Germany: Trials & Appeals & Compensation

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.

Eine fehlende Telefonnummer in der Widerrufsbeleh- rung, eine falsche Bezeichnung des Bestellbuttons: Was nach Kleinigkeiten klingt, kann Unternehmen in kostspielige Gerichtsverfahren treiben.

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.

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).

The UPC Court of Appeal has overturned a €2 million security for costs order, finding that a claimant's litigation insurance with anti-avoidance endorsement provides sufficient protection against unenforceability of adverse costs orders. This landmark decision addresses whether appropriate litigation insurance can substitute for traditional security mechanisms and signals that courts must properly consider such policies when assessing security applications.

Pursuant to Art. 75(1) UPCA, where the CoA sets aside a decision of the CFI, it shall, as a rule...

Unitary effect under Article 3(1) of Regulation 1257/2012 requires a patent to be granted for all UPC Member States; a "carve-out" for non-designated states is not permissible.

Regarding the merits of the case, the panel confirms the decision by the Judge-rapporteur of January 20, 2026 (cf. our separate report). In view of the enforcement also in a non-UPC state (here: UK)...