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

While IP Australia’s updated manual could be favourable to computer-implemented inventions, stakeholders would like to see whether a consistent and reliable standard is followed during actual examination
UKIPO will remain a competitive option as long as efficient service continues
A future opt-out has not been ruled out, but practitioners warn that the UK could fall behind in the AI race
US patent lawyers say they are increasingly advising clients on China strategies as corporations seek to gain leverage in enforcement, licensing, and supply chain management
Mike Rueckheim reunites with 12 of his former Winston & Strawn colleagues as King & Spalding continues aggressive hiring streak
As global commerce continues to expand through e-commerce platforms and digital marketplaces, protecting brands has become a growing challenge for organisations worldwide. Counterfeiting, intellectual property infringement, and online brand abuse are increasing across industries, making brand protection strategies a critical priority for businesses.
Henrik Holzapfel and Chuck Larsen of McDermott Will & Schulte explain why a Court of Appeal ruling could promote access to justice and present a growth opportunity for litigation finance
A co-partner in charge says the UK prosecution teams are a ‘vital’ part of the firm’s offering, while praising a key injunction win
A team from White & Case has checked in on behalf of Premier Inn Hotels in a UK trademark and passing off case against a cookie brand
Litigation team says pre-trial work and a Section 101 defence helped significantly limit damages payable by ride-sharing firm Lyft in patent case
Gift this article