Vereenigde Octrooibureaux – Netherlands 2021
Vereenigde Octrooibureaux is still the largest patent filing firm in the Netherlands in terms of patent attorney headcount. The firm also operates a small but strong practice for litigation on the patent attorney side, which, with two distinctive technical specialties – life sciences and mobile communications – conducts revocation suits and infringement proceedings. Numerous Dutch law firms consistently call on the firm for the latter.
V.O. excelled in one of the few new mobile communications cases in the Netherlands on the side of Google against Sonos regarding speaker technology. Both companies are fighting parallel proceedings in Germany. The firm also represents Assia in a dispute over DSL technology. Marco Box’s reputation for mobile communications cases is therefore strong. Despite the work for Google, V.O. has not landed as many new cases in this segment as market leader De Vries & Metman recently.
Like Arnold & Siedsma, AOMB and NLO, the V.O. patent attorneys enjoy a good name for life sciences patents. Until the settlement in 2021 they represented Eli Lilly in the Dutch proceedings concerning the cancer drug pemetrexed. Another notable originator company on the pharmaceutical research industry side is Novartis regarding chemotherapy drug Affinitor. In those cases the patent attorneys work beside external lawyers from Hogan Lovells and Freshfields.
But unlike AOMB and NLO, V.O.’s patent attorneys do not focus solely on life sciences and mobile communications. The firm boasts two of the leading individuals in the Dutch market for litigation concerning mechanics patents, Bernard Ledeboer and Leo Jessen. Only De Vries & Metman can currently rival the firm’s technical breadth.
Before the EPO, the V.O. patent attorneys can easily hold their own against UK and German patent filing firms in terms of technical breadth, headcount and the frequency with which they appear in EPO proceedings. V.O. is also the only Dutch firm with an established team of local patent attorneys in Germany.
Patent litigation conducted by patent attorneys regarding electronics, mechanical engineering and pharmaceuticals.
V.O. has an unusually international setup. Like Arnold & Siedsma and NLO, the firm has Belgian offices in Leuven and Liège. It also has an office in Munich. With a further office in Regensburg, including two German patent attorneys, the firm advises the highly active biotech scene in Bavaria.
The offices in Amsterdam and Munich make V.O. well set for the UPC launch. V.O. could also benefit if the former London sections of the central division go to Amsterdam, given its pharma specialty. An office at the central division location would also make sense for V.O., like all large patent attorney firms from Germany and the UK, because of its strong focus on litigation.
Jetze Beeksma (“great litigation support where pharma-related matters are at stake”, competitor; pharma and biotechnology),Marco Box (“great support regarding tech and IT matters”, competitor; digital communication and computer technology, electronics), Martin Klok (pharma and biotechnology), Bernard Ledeboer (mechanics, process and mechanical engineering), Leo Jessen (mechanics, process and mechanical engineering), Otto Oudshoorn (pharma and biotechnology, chemistry)
47 patent attorneys
Full service in IP with a strong focus on patents. Patent prosecution across a broad spectrum of technology. Litigation together with law firms.
Litigation: Assia (claimant) against KPN and Nokia over DSL technology; Google (defendant) against Sonos in nullity suits over control technology for consumer electronics (public knowledge); Asetek (claimant) against Cooler Master regarding computer cooling systems; Eli Lilly (claimant) against Fresenius Kabi concerning cancer treatment drug pemetrexed (settled 2021); Novartis (claimant) against Teva regarding chemotherapy drugs Afinitor; Koninklijke Douwe Egberts (claimant) against Belmoca over coffee capsules (public knowledge); Ciel & Terre (claimant) against Profloating over floating photovoltaic panels; Tomra (claimant) against Kiremko in infringement and revocation cases over steam peeling technology (public knowledge). Heineken (opponent) in EPO opposition against brewing technology and patents on non-alcoholic beers at AB Inbev; Solaytec (opponent) against Hanwha-Q-Cells in EPO opposition over solar technology; Avebe (defendant) in EPO opposition regarding patent over potato proteins; Nutricia against Nestlé and Fresenius Kabi over patent for medical food for treatment of disorders involving muscle decline; Jacobs Douwe Egberts in EPO oppositions regarding coffee brewing technology; Janssen in EPO oppositions regarding drugs; Stamicarbon in EPO opposition regarding various technologies such as for reducing ammonia emissions. Prosecution: patent filing and oppositions: Comcast Cable Communications, Prolynx, Dynamic Logic; patent filing: Dow Global Technologies, DSM, Heineken, Hitachi, Koninklijke Douwe Egberts, Neopost Technologies, Shin-Etsu Chemical, Solaredge, TNO (all public knowledge).
The Hague, Amsterdam, Arnhem, Eindhoven, Utrecht, Groningen