Vereenigde Octrooibureaux – Netherlands 2022
Vereenigde Octrooibureaux is the largest patent filing firm in the Netherlands in terms of patent attorney headcount. The firm also operates a 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 like Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer consistently call on the firm for the latter.
Martin Klok’s intensive litigation for Novartis alongside Freshfields recently attracted attention. He is active in several cases for the Swiss originator, including against Sandoz and Pharmathen. The fact that V.O. maintains very good ties to originators, as well as to Freshfields, means the firm could end up litigating for Moderna concerning the Covid-19 vaccine, if the dispute with BioNTech extends to the Netherlands.
The large amount of litigation for originators like Novartis and Bristol Myers Squibb is matched by a strong prosecution practice for small and midsized biotech companies.
Like many of its Dutch competitors on the patent attorney side, V.O. is also highly visible in new mobile communications cases before the Dutch patent courts. Highly recommended Marco Box still represents Google against Sonos alongside Brinkhof in the Netherlands regarding speaker technology. The firm also represents Assia in a dispute over DSL technology. However, despite the work for Assia and Google, V.O. has not landed as many new cases in this segment as market leader De Vries & Metman. This is partly because Ericsson, Apple and Oppo, which are locked in extensive litigation in the Netherlands, have solid ties to other patent attorney firms.
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. At 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.
Patent litigation conducted by patent attorneys regarding electronics, mechanical engineering as well as pharmaceuticals on the originator side.
When it comes to providing technical support for Dutch infringement and revocation cases, V.O.’s patent attorneys are frequently involved in pan-European litigation series. In the pharma sector, this is demonstrated by the intense work for Novartis and in the mobile communications and electronics sector by the firm’s work for Google.
The strong litigation experience of some of its patent attorneys makes V.O. a serious competitor for German patent attorney firms, especially in future UPC cases as most of V.O.’s European patent attorneys could litigate alone at the court. However, unlike Bardehle Pagenberg or Grünecker, for example, V.O. does not have its own lawyers, and will instead cooperate with external litigators for UPC infringement cases.
In terms of the UPC, V.O. has an unusual 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, which includes two German patent attorneys, the firm advises the highly active biotech scene in Bavaria.
The offices in Amsterdam and Munich make V.O. well prepared for the UPC launch. An additional office at the central division location in Paris or in Milan, if the pharma and chemistry divisions end up located here, would also make sense for V.O.
Jetze Beeksma (“he is doing a great job on the originator side”, competitor; pharma and biotechnology), Marco Box (“safe pair of hands in supporting mobile communication disputes”, 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 (“he is one of the best for SPC litigation in the Netherlands”, competitor; pharma and biotechnology, chemistry)
46 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; Novartis (claimant) against Pharmathen in cross-border PI proceedings over cancer drug Okrodin; Bristol Myers Squibb (defendant) against Sandoz in PI proceedings regarding apixaban patent for Factor XA inhibitor Eliquis; Novartis (claimant) against Teva regarding chemotherapy drug Afinitor; Koninklijke Douwe Egberts (claimant) against Belmoca over coffee capsules; Tomra (claimant) against Kiremko in infringement and revocation cases over steam-peeling technology (all public knowledge); Avebe (opponent) in EPO opposition regarding Unilever patent over potato proteins; Avebe (opponent) in EPO opposition regarding Nestlé patent for dairy products; Plastipak (defendant) in EPO oppositions against competitors over digital printing of containers; MCi Flextronics in EPO oppositions over car mirror actuators; Janssen in EPO oppositions regarding drugs. Advice: MCi Flextronics regarding infringement proceedings in China. Prosecution: filing and oppositions for Comcast Cable Communications. Patent filing for Dow Global Technologies, DSM, Heineken, Hitachi, Koninklijke Douwe Egberts, Solaredge, TNO (all public knowledge).
The Hague, Amsterdam, Arnhem, Eindhoven, Utrecht, Groningen