Spring direct naar de hoofdnavigatie of de inhoud
‘Innovation is the process of turning ideas into manufacturable and marketable form. (Watts Humprey)’
Blijke Kroezen

Blijke Kroezen

  • Chemistry
  • Life Sciences
  • European and Dutch Patent Attorney, European Patent Litigator
  • Senior Associate

Blijke Kroezen studied chemistry at the university of Groningen. For her Master’s research she worked on the development of novel medicines for malaria and tuberculosis. She particularly enjoyed the multidisciplinary character of the research project and therefore decided in 2013 to pursue a PhD at the Faculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences at the University of Basel.

Continue reading

In 2017, Blijke obtained her PhD summa cum laude and in the same year she started as a trainee patent attorney at V.O. She advises on IP matters in the fields of chemistry and life sciences, with an emphasis on food technology, medical technology, process technology and polymers. Blijke is primarily involved in drafting patent applications, prosecution in various jurisdictions, European oppositions and third party rights analysis.

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

Working experience

  • Patent Attorney, V.O. (May 2021-present)
  • Trainee Patent Attorney, V.O. (2017-2021)

Education

  • MSc in Chemistry, University of Groningen (2012)
  • PhD in Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of Basel (2017)

Publications

  • Kroezen, B.S., Conti G., Girardi, B., Cramer, J. Jiang, X, Rabbani, S., Müller, J., Kokot, M., Luisoni, E., Ricklin, D., Schwardt. O., Ernst, B., ChemMedChem, 2020, 15, 1706-1719.
  • Masini, T., Pilger, J., Kroezen, B. S., Illarionov, B., Lottmann, P., Fischer, M., Griesinger C. and Hirsch, A. K. H., Chemical Science, 2014, 5, 3543-3551.
  • Masini, T., Kroezen, B.S., Hirsch, A.K.H., Drug Discovery Today, 2013, 18, 1256-1262.

Languages

  • Dutch
  • English
  • German

 

Also see these experts

Henri van Kalkeren

Henri van Kalkeren

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