Thanks to extensive activity for manufacturers of generic drugs and biosimilars, Vondst is currently one of the most active litigation firms before the Dutch patent courts. The patent litigation team is the IP firm’s mainstay and it has a very good position in the Dutch market.
Due to mobile communications suits having decreased in the Netherlands while there has been a slight rise in pharmaceutical research companies filing lawsuits against the firm’s regular clients, Vondst has even been able to raise its visibility a little.
For Teva, Sandoz and Viatris (formerly Mylan), the partners were active in disputes against Eli Lilly, Novartis and other originator drugs companies regarding important original drugs and SPCs. Otto Swens, Ricardo Dijkstra and Arvid van Oorschot have a good reputation for litigation in pharma cases. But even though the work for generic drug manufacturers dominates, they also frequently litigate for originator manufacturers against each other, such as a nullity suit for a continental European pharma corporation.
The partners operate a technically broad practice overall, however, as evidenced by work for Tomra over steam peeling technology, VDL over wind turbines and Zavod Prodmash over road safety devices.
Dijkstra was also active for Sun Cupid in a suit launched by NPE Sisvel over mobile communications. However, the other Dutch boutiques Brinkhof and Hoyng ROKH Monégier are far more active in mobile communications cases. More work for NPEs in active lawsuits against mobile communications manufacturers could help Vondst to build up more SEP expertise and gain a more solid footing in this segment. With four visible partners, Vondst is capable of handling a high number of large mobile communications cases. Advisory work on pre-litigation issues, licence agreements and strategic advice, for example for an NPE, are already playing a growing role.
Patent litigation regarding pharmaceutical drugs for generic drug manufacturers.
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.
It has good connections to other European IP firms. Now that the UPC looks more likely to launch again, these ties need to be activated and continuously tightened. If Vondst wants to play an important role before the new court in representing generic drugs companies, which are likely to use the UPC for centralised attacks on patents for original drugs, strategic alliances with German or French firms will be helpful.
Only then will the IP boutique be able to compete against internationally integrated firms like Bird & Bird, whose patent team is also very active on the generics side, for high-end cross-border work at the UPC. If the former London section of the central divisions goes to Amsterdam or The Hague, Vondst’s chances of playing a major role at the UPC will receive a boost.
Otto Swens (“an accomplished litigator. Safe pair of hands for both patent litigation and medicines regulatory advice”, competitor), Ricardo Dijkstra (“high level of quality, very successful”, competitor), Arvid van Oorschot, Tjeerd Overdijk (“well-versed and experienced lawyer”, competitor)
3 partners, 9 associates, 1 of counsel
Exclusive focus on IP matters. Strong focus on disputes for clients from the chemistry and life sciences sectors. IP matters with regulatory work. Advice regarding licence agreements and FTO analysis.
Litigation: Teva (defendant) against Novartis in infringement and revocation cases over anti-tumor drug Afinitor; Teva (defendant) against Eli Lilly/Icos over erectile dysfunction drug tadalafil; Viatris (defendant) against Novartis regarding SPC on haemochromatosis drug deferasirox; Tomra (claimant) against Kiremko in infringement and revocation cases over steam peeling technology; VDL Groep (claimant) against TenneT over flanges for wind turbines; Sun Cupid (defendant) against Sisvel over mobile communications; V.G. Colours (defendant) against HE Licenties over technology for artificial colouring of orchids; Zavod Prodmash (defendant) against Impero over road safety devices; NOBA (defendant) against Nutrition Sciences regarding enforcement and revocation of a patent for fatty acids in livestock feed; frequent litigation for Sandoz. Advice: Assa Abloy on patent enforcement regarding safety solution for doors; Bugaboo regarding FTO and licence agreements; Strukton regarding licensing deals; NPE on SEP litigation in the Netherlands.