Jetze Beeksma advises life sciences companies and research institutions on the strategic protection and enforcement of intellectual property relating to biotechnology and pharmaceutical innovations.
He works with clients throughout the patent lifecycle, drafting and prosecuting patent applications worldwide and advising on validity, infringement, and portfolio strategy. He is also closely involved in complex patent disputes, providing pre-trial strategic advice, assisting with case preparation, and participating in mock trials and hearings, including proceedings before the EPO, national courts, and the Unified Patent Court.
Clients value his responsiveness and his ability to translate complex biotechnology into clear and practical patent strategies. He joined V.O. in 2014.
What I help clients with
Worldwide patent prosecution
EPO opposition and appeal proceedings
Coordination of EPO and Dutch Patent Office filing strategies
Supporting clients in patent disputes
Participation in mock trials
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 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
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
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