Spring direct naar de hoofdnavigatie of de inhoud
‘IP protection puts you in control of your innovation and provides freedom to share it at your own terms.’
Jasper Groot Koerkamp

Jasper Groot Koerkamp

  • Engineering
  • Hightech & Electronics
  • European and Dutch Patent Attorney, European Patent Litigator
  • Partner

Jasper Groot Koerkamp started his career in the patent profession in 2001. Prior to that, he worked with Philips Semiconductors, which matched closely with his Master thesis. As in-house IP counsel in the electronics industry, Jasper worked in a broad field. He specialised in strategic patent management, with an emphasis on mergers and acquisitions and licensing terms and conditions related to standardisation.

Continue reading

The last four years as in-house counsel, he worked in France, where he was closely involved in joint development projects with French R&D institutes.

As patent attorney in private practice, Jasper enjoys sharing his experience from industry with his clients, including startups, research institutes and small and midsized enterprises, in various fields of technology. He has a broad practice, in which he guides clients from drafting and filing of patent applications to grant and beyond, to benefit optimally from patents. He also supports clients in contentious matter, inside and outside the courtroom.

With his experience in mergers and acquisitions, Jasper regularly supports other specialists in the M&A field with strategic advice and due diligence with respect to patent rights.

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

Working experience

  • Patent attorney, V.O. (2015-present)
  • Patent attorney, AOMB (2013-2015)
  • Patent attorney, Zacco (2009-2013)
  • Senior IP Counsel, NXP Semiconductors (2006-2009)
  • IP Counsel, Royal Philips Electronics (2001-2006)
  • Product Engineer advanced CMOS, Philips Semiconductors

Education

  • MSc, Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, Delft University of Technology (1998); semiconductor physics

Publications

  • Patent Opinions – one-day seminar FORUM Institut für Management 10 December 2013
  • IP valuation in Europe Shanghai IP Practice Summit 22 November 2012
  • IP Aspects of green tech transfer workshop on IP, Climate Change and technology transfer – Amsterdam 14 November 2011
  • Patents: a serious supply chain risk (in Dutch) Supply Chain Magazine 20 September 2011
  • Trade in patents helps innovation Financieel Dagblad – Dutch financial daily 7 December 2009

Professional & Community Activities

  • Treasurer FICPI for The Netherlands
  • Active member of various committees of FICPI international
  • Member VIE/AIPPI, yearly contributor to study questions

Languages

  • Dutch
  • English
  • French

Also see these experts

Marco Box

Marco Box

  • European, Dutch and Belgian Patent Attorney, European Patent Litigator
  • Partner
Lutz Keydel

Lutz Keydel

  • European and German Patent and Trademark Attorney, European Patent Litigator
  • Associate
More experts

News

R 0016/23: the Enlarged Board confirms the mandatory nature of oral proceedings upon request under Article 116(1) EPC 

In R 0016/23 (Enlarged Board of Appeal, 21 November 2025), the Enlarged Board set aside a Legal Board of Appeal decision which had dismissed an appeal without holding requested oral proceedings. The decision is a clear statement that efficiency and “timely legal certainty” cannot, in themselves, justify restricting the scope of Article 116(1) EPC when […]Continue reading

Medical-device infringement and “standard use”: LD Munich on lege artis use and conditional revocation counterclaims (UPC_CFI_628/2024) 

In its decision on the merits in UPC_CFI_628/2024 (with the related revocation counterclaim UPC_CFI_125/2025), the Munich Local Division of the Unified Patent Court (UPC) addressed two practically relevant issues:Continue reading

Choosing a suitable starting point for inventive step and remittal for an incomplete search: T 0610/24 (Board 3.5.01)

In T 0610/24, the Board set aside a refusal for lack of inventive step and remitted the case for further prosecution, including a further search. The decision is notable for its treatment of the “closest prior art” in the problem–solution approach and for clarifying when an incomplete prior art search can justify remittal under Article […]Continue reading