JUVE Patent

Hoyng ROKH Monégier – Netherlands 2020

Rankings:

JUVE Comment

The Amsterdam patent practice of this truly international IP boutique is one of the market leaders in the Netherlands. Its patent litigators have an outstanding reputation across Europe. Even though veteran Willem Hoyng is withdrawing more and more from active client work, two outstanding litigators have long since followed in his footsteps in Bart van den Broek and Simon Dack. And the firm does not seem to be running out of talent: behind the two lead partners there is a well-established squad of younger litigators, among themTheo Blomme and Peter van Schijndel. This presence in the Dutch market is merely the basis for successful international expansion, with market-leading teams in Amsterdam, Düsseldorf, Munich and Paris. With the German and Dutch litigators having represented ASML and Carl Zeiss in a pan-European suit against Nikon, where the Amsterdam team played a central coordinating role, Hoyng ROKH Monégier is getting set to provide all-round support in other cross-border disputes. The firm most recently handled such cases for Ceva, Philips and a whole host of pharma companies. Across Europe, Hoyng ROKH Monégier has positioned itself clearly on the side of the manufacturing industry and is thus in direct competition with the internationally integrated patent teams of Allen & Overy and Hogan Lovells. This has been well received by clients, with a growing number hiring the firm on a pan-European basis. That is one reason why the firm is thus gaining the competitive edge in the Dutch market. The litigation for ASML against Nikon two years ago is a prime example of this. The dispute was settled in early 2019. But even after this the Amsterdam team enjoyed a broad presence in the highest-profile proceedings before the Dutch patent courts. As in the work for ASML, Philips or Intel, the lawyers are frequently supported by the firm’s patent attorneys. The prosecution team as a whole has a good name in the Netherlands for filing pharma, biotech, chemistry, electronics and mechanical engineering patents. But the individual patent attorneys are rarely recommended for their patent filing work and are hardly visible in the market for EPO oppositions and infringement litigation – the litigaton practice possibly casts too long a shadow here. Thanks to its renowned patent attorney team and especially its impressive presence in cross-border cases, the firm is gradually setting itself apart from the rest of the market.

Strengths

Litigation regarding electonics, pharma, semiconductor and mobile communication patents. Mixed litigation approach with own patent attorneys. Well-positioned patent prosecution practice.

European strategy

This IP firm has gained a firm toehold at the top of the Dutch, German and French markets in recent years. It has established a broad geographical position in Europe through an intelligent merger strategy, and it did this earlier and to a greater extent than other patent litigation firms. In addition, the firm has small offices in Brussels and Madrid. So far, it has shown no interest in London, an important location for pharmaceutical cases, although since circumstances have deteriorated for British firms as a result of Brexit, many are now seeking new cooperation partners on the continent. At the same time, the firm is driving cross-border cooperation among the individual offices and is increasingly using multinational teams. This makes it the only IP boutique that can hold a candle to the large international practices of Allen & Overy, Bird & Bird and Hogan Lovells when it comes to cross-border work.

Recommended individuals

Theo Blomme (“a litigator you should never underestimate”, competitor), Bart van den Broek (“our man for the important cases. If we lose one, he’s got what it takes to turn the case around in the second instance”, client; “one of the best in the Dutch market”, competitor), Simon Dack (“very good choice”, client; “outstanding in life science cases”, competitor), Willem Hoyng (“brilliant strategic thinker”, competitor), Peter van Schijndel (“very visible in pharma cases”, competitor)

Team

12 partners, 3 counsel, 15 associates (incl. 16 patent attorneys)

Specialties

Broad presence in IP with connections to regulatory and antitrust work. SPCs, inventorship, trade secrets and portfolio managment. Technically broad patent prosecution practice.

Clients

Litigation: Philips (claimant) against Asus and Wiko regarding patents for UMTS and LTE standard; ASML/Carl Zeiss (both defendant and claimant) against Nikon regarding infringment and revocation cases concerning semiconductor manufacturing technology; Intel (defendant) against Mahltig over chipset and processor technology; AstraZeneca (claimant) against Sandoz over fulvestrant; UCB (claimant) against Accord in invalidity proceedings regarding patent and SPC for Vimpat; Pfizer (claimant) against the Dutch Medicines Evaluation Board over labelling of generics for neuropathic pain treatment drug Lyrica up to the CJEU; Janssen/Pfizer (claimant) against Sandoz regarding SPC for darunavir; Fractus (claimant) against Xiaomi regarding technology for antennas in mobile devices; Ceva Santé Animale (defendant) against Bayer over animal health drug Forceris (both public knowledge). Prosecution: patent filing and oppositions for DSM Nutrition, Hologic, Lely, Pinlock, Seaborough, Tessenderlo.

Location:

Amsterdam