Spring direct naar de hoofdnavigatie of de inhoud
‘The best results are obtained when there is an exchange of creative thinking between the patent attorney and the client. I truly enjoy achieving and maintaining such synergy.’
Annemiek Tepper

Annemiek Tepper

  • Chemistry
  • Life Sciences
  • European and Dutch Patent Attorney, European Patent Litigator
  • Partner

Annemiek Tepper joined V.O. in 2002. During her academic career, she spent one year at the University of Chapel Hill (USA) and at the Pasteur Institute in Paris. Annemiek studied biochemistry at the University of Groningen. She obtained her PhD at the Netherlands Cancer Institute (Amsterdam).

Continue reading

Her specialties include biochemistry, biotechnology, oncology, immunology, diagnostics, medical technology, dairy science and food technology. She is actively involved in assessing the patentability of new developments, and in drafting and prosecuting patent applications worldwide. Other activities include evaluating third party patent portfolios and providing opinions of validity/invalidity and infringement/non infringement. She is also experienced in representing clients in opposition and appeal cases before the EPO. Her clients are diverse and range from academic institutions, SME’s to multinationals.

In her capacity as European Patent Litigator, Annemiek is allowed to act as UPC representative.

Working experience

  • Patent Attorney, V.O. (2006-present)
  • Post-Doc, Academic Medical Center (2000-2002)

Education

  • PhD, Faculty of Science, University of Amsterdam (2000, with honours)
  • MSc in Biochemistry, University of Groningen (1994, with honours)

Directories

  • Highlighted as ‘exceptional attorney’ by IP Stars Handbook MIP, 2016.

Publications

  • Tepper AD, Ruurs P, Borst J, van Blitterswijk WJ (2001) Biochim. Biophys. Res. Commun. 280:634
  • Tepper AD, Diks SH, van Blitterswijk WJ, Borst J (2000) J. Biol. Chem. 275:34810
  • Tepper AD, Ruurs P, Wiedmer T, Sims PJ, Borst J, van Blitterswijk WJ (2000) J. Cell Biol. 150:155
  • Tepper AD and van Blitterswijk WJ (2000) Methods Enzymol. 312:16
  • Tepper AD, de Vries E, van Blitterswijk WJ, Borst J (1999) J. Clin. Invest. 103:971
  • Tepper AD, Boesen-de Cock JG, de Vries E, Borst J, van Blitterswijk WJ (1999) J. Biol. Chem. 272:24308
  • Boesen-de Cock JG, Tepper AD, de Vries E, van Blitterswijk WJ, Borst J (1999) J.Biol. Chem. 274:14255
  • Borst P, van Blitterswijk WJ, Borst J, Tepper AD, Schinkel AH (1998) Drug Resistance Update 1:337
  • Boesen-de Cock JG, Tepper AD, de Vries E, van Blitterswijk WJ, Borst J (1998) J. Biol. Chem. 273:7560
  • Tepper AD, Dammann H, Bominaar AA, Véron M (1994) J. Biol. Chem. 269:32175
  • Véron M, Tepper A, Hildebrandt M, Lascu I, Lacombe ML, Janin J, Moréra S, Cherfils J, Dumas C, Chiadmi M (1994) Adv. Exp. Med. Biol. 370:607
  • Bominaar AA, Tepper AD, Véron M (1994) FEBS Lett. 353(1):5

Professional & Community Activities

  • Member of the Committee ‘professional orientation’ of the Dutch Patent Association (Orde van Octrooigemachtigden) aimed to promote the profession of patent attorney
  • EPI Tutor

Languages

  • English
  • Dutch

Also see these experts

Otto Oudshoorn

Otto Oudshoorn

  • European and Dutch Patent Attorney, European Patent Litigator
  • Partner
Huub Maas

Huub Maas

  • European and Dutch Patent Attorney, European Patent Litigator
  • Partner
More experts

News

The license of right for the unitary patent: smart cost saving or strategic limitation?

With the introduction of the European patent with unitary effect (unitary patent or UP), patent holders now have access to new strategic tools. One of these is the license of right (LoR). What does such a declaration entail, and what advantages and disadvantages can it have for the protection of your intellectual property?Continue reading

UPC jurisdiction over UK designations and conditional infringement relief in Fujifilm v Kodak

In the case of Kodak vs. Fujifilm concerning EP 3 511 174 on 2 June 2026 before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent, the Court of Appeal addressed the UPC’s jurisdiction over the UK designation of a European patent. The decision is important because it applies the CJEU’s reasoning in BSH v Electrolux […]Continue reading

Case Law Clarity

Visitors to the V.O. website may already have noticed that it has recently been expanded with a new section: Case Law Clarity. With this addition, the website responds to the growing need for clear and consistent explanations of complex legal developments in patent law.Continue reading