Insights

On May 13, 2025, Crowell & Moring and The George Washington University Competition Law Center hosted the Sixth Annual Antitrust and Tech Conference, which provided a platform for discussing pivotal issues in antitrust policy at this time of transition in leadership.

Acting USPTO Director Coke Morgan Stewart issued a Director Discretionary decision on June 6, 2025, in iRhythm Technologies Inc. v. Welch Allyn Inc., IPR2025-00363, -00374, -00376, -00377, and -00378 Paper 10 (PTAB June 6, 2025). This decision granted Patent Owner’s request for discretionary denials of institution in five related IPR challenges.  It follows several recent Director decisions that have all discretionarily denied petitions for reasons other than the substantive merits of the challenges. However, this decision is the first one that relies upon “[s]ettled expectations of the parties, such as the length of time the claims have been in force,” a new consideration that was first articulated in the USPTO’s “Interim Process for PTAB Workload Management” memorandum (“Interim Memo”) dated March 26, 2025.

On June 9, 2025, the General Services Administration (GSA) Federal Acquisition Service (FAS) quietly announced that Transactional Data Reporting (TDR) would be exiting “pilot” status; under Refresh 27 to the Multiple Award Schedule (MAS), TDR will be mandatory for all eligible Special Item Numbers (SINs), effective beginning in the next sales reporting quarter after each contractor accepts the modification, with remaining SINs to be added in future refreshes.  

To date the Trump Administration has issued multiple proclamations imposing varying rates of import duties on steel and aluminum and certain derivatives, including construction materials. These measures have added volatility and financial pressures to the construction sector both in the United States and abroad. Most recently, on June 3, 2025, President Donald Trump issued a proclamation under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, doubling tariffs on imported steel and aluminum from 25% to 50%, effective June 4, 2025. This action aims to counteract the continued influx of lower-priced, excess steel and aluminum imports that, according to the administration, threaten U.S. national security by undermining domestic production capacity. The proclamation notes that while prior tariffs provided some price support, they were insufficient to achieve the necessary capacity utilization rates for sustained industry health and defense readiness. The United Kingdom remains temporarily exempt at the 25% rate until July 9, per the U.S.-U.K. Economic Prosperity Deal.

On June 9, 2025, U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche issued new Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (“FCPA”) enforcement guidelines (“the Guidelines”). DOJ issued the Guidelines in response to the Trump Administration’s February 2025 Executive Order (“EO”), which paused FCPA enforcement pending the issuance of new guidance from the Attorney General. The new Guidelines resolve lingering doubts about the future of FCPA enforcement under the Trump administration and provide important insights into the key factors DOJ will consider when deciding whether to pursue FCPA investigations or enforcement actions.

On June 6, 2025 President Trump signed an Executive Order, Sustaining Select Efforts to Strengthen the Nation’s Cybersecurity and Amending Executive Order 13694 and Executive Order 14144 (the “Trump Cyber EO”). The Trump Cyber EO rescinds and modifies select Biden administration guidance from EO 14144 covering several cybersecurity regimes, including digital identity verification, artificial intelligence, and secure software development practices, and it amends Obama administration guidance from EO 13694 authorizing sanctions on persons involved in malicious cyber activities. We have provided a summary of significant changes made by the Trump Cyber EO below.

The UK’s 2025 Strategic Defence Review (SDR)[1] marks a significant shift in national defence policy, emphasising enhanced military readiness and domestic industrial growth. This comprehensive plan is poised to reshape the landscape for defence contractors across the country. This follows the enactment of the UK’s new Procurement Act 2023, which took effect on 24 February 2025, also impacting defence contractors. More information on this can be found in our alert: What Defence Contractors Need To Know About the New UK Procurement Act.

On 2 June 2025 the Civil Justice Council (a UK public body that advises on civil justice and civil procedure) (“CJC”) issued its Review of Litigation Funding Final Report (the “Report”). The CJC has provided comprehensive recommendations on the regulation and reform of litigation funding in England and Wales. The highlight recommendation of the Report is for the UK Government to remove third party litigation funding from the regulations and requirements of the Damages-Based Agreements Regulations 2013 (“DBA Regulations”), reversing the judgment of the Supreme Court in PACCAR.[1] Meanwhile, the UK Court of Appeal has recently endorsed a position that the Competition Appeal Tribunal (“CAT”) may order that third party funders of collective proceedings be paid first from litigation proceeds before claimants according to waterfall provisions in their funding agreements.

On June 5, 2025, the Supreme Court dismissed on procedural grounds the petition for writ of certiorari in Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings, dba Labcorp, v. Luke Davis, et al., No. 22-55873. The Supreme Court had granted the petition on the following question: “[w]hether a federal court may certify a class action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) when some members of the proposed class lack any Article III injury.” Justice Kavanaugh, writing in dissent, said he would have reached the merits and ruled that federal courts may not certify a damages class that includes uninjured members.

On Thursday, June 5, 2025, the Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, rejecting the "background circumstances" rule that would require majority-group plaintiffs to meet a heightened evidentiary standard in Title VII discrimination cases. The decision vacated and remanded the case for further consideration by the Sixth Circuit. In so doing, the Court held that all plaintiffs – whether minority or majority employees – bringing discrimination cases under Title VII are subject to the same evidentiary standards under the McDonnell Douglas framework for evaluating disparate-treatment claims.

Acting USPTO Director Coke Morgan Stewart recently issued a Director Review decision on May 19, 2025, in Ecto World, LLC v. RAI Strategic Holdings, Inc, IPR2024-01280, Paper 13 (PTAB May 19, 2025), that was subsequently designated as precedential by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). The decision seeks to eliminate inconsistencies amongst PTAB panels in using its discretion to deny institution under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d). 

In recent years, there has been a wave of new legislation impacting contracts and contractual terms. The Belgian legislator is gradually adopting the different Books of our new Belgian Civil Code, such as Book VI. Last February, a new proposal for Book VII on special contracts, including sale and loan agreements was submitted. Additionally, the Belgian Code of Economic Law has been updated several times, impacting the drafting of contracts and of contractual terms, not only between companies but also with consumers.

On May 28, 2025, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Administrator Mehmet Oz sent a letter to select hospitals requesting information about the hospitals’ practices related to treatment for gender dysphoria in children. The letter also requests financial information related to pediatric gender-affirming care paid for “in whole or in part” by the federal government.

The English Court of Appeal has recently handed down a helpful judgment, clarifying the test for breach of duty in cases of alleged negligence by valuers. In short: (i) the valuation must fall outside a reasonable margin of error of the ‘correct’ valuation; and (ii) the valuer must have carried out the valuation in a way that no reasonably competent valuer could have done (the Bolam test).

On May 29, 2025, the Department of Labor (DOL) announced that it will begin a “phased pause in operations at contractor-operated Job Corps centers nationwide.” The pause is anticipated to occur within a month—by June 30, 2025. To effectuate this pause, DOL has suspended operations at approximately one hundred contractor-operated Job Corps centers.  DOL instructed centers to suspend program activities, transition students home, and implement other transition plans. According to DOL’s Frequently Asked Questions, the Department anticipates that  students will transition to “state and local workforce partners” including American Job Centers and the Labor Exchange system in their home state.

On May 29, 2025, the Supreme Court issued its long-awaited decision in Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County. In a five-justice majority opinion written by Justice Kavanaugh, the Court held that the National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”) does not require review of the environmental impacts of “upstream” or “downstream” related projects, and reiterated: “The bedrock principle of judicial review in NEPA cases can be stated in a word: Deference.”[1] This decision comes as the federal government works to expedite what over the years have become lengthy NEPA review processes, and not long after the White House Council on Environmental Quality rescinded its NEPA regulations.

On Friday, May 9, 2025, the U.S. Copyright Office released the third (pre-publication) installment in a series of reports regarding the intersection of artificial intelligence (AI) and copyright law.[1]  This report addresses the legal implications of training generative AI models using copyrighted materials.[2] 

On May 22, 2025, the U.S. Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission (the “U.S. Antitrust Agencies”) filed a Statement of Interest supporting thirteen states’ claims that asset managers violated antitrust and consumer protection law through their environmental, social, and governance (“ESG”) activities. The Statement, which opposes the asset managers’ motion to dismiss the antitrust claims, indicates the federal antitrust agencies support antitrust theories favored by anti-ESG activists, which may lead to federal investigations and lawsuits based on such theories.

GAO’s recent dismissal of a protest filed by A2A Integrated Logistics, Inc. provides an important reminder regarding the strict timeliness rules that apply to bid protests. Quoters were required to electronically submit quotations and A2A experienced difficulty doing so. After contract award was announced, A2A emailed the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) stating that it had been unable to submit its quotation. Twenty days later, the VA responded, confirming that A2A’s quotation had not been received; A2A filed an agency-level protest the same day, which the VA dismissed as untimely. A2A then filed a GAO protest.