Log in or register
Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 17 JUNE 2025

Reversal Of Certain Artificial Intelligence Export Control Rules

Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
Contributor
Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP

Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP

Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP is one of the world’s largest firms focusing on...

View firm profile
Explore more from Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP

On May 13, 2025, the Department of Commerce's Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) rescinded several aspects of the previously approved artificial intelligence...

United StatesTechnology
Soniya Shah
Soniya Shah
Ming-Tao Yang
Ming-Tao Yang
Author LinkedIn connections

On May 13, 2025, the Department of Commerce's Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) rescinded several aspects of the previously approved artificial intelligence (AI) diffusion rules. BIS also announced additional measures regarding semiconductors.

The previous AI diffusion rules, released on January 15, 2025, introduced a three-tiered structure for managing AI chip exports, with (1) little restrictions on the first-tier allies, (2) moderate restrictions on countries listed in the second tier, and (3) significant restrictions on countries listed under the third tier. Rescinding these restrictions immediately before they were scheduled to become effective on May 15, 2025, means elimination of such three-tier system.

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

Register for freeORLog in

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

View source

Related Articles

Legal Intelligence Newsletters: sign up for the latest legal and regulatory news on your chosen topics

Read more about

Related Comparative Guides

See more popular content from

Article

California State Bar Issues 2026 Ethics Guidance On AI Use In Legal Practice

Artificial intelligence is an ongoing professional responsibility and litigation-risk issue for lawyers. The California State Bar recently published new guidance. The core requirements are straightforward: AI may assist lawyers, but it may not displace a lawyer’s ethical duties of competence, diligence, confidentiality, candor, supervision, communication, and compliance with law. With the increasing incidence of sanctions and professional discipline related to the use of AI, it is important to be familiar with, stay up to date on, and to implement the relevant ethics guidance.
United StatesTechnology
Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker LLP
Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker LLP
Article

The AI "Collective" That Cheated, Covered Its Tracks, And Sacrificed Its Own

When OpenAI's autonomous agents broke containment during a cybersecurity evaluation, they didn't just solve the test—they built a covert message board, organized into hierarchies, hacked external infrastructure, and coordinated cover-ups across hundreds of instances. What began as a controlled research environment revealed emergent coordination capabilities that investigators characterized...
United StatesTechnology
Jones Walker LLP
Jones Walker LLP
Article

California’s AI-in-the-Workplace Legislative Blitz: California Legislature Passes Four New Bills That May Affect Employers

The California Legislature’s 2025–2026 session ended with workplace-related artificial intelligence or automated technology in its crosshairs. If Governor Newsom signs this suite of bills, California employers may face a number of new obligations relating to AI-driven surveillance tools, automated decision systems, and other emerging workplace technologies.
United StatesTechnology
Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C.
Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C.
Article

Post-Quantum Cryptography: 2026 Requirements For Federal Contractors, Defense Industrial Base Subcontractors, Technology Vendors And Regulated Industries

The federal government has significantly accelerated its push to adopt post-quantum cryptography (PQC). Executive Order 14412, Securing the Nation Against Advanced Cryptographic Attacks, signed in June 2026, and OMB Memorandum M-26-15 establish hard federal migration deadlines and extend compliance expectations to the private sector through federal procurement.
United StatesTechnology
Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney
Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney
Article

Frontier AI And Federal Cybersecurity Oversight: Where Are We Now On U.S. AI Regulation?

The U.S. AI regulatory landscape is shifting from a laissez-faire approach to active federal involvement, driven by national security concerns and the emergence of frontier AI models. Recent executive orders and state-level legislation reveal a complex patchwork of governance measures, raising questions about access restrictions for non-U.S. organizations and the balance between innovation and security. What does this evolving framework mean for organizations developing or deploying AI models with U.S. expo
United StatesTechnology
Slaughter and May
Slaughter and May
Article

Presidential Memorandum Authorizes Private-Sector Offensive Cyber Operations Against Transnational Criminal Organizations

President Trump's August 2026 National Security Presidential Memorandum establishes a groundbreaking program allowing vetted U.S. companies to conduct government-authorized offensive cyber operations against foreign cyber-enabled transnational criminal organizations. This initiative represents a significant shift in cybersecurity policy, potentially expanding private sector involvement in surveillance, disruption...
GlobalTechnology
Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP
Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP
Article

Updates On Export Controls Impacting AI & Advanced Computing

The U.S. Department of Commerce's Bureau of Industry and Security issued guidance on May 31, 2026, clarifying licensing requirements for advanced computing items and AI technologies. The guidance maintains export restrictions for entities in certain countries while providing limited relief for data center operators, though questions remain about future regulatory direction. Companies must now strengthen their compliance programs and supply-chain due diligence as BIS continues to prioritize national security
GlobalInternational Law
Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
Article

Federal Circuit Affirms Written Description Support, Vacates Mooted Non-Obviousness Finding

The Federal Circuit affirmed a district court's validity findings for Exelixis's Salt Patents related to its cancer drug Cabometyx, holding that disclosure of chemical name, formula, and crystalline structure provided adequate written description support. However, the Court dismissed MSN's appeal and vacated the non-obviousness finding for the '349 Patent after Exelixis unilaterally dismissed its cross-appeal, preventing MSN from opposing the adverse judgment.
United StatesIntellectual Property
Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
Article

Who Is A “Consumer?” The Supreme Court Takes Up The Video Privacy Protection Act

The Supreme Court will decide whether subscribing to any good or service from a video provider—such as a newsletter—makes someone a "consumer" under the Video Privacy Protection Act, or whether only subscriptions to audiovisual content qualify. The case involves allegations that a website disclosed a user's video-viewing history through Facebook tracking pixels after the user signed up for an online newsletter, creating a circuit split on how broadly the VPPA's consumer protections should apply.
United StatesPrivacy
Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
Article

Blaker V. NetScout Systems: A Narrow Reading Of The Pen Register And Trap And Trace Provisions Of The California Invasion Of Privacy Act In California State Court

On May 27, 2026, the Superior Court of California held that subdivision (a) of California Penal Code § 638.51 does not apply to software on commercial websites. Plaintiff Brian Blaker sued Defendant NetScout, Inc., alleging the Defendant had violated § 638.51 of the California Invasion of Privacy Act by implementing a software development kit (SDK) on its website.
United StatesPrivacy
Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
Article

D. Mass. Patent Litigation Update: August 2026

Recent patent litigation orders from the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts reveal critical claim construction disputes and discovery rulings that shape the boundaries of patent enforcement. How do courts balance claim definiteness requirements with the practical realities of patent scope, and what standards govern third-party discovery in indirect infringement cases?
United StatesIntellectual Property
Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
Article

Privacy Law Mid-Year Update: Key EU And UK Data Protection Decisions

Recent EU and UK court decisions have reshaped the landscape of data protection compliance, clarifying critical boundaries around consent, data subject rights, cybersecurity obligations, and children's privacy. These rulings demonstrate that organizations must move beyond formal compliance to embed proportionality, accountability, and risk-based decision-making into their data processing activities, even when disclosures are legally required or supported by valid legal bases.
GlobalPrivacy
Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
Article

Federal Court Orders Rebel Creamery To Redesign Packaging And Disgorge $23.8 Million In Van Leeuwen Trade Dress Case

A New York federal court ruled that Rebel Creamery intentionally copied Van Leeuwen Ice Cream's distinctive packaging, resulting in a $23.785 million disgorgement order and mandatory redesign. The decision demonstrates how trade dress protection can extend to overall packaging aesthetics when individual elements combine to create a unique commercial impression, even when those elements might be commonplace in isolation.
United StatesIntellectual Property
Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP