References

In a leading case, the Federal Supreme Court decided important legal questions concerning warning letters, including the applicable limitation periods. Following the appeal of the defendant represented by me, the Court of Appeals judgment was overturned, and the complaint was dismissed in substantial parts.

The Federal Supreme Court decides a leading case in favor of my client and holds that information obtained by the plaintiff on the basis of a non-final enforceable judgment has to be returned if the judgment is subsequently overturned.

The Federal Supreme Court changed its long-standing case law on the correct declaration of prices in combination with deposits, following a referral to the ECJ (judgment of 29.06.2024 – C-543/21). The Court found that the deposit can be declared separately and does not have to be included in the final price. This judgment concerns a matter of high practical importance for the retail sector and provides a simple and transparent solution.

The Federal Supreme Court decides, that vending machines at supermarket checkouts must bear the legal warning indications after twice submitting the case to the European Court of Justice (C-217/20 and C-356/22). This is a far-reaching success for the anti-smoking group that I represent.

The Federal Supreme Court changes its long-standing precedent on how prices for drink containers that also include deposits have to be communicated, after submitting the case to the European Court of Justice (C-543/21). It accepts the manner in which the national retail chain represented by me has indicated prices.

In this patent nullity action an important telecommunication patent that was widely used in the automotive industry was at stake. On behalf of the patent owner, I succeed in defending the patent with only minor amendments.

This case concerned the treatment of deferred compensation elements that are common in the financial industry, in the context of divorce proceedings. The Supreme Court follows the arguments of the appellant represented by me and decides that these future payments would not form part of the joint assets.

In this product liability case, I represent the manufacturer of a ceramic inlay in a hip endoprosthesis. The Supreme Court decides in my client’s favor and clarifies important questions concerning the burden of proof and the monitoring duties of the manufacturer.

The Federal Supreme Court examines the admissibility of a widely used clause in insurance terms and conditions and decides the case in favor of the insurance company represented by me.