Spring direct naar de hoofdnavigatie of de inhoud
‘Nowadays, patenting has become the essential ingredient, since creative entrepreneurship and innovative technology do not suffice anymore to generate long-lasting profitable business in the highly competitive information society of today.’
Karel de Jong

Karel de Jong

  • Engineering
  • European and Dutch Patent Attorney, European Patent Litigator
  • Associate

Prior to joining V.O. in 2002 as a patent attorney, Karel de Jong had first been a scientist for five years, and an entrepreneur for another ten years. As an entrepreneur, Karel gained experience in commercialising patented technology. Karel is a mechanical engineer. He obtained his Master’s degree in 1987 and a PhD degree in 1991.

Continue reading

Today, as patent attorney at V.O., Karel is involved in various fields of technology, such as building and construction, machinery, vehicles, energy production, shipbuilding, offshore, rapid prototyping, medical devices, packaging, food processing, domestic devices and appliances.

Karel works for a variety of clients, ranging from small and medium sized enterprises, to large companies, universities and research institutes. Whether it involves patenting trajectories all over the world, defending his clients against alleged patent infringement, or assisting his clients in other ways, Karel always aims at delivering quality. Not as a theorist, but with a practical focus on his client’s interests.

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

Working experience

  • Patent Attorney, V.O. (2002-present)
  • Managing director/owner at GPT B.V. (1992-2002)
  • Scientist at Technology Consultancy Center (1987-1992)

Education

  • PhD in Mathematics and Natural Sciences, University of Groningen (1991)
  • MSc in Technical Mechanics/Applied Mathematics, University of Groningen (1987)

Professional & Community Activities

  • Member of the Training & Examination Committee, Dutch Platform of Formalities Officers (2012-present)

Languages

  • English
  • Dutch

Also see these experts

Matthijs Roelofs

Matthijs Roelofs

  • European and Dutch Patent Attorney
  • Associate
Michiel van Rooij

Michiel van Rooij

  • European and Dutch Patent Attorney, European Patent Litigator
  • Partner
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