Keep | Thinking
Rohnke Winter keep thinking. As barristers at the Supreme Court, we complete the work that has been begun by our colleagues before the trial courts.
If the client was successful before the Court of Appeals, we defend the judgement against the opponent’s attacks. We do not simply repeat the reasoning of the court but reinforce it with additional arguments. We critically examine negative judgements. On Appeal, we throw into sharp relief any procedural or substantive errors of law. If the Court of Appeals has not granted leave to appeal to the Supreme Court, we aim to convince the Supreme Court of the importance of the case and the need to correct the lower court’s judgement.
Thinking | Again
Rohnke Winter think again - about their own position. While strongly advocating our client’s case in litigation, we offer a clear and detailed assessment of chances and risks during internal discussions. But whatever the direction, we always remain focused on a single goal: our clients’ ultimate success.
Thinking | Across
Rohnke Winter think across boundaries, across all fields of civil and commercial law. In founding our law firm, it was our core objective to offer high quality legal services in this broad field. Our legal specializations and personal experiences are complementary: Christian Rohnke offers the experience and knowledge gained in many years as a partner of a major international law firm, and Thomas Winter supplies the know-how of appellate litigation practice dating back to 2003.
The scope of our work is evident in the cases we have successfully litigated for our clients. Opinions of third parties show the appreciation of our thinking.
Thinking | Through
Rohnke Winter think things through. We focus our pleadings on the issues that are relevant before the Supreme Court and resolve them in depth and detail using case law and academic writings. Our arguments are based not merely on our legal experience. We understand the underlying business interests, technological background and industry-specific features of our cases.
Where no Supreme Court precedentexists, we develop creative and well-founded solutions. We are always guided by the principle that complex thinking has to be expressed in a clear and lucid manner.
Thinking | Deeply
Rohnke Winter think deeply about legal disputes. We aim to be equally convincing both as arbitrators and as barristers. We are working an arbitral with the objective to find a fair and correct resolution of the dispute. We are regularly appointed as arbitrators in IP and energy law disputes.
Thinking | Ahead
Rohnke Winter think ahead. We are prepared to assist in complex litigations at the trial court level. Together with the lead attorneys at these stages we ensure an optimal preparation for the appeal to the Supreme Court. In our role as legal experts, we exhaustively analyze the problem submitted to us. This provides the client with a reliable basis for their strategic planning - be at litigation or an amicable solution. We actively participate in academic debate with our publications.
Thinking | Together
Rohnke Winter think together – with you. No matter whether you contact us as client, colleague or associate, we welcome your suggestions.
We invite colleagues who have conducted the litigation in the lower courts to join our work on the case. We do not consider your constructive criticism as a distraction – on the contrary, we expressly desire it.
We welcome colleagues who are independently minded and excel intellectually. The quality of your work improves our briefs.
Thinking | Back
Rohnke Winter think back. We continue the tradition established by Cornelie von Gierke and Prof. Dr. Achim Krämer who were highly respected barristers at the Supreme Court for decades. This tradition is both obligation and motivation.
Prof. Dr. Christian Rohnke
„BGH-Anwälte: Rohnke Winter erobern die Spitze der Empfehlungsliste“ (juve.de 21.08.2017)
„Zum zweiten Mal führt die BGH-Kanzlei Rohnke & Winter das JUVE BGH-Anwalts-Ranking an
– mit wachsendem Vorsprung.“ (juve.de 23.10.2018)
„BGH-Kanzleien: Rohnke Winter baut Spitzenposition im JUVE-Ranking aus.“ (juve.de 27.12.2019)
Zu Christian Rohnke:
„Rockstar der BGH-Szene“ (Juve Heft 11/2015)
„einer der besten Markenrechtler Deutschlands; klug, mit allen Wassern gewaschen; internationale Erfahrung“ (Juve-Handbuch 2015/2016)
„gutes Standing beim BGH“ (Juve-Handbuch 2016/2017)
Zu Thomas Winter:
„brillanter Jurist, kluger Stratege, fantastische Schriftsätze“ (Juve-Handbuch 2014/2015)
„ausgezeichneter Jurist“ (Juve-Handbuch 2015/2016)
„brillanter Jurist, kluger Stratege, fantastische Schriftsätze“ (Juve-Handbuch 2016/2017)
The cases we have successfully litigated before the Federal Supreme Court are evidence of our work. We have gathered a small selection that shows the scope of our work. We have deliberately limited the number of examples.
Meda Gate: On our application the Federal Supreme Court grants the right to appeal and decides in favour of the manufacturer of design furniture represented by us. Following our arguments the Court states fundamental rules concerning the comparison of protected designs with the existing state of the art.
Internetforum: In the leading case concerning the responsibilities of a search engine operator the Supreme Court decides that liability requires a notification of an obvious and clear infringement of personality rights. The Supreme Court dismisses the complaint against the search engine operator represented by us.
The Supreme Court finds in our client’s favor that the grid operator does not have to compensate the energy producer for energy supplied to the grid if the producer does not install a remote control system that allows the grid operator to shut off the energy feed.
Fulvestrant: In one of the numerous patent nullity appeals conducted by us we successfully defend the patent ownes by our client, a pharmaceutical company. The Federal Supreme Court clarifies fundamental rules for determining inventive step in the context of systematic pharmaceutical research.
Werbeblocker III: Following the appeal of the private TV company represented by us the antitrust senate oft he Federal Supreme Court vacates the judgement of the Court of Appeals that had dismissed our clients complaint. This clarified that so-called „Advertising Blockers“ can infringe antitrust law as abuses of dominant market positions.