JUVE Comment

In this Dutch mixed IP firm, patent attorneys make up the majority of fee earners. But Arnold & Siedsma also stands out with its small but agile lawyer team that is highly active for predominantly Dutch SMEs at national courts across a broad spectrum of technologies. Current examples include Hozelock concerning house building equipment, OneWay plastics concerning patisserie piping bags, and Blister Partners regarding drug packaging technology. The firm handles these cases consistently with mixed teams consisting of its own lawyers and patent attorneys.

In cases with greater commercial significance, the firm’s patent attorneys in recent years were mostly seen alongside specialists from various Dutch law firms. But work on infringement cases has been less visible of late, in part because case numbers at Dutch courts have fallen. Arnold & Siedsma’s patent attorneys were seen more in EPO proceedings, for example for Kawasaki. They are also leading an opposition case for etherna Immunotherapies against Moderna over an mRNA patent.

The patent attorney practice enjoys an excellent reputation for its prosecution work regarding pharmaceutical, electronics and mechanics patents. With regards to litigation, some partners like Martin Luten already have an outstanding reputation for disputes concering electronics and mechanics patents. Hans Prins enjoys an eminent reputation in pharma and biotechnology, for providing technical support in infringement and revocation proceedings before the Dutch patent courts. Despite these distinguished litigators in the Dutch patent market there is more potential for both patent attorneys and lawyers in the renowned prosecution practice’s client base – especially in the aviation and electronics fields.

However, highly renowned patent attorney Arjen Hooiveld recently retired from the firm and is now acting as a technically qualified judge at the Dutch patent courts.

European set-up

With the exception of larger EPO oppositions, Arnold & Siedsma is only occasionally active in pan-European battles. Such work is mainly thanks to the outstanding reputation of individual partners such as Martin Luten.

However, with a subsidiary in Belgium, including offices in Brussels, Antwerp, and Hasselt, and seven offices in the Netherlands, Arnold & Siedsma is one of the most visible Benelux patent firms. In addition, Arnold & Siedsma has an office close to the EPO and Boards of Appeal in Munich, meaning the mixed firm is present in important European venues for patent prosecution. Shortly before the UPC launch the Benelux firm joined the EPLN network that is present in Benelux, Germany, France and Italy and includes renowned firms such as Meissner Bolte and Santarelli. The firms do not yet jointly represent any proceedings at the UPC. Nevertheless, Arnold & Siedsma is one of the few Dutch firms with two UPC cases. Together with Belgian law firm Altius, the firm filed an infringement claim including inspection proceedings on behalf of Jozef Nelissen against OrthoApnea concerning a medical device. The firm also represents Maars Partitioning Systems at The Hague local division against City Glass and Glazing.

Strengths

Litigation across a broad technical spectrum

Recommended individuals

Martin Luten (electronics, mechanics, process and mechanical engineering), Hans Prins (competitor; pharma and biotechnology)

Team

32 patent attorneys, 3 lawyers

Partner moves

Arjen Hooiveld (retired)

Clients

Litigation: Hozelock against Edco and Dekamarkt over house building equipment; OneWay plastics against Implast over patisserie piping bags; Blister Partners against Global Factories over drug packaging technology; Tractive Suspension against SRI and JRZ over automotive technology; etherna Immunotherapies against Moderna in EPO opposition over mRNA patent; frequent EPO oppositions for Kawasaki. Advice: Kreber regarding licence agreement with Stamication; Playseat regarding IP matters over gaming gear.