Germany: Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration

The UPC Court of Appeal addresses a procedural application under Rule 262A of the Rules of Procedure in a patent dispute between SharkNinja Operating LLC and multiple Groupe SEB entities concerning European Patent EP 3 689 198.

Patent holders of European patents and supplementary protection certificates now have a new option for dispute resolution in patent matters: On June 2, 2026, the Patent Mediation and Arbitration Centre (PMAC), based in Ljubljana and Lisbon, formally opened. Three years after the successful launch of the Unified Patent Court (UPC), the PMAC is added to its framework.

On May 12, 2026, the Cartel Division (Kartellsenat) of the BGH handed down a landmark ruling on the limits of bundled cartel damages claims brought by claims collection vehicles.

The UPC Court of Appeal addresses a procedural application under Rule 262A of the Rules of Procedure in a patent dispute between SharkNinja Operating LLC and multiple Groupe SEB entities concerning European Patent EP 3 689 198.

The Court of Appeal verifies ex officio compliance with the time limits and rules governing the appeal. When deciding on the admissibility of an appeal, an order rejecting the appeal as...

On 12 May 2026, the German Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof, BGH) drew the line on how far mass claims aggregation can go (case no. KZR 6/24 – Sammelklage-Inkasso).

International Arbitration Comparative Guide for the jurisdiction of Germany, check out our comparative guides section to compare across multiple countries

Germany's class action landscape is distinctive in that potential claimants have a variety of legal options, each with their own characteristics.

On 18 November 2024, the German Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof, BGH) issued a judgement that makes it easier to prove damages in the form of loss of control in connection with data protection incidents.

The qualification of a party as an SME or the submission of a declaration purporting to establish a party’s SME status pursuant to R. 370.8 RoP is not, in itself, sufficient to dispense with the obligation for said party to provide a security for costs in accordance with R. 158 RoP, if the requirements for the application of that rule are met.

What happens when a single lawsuit bundles 70,000 individual antitrust damages claims? Germany's Federal Court of Justice has now answered that question, with important implications for competition litigation and litigation funding alike.

[5] Art. 34 UPCA states that “Decisions of the Court shall cover, in the case of a European patent, the territory of those Contracting Member States for which the European patent has effect”. It is not meant to confine the UPC’s jurisdiction to its own territory. Art. 34 UPCA clarifies that as a rule – unless a more limited scope is requested (cf Art. 43, 76 UPCA) – decisions of the UPC shall cover the territory of all Contracting Member States where a European patent has effect.