Jetze Beeksma advises life sciences companies and research institutions on the strategic protection and enforcement of intellectual property in the field of biotechnology and pharmaceuticals.
He works with clients throughout the patent lifecycle, from patentability assessments to drafting and worldwide patent prosecution. Jetze also regularly advises on patent validity and infringement matters, and is frequently involved in high-stakes patent disputes before the EPO, national courts and the Unified Patent Court. This experience informs his strategic advice across the full patent lifecycle. Clients value his responsiveness and his ability to translate complex technology into clear and practical patent strategies. He joined V.O. in 2014
Professional qualifications
European Patent attorney
Dutch Patent Attorney
UPC Representative
Education
MSc, Molecular Biology & Biotechnology, University of Groningen (cum laude)
LLM, Law, University of Groningen (cum laude)
Recognition
Recommended Individual, JUVE Patent
Rising Star, Managing IP
Directory feedback
“Recently, pharmaceutical litigation by patent attorneys such as Jetze Beeksma and Martin Klok for research-based industry has dominated more than in previous years. Both partners are stars in the Dutch patent scene.” (JUVE Patent)
“The life sciences group had an exceptionally strong year thanks to the meteoric rise of Jetze Beeksma, who was lead counsel for the technical aspects of Moderna’s litigation against Pfizer and BioNTech in the Dutch proceedings over mRNA vaccines.” (JUVE Patent)
“We appreciate the team’s high-quality work. They are very responsive and, most of all, easy to work with (Jetze Beeksma).” (Managing IP)
“He is doing a great job on the originator side.” (JUVE Patent)
In the case of Kodak vs. Fujifilm concerning EP 3 511 174 on 2 June 2026 before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent, the Court of Appeal addressed the UPC’s jurisdiction over the UK designation of a European patent. The decision is important because it applies the CJEU’s reasoning in BSH v Electrolux […]Continue reading
Visitors to the V.O. website may already have noticed that it has recently been expanded with a new section: Case Law Clarity. With this addition, the website responds to the growing need for clear and consistent explanations of complex legal developments in patent law.Continue reading
In T 0837/24 (8 December 2025), the Board considered how far a technically meaningful interpretation of a claim must be taken into account when assessing added subject-matter and extension of protection. The decision is notable for its treatment of claim construction after G 1/24, and for its finding that an inconsistent first-instance decision may amount […]Continue reading