On August 15, 2025, Laos’ Immigration Police Department introduced a pilot online arrival registration system for foreign passport holders entering the country. Under the new system, visitors to Laos will be able to register their arrival online up to three days in advance and will be exempt from filling out paper forms at the border. Starting September 1, 2025, online registrations will be accepted at four major international border checkpoints: Wattay International Airport in Vientiane, Luang Prabang International Airport, Pakse International Airport in Champasak Province, and the First Lao-Thai Friendship Bridge linking Vientiane and Nong Khai Province in Thailand. Foreign passport holders arriving in Laos from this date onward will be able to complete the online registration via the official website of the Department of Immigration: http://www.immigration.gov.la/. Upon successful registration, travelers will receive a QR code valid for three days, which must be presented to border authorities upon arrival to verify the registration. During the pilot phase, which is expected to run until early 2026, travelers who have not registered online will still have the option to complete a paper form at the checkpoint. After the pilot phase, the online registration system will become mandatory nationwide, and paper forms will no longer be accepted. This initiative marks a significant step toward modernizing Laos’ immigration procedures. Transitioning from traditional paper-based entry forms to a streamlined digital system will greatly enhance efficiency at border checkpoints. The submission of traveler information ahead of arrival is expected to drastically reduce processing times and alleviate congestion at arrival counters, especially during peak travel periods.

Specialists from Tilleke & Gibbins in Vientiane have contributed an updated Laos entry to Multilaw’s Real Estate Guide, a concise online resource designed to give investors insight into some fundamental issues they may face in managing real estate transactions and ownership. The guide now features contributions from Multilaw member firms in 68 jurisdictions worldwide. It outlines key legal requirements in each jurisdiction, focusing especially on the restrictions and taxes applicable in each country, and the legal methods available for registering and identifying real estate and property ownership. Tilleke & Gibbins is a proud member of Multilaw, a leading network of carefully selected, independent law firms in more than 150 commercial centers, able to provide expert legal advice in complex environments around the globe. The Laos entry in the Real Estate Guide is available on the Multilaw website.

Life sciences specialists from Tilleke & Gibbins have updated the firm’s guide to pharmaceutical data exclusivity regulations and practices in Southeast Asia. This guide contains quick-reference information on the availability of data exclusivity protections and limitations in Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, Thailand, and Vietnam. Developing and launching a new drug on a commercial scale requires an enormous amount of time and investment in research and development (R&D), including pre-clinical testing and clinical trials. When considering the aggregate amount of drug development costs, it is important to recognize that this includes not only the investment in developing new drugs that get approved by a government food and drug regulator and are successfully brought to market, but also the R&D expenditures on a large number of potential pharmaceutical compounds and products that never actually make it to market. In particular, considerable investment is required in order to conduct and produce clinical trial data—to prove safety, efficacy and effectiveness of a new drug—that would warrant marketing approval by the regulatory authority. Such data is proprietary in nature and highly valuable for a research-based pharmaceutical company that develops an original drug. On the other hand, patent law typically confers generic drug manufacturers with the ability to engage in various preparatory activities with a view to obtaining marketing approval for a generic product before the patent for the original drug expires (commonly known as a “Bolar provision”). Since a generic drug maker may submit an application for marketing approval of a generic product before the relevant patent expires, the extent to which the drug originator’s data submitted to the regulatory authority is protected—or in other words, the extent to which the generic company may rely on the drug originator’s previously filed data, which underpins the safety and efficacy of the drug, to support

Three American giants are actively protecting their intellectual property rights against generative AI, as two legal battles commence on both sides of the Atlantic. In the UK, Seattle-based media company Getty Images accuses UK-based Stability AI of multiple IP infringements. In the US, The Walt Disney Company and Universal Studios are teaming up against Midjourney, an AI startup, with their main ground being copyright infringement. Both cases are centered around questions legal minds have been posing since the introduction of generative AI: Is the output of generative AI an infringement? And who is ultimately responsible for the output, the platform or the user? Getty Images v. Stability AI Getty initially filed a claim in the High Court in 2023, which resulted in Stability applying for reverse summary judgment on the grounds that Getty had no real prospect of success, arguing that their operations took place outside the UK. However, the High Court judge hearing the case decided that the claims brought by Getty did have a real prospect of succeeding in court. Despite this, Stability saw a small victory when the court ruled that the representative action brought by Getty would not succeed due to the difficulties in identifying who qualified for the class. The proposed class was comprised of 50,000 rightsholders who alleged their rights were also infringed. Stability was successful in arguing that identifying these individuals would be challenging due to the unclear definition of the class. This current trial is centered around four main grounds: Copyright infringement. Getty accuses Stability of using content that Getty owns or has an exclusive license for when training their model, Stable Diffusion, resulting in the generated output containing substantial parts of that content. Getty is also alleging secondary copyright infringement, arguing that Stability is importing an article into the UK