JUVE Patent

Rankings Netherlands 2021

Hoyng ROKH Monégier – Netherlands 2021

JUVE Comment

This international IP boutique continues to demonstrate its talent for cross-border patent litigation via an impressive European network and a wide-ranging client list at the top of the Dutch and European patent litigation market. It also has one of the largest patent teams in the Dutch market, including a well-regarded patent attorney practice.

The technical knowledge of its highly visible partners shines through via clients such Hanwha Q-Cells. For the latter Theo Blomme leads the pan-European dispute, which also spans Germany and France, as well as the international element in the US and Australia. The firm has a strong ability to handle cases which cross European boundaries, a talent especially forthcoming in Hoyng ROKH Monégier’s younger litigators who are increasingly at the forefront of such high-profile disputes. Here, both Peter van Schijndel and Blomme are carving out successful litigation strategies from some of the firm’s most complex cases, especially involving innovator pharmaceutical companies such as AstraZeneca over damages for Seroquel, and for AbbVie regarding arthritis drug Humira. The increased visibility of the firm’s young partners bodes well in securing a strong bench of senior partners for future disputes.

As the European courts continue to handle multiple telecommunication cases, Hoyng ROKH Monégier remains visible in several SEP cases in the Netherlands. A notable example, which reached the Supreme Court of The Hague, is between Philips and several Chinese mobile phone manufacturers, as well as Asus and Wiko. The firm also brought in competition expertise for Philips, an invaluable addition to the team’s patent expertise as litigation around SEP and telecommunications patents become increasingly cross-border and involve competition aspects. In the Netherlands, Hoyng ROKH Monégier also recently advised some long-standing and high-profile clients of the German practice, also from the telecommunication sector. However, the Dutch team has not yet been active for them in the courtroom.

Parallel to its expertise in telecommunication cases, the firm has a wealth of experience in complex pharmaceutical and biotechnology disputes across Europe, such as for Sanofi against Amgen over Praluent. This visibility is bolstered through the coordination role often taken by its partners, cementing their market-leading reputation in Europe. As such, Hoyng ROKH Monégier’s work in life sciences puts the firm on par with fellow market-leading boutique Brinkhof, although the latter tends to focus more on litigation for generic drug manufacturers. A specialism in originators perhaps gives Hoyng ROKH Monégier a broader base of potential future clients and a slight edge when attracting new clients in the biotech sector. The firm also differs from other market-leading firms in that it has a well-integrated patent attorney practice alongside the litigation expertise. For example, Hoyng ROKH Monégier’s work for client Ceva Santé Animale also includes EPO prosecution work, with the firm’s patent attorneys working alongside its litigators. Spreading the case across the breadth of the firm’s expertise is helping increase the visibility of the firm’s patent attorneys, which were previously somewhat overshadowed by its litigation arm.

Strengths

European and global cross-border litigation in high-profile telecommunication and pharmaceutial patent cases. Strong patent prosecution practice.

European strategy

This IP firm has gained a firm foothold at the top of the Dutch, German and French markets in recent years, and in doing so has established a broad geographical position in Europe. Being equally visible in both pharma and telecommunications in the Netherlands, as well as in other European jurisidictions such as France, makes the firm unique among other international firms such as DLA Piper or Taylor Wessing, which tend to specialise more in one area. And the German team, which comprises just as many lawyers as the French team – although without patent attorneys – has long been a mainstay at the top of the market. The same is true for the French and Dutch offices. In Amsterdam, highly-regarded litigators work together with patent attorneys. In addition, the firm has small offices in Brussels and Madrid.

Although the firm does not have a UK office, it does have good connections to several top boutiques and international firms. It therefore benefits hugely from cross-selling between its own offices, as well as being called in by well-positioned UK patent practices for pan-European cases. Despite being less visible in recent cases, veteran litigator Willem Hoyng continues to take an active interest in the development of the UPC. The eventual start of the court would complement the firm’s European expansion strategy – especially if the Netherlands gains a central division in Amsterdam or The Hague.

Recommended individuals

Bart van den Broek (“excellent in advisory work and for pharma innovators”, client), Peter van Schijndel (“impressive in building up his own name, with a strong client base”, “cuts an impressive figure in his cases”, both competitors), Simon Dack, Theo Blomme (“a great person to litigate against”, “I always enjoy cases with him”, both competitors)

Team

12 partners, 3 counsel, 13 associates (including 10 patent attorneys)

Specialties

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

Clients

Litigation: Hanwha Q Cells (claimant) against LONGi Solar regarding solar cell technology; Philips (claimant) against Wiko and Asus regarding patents for UMTS and LTE standard; Intel (claimant) against Mahltig over chipset and processor technology; AbbVie (claimant) against Alvotech and Stada over biosimilars of Humira; Ceva Santé Animale (defendant) against Bayer over veterinary drug for piglets; Sanofi (defendant) against Amgen over Praluent; AstraZeneca (defendant) against Menzis over compensation and damages for quetiapine; AMO (defendant) in nullity suit against Alcon regarding eye surgery patents (finished 2021); Wyeth/Pfizer (defendant) against MSD relating pneumococcal vaccines (both public knowledge). Prosecution: patent filing and oppositions: Fine Agrochemicals, Groasis, Hologic, Lely, Meta Dynea, Mourik, N&P Recycling, Pinlock, Seaborough, Simplot, Tessenderlo, Vivi; patent filing: Ceva Santé Animale, Duracell, DSM Nutrition, Gillette, Hologic, Nagravision, Procter & Gamble (all public knowledge).

Location

Amsterdam