JUVE Comment

This patent attorney firm is traditionally very active in the Dutch litigation market, especially when it comes to mobile communication patents. NLO’s ties to Nokia and the company’s regular Dutch advisors Bird & Bird were underlined when Harm van der Heijden represented Nokia in the Dutch proceedings against Oppo until the global dispute was settled in early 2024. The firm was also heavily involved in a nullity case for Crystal Clear Codec over audio coding technology, which also ended in 2024. As a result, the telecoms team is currently somewhat less present in the Dutch market but continues to be involved in an EPO opposition for Xiaomi against KPN regarding a multimedia streaming patent. To step up its litigation again and catch up with the leading patent attorney team in Dutch litigation, De Vries & Metman, NLO could fall back on Samsung as another heavyweight from the sector. The prosecution team is working intensively for this client.

In 2024 NLO’s patent attorneys demonstrated their litigation expertise in the life sciences industry in many cases. Mari Korsten’s work for Amgen and Insud (together with lawyers from La Gro) in two nullity cases before Dutch patent courts showed the team’s ability to represent both originators and generics manufacturers. Korsten is representing GSK (with De Brauw lawyers) in a new case against Pfizer over RSV vaccines.

In view of the strong litigation activity in the electronics, mobile communication and pharma segments, however, it is important to note that the pure patent attorney firm is one of the strongest Dutch prosecution outfits with a broad technical focus. This promises considerable potential for UPC cases for medium-sized companies from Benelux.

European set-up

In addition to the Netherlands, NLO also has two offices in Belgium. A small office in Munich, at the headquarters of the EPO, rounds off the international offering. The firm is thus present in three important UPC countries. The activities of Dutch patent firms at the UPC are still limited, but NLO recently filed a UPC action for a Dutch company against a competitor over synthetic fibre for use in artificial grass. For this first UPC case, the NLO patent attorneys did not deviate from their fundamental decision to always join forces with external lawyers in litigation. They are working with a German law firm.

NLO’s patent attorneys have extensive experience in EPO oppositions and are regularly part of Dutch litigation teams, as demonstrated by numerous pharma cases each year. In the long term, NLO’s absence from central UPC locations like Milan and Paris could be a disadvantage for its intensive litigation activities in the life sciences sector.

Strengths

Patent disputes conducted by patent attorneys regarding mobile communications and pharmaceuticals (for both originators and generics companies).

Recommended individuals

Harm van der Heijden (digital communication and computer technology, electronics), Hans Hutter (“a safe pair of hands in litigation regarding electronics”, competitor; mobile communication and computer technology, electronics), Mari Korsten (“very good cooperation in pharma cases”, competitor; pharma and biotechnology, chemistry)

Team

41 patent attorneys

Clients

Litigation: AIM Sport against Supponor on technical aspects in German and UK proceedings over technology for sports stadium advertising; Crystal Clear Codec in nullity case against Verify IP over audio coding technology (ended 2024); Verify IP Juno in nullity case against KPN over mobile communication patent; Xiaomi against KPN in EPO opposition regarding multimedia streaming patent; Nokia (co-defendant of KPN) against Assia over DSL technology; Nokia against Oppo/OnePlus over 5G, including FRAND (settled 2024); Ollnova in infringement and nullity case against Signify over building automation systems; GSK in nullity action against Pfizer over patents regarding RSV vaccines; Stada against Bristol-Myers Squibb regarding blood-clot drug apixaban/Eliquis; TenCate Grass in EPO opposition over synthetic fibre; frequent litigation for Amgen and Insud Pharma (some public knowledge).