Spring direct naar de hoofdnavigatie of de inhoud
‘The prospering of technical innovation goes beyond the conception of a great idea.’
Home / Experts / Henri van Kalkeren
Henri van Kalkeren

Henri van Kalkeren

  • Chemistry
  • European and Dutch Patent Attorney, European Patent Litigator
  • Partner
T +31 20 530 79 92

Henri received a PhD degree in organic chemistry and carried out post-doctoral research position at the CPE in Lyon (France) before joining V.O. in 2014.

Continue reading

Henri’s daily practice mostly involves drafting and prosecution of patent applications for a broad variation of clients, ranging from start-ups, knowledge institutes, universities, SMEs and multinationals. He is also experienced in litigation before the Dutch patent courts and oral proceedings at the European and Dutch patent offices.

His technical expertise is generally in the field of chemistry and related fields, such as life sciences, material sciences, agriculture, pharmaceutical, medical devices and food sciences.

In his capacity as European Patent Litigator, Henri is allowed to act as UPC representative.

Working experience

  • Patent Attorney, V.O. (2014-present)
  • Post-doctoral researcher at École Supérieure de Chimie Physique Électronique (CPE) de Lyon (2013-2014)

Education

  • PhD in Synthetic Organic Chemistry, Radboud University Nijmegen (2013)
  • MSc in Organic Chemistry, Radboud University Nijmegen (2009)

Directories

  • Recognized as ‘Rising Star’ (2020, 2021, 2022, 2023, 2024, 2025) by Managing IP

Publications

  • D. W. P. M. Löwik, J. T. Meijer, I. J. Minten, H. A. van Kalkeren, L. Heckenmüller, I. Schulten, K. Sliepen, P. Smittenaar, J. C. M. van Hest, J. Pept. Sci. 2008, 14, 127-133
  • P. J. L. M. Quaedflieg, T. Nuijens, J. G. de Vries, H. A. van Kalkeren, EP002107067A1, 2009
  • D. C. J. Waalboer, H. A. van Kalkeren, M. C. Schaapman, F. L. van Delft, F. P. J. T. Rutjes, J. Org. Chem. 2009, 74, 8878-8881
  • H. A. van Kalkeren, S. H. A. M. Leenders, C. R. A. Hommersom, F. P. J. T. Rutjes, F. L. van Delft, Chem. Eur. J. 2011, 17, 11290-11295
  • H. A. van Kalkeren, J. J. Bruins, F. P. J. T. Rutjes, F. L. van Delft, Adv. Synth. Catal. 2012, 354, 1417-1421
  • H. A. van Kalkeren, S. van Rootselaar, F. S. Haasjes, F. P. J. T. Rutjes, F. L. van Delft, Carbohydr. Res. 2012, 362, 30-37
  • H. A. van Kalkeren, F. L. van Delft, F. P. J. T. Rutjes, Pure Appl. Chem. 2013, 85, 817-828
  • H. A. van Kalkeren, A. L. Blom, F. P. J. T. Rutjes, M. A. J. Huijbregts, Green Chem. 2013, 15, 1255-1263
  • H. A. van Kalkeren, F. P. J. T. Rutjes, F. L. van Delft, ChemSusChem 2013, 9, 1615-1624
  • H. A. van Kalkeren, F. Haasjes, C. te Grotenhuis, C. A. Hommersom, F. P. J. T. Rutjes; F. L. van Delft, Eur. J. Org. Chem., 2013, 7059–7066

Languages

  • Dutch (native)
  • English (fluent)
  • French (basic)
  • German (basic

See also

Also see these experts

Kristel Van den Broeck

Kristel Van den Broeck

  • European Patent Attorney
  • Senior Associate
+32 16 28 42 80
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