German court rejects latest UPC complaints

Managing IP is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 1-2 Paris Gardens, London, SE1 8ND

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2026

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

German court rejects latest UPC complaints

germany-fcc-600-2.jpg

The Federal Constitutional Court says the complaints are inadmissible, potentially paving the way for the project to move forward

Germany’s Federal Constitutional Court rejected two complaints against the country’s Unified Patent Court legislation today, July 9.

In a statement, the FCC said two applications for a preliminary injunction against the UPC Agreement were inadmissible and “failed to sufficiently assert and substantiate a possible violation of their [the complainants’] fundamental rights”.

The court has not revealed the names of the complainants, but Ingve Stjerna, the German attorney who filed the first constitutional complaint against the UPC in 2017 – and which the FCC partially allowed in 2020 – confirmed at the end of last year that he submitted one of the cases.

According to the FCC, the complainant in one of the cases asserted that the proposed UPC violated the right to democratic self-determination under the Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany.

The complaint also alleged that the principle of the rule of law, the fundamental right to effective legal protection and EU law had been violated, and that the UPC Agreement amounted to an impermissible encroachment on German constitutional identity.

However, the FCC said the complaint did not sufficiently substantiate the possibility that ratifying the UPC framework could result in violation of these principles.

In the second complaint, directed against the precedence of EU law, the FCC said the complaint was not sufficiently substantiated.

The FCC said the complaint merely rested on the sole argument that Article 20 of the UPC Agreement is contrary to Article 79(3) of the Basic Law, adding. “This does not satisfy the procedural requirement that submissions be sufficiently substantiated.”

This is the second time the court has had to assess challenges against the proposed UPC.

In March 2020, a long-awaited FCC ruling declared that Germany’s act approving the UPCA had not been signed off by a required two-thirds majority in the Bundestag, Germany’s parliament. However, at the end of November 2020, the Bundestag approved the act with the necessary qualified majority.

more from across site and SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

As concerns around the little-known litigation tool increase, practitioners say they are educating their clients on how it can be most effective
Kilburn & Strode and Mewburn Ellis are just two firms that have invested heavily in office space – a sign that the legal industry is serious about in-person working
In major recent developments, Dyson snagged another win against Hong Kong-based competitor Dreame and a new AI-powered UPC platform was launched
Mohit and Sidhant Goel decided not to pursue an interim injunction application so that their client, Communications Components Antenna, could benefit from a fast-track trial
Anita Cade, head of Ashurst’s IP and media team in Australia, discusses why law firms that can pull together capability across different practice areas and jurisdictions stand to gain
INTA’s CEO says London-based firms have registered fewer delegates compared to past meetings in San Diego and Atlanta, and questions the 'ethics' of trying to participate without registering
Lobbies and interest groups are among the interveners in a major dispute over whether courts can set patent pool rates
Benoit Geurts and Coreena Brinck will help the firm ‘accelerate its innovation agenda’, according to its managing partner
News of a trademark row over Taylor Swift’s ‘The Life of a Showgirl’ and Nokia’s expansion of its IoT licensing programme were also among the top talking points
IP attorneys share how the Cox v Sony ruling impacts their counselling strategies, and if the case could influence how courts may assess liability for AI platforms
Gift this article