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 2025

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

Brian Paul Gearing brings technical depth, litigation expertise, and experience with Japanese business culture to Pillsbury’s IP practice
News of InterDigital suing Amazon in the US and CMS IndusLaw challenging Indian rules on foreign firms were also among the top talking points
IP lawyers at three firms reflect on how courts across Australia have reacted to AI use in litigation, and explain why they support measured use of the technology
AJ Park’s owner, IPH, announced earlier this week that Steve Mitchell will take the reins of the New Zealand-based firm in January
Chris Adamson and Milli Bouri of Adamson & Partners join us to discuss IP market trends and what law firm and in-house clients are looking for
Noemi Parrotta, chair of the European subcommittee within INTA's International Amicus Committee, explains why the General Court’s decision in the Iceland case could make it impossible to protect country names as trademarks
Inès Garlantezec, who became principal of the firm’s Luxembourg office earlier this year, discusses what's been keeping her busy, including settling a long-running case
In the sixth episode of a podcast series celebrating the tenth anniversary of IP Inclusive, we discuss IP Futures, a network for early-career stage IP professionals
Rachel Cohen has reunited with her former colleagues to strengthen Weil’s IP litigation and strategy work
McKool Smith’s Jennifer Truelove explains how a joint effort between her firm and Irell & Manella secured a win for their client against Samsung
Gift this article