Track Record at the Federal Court of Justice

Successful representation of insolvency creditors in proceedings for provisional remuneration of the insolvency administrator. The Federal Court ruled that the insolvency administrator must bear the costs if he withdraws his remuneration application after a creditor has lodged an immediate appeal (Section 269 (3) ZPO analogously). This shifts the cost risk to the insolvency administrator and strengthens the position of the creditors.

Representation of the defendant in a case concerning the limitation period for ancillary claims for disclosure in patent disputes. The court confirmed that such claims are linked to the main claim and become time-barred at the same time as the main claim, regardless of when the claims are asserted. This decision provides defendant companies with planning security in their risk analysis.

Representation of the defendant in a legal dispute concerning a domain name that allegedly infringed on a company's naming rights (Section 12 of the German Civil Code). The court ruled that legitimate interests in domain traffic and ranking must be taken into account, especially if the domain was registered before the rights were asserted. The ruling strengthens the domain strategy as a tool for corporate visibility and brand development.

Representation of an investor in proceedings under the Capital Market Model Case Act (KapMuG) on the question of whether, in addition to statutory prospectus liability (Sections 13 VerkProspG, 44 ff. BörsG), general tort law can also apply.

The court confirmed that only the special provisions apply and that general tort liability is excluded.

This decision creates legal certainty for future prospectus matters – to the benefit of both investors and issuers.

Representation of the defendant, a foreign supplier, in patent infringement proceedings concerning ultrasonic transducers. The court ruled that German injunctive relief, disclosure and damages claims require proof of marketing in Germany. The burden of proof lies with the plaintiff. This limits the liability of foreign suppliers and clearly defines the territorial scope of German patent law.

In this decision, the Federal Court of Justice dealt with horse boarding contracts. It confirmed that such contracts are not service contracts, but are generally classified as custody contracts. Therefore, a clause stipulating a notice period of eight weeks does not violate consumer protection under Section 307 of the German Civil Code (BGB). This decision provides legal clarity for horse boarding businesses and their contractual terms and conditions.