OLN Law

Test Blog

CEDB Released a Public Consultation Paper on Updating Hong Kong’s Copyright Regime on 24 November

by

The Commerce and Economic Development Bureau of the Government of Hong Kong just released on 24 November 2021 a public consultation paper on updating Hong Kong’s copyright regime. 

This is brilliant news to copyright owners and fingers crossed with the passage of the new legislation! If you may wonder the meaning behind, the current Copyright Ordinance enacted in 1997 is considered badly obsolete and can barely cope with the rapid advancements and innovations in technology. Despite the Government’s deliberation to update the legislation initiated since 2006 with public consultations conducted,  two serious attempts to amend the Ordinance (The Copyright (Amendment) Bill 2011 and The Copyright (Amendment) Bill 2014) did not succeed due to filibustering by some members asserting the view that freedom of creativity or expression could possibly be compromised under the proposed legislative provisions.

The consultation paper described the legislative proposals in the 2014 Bill to be the result of years of deliberations of the Government, Legislative Council, copyright owners, online service providers and copyright users, representing the consensus and balance of interests of different stakeholders to enhance protection for copyright in the digital environment and combat large scale online piracy – which should be materialized without further delay.  

Key legislative proposals based on the 2014 Bill

A. Communication right – introduction of technology-neutral exclusive communication right for copyright owners to communicate their works to the public through any mode of electronic transmission in line with the international practice

B. Criminal liability – criminal sanctions introduced against infringers making unauthorised communication of copyright works to the public for profit or reward and with prejudice caused to the copyright owners

C. New copyright exceptions – for the education sector, libraries, museums, archives, temporary reproduction of copyright works by OSPs, and media shifting; and new fair dealing exceptions for the purposes of parody, satire, caricature and pastiche, commenting on current events, and use of quotation to facilitate expression of opinions or discussions in the online and traditional environment

D. Safe harbour provisions – limiting OSP’s liability for copyright infringements on their service platforms caused by subscribers as an incentive for OSPs to cooperate with copyright owners to combat online piracy

E. Additional damages in civil cases – empowering the court to award additional damages according to the circumstances with additional factors to assess including the unreasonable conduct of an infringer and likelihood of widespread circulation of infringing copies

Issues inviting public views

1. Should Hong Kong continue to maintain the current exhaustive approach by setting out all copyright exceptions based on specific purposes or circumstances?

2. Should Hong Kong introduce provisions to restrict the use of contracts to exclude or limit the application of statutory copyright exceptions? (currently is non-interference approach to contractual arrangements between owners and users)

3. Should Hong Kong introduce specific provisions to govern illicit streaming devices used for accessing unauthorized contents on the Internet, including set-top boxes and Apps? (Government’s current position is not to)

4. Should Hong Kong introduce a copyright-specific judicial site blocking mechanism? (Government’s current position is not to)

Issues to be considered for future legislative amendments
  • Extension of copyright term of protection
  • Introduction of specific copyright exceptions for text and data mining
  • AI and copyright

The consultation period is 3 months from 24 November 2021. We are more than happy to convey your thoughts to the Bureau or share our thoughts on issues you may have on copyright protection or circumstances that may put you at the risk of infringing someone else’s copyright.

New Rules, New Risks: Navigating China’s 2027 Trademark Law

by

On 26 June 2026, the Standing Committee of the 14th National People’s Congress passed a landmark revision of the Trademark Law of the People’s Republic of China, which will come into force on 1 January 2027. This marks the first comprehensive overhaul since the law’s introduction in 1983, expanding the framework from 8 chapters and 73 articles to 9 chapters and 87 articles.

More significantly, the revision reflects a fundamental shift in legislative philosophy – from a system that primarily encouraged registration to one that emphasizes genuine use and market order. For brand owners operating in or entering China, the transition period leading up to 2027 is strategically important.

Key Legislative Shifts

The revised law introduces several structural changes that will directly impact trademark filing and enforcement strategies.

1. Stricter Controls on Malicious Filings

The new law explicitly prohibits trademark applications filed without intent to use and exceeding normal business needs. To enforce this, the authorities have introduced quantitative examination criteria in updated guidelines:

  • Applying for 50 or more trademarks within 12 months without a clear commercial rationale
  • Filing 10 or more trademarks across unrelated industries in a single batch
  • Targeting well-known names, internet trends, or generic industry terms

Applications meeting these thresholds may be rejected at the examination stage, and applicants risk being placed on regulatory watchlists. This signals a decisive move against trademark hoarding and bad-faith filings.

2. Increased Liability for Deceptive Use

The law now classifies misleading use of registered trademarks as a punishable offence. This includes branding strategies that rely on wordplay or presentation likely to confuse consumers.

Penalties may reach up to five times the illegal gains, capped at RMB 250,000. Failure to rectify violations within a prescribed period may result in revocation of the trademark registration.

3. Recognition of Digital Use

Trademark “use” is now expressly extended to online and digital environments. Acceptable evidence includes:

  • E-commerce listings and online storefronts
  • Social media accounts and promotional content
  • Livestreaming and digital marketing activities
  • NFTs and digital collectibles displaying the mark

This clarification significantly lowers evidentiary uncertainty for online businesses and aligns the law with modern commercial practices.

4. Expanded Protection for Unregistered Well-Known Marks

Foreign brand owners entering China may benefit from enhanced protection even prior to registration. The revised law allows recognition of well-known trademark status, which can be invoked to support invalidation or opposition actions against bad-faith filings across different classes.

Enhanced Regulatory Oversight

The revised law also strengthens enforcement mechanisms and imposes greater compliance obligations.

1. Proactive Revocation for Non-Use

Authorities are now empowered to initiate revocation actions against trademarks that have not been used for three consecutive years, without requiring a third-party challenge. This increases the risk of maintaining defensive or unused registrations.

2. Earlier Evidence Cut-Off

The evidentiary window for proving use has shifted to the three years preceding the alleged infringement, rather than the commencement of legal proceedings. This limits the effectiveness of last-minute or “token” use.

3. Shortened Opposition Period

The opposition period has been reduced from three months to two months, requiring more efficient trademark monitoring and faster decision-making by brand owners.

4. Increased Liability for Trademark Agencies

Trademark agencies that knowingly assist in bad-faith filings may face administrative penalties, including suspension or revocation of their business licences. This is likely to improve overall filing quality and professional accountability.

New Types of Protection and Procedural Changes

The revision also introduces protections for emerging forms of branding and tightens procedural strategies.

  • Dynamic trademarks, including animated logos and sequential marks, are now explicitly recognised
  • Limitations have been placed on delaying tactics in examination and litigation, reducing opportunities for procedural abuse
Practical Implications for Brand Owners

The 2027 Trademark Law signals a transition from a volume-driven filing strategy to one focused on substantiated commercial use. Businesses should:

  • Review existing portfolios to identify unused or vulnerable marks
  • Ensure consistent and well-documented use, particularly in digital channels
  • Reassess filing strategies to avoid excessive or unjustified applications
  • Strengthen monitoring systems to meet shorter opposition timelines

For example, a company that previously filed broad defensive applications across multiple unrelated classes may now face rejection or regulatory scrutiny. A more targeted, use-based filing strategy supported by evidence will be essential.

Conclusion

China’s revised Trademark Law represents a decisive move toward a more disciplined and use-oriented trademark system. The emphasis is no longer on securing as many registrations as possible, but on demonstrating genuine commercial use and maintaining orderly competition.

Brand owners who proactively adapt their strategies – by aligning registrations with actual business activities and strengthening evidence of use – will be better positioned to protect and enforce their rights in this evolving legal landscape.

Disclaimer: This article is for reference only. Nothing herein shall be construed as Hong Kong legal advice or any legal advice for that matter to any person. Oldham, Li & Nie shall not be held liable for any loss and/or damage incurred by any person acting as a result of the materials contained in this article.

Family Offices in Hong Kong: Tax Concessions, Re-domiciliation, and Proposed 2026 Reform

by

Hong Kong stands out as a premier destination for family offices, offering a unique blend of business-friendly policies, robust legal frameworks, and strategic advantages.

1. Business-Friendly Tax Regime

Hong Kong imposes low and simple taxes with no VAT, capital gains, dividend, or inheritance taxes. As at June 2026, Hong Kong holds 58 comprehensive avoidance of double taxation agreements, with another 16 under negotiation.

2. Robust Legal System

The city operates under a Common Law framework, providing strong rule of law and investor protection.

3. World-Class Financial Services

As a leading global hub for private banking, asset management and professional advisory services, Hong Kong offers tailored solutions for HNWIs and families.

4. Skilled Talent Pool

Hong Kong is home to a highly skilled, multilingual workforce.

5. Government Support

The Hong Kong government actively supports family offices through initiatives like FamilyOfficeHK under InvestHK and tax concessions for single-family offices.

6. Strategic Location

Hong Kong serves as a gateway to Mainland China and the Asia-Pacific region.

Re-Domiciliation of Family Offices

As of May 2025, non-Hong Kong incorporated companies, including family offices, can re-domicile to Hong Kong under a new statutory regime. This allows family offices to relocate their operations while retaining their legal identity and continuity. The streamlined process involves an application to the Companies Registry, with approvals typically granted within two weeks.

Key highlights:

  • The family office retains all assets, rights, obligations, and legal standing post-transfer
  • The family office obtains the same rights as family offices incorporated in Hong Kong
  • A fixed application fee (HK$6,050 electronically / HK$6,725 in hard copy)
  • Upon approval, the family office becomes a Hong Kong-incorporated entity and must deregister in its original jurisdiction within 120 days

Regulatory and tax implications:

  • Tax continuity is preserved – profits tax applies only to income sourced in Hong Kong
  • Relief and credits are available to avoid double taxation during transition
  • No stamp duty is triggered by re-domiciliation

Tax Concessions for Family-owned Investment Holding Vehicles (FIHVs)

Hong Kong’s Inland Revenue (Amendment) (Tax Concessions for Family-owned Investment Holding Vehicles) Ordinance 2023 introduced a 0% profits tax concession for qualifying FIHVs.

Who qualifies:

  • ≥ 95% beneficial interest held, in aggregate, by one or more than one member of the family (charities ≤ 25%, outsiders ≤ 5%)
  • Normally managed and controlled in Hong Kong, outsourcing is permissible
  • Holds ≥ HK$240 million specified assets (shares, stocks, bonds, debentures, etc.)
  • Carries on all core income-generating activities in Hong Kong with ≥ 2 qualified full-time staff and ≥ HK$2 million local operating spend
  • Not a business undertaking

What’s covered:

  • Transaction in specified assets (qualifying transactions): trading securities, FX, private-company shares, derivatives, etc.
  • Transactions incidental to the carrying out of qualifying transactions (receipts capped at 5% of total receipts)

Practical steps to obtain tax certainty:

  1. Map ownership to confirm ≥ 95% family control (with any charity/unrelated shareholding within limits).
  2. Elect for the concession – once, in writing – before filing the first relevant tax return.
  3. Verify substance annually: head-count, spend, and asset NAV.
  4. Monitor transactions for the 5% incidental threshold and private-company anti-avoidance triggers.
  5. Maintain documentation (family tree, group chart, management agreements, NAV calculations) ready for audit or advance-ruling submission.

Legislative Update: 2026 Preferential Tax Regimes Bill

  • On 12 June 2026, Hong Kong gazetted the Inland Revenue (Amendment) (Preferential Tax Regimes for Funds, Family-owned Investment Holding Vehicles and Carried Interest) Bill 2026.
  • The Bill proposes to expand Hong Kong’s preferential tax regimes for:
    • funds;
    • Family-owned Investment Holding Vehicles;
    • carried interest.
  • Expanded qualifying asset classes
    • The 0% profits tax concession would be expanded to cover additional asset classes, including:
      • digital assets;
      • gold and other precious metals;
      • specified commodities;
      • carbon credits;
      • private credit.
  • Broader eligible fund structures
    • Eligibility would be extended beyond traditional open-ended fund structures to include:
      • certain “fund-of-one” structures;
      • wholly-owned investment vehicles;
      • pension funds;
      • charity funds.
  • Carried interest tax relief
    • The Bill would enhance tax relief for performance-linked returns, including carried interest, for private equity and venture capital funds.
    • This is intended to strengthen Hong Kong’s competitiveness as a private capital and asset management hub.
  • Removal of 5% incidental threshold
    • The existing draft memo states that the concession covers transactions in specified assets and that receipts from incidental transactions are capped at 5% of total receipts.
    • The Bill proposes to remove this 5% incidental threshold, giving family offices greater flexibility in treasury, cash management and interest-earning activities.
  • Interaction with non-tax incentives
    • Hong Kong’s Capital Investment Entrant Scheme provides a residency pathway for individuals making a qualifying HK$30 million investment, including at least HK$3 million into a government-managed investment portfolio.
    • The scheme may also allow family members to be included, facilitating relocation alongside the family office structure.

Anti-Avoidance Measures

Hong Kong has implemented anti-avoidance measures to ensure that tax concessions are not abused. These measures include tests for immovable property, holding periods, and control and short-term asset tests.

Anti-Avoidance Measures

With its favourable tax regime, robust legal system, world-class financial services, skilled talent pool, and strong government support, Hong Kong is the ideal location for family office. Whether you are looking to establish a new family office or re-domicile an existing one, Hong Kong offers the perfect environment for long-term wealth planning and growth. Please contact us for further information.

Disclaimer: This article is for reference only. Nothing herein shall be construed as Hong Kong legal advice or any legal advice for that matter to any person. Oldham, Li & Nie shall not be held liable for any loss and/or damage incurred by any person acting as a result of the materials contained in this article.

高李嚴律師行成立家族辦公室服務 | 鼎力支援在港國際家庭

by

高李嚴律師行（Oldham, Li & Nie，簡稱 OLN）欣然宣布成立家族辦公室服務團隊，進一步提升本行在私人財富管理、信託、傳承規劃及跨境結構建領域等法律服務，以滿足國際家族日益增長的財富管理需求。

香港憑藉其普通法體制、具吸引力的稅制，以及政府多項配套支援政策，包括投資推廣署旗下家族辦公室(FamilyOfficeHK)、家族投資控股公司（FIHV）提供的稅務寬免，以及「新資本投資者入境計劃」（New CIES）。根據波士頓諮詢公司[i]發表的報告指出，香港於 2026 年已成為全球最大跨境財富管理中心，進一步鞏固了其在國際財富規劃領域的吸引力。

高李嚴律師行的家族辦公室服務團隊將提供一站式綜合法律支援，服務範疇包括：

  • 家族辦公室的設立與結構建
  • 遺囑與傳承規劃
  • 信託與資產保護
  • 複雜的遺產規劃
  • 跨境稅務與架構諮詢（包括涉及美國及法國要素）
  • 國際家族辦公室協調與統籌
  • 日常會計與財務報告
  • 外判首席財務官（CFO）及首席運營官（COO）支持
  • 專為家族辦公室及私人投資架構度身定製的策略性商業諮詢服務
  • 訴訟支援
  • 移民法

高李嚴律師行高級合夥人高國峻（Gordon Oldham）表示：「香港為期望於亞洲建立長遠發展、並與全球機遇保持緊密聯繫的家庭，提供了一個卓越的平台。 在高李嚴律師行，我們深知每個家庭的發展歷程都是獨一無二的。 憑藉我們在私人客戶、稅務及企業服務方面的長期優勢，以及我們專門的美國稅務與法國業務團隊，我們採取真正以人為本的方式，與客戶並肩同行，為其制訂出不僅能保護和增長他們的財富，亦能反映其價值觀、抱負及長遠的家族傳承。」

本行的家族辦公室服務團隊採用跨領域的協作模式，與第三方基金管理公司及財務顧問緊密合作，為客戶提供完整配套。

如欲了解更多關於家族辦公室服務的資訊，請瀏覽：https://oln-law.com/zh-hk/practice-areas/family-office-services/

[i] https://www.info.gov.hk/gia/general/202605/27/P2026052700809.htm

Hidden US Tax Risks for Hong Kong Families – What Happens If Your Child Is a US Green Card Holder/ US Citizen?

by

Many Hong Kong families today have children who were born in the United States or educated there and have become US citizens. At the same time, it is increasingly common for Hong Kong individuals to invest in US listed stocks given the depth and liquidity of the US market. What is often overlooked is that these two factors – US‑citizen family members and US investments – can create significant and unexpected US tax exposure.

A common misconception is that “US tax does not apply because I do not live in the US.” In reality, the combination of US‑citizen beneficiaries and US‑situs investments can bring Hong Kong families within the US tax net in ways that are not immediately obvious.

To start with, the United States operates a fundamentally different tax system than that of Hong Kong, in the sense that a US citizen is subject to tax on worldwide income regardless of where they live. As a result, a child who is a US citizen will have ongoing US tax and reporting obligations even if he or she has no intention of living in the US long term.

Separately, many Hong Kong individuals assume that because they are not US residents, US tax is not relevant to their succession planning while in fact US estate tax may kick in because such individual may have assets which are treated as “US‑situated assets”. A typical example would be US shares (including US‑listed ETFs). This gives rise to a common but frequently misunderstood risk: even if the parent is not a US person, holding US stocks directly can expose their estate to US estate tax.

This is particularly significant because the estate tax regime for non‑US individuals is extremely strict. The exemption is only USD 60,000, and any excess may be taxed at rates of up to 40%. Many Hong Kong investors holding US shares through brokerage accounts (even if such account sits in Hong Kong) may therefore have an unintended US estate tax exposure.

The risk becomes more acute in a typical family scenario – where parents hold US investments, and upon their passing, those assets are intended to pass to a US‑citizen child. Without proper structuring, US estate tax may be imposed at the estate level before any distribution is made, and the child may also face ongoing US tax and reporting obligations thereafter.

To understand more, please discuss with our professional team:

Anna W.K. Chan, Partner, Head of Tax & Private Client
Email: anna.chan@oln-law.com

Joshua D. Maxwell, US Tax Attorney
Email: joshua.maxwell@oln-law.com

Disclaimer: This article is for reference only. Nothing herein shall be construed as Hong Kong legal advice or any legal advice for that matter to any person. Oldham, Li & Nie shall not be held liable for any loss and/or damage incurred by any person acting as a result of the materials contained in this article.

香港家庭隱藏的美國稅務風險 — 如果您的子女持有美國綠卡或美國公民身份，將有何影響？

by

現今許多香港家庭的子女均在美國出生或在當地接受教育，並已成為美國公民。與此同時，鑑於美國市場的深度與流動性，香港個人投資者投資美股已日趨普遍。然而，大眾往往忽略了這兩個因素 — 擁有美國公民身份的家庭成員以及持有美國本土資產 ，可能會帶來重大且意料之外的美國稅務責任。

坊間常見的誤解是：「因為我不居住在美國，所以美國稅務與我無關。」然而在現實中，若將「美國公民受益人」與「位於美國境內的資產（即美國 situs 資產）」兩者結合，香港家庭便可能會以一種隱蔽的方式被納入美國的稅務網絡中。

首先，美國實行一套與香港截然不同的稅務體制。美國公民不論居住於何處，均須就其全球收入（Worldwide income）申報並繳納所得稅。因此，身為美國公民的子女，即使無意長期在美國居住，仍須承擔持續性的美國稅務申報及納稅義務。

另一方面，許多香港人士以為自己並非美國居民，因此美國稅務與其遺產承繼規劃無關。但事實上，由於該等人士可能持有被視為「位於美國境內的資產」，因而可能觸發美國遺產稅（US estate tax）。最典型的例子便是美國公司股票（包括在美國上市的交易所買賣基金，即 ETFs）。這衍生出一個普遍卻經常被誤解的風險：即使父母並非美國稅務居民（Non-US person），直接持有美股亦會導致其遺產面臨被徵收美國遺產稅的風險。

鑑於美國針對非美國居民的遺產稅制度極為嚴苛，此風險顯得尤為重大。非美國居民的遺產稅免稅額僅為 60,000 美元，任何高於此限額的應課稅遺產，其稅率最高可達 40%。因此，許多透過證券戶口（即使該戶口設於香港）持有美股的香港投資者，都可能在不經意間產生了美國遺產稅的潛在風險。

在常見的家庭場景中，此風險更為嚴峻 —— 即父母持有美國境內投資，並打算在百年歸老後將該等資產傳承予擁有美國公民身份的子女。若缺乏妥善的結構規劃，在進行任何遺產分配之前，該等資產可能已在遺產層面被徵收美國遺產稅；而子女在此後亦可能須面臨持續的美國稅務申報與納稅義務。

如欲了解更多詳情，歡迎與我們的專業團隊聯絡探討：

陳韻祺 – 合夥人，稅務諮詢及私人客户部門主管
電郵: anna.chan@oln-law.com

Joshua Maxwell – 香港註冊海外律師 (美國加州)
電郵: Joshua.maxwell@oln-law.com

免責聲明：本文僅供參考。本文中的任何內容均不得詮釋為香港法律建議或向任何人提供的任何與此相關的法律建議。對於任何人因本文所含的内容而造成的任何損失和/或損害，高李嚴律師行不承擔任何責任。

不同司法管轄區有關體外人工受孕的法規簡介

by

(這篇文章發表在 2025年二月香港律師會會刊)

體外人工受孕（IVF）已經成為輔助生育技術的基石，為同性夫婦、單身人士、不孕不育的夫婦及／或高風險孕婦帶來希望。隨著醫療科學進步，此程序已變得更加可及，成功率也越來越高。然而，世界各地有關 IVF 的法律架構卻有很大差異。本文將探討 IVF 在多個司法管轄區的法律狀況，突顯主要法規、倫理考量及社會影響。

IVF 的重要性日益提升

IVF 始於 1978 年世界上第一個「試管嬰兒」Louise Joy Brown 的誕生。 到1982年， Brown 的妹妹出生時，後者已經是世界上第 40 個試管嬰兒。自此之後，試管嬰兒的程序不斷演進，成為因年齡、健康狀況及／或生活方式選擇等各種因素而難以成孕的男女提供常見的解決方案。自 2001年起，世界衛生組織已承認不孕不育是影響數百萬人的重大全球健康問題，估計全球每六個育齡人口中，就有一人會在一生中的某個階段遇到生育問題。世衛強調公平取得生殖技術的需要。

司法管轄區的差異與法律考量

澳洲

澳洲已透過生殖技術認證委員會和國家健康與醫學研究委員會，為 IVF 建立了全面的法律架構。新南威爾士州的《2007 年輔助生殖技術法》 容許因醫療和社會原因進行 IVF。公共資助和私人 IVF 診所可對 IVF 患者施加年齡限制。立法的明確目標之一是防止人類生殖商業化。因此，人類胚胎的銷售在澳洲並不合法。如果在 IVF 中使用捐贈的胚胎，胚胎必須作為無私的捐贈，儘管可以支付合理的費用。 知情同意也是關鍵一環，雙方均須同意使用他們的配子。在新南威爾士州，供應商在使用超過 15 年的胚胎之前，必須獲得健康部長批准。

加拿大

在加拿大，《輔助人類生殖法》規範 IVF，強調病人的安全和知情同意。該法律容許基於醫療原因的 IVF，而基於社會原因的 IVF 的定義則不太清晰。胚胎的儲存期最長為 10 年，而各省對 IVF 的公共醫療保障也不盡相同，有些省為 IVF 治療提供部分公共資金或稅收抵免。例如，在安大略省，政府為每位患者提供一個 IVF 週期的治療，但患者必須是 43 歲以下的安大略居民。《輔助人類生殖法》禁止出售卵子、精子及／或胚胎，並特別聲明無私捐贈符合加拿大的價值觀。

德國

德國對 IVF 持保守立場。《胚胎保護法》可追溯至 1990 年，該法禁止捐贈卵子、代孕、以非醫療理由製造胚胎，並限制一個週期內可移植的胚胎數量。少數州為同性夫婦和未婚夫婦提供 IVF 資助，但絕大多數州只為異性夫婦提供協助。過時的法律架構反映出社會價值觀顯然已經進化。現屆德國聯合政府成立了一個專家委員會，於 2024 年 4 月建議將卵子捐贈合法化並加以規範，並在有限的情況下將代孕合法化。

香港特別行政區

香港的《生殖科技及胚胎研究實務守則》 由人類生殖科技管理局於 2002 年發出，同樣反映了保守的價值觀。由於香港尚未在法律上承認同性婚姻，因此同性婚姻中的夫婦和單身婦女，尚未能使用凍卵懷孕服務。香港只容許無私捐贈卵子進行 IVF，商業代孕是不合法的。少數公立醫院為 40 歲以下香港永久性居民且無親生子女的夫婦提供公立 IVF 服務。不幸的是，初次預約 IVF 的等候時間可能長達三年。

日本

日本的 IVF 普及率不斷上升。在 2021年，每 11.6 名新生嬰兒中就有一名是 IVF 嬰兒。然而，法律對 IVF 的支持仍然有限。《人類克隆技術規範法》規範 IVF，只容許在嚴格規範下進行。胚胎儲存是容許的，但法律強調不應基於非醫學原因製造胚胎。由於出生率下降， IVF 及其他不孕治療已於 2022 年加入國家健康保險，但僅適用於已婚夫婦。日本沒有管制代孕的法律條文。

英國

英國根據《1990 年人類受精與胚胎學法》 為 IVF 提供進步的法律環境，還設立了人類受精與胚胎學管理局。儘管診所可能會實施各自的政策，但基於醫療和社會原因進行 IVF 是容許的，對婦女沒有年齡限制。 IVF 可獲得公共資助，取決於患者的居住地，但通常僅限於面對醫療不孕不育的夫婦。在英國，付費代孕是合法的，但代孕協議不可強制執行。

美國

在美國， IVF 和代孕的法律主要由各州監管，導致巨大差異和複雜情況。雖然許多州立法支持 IVF 和商業代孕，但有些州則基於倫理或宗教信仰而施加限制。 IVF 的保險承保範圍也有很大差異，有些州強制承保不孕不育治療。 2024 年 2 月，阿拉巴馬州最高法院裁定冷凍胚胎應享有與兒童相同的權利，導致 IVF 治療癱瘓。不孕不育服務提供者暫停了試管嬰兒治療，因為他們害怕在治療過程中任何胚胎被摧毀時，會以「非正常死亡」罪被起訴。直至為生育提供者制訂了某些保障措施後，IVF 治療才得以恢復。

結論 — 道德與社會影響

不同司法管轄區圍繞 IVF 的法律框架有很大差異，其指導原則在文化、倫理和社會價值觀上截然不同。胚胎權利、同意和取得生殖技術等問題是公眾討論和立法的重點。

免責聲明：本文僅供參考。本文中的任何內容均不得詮釋為香港法律建議或向任何人提供的任何與此相關的法律建議。對於任何人因本文所含的内容而造成的任何損失和/或損害，高李嚴律師行不承擔任何責任。