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.’
Home / Experts / Annemiek Tepper
Annemiek Tepper

Annemiek Tepper

  • Chemistry
  • Life Sciences
  • European and Dutch Patent Attorney, European Patent Litigator
  • Partner
T +31 50 599 52 24

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

See also

Also see these experts

Joris Goetze

Joris Goetze

  • European and Dutch Patent Attorney
  • Associate
+31 20 530 79 86
Martin Klok

Martin Klok

  • European and Dutch Patent Attorney, European Patent Litigator
  • Valuation specialist
  • Partner
+31 70 416 67 70
More experts

News

Interpreting claim terms “holistically” after G 1/24: description-based definition applied in T 0439/22 (Board 3.2.01)

In T 0439/22 (Technical Board of Appeal 3.2.01, 11 December 2025) the Board applied the Enlarged Board’s guidance in G 1/24 on claim interpretation. The decision is a practical illustration of how an explicit definition in the description can determine the meaning of a seemingly straightforward term used in the claims. As this case shows, […]Continue reading

Omission of drawings from the granted patent: limits of “deemed approval” and appeal as a remedy (T 0550/25) 

In T 0550/25 (Technical Board of Appeal, 10 February 2026), the Board addressed a recurring procedural mishap: drawing sheets are missing from the text annexed to a Rule 71(3) EPC communication and the patent is granted without them. The decision is practically significant because it confirms that, in such circumstances, the applicant’s grant fee payment […]Continue reading

UPC Court of Appeal on territorial scope, late claim amendments and proportionality of injunctions in a life-sciences dispute 

In its decision of 25 November 2025 in Edwards Lifesciences vs. Meril (APL_2205/2025), the UPC Court of Appeal addressed procedural discipline in framing remedies (especially territorial scope) and refined how proportionality may shape injunctive relief in a medical-device case. The decision forms part of a combined judgment in the wider Meril v Edwards / Edwards v Meril appeals package.  Continue reading

More news