JUVE Patent

De Vries & Metman – Netherlands 2022

JUVE Comment

After yet another impressive year, this patent attorney firm is ahead of ist Dutch competitors when it comes to major patent disputes before Dutch courts. The small, pure patent attorney firm again kept its main challengers NLO, V.O. and Arnold & Siedsma at bay. One reason for this is that life sciences expert Lilian Hesselink was again highly visible in pharma cases for Pharmathen, Teva and Sandoz. She often works with the lawyers from Bird & Bird and Vondst when litigating on behalf of generic drug companies.

On the other hand, the mobile communications and electronics team was again active in most of the important disputes, for example for Oppo against Nokia and for Sonos against Google, not to mention numerous cases for core client KPN as well as Xiaomi. Ferry van Looijengoed in particular has an outstanding reputation here. In addition, Erik Visscher is one of the few highly respected experts in the Netherlands for AI and quantum computing. However, the mobile communications team is not currently involved in the Dutch proceedings between Ericsson and Apple, although both companies have very close ties to AOMB and Hoyng ROKH Monegier.

In other technical fields, however, there is barely an important infringement or nullity case that does not involve De Vries & Metman. Ferry van Looijengoed, for example, represented Longi together with lawyers from Nauta Dutilh in a high-profile cross-border PI case over solar technology. Arnt Aalbers boasts an excellent reputation for cases concerning mechanics and mechanical engineering patents. He is currently coordinating an entitlement action for Flexous against LVMH concerning an innovative technology for mechanical watches. As with all Dutch patent attorney firms, litigation only accounts for a small portion of activity. Prosecution work predominates, across a wide range of technical fields.


Patent disputes conducted by patent attorneys regarding mobile communications and pharmaceuticals. The latter mostly for generic drug companies.

European set-up

De Vries & Metman demonstrates its skill in national proceedings as part of pan-European or global patent disputes in both the mobile communications and pharma sectors. A prime example is its work for generics manufacturers such as Teva and Sandoz, as well as its work for Oppo in a major mobile phone battle against Nokia.

When it comes to the UPC, De Vries & Metman is already on a good footing as all of its patent attorneys are qualified to conduct cases at the new court and Erik Visscher is also a qualified lawyer. Nevertheless, the firm continues to build on its close cooperation with external lawyers. Outside the Netherlands, De Vries & Metman has no other offices in major patent jurisdictions. The firm counts on its excellent relationships with various patent litigation teams in IP boutiques and international firms.

These close, albeit not formalised, connections could now come under pressure again should more firms take an international and mixed approach in light of the UPC.

But with its excellent litigation experience, De Vries & Metman can certainly hold its own against similar firms in Germany and France at the UPC. This makes the firm an interesting partner for a collaboration or even a merger.

Recommended individuals

Arnt Aalbers (mechanics, process and mechanical engineering), Lilian Hesselink (“excellent litigation on the generics side”, competitor; pharma and biotechnology, chemistry), Ferry van Looijengoed (“highly skilful, knowledgeable and reliable also when working under high pressure”, “a safe pair of hands when supporting us in litigation”, both competitors; digital communication and computer technology, electronics), Erik Visscher (“excellent technical support in litigation. I would love to fight against him at the UPC”, competitor; digital communication and computer technology, electronics)


16 patent attorneys (one of whom is dual qualified as a lawyer)


Patent prosecution across a broad spectrum of technology. Litigation regarding mobile communications and pharmaceutical patents, together with law firms. Special technical know-how concerning AI and quantum computing. IP advice, transaction support.


Litigation: Oppo/One Plus (defendant) against Nokia over mobile communication technology, including 5G; Sonos (claimant) against Google in nullity suits over control technology for consumer electronics; Sharp (defendant) against Oppo in nullity suit regarding LTE standards; Wiko (defendant) against Philips regarding UMTS standard; Xiaomi (defendant) against Philips in infringement and nullity action over mobile communication patents, including SEPs (all public knowledge); Pharmathen (defendant) against Novartis regarding cross-border injunction over cancer drug Okrodin; Sandoz (defendant) against Bristol-Meyers Squibb in PI proceedings regarding apixaban patent for Factor XA inhibitor Eliquis; Longi (defendant) against Hanwha Q-Cells in PI proceedings over solar technology; Vision Box (defendant) against Idemia over biometric authentication technology for airports; Flexous (defendant) against LVMH in entitlement action over oscillators for mechanical actions; frequent litigation for KPN and Teva. Prosecution: filing and oppositions for Inalfa Roof Systems, Mylaps, Nouryon Chemicals, OuTech, Purac Biochem, Signify; patent filing for ABN Amro, Aspen, Damen 40, Fast & Fluid Management, NLC Healthcare, Koninklijke Gazelle, KPN, Lead Pharma, Plantics, Promaton Holding, Qu&Co, Pascal, QuTech, Qilimanjaro, Shin-Etsu Chemical, Unilin, the universities of Amsterdam, Arnheim, Delft and Maastricht (all public knowledge).


Amsterdam, Arnhem, Eindhoven