Technology and data: what we take on and how a file starts
This pillar covers four separate decisions: whether you are an obliged entity under AML rules, what your data and AI programme must cover, how a brand portfolio is registered and defended, and who owns the output of a development or research contract. Each question sits in its own practice, with its own sources and its own deadline. This page tells you which practice applies to your situation and what a file needs to start.
We work with companies operating through Lithuania and Estonia, often across both jurisdictions in the same quarter. A single client can face an AML registration question, a data protection review, and a trade mark filing at the same time, handled as separate files rather than one blended engagement. The four practices below are built to be used separately or together, depending on what your business actually needs.
What this pillar covers
The table below lists the four practices in this pillar, the decision each one answers, and the page where a reader should start.
| Practice | What it answers | Start here |
|---|---|---|
| AML and compliance | Whether your activity falls under obliged-entity rules, and what your compliance programme must contain | Compliance and AML for obliged entities |
| Data and security | What a data protection and AI governance file must cover, and who signs off on it internally | Data, security and AI obligations in detail |
| Trade marks and designs | What can be registered, in which class, and how a portfolio is defended once it exists | Trade marks, designs and brand portfolios overview and what |
| Ownership of results | Who owns code, data and research output once a development or research contract ends | Ownership of results overview and who decides |
The four practices rarely overlap in scope, but they often overlap in timing. A company launching a new product can face a trade mark filing, a data protection review, and an ownership question about the underlying code, all inside the same launch window. We treat that as four short files, not one long one, because each has a different decision-maker and a different deadline.
What each practice actually changes
An AML finding usually requires a registration step or a change to an internal programme, and it can require reporting obligations that did not exist before the finding. A data finding usually requires a policy update, a record of processing, or a breach notification, depending on what went wrong and how it was discovered. A trade mark finding changes what you may lawfully call a product, a service, or a company, and it can force a rebrand if the finding goes against you. An ownership finding changes who may use, modify, or sell a piece of software or a dataset once the underlying contract has ended, which matters most when a supplier relationship breaks down.
None of these outcomes are guaranteed by us. What we can commit to is the process: a clear scope, a named deadline, and a file that states who decides and on what basis.
How a file starts
Every file in this pillar starts the same way, regardless of which of the four practices it belongs to.
- Send us the contract, registration, notice or dataset the question relates to. We do not open a file on a description alone.
- Name the jurisdiction. Lithuania and Estonia apply the same EU baseline differently in places, and the answer can change with the country.
- Tell us whether a deadline has already started. A filed complaint, an audit notice, or a contract renewal date changes what we do first.
- Confirm who inside your company can instruct us. We need one contact who can approve steps without a second round of internal sign-off.
- If a third party is already involved, such as a regulator or an opposing party, say so at the outset. It changes how fast we move.
A partner responds within minutes during working hours. A scoped file, naming the steps and the practice that will handle it, follows within one working day.
Who decides
The decision-maker differs by practice, and stating it correctly matters more than stating it quickly. AML questions run through the relevant supervisory authority in each jurisdiction, and that authority sets both the substantive rule and the procedural deadline. Data and AI questions run through the data protection authority, or through a contract, if the obligation in question is contractual rather than statutory. Trade mark and design questions run through the national or EU registration office, which decides on filing, opposition and registration. Ownership disputes run through the contract first, and through court only if the contract is silent or the parties disagree about what it says.
We name the specific authority and the specific deadline on each practice page, once we know the jurisdiction and the facts of your file. This page deliberately does not name them, because the correct authority depends on details this page does not have.
Two common starting points
If you have received a notice, a complaint, or an audit letter, send it to us before you send anything back. The deadline to respond usually starts on receipt, not on the date you open the letter or read it in full.
If you are setting up a new product, service, or contract and want to know what applies before a dispute exists, tell us what the product does and where it will be sold. We map the applicable practice from that description, not from a guess at the category the product might fall into.
What this page does not decide
This page names the four practices in this pillar and the entry point for each. It does not state a fee, a filing number, or a court reference, because none of those depend on the pillar as a whole. They depend on the specific practice, the jurisdiction, and the facts of the file once we have them. If you need a figure or a deadline stated precisely, the relevant practice page is where it will appear, dated and sourced.
Sources and provenance
This hub does not cite a norm, a case, or a regulator, because it does not decide anything on its own. Each of the four practice pages states its own sources at the point where a rule or a figure is used, and a date sits next to any figure that changes over time.
For the compliance question, obligations and registration thresholds sit with each jurisdiction's supervisory authority, not with a single EU-wide figure. For the registration questions in intellectual property, filing rules sit with the national or EU office handling the specific register. We name the correct office on the relevant practice page, once the jurisdiction is known and the register is identified.
Frequently asked questions
What does this change in practice?
It depends on which of the four practices applies to your situation. An AML finding can require a registration step or a change to your compliance programme. A data finding can require a policy update or a breach notification, depending on the cause. A trade mark finding can change what you may lawfully call a product. An ownership finding can change who may use a piece of software once a contract with a supplier or a developer has ended.
Which deadline applies?
Each of the four practices sets its own deadline, and some deadlines run from the date of a notice rather than the date of a contract or a filing. Send us the document that triggers the question, and we will state the deadline that applies to your specific file, not a general estimate.
What do you need from us to start?
The document or dataset the question concerns, the jurisdiction it relates to, and one contact inside your company who can approve next steps. We do not need a full internal brief before we can scope the file and name a first deadline.