JUVE Comment

This patent attorney firm is still ahead of most of its Dutch competitors when it comes to major patent disputes before Dutch courts. Even as case numbers here are declining, the pure patent attorney firm keeps its main challengers AOMB and NLO at bay. Although the firm has been less active recently for core client Teva, one look at the work of life sciences expert Lilian Hesselink demonstrates the firm’s excellence in this segment. The team continues to work on the generics and biosimilars side, including for Sandoz. And with Wouter Mooij, a young patent attorney is poised to make his mark through his litigation work.

The mobile communications and electronics team remains active in important disputes. KPN continues to be one of the key clients with ongoing instructions in infringement cases and EPO oppositions. Ferry van Looijengoed has an outstanding reputation in this area. In addition, Erik Visscher is one of the few highly respected experts in the Netherlands for AI and quantum computing. Arnt Aalbers boasts an excellent reputation for cases concerning mechanics and mechanical engineering patents.

At the UPC, the firm secured instructions from KPN from the outset, followed by further work for manufacturer of hygiene products concerning tissue paper. However, to counter increasing competitive pressure from AI tools in its prosecution work, as well as declining case numbers, De Vries & Metman has gone on the offensive to position itself at the forefront of the European market – at least, that is the firm’s long-term goal. An initiative by De Vries & Metman has led to the launch of a new European group specialising in IP advice. De Vries & Metman is joining forces with Dutch competitor V.O., Swedish firm Ström & Gulliksson and Dutch trademark firm Knijff, backed by private equity investor Consolid. This addresses the need for a more formal international structure and provides resources to invest in areas such as AI or training for younger fee earners. The firms will continue to operate under their own names in their local markets whilst gaining access to a broader network. The new group was only founded in summer 2026 and is therefore still in the early stages of the integration process. At European level, however, it will only make an impact if it succeeds in gaining a foothold in other key jurisdictions – particularly Germany – and, where necessary, hiring experienced patent lawyers to offer a full-service capability for UPC litigation.

Strengths

Patent disputes regarding for SEP owners in mobile communications and for pharmaceuticals mostly for generic drug companies.

Recommended individuals

Arnt Aalbers (mechanics, process and mechanical engineering), Lilian Hesselink (pharma and biotechnology, chemistry), Ferry van Looijengoed (digital communication and computer technology, electronics), Wouter Mooij (“young and talented patent attorney”, competitor; pharma and biotechnology), Erik Visscher (digital communication and computer technology, electronics)

Team

13 patent attorneys (of whom one is dual-qualified)

Clients

Litigation: KPN against High Point (both infringement and nullity action over mobile communication patents, including SEPs); KPN against Oppo in nullity action over SEP; Squeezely against Insite Innovations over a software related to online platforms; Aqua Minerals and van Zutven against CA Minerals over mineral products; Sandoz against Bristol-Myers Squibb regarding apixaban/Eliquis; Teva against Bayer in nullity case over rivaroxaban/Xarelto; Teva against Biogen in nullity case over multiple sclerosis drug dimethylfumarate/Tecfidera. EPO oppositions: Corbion Biotech against Tomerius and Jungbunzlauer Laenburg over coated food-grade particles; Corbion Biotech against Tanner over micro-algal food compositions; KPN regarding SEPs in telecom and media streaming.