rights services. Issue national standards for public intellectual property rights services, and promote the non-discriminatory acceptance and handling of intellectual property rights business across the country with the same standards. Strengthen trademark and brand public services, conduct trademark information analysis and utilization, and guide and support public service institutions to increase service support for regional brand building and corporate brand development. (The National Intellectual Property Administration and the National Copyright Administration are responsible for their respective duties)
(XVI) Standardize the evaluation of services. Improve the regular government-enterprise communication mechanism, conduct an evaluation of the satisfaction of intellectual property public services, launch an online “good and bad reviews” system for intellectual property government services, and promptly publish the evaluation results to form a service evaluation mechanism that connects the entire process of evaluation, rectification, feedback, and supervision. Adhere to the orientation of high-quality development, optimize the design of evaluation indicators related to intellectual property, and do not directly include quantitative indicators such as intellectual property registration authorization, transfer transactions, etc. into the evaluation indicators, and accelerate the transformation of intellectual property work from pursuing quantity to improving quality. (The National Intellectual Property Administration and the National Copyright Administration are responsible for their respective duties)
VI. Organizational Guarantee
The National Intellectual Property Administration will work with relevant departments to strengthen work coordination, improve work mechanisms, deepen data sharing, ensure that various reform measures are fully implemented, and adopt various forms to interpret policies, guide public opinion, and summarize experiences. Focusing on the achievements of building a first-class business environment in the field of intellectual property, timely sort out and summarize, publicize and promote typical experiences and innovative practices in optimizing the business environment, and carry out various forms of publicity and reporting to create a good social atmosphere and public opinion atmosphere. All regions should implement the work well, and at the same time, in light of the actual development of the region, actively reform and innovate, and take the lead in trials to promote more breakthroughs in optimizing the business environment in the field of intellectual property.