The market-leading Dutch patent team of this international IP boutique remains the benchmark to which other Dutch – and indeed European – firms can aspire. The team benefits from an impressive list of high-profile clients, as well as no less than ten highly regarded litigation partners. It also has an abundance of in-house patent attorneys, which often appear alongside their litigation colleagues in highly complex and technical cases. This is especially to the benefit of clients such as Hanwha Q-Cells, which have recently been head-to-head at the Dutch courts against Longi over solar cell technology. For Hanwha, the firm is also conducting parallel proceedings via its network in Germany and France, while utilising its patent attorney team for European Patent Office opposition proceedings. With yet other branches of the litigation, including in the US and Australia, Hoyng’s role also encompasses the coordination of global proceedings.
Here, and in many other instances, the almost omnipresent Theo Blomme led proceedings. Alongside highly-visible partner Peter van Schijndel, continues to be crucial for the practice’s development. Involvement in such a diversity of patent litigation is clearly working, as this year the firm welcomed several new clients. Among them is Apple – a coup, considering the fierce competition and historically strong connections between the iPhone manufacturer and other firms, such as Freshfields and Hogan Lovells. Thus, with the growing client list, telecommunication litigation continues to comprise a large portion of the firm’s day-to-day work. Other leading partners such as Bart van den Broek and David Owen, who represented Philips at the Supreme Court level in cross-border licensing disputes against other implementers such as Wiko and Xiaomi, are also well placed to attract work from similar clients.
The firm has concluded Dutch proceedings for medical device manufacturers such as AMO, although in this instance its success also required cross-border cooperation with other international firms who are conducting ongoing proceedings. Such flexibility proves that Hoyng ROKH Monegier’s work is not confined to the boundaries of its own European outlets. In both medical devices and pharmaceuticals, the firm has also seen other new instructions, for example for Corbin Clinical Resources over devices for biopsies. The firm continues its breadth of work for long-term client AstraZeneca, with an appeal regarding unjust enrichment and damages currently pending at the Dutch Supreme Court. The Dutch practice has also won several new clients in this area thanks to the ever-strong connections with its German practice.
The boutique’s set-up is also paying dividends, with its base of associates ensuring strong support for the ten patent partners. While the firm can no longer capitalise on the Netherlands playing host to a UPC Central Division and instead has to look forward to trips to Milan, a diversity of talent among the firm’s lower ranks will no doubt be hugely beneficial once the UPC opens its doors and the workload continues to grow. is both strategically and structurally positioned to attract more client work from companies looking to litigate across the UPC’s regional and local divisions.
European and global cross-border litigation in high-profile telecommunication and pharmaceutical patent cases. Strong patent prosecution practice.
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. Currently, the Dutch and French teams are working together with those in Belgium and Spain to protect AbbVie against biosimilar launches across Europe. There is also pan-European work for Hanwha against Longi. Furthermore, the German practice recently played out its strength on the side of original drug manufacturers in the pharma and biotech sectors by representing BioNTech in the German lawsuits brought by CureVac and Moderna over Covid-19 vaccines. If there should also be lawsuits in the Netherlands, it would be a surprise if the Amsterdam partners were not involved. 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 it does not have a UK office, it does maintain good connections to several top boutiques and international firms. It therefore benefits hugely from its integrated partnership and from an intensive cross-selling between its own offices, as well as being called in by well-positioned UK patent practices for pan-European cases.
The UPC’s launch, which is expected in the first half of 2023, is sure to complement the firm’s European expansion strategy. While the Netherlands will not benefit from a central division, which will instead likely go to Milan, the firm’s experienced litigators can call upon its breadth of international teams in Paris and Munich to pick up cases. The firm’s breadth of experience in big-ticket telecommunication and life sciences litigation is also an asset here. Furthermore, despite being less visible in recent cases, veteran litigator Willem Hoyng continues to take an active interest in the development of the UPC. This is no doubt a great asset to a Europe-centric firm with an excellent position to attract overseas clients that might wish to litigate in the court.
Bart van den Broek, Peter van Schijndel (“great technical background; does a very good job”, competitor), Theo Blomme (“we are always impressed when we act against him”, “very good work for Hanwha Q-Cells, both technically and procedurally”, both competitors), Simon Dack (“very strong in biotechnology cases”, competitor)
Broad presence in IP with connections to regulatory and antitrust work. SPCs, inventorship, trade secrets and portfolio management. Technically broad patent prosecution practice.
Litigation: Apple (defendant) against Ericsson over SEPs and implementation patents (public knowledge); Access Advance (defendant) against Vestel over video coding technology; Hanwha Q Cells (claimant) against Longi Solar regarding solar cell technology; Philips (claimant) against Wiko and Asus regarding patents for UMTS and LTE standard; Philips (claimant) against Xiaomi 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; Sanofi (defendant) against Amgen over Praluent; Teva (defendant) against Synthon over MS drug Copaxone; Corbin Clinical Resources (defendant) against Leapmed over medical devices; AstraZeneca (defendant) against Menzis over compensation and damages for quetiapine; AMO (defendant) in nullity suit against Alcon regarding eye surgery patents. Prosecution: filing and oppositions for Hologic, Pinlock, Mourik, Vivi BV Ingredion, Simplot, Tessenderlo, N&P Recycling, Fine Agrochemicals, Allnex Resins, Prefere Resins, Metadynea, Groasis BV, Ingredion Incorporated, Seaborough, Nagra Kudelski Group, Lely, DSM Nutritional Products.