Notes

• [*]
  This research was funded in part by the Luxembourg National Research Fund (FNR), grant reference NCER22/IS/16570468/NCER-FT.
  The authors thank Cátia Patricia Miranda Carvalho for her excellent research assistance.
• [1]
  G. Spindler, “FinTech, Digitalisation, and The Law applicable to Proprietary Effects of Transactions in Securities (tokens): a European Perspective”, Uniform Law Review, 2019, 24(4), 724.
• [2]
  R. P. Buckley, D. W. Arner, and D. A. Zetzsche, FinTech: finance, technology and regulation, Cambridge University Press, 2023, p. 11.
• [3]
  T. Walker, E. Nikbakht and M. Koon (eds), The FinTech Disruption: How Financial Innovation Is Transforming the Banking Industry, Palgrave Macmilla, 2023).
• [4]
  D. W. Arner, E. P. Buckley. D. A. Zetzsche and R. Veidt, “Sustainability, FinTech and Financial Inclusion”, European Business Organization Law Review, 21, 7, 2020; T. Walker, H. J. Turtle, M. Kooli and E. Nikbakht (eds), FinTech and Sustainability: How Financial Technologies Can Help Address Today’s Environmental and Societal Challenges, Palgrave Macmillan, 2023.
• [5]
  Luxembourg is among the top 3 in the EU as a financial centre, See, Luxembourg for Finance, Agency for the Development of the Financial Centre, “FinTech”, 2018, pp. 10, 12, 15.
• [6]
  For legal literature on the intersection of IP and FinTech, see Ch. J. Katopis, “The Curious Crypto Question: Do Patents Advance FinTech Innovation? The Paradox Arising from Five Key Recent Trends”, Santa Clara High Technology Law Journal, 38(1), 2021, p. 3 (analysing the access to patent protection of FinTech innovation in the US); S. N. Azizah, “The Adoption of FinTech and the Legal Protection of the Digital Assets in Isalmic/Sharia Banking Linked with Economic Development: A Case of Indonesia”, The Journal of World Intellectual Property, 26(1), 2023; p. 37 (exploring the legal protection of FinTech in Indonesia).
• [7]
  There are, however, some works on digital finance and its regulatory regime in the EU. See, N. Manzari, Z. Wagner, “The Digital Future for Financial Services”, 2021/07, PinCode, 7.
• [8]
  For the legal perspective, see for example, R. A. Posner, “Intellectual Property: The Law and Economics Approach”, (2009), Journal of Economic Perspectives, 19(2), 57-73; For the economic perspective, see for example, J. Lerner, “The Empirical Impact of Intellectual Property Rights on Innovation: Puzzles and Clues”, (2009), American Economic Review, 99(2), 343.
• [9]
  See references in No. 6 above.
• [10]
  G. Ferraro, A. Iovanella, A. Ramponi, G. Rotundo, “Promoting Sustainability Goals: Innovation Trajectories of FinTech Through Patent Analysis”, Annals of Operation Research, 2024, p. 3.
• [11]
  Ibid., p. 28.
• [12]
  Ibid.
• [13]
  M. Armani Dehghani, D. Karavidas, N. Panourgias, M. Hutchinson, and P. O’Reilly, “Assessing the Quality of Financial Technology Patents Through the Development of a Patent Quality Index for Comparing Jurisdictions, Technical Domains, and Leading Organizations”, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 71, 2023.
• [14]
  After reviewing the literature on patent quality, the authors selected the following top six recurring elements to construct the index: forward citation, backward citation, nonpatent citation (NPL), claims count, family size, and four-digit IPC classes. See, ibid. p. 4.
• [15]
  M. Armani Dehghani, D. Karavidas, N. Panourgias, M. Hutchinson, and P. O’Reilly, “Assessing the Quality of Financial Technology Patents Through the Development of a Patent Quality Index for Comparing Jurisdictions, Technical Domains, and Leading Organizations”, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 71, 2023, p. 2.
• [16]
  Ibid., p. 12.
• [17]
  See below in section IV. A. 1).
• [18]
  M. Armani Dehghani, D. Karavidas, N. Panourgias, M. Hutchinson, and P. O’Reilly, “Assessing the Quality of Financial Technology Patents Through the Development of a Patent Quality Index for Comparing Jurisdictions, Technical Domains, and Leading Organizations”, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 71, 2023, p. 2. In addition, they also observed the distribution of quality and patents among different organisations, jurisdictions and specific technical fields. See, p. 2.
• [19]
  Ibid., p. 12.
• [20]
  L. Ding and P. Xue, “Incentives of Disincentives? Intellectual Property Protection and FinTech Innovation - Evidence from Chinese Cities”, Finance Research Letters, 58, 2023, p. 4.
• [21]
  Ibid., p. 2.
• [22]
  Ibid., p. 5.
• [23]
  Ibid.
• [24]
  M. Armani Dehghani, D. Karavidas, N. Panourgias, M. Hutchinson, and P. O’Reilly, “Assessing the Quality of Financial Technology Patents Through the Development of a Patent Quality Index for Comparing Jurisdictions, Technical Domains, and Leading Organizations”, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 71, 2023, p. 13. The authors invite for further research on the impact of patenting activity on national economies.
• [25]
  Ibid., p. 10.
• [26]
  Ibid.
• [27]
  Ibid., p. 29.
• [28]
  LHoFT, <www.lhoft.com> Accessed 31 January 2025.
• [29]
  Ibid.
• [30]
  Ibid.
• [31]
  Ibid.
• [32]
  Luxembourg for Finance, Agency for the Development of the Financial Centre, “FinTech”, p. 31.
• [33]
  Our findings regarding the use of trademarks by the FinTech sector more frequently compared to other IP tools are in line with the statistics found in the latest joint study of the EPO and the EUIPO from 2021 about IP ownership in general. According to the study, in Luxembourg, for the total of 272 firms, 6.34% accounts for the ownership of the EU trade marks, followed by national (in case of Luxembourg – Benelux) trademarks with 4.5%. European patents make up the share of 0.41% and the national patents only 0.12%. Registered Community designs and national patents both account for the least of 0.04% each. Notably, copyright-related data is missing in the study. Hence, FinTech firms may not be different from average IP owners generally even though their business is concentrated on technology-oriented innovation. See, EPO and EUIPO, “Intellectual Property Rights and Firm Performance in the European Union, Firm-level Analysis Report”, February 2021, p. 41.
• [34]
  In the field of copyright and databases, there is the Law of 18 April 2001 on Copyright, Neighbouring Rights and Databases, as amended lastly by the Law of 3 April 2020 (the Copyright Act). For trademarks and design rights, Luxembourg does not have its national system, but instead it is part of the Benelux Convention on Intellectual Property of 25 February 2005. The Convention was approved by the Law of 16 May 2006. As for patents, they are governed by Law of 20 July 1992 amending the System for Patents for Innovation, as amended by the Law of 24 May 1998 and lastly by the Law of 18 December 2009 (the Patent Act). The mentioned laws are in compliance with the EU legal framework in the respective IP areas, including the adaptations of EU legislation adopted in the context of the new digital age. For instance, in April 2022, Luxembourg enacted the law No. 7847 to transpose the EU Directive 2019/790 on copyright and related rights in the Digital Single Market (“New Copyright Directive”). Luxembourg has also transposed the EU Trade Secret Directive 2016/943. See, on the latter point, C. Saettel, “Les secrets d’affaires: transposition en droit luxembourgeois de la directive européenne 2016/943”, 2019/02, PinCode, 1. International conventions in the field of IP law to which Luxembourg is a signatory is the European Patent Convention 1973 (EPC), Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property 1883 (Paris Convention), Berne Convention for the Protection of Literally and Artistic Works 1886 (Berne Convention), TRIPS Agreement 1995.
• [35]
  H. Demsetz, “Toward a Theory of Property Rights”, The American Economic Review, 57(2), 1967, pp. 347 f, 359; F. M. Scherer and D. Ross, Industrial Market Structure and Economic Performance, 3^rd edn, Houghton Mifflin, 1990; W. M. Landes and R. A. Posner, The Economic Structure of Intellectual Property Law (Harvard UP, 2003) p. 13.
• [36]
  For the US, see M. M. La Belle and H. M. Schooner, “FinTech: New Battle Lines in the Patent Wars?”, Cardozo Law Review, 42(1), 2020, pp. 317 f.
• [37]
  Art. 48(1) of the EPC.
• [38]
  See, M. Norrgard, N. Bruun and R. M. Ballardini (eds.), Transitions in European Patent Law: Innfluences of the Unitary Patent Package, Wolters Kluwer International, 2015, pp. 59-144. See, Art. 52(2)(3) of the EPC.
• [39]
  Art. 4 and 5 of the Loi du 20 juillet 1992 portant modification du régime des brevets d’invention. See, Marks & Clerk, “Patents in Luxembourg”, Lexology, 27 June 2019, <https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=1dcdca35-03eb-46ed-9ffe-f3b8d2960431> Accessed 19 February 2025.
• [40]
  See, Guidelines for Examination in the European Patent Office, March 2024, OJ EPO 2024, A9 (EPO Guidelines). According to the EPO Guidelines (Part G, Chap. II, 1), certain types of subject matter are excluded from patentability because they are regarded as excessively abstract, such as scientific theories or mathematical methods, or as lacking technical character, such as presentations of information. Algorithms typically fall under one of these exclusions. However, in the Vicom case, the Boards of Appeal clarified that a device implementing a mathematical method to process data and produce an improved digital image on a computer may qualify for protection if it possesses a technical character. See, T208/84, Vicom/computer-related invention (17 July 1986).
• [41]
  For an overview, see S. Sterck× and J. Cockbain, Exclusions From Patentability. How Far Has the European Patent Office Eroded Boundaries? (CUP 2012), p. 67 ff.
• [42]
  Decision of Technical Board of Appeal 3.5.1, 26 September 2002, T 641/00 - 3.5.1.
• [43]
  Decision of the Enlarged Board of Appeal, 10 March 2021, G 1/19.
• [44]
  State Street Bank & Trust Co. v. Signature Financial Group, Inc, No 96-1327, US CAFC, July 23, 1998.
• [45]
  See, for example, AT&T Corp. v. Excel Communications, Inc., 50 USPQ 2^d 1447, Fed. Cir., 1999.
• [46]
  M. K. OHLHAUSEN, “Patent Rights in a Climate of Intellectual Property Rights Scepticism”, (2016), Harvard Journal of Law & Technology, 30(1), p. 114. For empirical data, see M. M. La Belle and H. Mandanis Schooner, “Big Banks and Business Method Patents”, University of Pennsylvania Journal of Business Law, 16(2), 2014, p. 448 ff.
• [47]
  United States Patent No. 5,960, 411.
• [48]
  Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, 573 U.S. 208 (2014).
• [49]
  USPTO, “2106 Patent Subject Matter Eligibility [R-10.2019]” <https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2106.html> Accessed 31 December 2024. See also, D. O. Taylor, “Patent Eligibility and Investment”, Cardozo Law Review, 41, 2020, p. 2087 (stating that the Mayo/Alice framework replaced the old test set forth in State Street Bank).
• [50]
  Mayo v. Prometheus, 566 U.S. 66, 71 (2012); Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, 573 U.S. 208, 217 f (2014).
• [51]
  Mayo v. Prometheus, 566 U.S. 66, 72f (2012); Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, 573 U.S. 208, 217f (2014).
• [52]
  Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, 573 U.S. 208, 217f (2014) citing Mayo v. Prometheus, 566 U.S. 66, 72 f (2012).
• [53]
  M. Nowotarski, “Surviving Alice in the Finance Arts”, Bilski Blog (blog), Fenwick & West LLP, January 30, 2017, <https://www.fenwick.com/bilski-blog/surviving-alice-in-the-finance-arts-1> Accessed 30 July 2025.
• [54]
  See already M. Fink, “Patenting Business Methods in Europe: What Lies Ahead?”, Indiana University School of Law, 79(1), 2024, pp. 300, 312 ff.
• [55]
  See in this regard, ibid. p. 321.
• [56]
  See, S. Dirksen, K. Grimshow, M. Hostetler, I. Junkerson, M. Kim, “Who’s Afraid of amazon.com v. barnesandnoble.com?”, Duke Law & Technology Review, 1, 2001.
• [57]
  M. Fink, “Patenting Business Methods in Europe: What Lies Ahead?”, Indiana University School of Law, 79(1), 2004, p. 301.
• [58]
  J. Pila and P. Torremans, European Intellectual Property Law, Oxford University Press, 2019, p. 244.
• [59]
  See, Art. 5(2) of the Berne Convention.
• [60]
  Al Tamimi & Co., “FinTech, Innovation and Intellectual Property Rights: A wake up call for financial institutions and tech companies” <FinTech, Innovation and Intellectual Property Rights: A wake up call for financial institutions and tech companies – Al Tamimi & Company> Accessed 19 February 2025.
• [61]
  See, for example, Art. 2(1) of the Berne Convention mentioning certain types of protected works but no definition.
• [62]
  Directive 2009/24/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the legal protection of computer programs (Codified version), OJ L 11.
• [63]
  The only referral to the CJEU on this issue (Case C-313/18, Dacom Limited v. IPM Informed Portfolio Management AB) was ultimately withdrawn by the parties.
• [64]
  Case C-406/10 (Référence LexNow / ID 17547), SAS Institute Inc. v World Programming Ltd, ECLI:EU:C:2012:259. See also, SAS Institute Inc v World Programming Ltd [2013] EWHC 69 (Ch).
• [65]
  B. Widła, “No More Convergence? Copyright Protection of Application Programming Interfaces in the USA and the EU” in P. Mezei, H. Travis and A. POGÁCSÁS (eds.), Harmonizing Intellectual Property Law for a TransAtlantic Knowledge Economy, Brill, 2024.
• [66]
  Judgement of the Supreme Court, Google LLC v. Oracle Am., Inc. 141 S. Ct. 1163 (2021).
• [67]
  The origins of trade secret law and its place within the broader legal framework remain a subject of debate. Courts, attorneys, academics, and legal commentators disagree on whether trade secrets are best understood as rooted in contract law, tort law, intellectual property law, or even criminal law. None of these perspectives has been entirely convincing. This lack of consensus has led to inconsistent interpretations of the fundamental components of trade secret claims and ambiguity regarding how trade secret laws interact with other legal doctrines. In this regard see, R. G. Bone, “A New Look at Trade Secret Law: Doctrine in Search of Justification”, Cal. L. Rev., 86(2), 1998, p. 304; M. A. Lemley, “The Surprising Virtues of Treating Trade Secrets as IP rights”, in R. C. Dreyfuss, K. J. Strandburg (eds.) The Law and Theory of Trade Secrecy, Edward Elgar Publishing, 2011; M. Risch, “Why Do We Have Trade Secrets”, Marq. Intell. Prop. L. Rev., 2007, 11(1), p. 3.
• [68]
  Directive (EU) 2016/943 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2016 on the protection of undisclosed know-how and business information (trade secrets) against their unlawful acquisition, use and disclosure, OJ L 157, 15.6.2016, p. 1–18. (Trade Secret Directive). For the transposition in Luxembourg law, see Camille Saettel, “Les secrets d’affaires: transposition en droit luxembourgeois de la directive européenne 2016/943”, 2019/02, PinCode, 1.
• [69]
  Art. 2(1) of the Trade Secret Directive. Cf Article 39(2) of the TRIPS Agreement.
• [70]
  Art. 4 of the Trade Secret Directive.
• [71]
  E. Davradakis and R. Santos, “FinTechs and Their Relevance for International Financial Institutions”, EIB Working Papers, 2019/01-Blockchain, 2019, p. 22.
• [72]
  D. Quinto and S. Singer, Trade Secrets: Law and Practice, Oxford University Press, 2009, p. 34.
• [73]
  M. Medeiros, “Intellectual Property Strategy for FinTech”, Financier Worldwide Magazine, Special Report: Intellectual Property, 2017, <https://www.financierworldwide.com/intellectual-property-strategy-for-FinTech> Accessed 19 February 2025.
• [74]
  For a comparative overview of the legal situation in Germany before the Trade Secret Directive and the US, see F. SCHWEYER, Die rechtliche Bewertung des Reverse Engineering in Deutschland und den USA. Eine rechtsvergleichende Abgrenzung zwischen geistigem Eigentum und Gemeinfreiheit bei der Analyse von Konkurrenzprodukten, Mohr Siebeck, 2012.
• [75]
  See, for example, Case C-5/08 (Référence LexNow / ID 22643) Infopaq International A/S v Danske Dagblades Forening, ECLI:EU:C:2009:465; Case C-683/17 (Référence LexNow / ID 20190919001) Cofemel – Sociedade de Vestuário SA v. G-Star Raw CV, ECLI:EU:C:2019:721; Case C-469/17 (Référence LexNow / ID 28640) Funke Medien NRW GmbH v. Bundesrepublik Deutschland, ECLI:EU:C:2019:623; Case C-833/18 (Référence LexNow / ID 20200708681) SI and Brompton Bicycle Ltd v Chedech/Get2Get, ECLI:EU:C:2020:461.
• [76]
  Case C-393/09, Bezpečnostní softwarová asociace – Svaz softwarové ochrany v Ministerstvo kultury. According to this ruling, a GUI is not a form of expression of a computer program in the sense of the Computer Programmes Directive but can be protected as a work if it is the author’s own intellectual creation.
• [77]
  See Recitals 9-10, 38-40 of the Directive 96/9/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 1996 on the legal protection of databases, OJ L 77, 27.3.1996. (Database Directive).
• [78]
  Art. 3 of the Database Directive.
• [79]
  Ibid. art. 7(1).
• [80]
  Ibid.
• [81]
  Ibid. art. 10(1).
• [82]
  Council Regulation (EC) No. 6/2002 of 12 December 2001 on Community designs. OJ L 3, 5.1.2002, pp. 1–24.
• [83]
  Directive (EU) 2024/2823 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2024 on the legal protection of designs (recast), OJ L, 2024/2823.
• [84]
  See, Art. 1(2)(a) of the Community Design Regulation. Unregistered designs provide limited scope of protection (Article 19(2) Community Design Regulation) and a shorter term of protection (Art. 11 of the Community Design Regulation).
• [85]
  A. Brem, P. A. Nylund and E. L. Hitchen, “Open Innovation and Intellectual Property Rights: How do SMEs Benefit from Patents, Industrial Designs, Trademarks and Copyrights?”, Management Decision, 55(6), 2017, p. 1288 f.
• [86]
  Case C-395/16 (Référence LexNow / ID 26870), DOCERAM GmbH v CeramTec GmbH, ECLI:EU:C:2018:172.
• [87]
  See P. S. Menell and E. Corren, “Design Patent Law’s Identity Crisis”, Berkeley Technology Law Journal, 36(1), 2021, p. 62 ff.; P. Lee and M. Sunder, “Design Patents: Law Without Design”, Stanford Technology Law Review, 17, p. 285.
• [88]
  R. Alt, E. Beck and M. T. Smits, “FinTech and the Transformation of the Financial Industry”, Electronic Markets, 28(3), 2018, 235.
• [89]
  M. Medeiros and B. Chau, “FinTech-stake a Patent Claim?”, Intellectual Property Journal, 28(3), 2016, p. 303.
• [90]
  Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2017 on the European Union trademark (codification), OJ L 154, 16.6.2017, pp. 1–99.
• [91]
  Directive (EU) 2015/2436 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2015 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trademarks (recast) (text with EEA relevance), OJ L 336, 23.12.2015, pp. 1–26.
• [92]
  A. Beckerman-Rodau, “The Choice Between Patent Protection and Trade Secret Protection: a Legal and Business Decision”, J. Pat. & Trademark Off. Soc’y, 84, 2002, p. 371.
• [93]
  Case C-98/11 P (Référence LexNow / ID L2345EE8B), Chocoladefabriken Lindt & Sprüngli AG v. Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM), EU:C:2012:307.
• [94]
  L. Ding and P. Xue, “Incentives of Disincentives? Intellectual Property Protection and FinTech Innovation – Evidence from Chinese Cities”, Finance Research Letters, 58, 2023, p. 5.
• [95]
  B. Marvin Lieberman and D. B. Montgomery, “First-Mover Advantages”, Strategic Management Journal, 9, 1988, p. 41.
• [96]
  M. M. La Belle and H. Mandanis Schooner, “FinTech: New Battle Lines in the Patent Wars?”, Cardozo Law Review, 42(1), 2021, p. 282.
• [97]
  Ibid.; F. M. Scherer, “First Mover Advantages and Optimal Patent Protection”, Regulatory Policy Program Working Paper RPP-2015-05, Mossavar-Rahmani Center for Business and Government, Harvard Kennedy School, 2015, p. 2.
• [98]
  Hence, many scholars object IP protection in case of first-mover advantages. See, for example, E. C. Hettinger, “Justifying Intellectual Property”, Philosophy and Public Affairs, 18(1), 1989, p. 50; M. Boldrin and D. K. Levine, “The Case Against Patents”, The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 27(1), 2013, p. 10 ff.
• [99]
  See, C. Shapiro, “Navigating the Patent Thicket: Cross Licences, Patent Pools, and Standard Setting”, in A. B. Jaffe, J. Lerner and S. Stern (eds.), Vol. 20, National Bureau of Economic Research, 2001, p. 121.
• [100]
  M. A. Lemley, “Property, Intellectual Property, and Free Riding”, Texas Law Review, 2005, 83, 1031. Lemley criticises the overextension of IP protection, arguing that it must be carefully balanced to avoid harming innovation.
• [101]
  Shapiro defines IP thickets as “overlapping intellectual property rights that a company must hack its way through in order to actually commercialise new technology”. See, C. Shapiro, “Navigating the Patent Thicket: Cross Licences, Patent Pools, and Standard Setting”, in A. B. Jaffe, J. Lerner & S. Stern (eds.), Vol. 20, National Bureau of Economic Research, 2001, p. 120.
• [102]
  M. M. La Belle and H. Mandanis Schooner, “FinTech: New Battle Lines in the Patent Wars?”, Cardozo Law Review, 42(1), 2021, p. 347 f.
• [103]
  Ibid., p. 348.
• [104]
  M. M. La Belle and H. Mandanis Schooner, “FinTech: New Battle Lines in the Patent Wars?”, Cardozo Law Review, 42(1), 2021, p. 342.
• [105]
  See Y Furukawa, “Intellectual Property Protection and Innovation: An Inverted-U Relationship”, Economics Letters, 109(2), 2010, p. 99. In line with Ding and Xue, Furukawa by using an endogenous growth model without scale effects, demonstrates that while the stronger IP protection increases the incentive to innovate, in a longer run, it discourages “learning by doing”. Hence, from the economic perspective as well, both very strong and very weak IP policies are considered to decrease innovation, and the middle-ground solution is suggested.
• [106]
  Tilleke & Gibbins, “Patenting AI Technology and Software in Southeast Asia”, 2023, <https://www.tilleke.com/insights/patenting-ai-technology-and-software-in-southeast-asia/?utm_source=chatgpt.com> Accessed 31 January 2025.
• [107]
  Intellectual Property Office of Singapore, “Bridging Blockchain and IP: A Singapore Perspective”, 2023, <https://www.ipos.gov.sg/docs/default-source/resources-library/bridging-blockchain-and-ip---a-singapore-perspective.pdf> Accessed 31 January 2025, p. 12.
• [108]
  Guichet.lu, <https://guichet.public.lu/en/entreprises/gestion-juridique-comptabilite/propriete-intellectuelle/propriete-industrielle/brevet.html> Accessed 19 February 2025.
• [109]
  The 2025 edition of the SME Fund was set to start on 3 February 2025. It offers 75% reduction of filing fees for trademark and design rights, 75% reduction for filing fees and the costs of prior art search conducted by national offices in case of patent applications, 75% reduction for the online application and examination of plant varieties. See, IPIL, <https://ipil.lu/fr/fonds-pme-2025/?utm_source=chatgpt.com> Accessed 19 February 2025.
• [110]
  Though, it must be noted that fast track procedure is not without its downsides: in case of applying for patents on a fast track, there is a reduced time for applicants to refine their claims, moreover, disclosure of information on the innovation occurs earlier, however, the latter is less problematic in the FinTech sector as it is a highly dynamic sphere. Another disadvantage is that fast track procedures do not always allow to file for the divisional patent applications, i.e., once the patent is no longer pending for the parent application, the opportunity to file a divisional patent application is lost (Rule 36(1), Implementing Regulations to Part III of the EPC).
• [111]
  M. M. La Belle and H. Mandanis Schooner, “FinTech: New Battle Lines in the Patent Wars?”, Cardozo Law Review, 42(1), 2021, p. 345 f.
• [112]
  R. 370(8), Rules of Procedure of the Unified Patent Court 2022.
• [113]
  IP box regimes offer tax saving for incomes deriving from IP.
• [114]
  See, OECD, <https://www.oecd.org/en/topics/harmful-tax-practices.html> Accessed 13 February 2025.
• [115]
  According to Art. 50ter(1) of the amended law of 4 December 1967, concerning income tax, eligible IP assets are defined as patents, utility models, supplementary protection certificates as well as extension of supplementary protection certificates, plant variety certificates, orphan drug certificates and software copyrights created after 31 December 2007.