‘The best inventions are often obvious, in retrospect.’
Gijs de Iongh
- Engineering
- European and Dutch Patent Attorney, European Patent Litigator
- Senior Associate
Gijs de Iongh studied Mechanical Engineering (BSc) and Control Engineering (MSc) at Delft University of Technology. For his master graduation project he conducted research in the field of adaptive optics, particularly regarding wavefront shaping methodologies for light sheet microscopy and fiber optic endoscopy applications. Apart from the mandatory curriculum he studied subjects on optics, signal processing and medical imaging and attended the Royal Institute of Technology in Stockholm to focus on Biomedical Engineering.
In his capacity as European Patent Litigator, Gijs is allowed to act as UPC representative.
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