JUVE Comment

Vereenigde Octrooibureaux has a large and technically broad patent attorney practice, which also leads to a strong presence in Dutch patent disputes. While 2022 and 2023 were characterised by litigation work by patent attorneys in mobile communication and pharma cases, the number of disputes concerning mobile communications has decreased significantly for V.O. in 2024, as for all other Dutch firms.

Recently, pharmaceutical litigation by patent attorneys such as Jetze Beeksma and Martin Klok for research-based industry has dominated more than in previous years. Both partners are stars in the Dutch patent scene.

The V.O. patent attorneys were highly visible in almost all of the important Dutch pharma cases. For example, the numerous disputes for Novartis or for Moderna against Pfizer and BioNTech in the Dutch proceedings over mRNA vaccines, alongside lawyers from Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer.

Furthermore, the battle for Bristol-Myers Squibb against generics manufacturers over blood-clot drug apixaban kept the team busy in 2024. In disputes over medical devices, on the other hand, V.O. is present less frequently than competitor AOMB, for example. Developing this field offers further potential, especially for UPC litigation. But 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.

European set-up

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. This is especially the case in the pharma sector, where V.O. is demonstrating intense work for Novartis and Bristol-Myers Squibb but most importantly also in the global mRNA battle for Moderna. In these cases, the patent attorneys work closely with international law firms like Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer and Hogan Lovells.

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 some of the German patent attorneys having a strong footprint in the highly active biotech scene in Bavaria. The strong litigation experience of some of its Dutch patent attorneys makes V.O. a serious competitor for German patent attorney firms at the UPC. Although most of V.O.’s European patent attorneys could litigate alone at the UPC, the Dutch firm does not have its own lawyers – unlike Bardehle Pagenberg or Grünecker, for example – and will instead cooperate with external litigators for UPC cases. So far, this set-up has not yet paid off in specific cases at the UPC, partly because pharmaceutical companies are very hesitant to use the court. However, some medium-sized companies from the Netherlands are already preparing for UPC lawsuits from competitors with the help of the firm’s patent attorneys.

Strengths

Patent litigation conducted by patent attorneys regarding electronics, mechanical engineering as well as pharmaceuticals on the originator side.

Recommended individuals

Jetze Beeksma (pharma and biotechnology), Marco Box (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)

Team

50 patent attorneys

Clients

Litigation: Moderna against Pfizer and BioNTech over mRNA patents; Novartis against Pharmathen in cross-border PI proceedings over cancer drug Okrodin (ended 2024); Novartis against Synthon in nullity proceedings over Entresto for treating chronic heart failure; Novartis against Celltrion in nullity case over monoclonal antibody for asthma drug Xolair; Bristol-Myers Squibb against Stada, Sandoz and Teva in PI proceedings regarding blood-clot drug apixaban/Eliquis; Grünenthal against Teva regarding testosterone undecanoate drug Nebido (public knowledge); Assia against KPN and Nokia over DSL technology; Avebe against KMC & Ingredion in EPO opposition regarding a patent for vegan cheese analogue; Avebe against Nestlé in EPO opposition over composition of milk for allergy sufferers; Heineken against competitors in EPO oppositions over mash filter membrane; MCi Flextronics in EPO oppositions over car mirror actuators.