JUVE Comment

For many years, the reputation of national IP boutique Vondst has been firmly rooted among clients in the pharmaceutical sector. The years 2023 and 2024 have been no exception, with the firm’s well-regarded partnership continuing to act for stalwarts such as Sandoz in important litigation proceedings – for example, a team around partners Otto Swens and Arvid van Oorschot recently acted for the latter company as a defendant against Bristol-Myers Squibb over apixaban. Van Oorschot represents Teva against Bayer in a dispute over Xarelto. Vondst is still present in almost all high-profile pharma and biosimilar cases before Dutch patent courts – mainly on the side of generics companies. As these core clients are increasingly developing their own original products, Vondst lawyers are appearing more often for patent holders. For example, in a current case over an osteoporosis drug.

Even though work in the life sciences sector has dominated, the partners continue to work across a broad technical spectrum. For example, they are leading cases for BBA pumps over mobile pumps, for Afire over artificial fireplaces and for VDH Solar and Libra Energy over solar panels. In telecommunications Vondst remains less visible compared to its main competitors such as Brinkhof. In the past month Ricardo Dijkstra was active for Crystal Clear Codec in a nullity case against Verify IP, but the case ended in 2024. Now Vondst needs to gain more work here, while its competitors are successfully transferring mobile communication work to the UPC.

European set-up

As a national IP boutique, Vondst is strongly committed to its stand-alone strategy. This limits its opportunities to cooperate with other European boutiques when it comes to cross-border litigation. Nevertheless, lawyers regularly conduct the Dutch proceedings of pan-European litigation for generic drug manufacturers such as Teva, Viatris or Sandoz against originators. Vondst has not yet been able to convert these connections into work at the UPC, partly because cases involving pharmaceutical patents and biosimilars have so far only played a minor role at the UPC.

Now that Hoyng ROKH Monegier and Brinkhof have clearly opted for close alliances with other European law firms and are successful, Vondst is one of the last independent Dutch litigation firms without a fixed alliance for the UPC. Vondst is therefore considering strengthening its ties to IP boutiques outside Benelux. This is a logical first step regarding getting more work from NPEs who are using the UPC intensively – but it should not be the only step. Potential for jointly representing Vondst’s strong client base of generic drug companies could also lie in closer ties to similar firms in Germany, France or Italy, in the event that originators start using the new court more frequently.

Strengths

Patent litigation regarding pharmaceutical drugs for generic drug manufacturers.

Recommended individuals

Ricardo Dijkstra (“excellent experience and industry knowledge”, client; “stands out as a life sciences litigator”, competitor), Arvid van Oorschot, Tjeerd Overdijk,Otto Swens (“excellent experience and industry knowledge”, client; “very competent, whether in life sciences, chemicals or IT disputes”, competitor)

Team

10 lawyers

Clients

Litigation: Teva against Bayer over anticoagulent rivaroxaban/Xarelto; Teva against Novartis over anti-tumour drug evorolimus/Afinitor; Teva against Grünenthal regarding testosterone undecanoate drug Nebido (public knowledge); Sandoz against Bristol-Myers Squibb regarding blood-clot drug apixaban/Eliquis; Sandoz against Astellas regarding overactive bladder drug mirabegron/Betmiga (both public knowledge); Pharmathen against Novartis over cancer drug Okrodin; Crystal Clear Codec in nullity case against Verify IP over audio coding technology (ended 2024); Tomra against Kiremko over steam-peeling technology; Afire against Basic Holdings over patent for artificial fireplaces; VDH Solar and Libra Energy against Maxeon in cross-border PI case over solar panel technology.