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 | 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 | 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 | 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)
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.
BMW-Emblem: We secure an important success for car manufacturers with regard to the use of their trademarks by suppliers of spare parts.
Tauschbörse III: One of numerous cases which we obtained on behalf of copyright owners in their fight against piracy.
The Supreme Court reject a challenge against the enforceability of an arbitral award which secures our client’s powers in the board of a subsidiary.
Feuchtigkeitsspendendes Gel-Reservoir: An example for our work in complex litigations in the field of cosmetics, food and drugs law.
In a case concerning conflicts between inheritance and company law, the rights of the estate’s executor represented by us prevail in the shareholder meeting.
The Supreme Court decides the principal question concerning the premature termination of agreements with subsidiaries against our position; nonetheless, we succeed in defending the appeals judgement granting monetary compensation to our client.
In this case under the law concerning investor claims, we successfully defend our client against claims of incorrect data in the annual financial statement.
The Supreme Courts decides the fundamental question of arbitrator’s compensation based on the value at issue in favor of our client.
The Supreme Court rejects an attempt to claim “preventive” damages against the state represented by us.
The successful defense of a payment clause in mobile telephone contracts is one example of our work on behalf of companies in standard form cases.
Following our petition to grant leave to appeal, the Supreme Court vacates a judgement concerning the interpretation of will for breach of our client’s right to a fair hearing.
We succeed in defending a British life insurer based on highly technical time bar arguments.
The Supreme Court limits the powers of the executor concerning transactions without consideration in favor of the heir represented by us.
We obtain a limitation of the recoverable repair cost on behalf of the seller of real property.
In a precedent-setting decision, the Supreme Court clarifies the far-reaching liability of the wrongful possessor in favor of the principal represented by us.
Following the appeal of the publisher represented by us, the Supreme Court lowers the requirements for reporting on suspicions and limits claims for corrections.
The Supreme Court determines the basis and scope of information rights of patients that suffer from side effects of pharmaceutical products.
Filialleiter bei Promifriseur: The Supreme Courts decides in favor of our client that identifying subjects of truthful reports is generally legal.
In an action brought by the doctor represented by us, the Supreme Court increases the duty of care that online review platforms for medical services have to meet.
We safeguard the rights of the contractor in a turnkey contract for a major office building.
The Supreme Court limits the applicability of the laches defense in a dispute about architect’s fees.
In a precedent-setting the decision the Supreme Court grants a claim of lost profits to the lessee whose option to buy the property was disregarded by the owner.
The Supreme Court supports our definition of an “installation” within the meaning of the energy law in favor of the grid operator.
We successfully defend the operator of an electrical grid against bonus claims brought by the operator of a gas plant.
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.
The Supreme Court finds in favor of the administrator represented by us that he can charge creditors interest if they use set-offs to obtain undue monetary advantages.
The Supreme Court decides in favor of the bank represented by us on the possibility to set off claims that are contingent on the same condition.
We succeed in obtaining an extension and clarification of the administrator’s right to claw back donations to churches.
While the Supreme Court reverses the lower court’s decision on technical grounds, it clarifies important issues of sec. 104 Insolvency Code and confirms our client’s damage claims.
Flugzeugzustand: We obtain a decision in favor of the patentee concerning the patentability of inventions based on mathematical methods.
V-förmige Führungsanordnung: Following our client’s appeal, the Supreme Court limits the defense of intentional choice against claims of equivalent infringement.
In one of its rare decisions concerning agricultural estates, the Supreme Court clarifies the rules of default in transfer contracts.
We successfully defend the issuer of index-linked notes against damage claims.
The Supreme Court accepts clauses that contain additional fees for premature termination and the administrative handling of credit agreements used by the savings and loan organization represented by us.
The Supreme Court holds that damage claims based on alleged breaches of a provider of financial services represented by us the duty to advise come into existence at the time of the purchase based on faulty advice.
The Supreme Court clarifies the rules governing compensation claims between family members, in particular for construction work performed on a house owned by the parents in law.
Singulär genutzte Betriebsmittel: The Supreme Court supports the energy user under certain conditions has a claim against the grid operator for a retroactive modification of the energy tariff for energy consumed by appliances exclusively used.
NetCologne: the Supreme Court clarifies fundamental antitrust questions in the relationship between cable networks and content providers.
Jaguar-Vertragswerkstatt: We achieve a definition for the resource market for repair services that is different from the truck market.