Tech & Sourcing @ Morgan Lewis

In a recent LawFlash, a team of Morgan Lewis lawyers discussed the US Court of International Trade and the US District Court for the District of Columbia’s ruling that invalidated President Donald Trump’s actions imposing tariffs pursuant to the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977, and the temporary, administrative stay granted by the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit while it considers whether to stay the orders during the pendency of the government’s appeal of the ruling. These recent events demonstrate the continued uncertainty businesses and consumers face in light of this economic policy.

We are excited to welcome Mathilde Carle as a partner in Morgan Lewis’s Paris office and as a guest contributor to our Tech & Sourcing Spotlight series to discuss intellectual property (IP) protection and other related issues in agreements to design, build, license, host, and support digital solutions, including automation, AI, and software as a service (SaaS) products.

2025 has seen a notable push by companies to establish dedicated capability centers—or global capability centers (GCCs)—in countries with lower-cost resources and access to a strong talent pool. According to S&S Insider, the global GCC market was estimated at about $128.5 billion in 2023 and is expected to increase to more than $300 billion by 2032, growing at a rate of 13.51% CAGR. NASSCOM reports that India leads the GCC market, currently hosting over 1,700 GCCs, employing more than 1.9 million people, and having an 11% CAGR.

Digital transformation continues to be a buzzword for 2025, with companies considering or implementing new user-facing and back-office artificial intelligence (AI) solutions and other digital tools to enhance end-user experience (UX), business operations, IT infrastructure and resilience, and data flow and connectivity between devices and environments. These digital transformation projects often require project-based resources with specific skill sets that may not be readily available within a company to meet the desired implementation timelines. As a result, many companies engage third-party providers to design, build, test, and/or implement their digital transformation strategies.

As part of our Spotlight series, we welcome Marie Davy, who recently joined Morgan Lewis as a partner in our Paris office, to discuss key issues to consider when negotiating global distribution agreements.

As noted in our recent blog, business process outsourcing (BPO) providers are promising big savings and improved outputs tied to the design and implementation of digital solutions that will monitor, quality check, facilitate, and sometimes perform the applicable business processes.

Gone are the days when a company could outsource the “people” that perform a business process without considering, and likely including in the outsourcing arrangement, the digital enablement of the underlying workflows and activities.

The business process outsourcing (BPO) market is growing at an unprecedented rate as technological advancements transform traditional BPO models to keep up with evolving business needs. As BPO service providers implement and leverage technologies, such as cloud computing, robotics, data analytics, automation, and traditional and generative AI, to streamline processes and improve productivity and quality, digital transformation is becoming a common component—and selling point—for many BPO engagements.

UK financial regulators recently published their supervisory expectations for critical third party service providers (CTPs) to the financial sector under the United Kingdom’s new regime extending regulatory oversight to CTPs. The final rules align with key themes of other regulatory regimes seeking to reinforce operational resilience (e.g., the EU Digital Operational Resilience Act (DORA)) around risk management, supply chain management, and incident management, among other areas.

In the case of the ownership of intellectual property (IP) developed by a supplier as part of a service agreement with a customer, should the traditional position that the customer should own all developed IP always be the position agreed upon by the parties?