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

Data centres are being built across the US, prompting patent disputes, but Texas’s thriving tech industry and patent-ready courts make the state particularly ‘ripe’ for litigation
Carpmaels & Ransford is set to bolster its UK attorney team with the appointment of Simmons & Simmons’s head of IP in the UK
Updates on Nokia’s licensing strides and a surge in patent activity around battery recycling in Australia were also among the top talking points
To mark International Day Against Child Labour, Matteo Amerio at Corsearch says the people inside businesses who can identify counterfeiting risks must be given the tools and authority to act
With genuine equity at IP firms becoming rarer, securing partnership is harder than ever, but increased transparency is also making climbing the ladder more predictable
Yossi Sivan explains how Israeli judgment is a pro-brand owner departure from the norm and why it sends a strong message that corporate structures are not always a shield
Halim Shehadeh, group CEO of IP firm CWB, says that in the rush to discuss what AI can do, IP firms are overlooking the more important question of whether they are ready
Caitlin Heard, who formally joined the firm from CMS last month, says she is excited by the ‘energy’ of the London office
Ranjna Mehta-Dutt, who moved to Chadha & Chadha after 25 years at Remfry & Sagar, says the firm plans to expand its life sciences practice through targeted recruitment and dedicated teams for bigger clients
The initial contempt of court claim targeted Stobbs and the firm’s client for allegedly interfering with the administration of justice
Gift this article