JUVE Comment

This patent attorney firm is ahead of most of its Dutch competitors when it comes to major patent disputes before Dutch courts. The small, pure patent attorney firm keeps its main challengers AOMB or NLO at bay – no other patent attorney firm has such a clear focus on litigation. In this respect, De Vries & Metman operates on a par with German patent attorney firms.

One look at the work of life sciences expert Lilian Hesselink shows the firm’s excellence in this segment. She represents Teva against Bayer in a nullity case over Bayer’s blockbuster drug Xarelto – one of the fiercest battles in Europe. The national work for Sandoz against Bristol-Myers Squibb regarding apixaban/Eliquis also hit the headlines. Hesselink often works with the lawyers from Bird & Bird and Vondst when litigating on behalf of generic drug companies.

The mobile communications and electronics team was again active in most of the major disputes, for example for Oppo against Nokia (settled in 2024), not to mention numerous cases for core client KPN as well as Xiaomi. Ferry van Looijengoed 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. In other technical fields, there is barely an important infringement or nullity case that does not involve De Vries & Metman. Arnt Aalbers boasts an excellent reputation for cases concerning mechanics and mechanical engineering patents.

European set-up

The fact that major Dutch telecoms client KPN relied not only on a team of lawyers from Bird & Bird but also on the patent attorneys from De Vries & Metman for the first SEP action against Oppo at the local division The Hague shows how deeply international patent disputes are rooted in the patent attorneys’ DNA. Arkyne Technologies also called on the firm for the first ever UPC case in The Hague. De Vries & Metman is defending the company alongside a Dutch full-service firm against a suit from Plant-e over a technology for generating electricity for lighting and sensors.

The heavy involvement of the Dutch team is not surprising as the firm has been involved for years in pan-European disputes in life sciences, IT and mobile communications for clients such as Teva, Sandoz, Oppo, and KPN through litigation partners Hesselink, van Looijengoed and Visscher.

With regards to the UPC, De Vries & Metman has no offices in major patent jurisdictions outside of the Netherlands. It needs to count on its excellent relationships with patent litigation teams in various IP boutiques and international firms. These close, albeit informal, connections now come under pressure while firms like Bird & Bird and Hogan Lovells try to take an international and mixed approach in their UPC cases. However, with only 19 patent attorneys De Vries & Metman quickly reaches its limit when conducting two of the three UPC cases simultaneously. An exclusive collaboration or even a merger with a similar firm in Germany or France could make sense to secure the firm’s excellent reputation for cross-border disputes.

Strengths

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

Recommended individuals

Arnt Aalbers (mechanics, process and mechanical engineering), Lilian Hesselink (“very good at guiding lawyers to a good outcome”, competitor; pharma and biotechnology, chemistry), Ferry van Looijengoed (“highly skilful, knowledgeable and reliable, even under high pressure”, competitor; digital communication and computer technology, electronics), Erik Visscher (“always excellent advice”, competitor; digital communication and computer technology, electronics)

Team

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

Clients

Litigation: KPN against Xiaomi in EPO opposition over SEPs; KPN against High Point (both infringement and nullity action over mobile communication patents, including SEPs; KPN against Verify IP/Oppo in nullity action over SEP; Oppo/One Plus against Nokia over mobile communications, including 5G (settled 2024); VodafoneZiggo against Marchfun in infringement case over wi-fi hotspots; Sandoz against Bristol-Myers Squibb in PI proceedings regarding apixaban/Eliquis; Sandoz against Astellas in nullity case regarding overactive bladder drug mirabegron/Betmiga; Teva against Biogen in nullity case over multiple sclerosis drug dimethylfumarate/Tecfidera; Teva against Bayer in nullity case over rivaroxaban/Xarelto.