JUVE Patent

Vondst – Netherlands 2020

JUVE Comment

The patent litigation team is the IP firm’s mainstay and it is currently highly visible in infringement proceedings before the Dutch patent courts. Vondst boasts a good reputation for representing generic drugs manufacturers in pharmaceutical disputes. In Teva and Sandoz the team boasts important and long-standing clients in this sector. Overall Vondst has a strong focus on disputes for clients from the chemistry and life sciences sectors and combines IP matters with regulatory work. But by adding the young, already highly visible Arvid van Oorschot to the equity partnership, the patent team expanded significantly at the beginning of 2020. It is now more capable of handling a higher number of large cases than before. Advisory work on licence agreements and strategic advice are also playing a growing role. The fact that all three partners are visible in the market also creates a good basis for broadening the technical scope of litigation activity further. It is not widely known in the market, for instance, that Vondst also handles cases involving mechanics and mobile communication patents. But with increasing product connectivity, the demand for alternatives to the established firms for cases concerning mobile communication patents will rise in the Netherlands, too. Vondst is already advising its first clients here, but this is not yet enough to compete with market-leading boutiques like Brinkhof or Hoyng ROKH Monégier for more prestigious work in this field.


Patent litigation regarding pharmaceutical drugs for generic drug manufacturers.

European strategy

As a national IP boutique, Vondst is strongly committed to its stand-alone strategy. This limits its opportunities to cooperate with other European boutiques when it comes to cross-border litigation. It has good connections to other European IP firms. Because of the uncertainty surrounding the UPC launch there is now less pressure, however, on such boutiques to join forces with firms in other key jurisdictions. But strategic alliances with German or UK firms could help it to take a more offensive position when competing with the internationally integrated teams of Bird & Bird and Hogan Lovells for high-end cross-border work. This would be a particularly good idea if Vondst is looking to raise its profile for cases involving mobile communications and connected products. So far the partners will have to recommend themselves primarily through their own expertise in such cases.

Recommended individuals

Otto Swens (“strong litigator”, competitor), Ricardo Dijkstra (“good advice in preparation for our litigation”, client; “experienced litigator”, competitor), Arvid van Oorschot (“up-and-coming litigator, does a good job”, competitor)


3 partners, 7 associates, 1 of counsel


Exclusive focus on IP matters. Strong focus on disputes for clients from the chemistry and life sciences sectors. IP matters with regulatory work. Advice regarding licence agreements and FTO analysis.


Litigation: Teva (defendant) against Novartis in infringement and revocation cases over anti-tumor drug Afinitor as well as against Eli Lilly/Icos over erectile dysfunction drug tadalafil; Tomra (claimant) against Kiremko in infringement and revocation cases over steam peeling technology; VDL Groep (claimant) against TenneT over flanges for wind turbines; Sun Cupid (defendant) against Sisvel over mobile communications; V.G. Colours (defendant) against HE Licenties over technology for artificial colouring of orchids; Zavod Prodmash (defendant) against Impero over road safety devices; frequent litigation for Sandoz. Advice: Bugaboo regarding FTO and licence agreements; Strukton regarding licensing deals: