Introduction
For most of the past two decades, a Germany-scoped FTO was the accepted starting point for European product launches in pharma and medtech. Germany has the highest patent litigation volume in Europe, the fastest preliminary injunction timelines, and the most experienced dedicated patent courts. The logic was straightforward: if a product clears Germany, it effectively clears the most active and aggressive European patent enforcement jurisdiction. The rest follows.
That shorthand no longer holds. In 2025, the UPC confirmed long-arm jurisdiction that allows a single patent action brought at a UPC Local Division in Germany — or anywhere else in the UPC system — to produce injunctions that reach products sold in the UK, Switzerland, and Norway. None of those three countries are UPC participating states. Under the pre-2025 framework, each required its own separate national FTO. Under the confirmed long-arm approach, a blocking patent enforced through the UPC can reach all three simultaneously, without a separate filing.
A Germany-scoped FTO that does not account for this reach is now structurally incomplete for any pharma or medtech product with pan-European market ambitions. This is what changed, why it matters, and what a UPC-era FTO needs to cover.
Why Germany Has Always Been the FTO Starting Point for European Launches
Litigation volume and court quality: Germany processes more patent infringement cases per year than any other European jurisdiction. The specialist patent chambers in Mannheim, Düsseldorf, and Munich have developed deep technical expertise and consistent, predictable case law across pharma and medtech technology areas. For patent holders and product companies alike, Germany has been the primary enforcement forum of choice for European patent disputes.
Injunction speed: German courts issue preliminary injunctions in patent cases faster than most European jurisdictions — often within weeks of filing, and without requiring the full merits of the case to be resolved first. For a pharma or medtech company launching a product, a preliminary injunction from a German court can halt market entry before the product has established commercial traction. Germany-scoped FTO addressed the most immediate and credible preliminary injunction risk.
Why clearing Germany seemed to clear Europe: If a product survived FTO scrutiny against Germany-enforced patents, the same patents could generally be enforced nationally in other European jurisdictions through separate national proceedings. In practice, most patent holders focused enforcement in Germany. A clear Germany FTO meant the primary enforcement risk was addressed, with other national jurisdictions treated as secondary. That concentration of enforcement activity in Germany made the Germany-scoped FTO a reasonable proxy for pan-European FTO. It no longer is.
The Two 2025 Rulings That Changed the Scope
As our review of how the Unified Patent Court is shaping the European patent landscape covers, the UPC’s first two years of operation have been defined by a steady expansion of its jurisdictional reach and a growing willingness to grant pan-European relief. Two 2025 decisions are the most consequential for FTO scope.
Fujifilm v Kodak (Düsseldorf Local Division, January 2025): The Düsseldorf Local Division ruled that the UPC has jurisdiction to award relief covering the UK designation of a European patent, where the defendant is domiciled or has an authorised representative in a UPC participating state. The ruling awarded injunctive relief that expressly extended to the UK — a country that left the EU before the UPC Agreement entered into force and is not a participating state. The court’s reasoning: the Brussels Recast Regulation, which governs jurisdiction for defendants domiciled in EU member states, provides the basis for UPC jurisdiction over UK patent designations when the defendant has sufficient connection to the UPC territory.
HL Display v Black Sheep (The Hague Local Division, 2025): The Hague Local Division went further. The court awarded a permanent injunction spanning UPC participating states, countries that have signed but not yet ratified the UPC Agreement, Lugano Convention countries (Switzerland, Norway, and Liechtenstein), and the UK. The single UPC action produced enforceable relief across a geographic scope that previously would have required separate national proceedings in each jurisdiction.
What long-arm jurisdiction means in practice: A patent holder with a European patent can now file a single action at a UPC Local Division and seek injunctions covering Germany, France, the Netherlands, Italy, and the other UPC participating states — plus the UK, Switzerland, and Norway under the confirmed long-arm approach. The geographic scope of a single UPC filing now significantly exceeds what any individual UPC participating state covers on its own.
NOTE FOR FTO TEAMS: Opt-out status is a critical input. European patents whose owners filed an opt-out before the UPC Agreement entered into force can only be enforced nationally — not through the UPC. Patents still within the UPC system carry pan-European enforcement risk. Opt-out status must be checked for every blocking patent candidate in a UPC-era FTO.
What This Means for Pharma and MedTech FTO Scope
The geographic FTO scope has expanded without new patent risk: The blocking patents that threaten a European pharma or medtech product launch have not changed. The European patents held by competitors cover the same technology they always did. What has changed is that a single one of those patents — if not opted out of the UPC system — can now be enforced through a single UPC action to produce injunctions covering the UK, Switzerland, and Norway as well as the UPC participating states. The FTO scope needed to address that single patent has expanded. A Germany-only search finds it, but does not answer the geographic enforcement question the full UPC-era landscape poses.
Preliminary injunction speed across the expanded scope: The UPC can issue preliminary injunctions that apply across its jurisdiction — including the long-arm extension to the UK, Switzerland, and Norway — within weeks of filing. For pharma and medtech companies, this means a blocking patent that was not fully assessed in the FTO can be used to halt sales across multiple major markets simultaneously, on a timeline that leaves little room for response after launch. The FTO analysis needs to be complete before the launch announcement creates the market presence that triggers enforcement interest.
“A Germany-scoped FTO answers the question: can we launch in Germany without injunction risk? It no longer answers the question: can we launch across Europe without injunction risk? Those two questions have diverged. The UPC’s long-arm jurisdiction is the reason they have diverged.”
How to Build a UPC-Era FTO for a Pan-European Pharma or MedTech Launch
The timing question for FTO has always been critical. As our guide on when to conduct an FTO search sets out, the window that matters most is before commercialisation — when design changes and strategic responses are still possible. In the UPC era, that timing imperative is amplified by the speed with which the UPC can issue pan-European preliminary relief. A UPC-era FTO for a pharma or medtech product needs to cover four specific dimensions.
- All UPC participating state designations of relevant European patents. The search needs to cover all national designations of European patents that are currently within the UPC system — not just the German designation. A patent that was assessed only for its German designation may have claim scope in other UPC participating states that is more problematic. Claim scope can differ between national designations of the same European patent due to prosecution history differences in national validation proceedings.
- UK, Swiss, and Norwegian designations under confirmed long-arm reach. Given Fujifilm v Kodak and HL Display v Black Sheep, European patents with UK, Swiss, and Norwegian designations that are within the UPC system now carry pan-European enforcement risk. The FTO search needs to cover these designations as part of the standard scope, not as an optional extension.
- Opt-out status assessment for every blocking candidate. European patents opted out of the UPC system can only be enforced nationally. A opted-out patent in Germany is a Germany-enforcement risk only — the old framework applies. A non-opted-out patent is a UPC-system risk with long-arm reach. For every blocking patent identified in the FTO search, opt-out status determines which enforcement framework applies and therefore what geographic scope needs to be assessed.
- Preliminary injunction risk assessment before launch announcement. For pharma and medtech products, the UPC’s ability to issue pan-European preliminary relief within weeks of filing makes the FTO completion timeline a genuine product launch dependency. A blocking patent identified after launch announcement — when enforcement interest has been triggered by the market presence — is harder and more expensive to address than one identified and managed before launch.
How Our FTO Service Covers the Pan-European UPC Landscape
Our freedom to operate service covers all UPC participating state designations of European patents alongside UK, Swiss, and Norwegian designations — with opt-out status assessment for every potentially blocking patent. For pharma and medtech companies launching European products, we structure FTO engagements around the full UPC-era enforcement landscape: UPC participating state coverage, long-arm jurisdiction scope across UK, Switzerland, and Norway, opt-out status verification, and a preliminary injunction risk assessment that reflects the UPC’s compressed enforcement timeline. For companies with existing Germany-scoped FTO analyses, we provide targeted scope extension assessments that bring prior analyses into the UPC-era framework without requiring a full new search from the ground up.
Launching a pharma or medtech product in Europe? A Germany-only FTO is no longer sufficient. Our service covers the full UPC long-arm jurisdiction scope — including UK, Swiss and Norwegian designations and opt-out status for every blocking candidate. → Contact Us
Conclusion: The Takeaway
The UPC’s long-arm jurisdiction has not created new patents or new technology risks. The blocking patents that threaten a European pharma or medtech launch are the same European patents they have always been. What has changed is the geographic scope that a single one of those patents can cover through a single UPC enforcement action.
A Germany-scoped FTO was the right tool for the pre-UPC European enforcement landscape. It answered the question that mattered most: what is the risk in the most active enforcement jurisdiction? The UPC has changed which question matters most. The question now is: what is the pan-European risk across the full UPC system, including its confirmed long-arm reach to the UK, Switzerland and Norway? That is a larger question. It requires a larger answer.
