Card Transaction Terminal: Non-technical

On 28 January 2026, Germany's national competent authority (NCA) the Federal Financial Supervisory Authority (BaFin) published its 2026 edition of BaFin's "Risks in Focus" (RiF)...

The Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation (MiCAR) was designed to bring crypto-assets within a common EU regulatory perimeter, but recent developments reveal a more complex picture. Three decisive developments in October 2026—the Council's position on the Market Integration and Supervision Package, the MiCAR review consultation responses, and ESMA's supervisory action—expose critical gaps in how digital money, tokenised financial instruments, and market infrastructure fit together.

European financial regulators ESMA, ESRB, AMLA, and SRB have published responses to the EU's Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation review, proposing reforms across classification, market conduct, financial crime controls, and crisis management. The responses raise critical questions about crypto-asset service providers' permissions, client rights, and operational continuity during participant failures. Firms face three immediate priorities: remediating non-compliant stablecoin services by early 2027, testing

Germany's implementation of the EU AI Regulation assigns BaFin as the market surveillance authority for AI systems in financial services, while new guidance clarifies investment product classifications under PRIIPs and establishes transitional rules for ESG rating providers. BaFin also provides supervisory guidance on the Payment for Order Flow ban affecting investment firms and neo-banks.

The European Parliament has tabled over 1,900 amendments to the Market Integration and Supervision Package, transforming it from a straightforward proposal into a complex negotiation between competing models for European market supervision and infrastructure. As the Commission's original December 2025 proposal becomes obsolete and multiple parliamentary drafts emerge with conflicting visions, financial firms face critical questions about which supervisory architecture will ultimately govern their licenses

On March 20, 2015, the German Federal Financial Supervisory Authority issued a press release stating that it has imposed a fine of €3.25m on BlackRock Investment Management (UK) Ltd...

On 24 February 2026, the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) issued a public statement addressing the increasing prevalence of derivatives marketed as "perpetual futures"...

The German Parliament adopted new regulatory requirements for algorithmic and high frequency trading.

The German Federal Financial Supervisory Authority (BaFin) on 17 February 2022 published its consultation on its proposals for a general ruling regarding futures...

General Partners launching private equity or venture capital funds face significant challenges in financing their GP commitment, particularly when operating in the defense technology and dual-use sectors.

German utility models offer a unique pathway to intellectual property protection, providing registration within weeks rather than the years typically required for patent approval. This expedited process presents strategic advantages for innovators seeking rapid market protection in Germany's robust IP framework.

The Local Division Düsseldorf of the Unified Patent Court issued an order addressing applications for protection of confidential information in patent infringement proceedings between Yangtze Memory Technologies and Micron Technology entities. The case involves European Patent EP 3 909 047 with jurisdictional implications across Germany and France under the UPC Agreement.

Discretionary decisions on belated patent amendments under Rules 30.2 and 263 RoP are subject to limited appellate review

The Düsseldorf Local Division partially upheld a patent relating to multimedia content sharing in peer-to-peer configurations and found indirect infringement by Disney's streaming service. The decision addresses critical issues of claim construction, patent validity, and procedural aspects while applying established UPC case law on inventive step testing.

A licence defence under Art. 25 UPCA must be substantiated within the UPC proceedings themselves; mere references to submissions in parallel national proceedings are insufficient (Art. 25 UPCA, R. 24 RoP)

The UPC’s “inherent” jurisdiction to ensure its effectiveness: The jurisdiction extends to the abusive use of divisional applications. In revocation proceedings or actions for declaration of non-infringement, the court may decline to dispose of the action (Rule 360 RoP) and determine that a patent lacked inventive step, notwithstanding its withdrawal by the patentee

Dyson Technology Limited has filed an application for provisional measures at the UPC Hamburg against multiple Dreame entities and distributors, involving European Patent 3,119,235. The case raises questions about jurisdiction under the Brussels I recast regulation and the interplay between UPC procedural rules and EU regulations in cross-border patent disputes.

Claims introduced for the first time during the interim proceedings in the infringement action, based on the scope of the patent in dispute within the framework of the auxiliary requests and the related submission of facts, are not admissible

The Court of Appeal examines procedural and substantive issues arising from parallel infringement and revocation proceedings involving European Patent EP 3 356 109, with jurisdictional implications across multiple European states. The case involves complex questions of court procedure, patent validity challenges, and the application of the Unified Patent Court Agreement provisions.

Public prior use: Making available a manufacturing method by use pursuant to Art. 54(2) EPC