Spring direct naar de hoofdnavigatie of de inhoud
‘IP is the driving force behind R&D.’
Saskia van Doorn

Saskia van Doorn

  • Life Sciences
  • European and Dutch Patent Attorney, European Patent Litigator
  • Senior Associate

Saskia van Doorn started her career as a patent attorney in 2000 after having worked as an editor at Technisch Weekblad for four years. She studied biochemistry at the Radboud University Nijmegen (1991-1996).

Continue reading

Her particular expertise lies in the fields of biochemistry, medical (bio)technology, life sciences, medicine, molecular chemistry and pharmacology. She has a wide experience in patent prosecution, oppositions, patentability searches and third-party rights analyses, mainly for universities and other research institutes, startup companies, and midsized companies.

In her capacity as European Patent Litigator, Saskia is allowed to act as UPC representative.

Working experience

  • Patent Attorney, V.O. (2000-present)
  • Editor of Technisch Weekblad, VNU (1996-2000)

Education

  • MSc in Chemistry, Radboud University Nijmegen (1996)

Languages

  • English
  • Dutch

Also see these experts

Tamara Elmore

Tamara Elmore

  • European and Dutch Patent Attorney, European Patent Litigator
  • United States Patent Agent
  • Partner
Frits Michiels

Frits Michiels

  • European and Dutch Patent Attorney
  • Valuation specialist
  • Partner
More experts

News

Column: Can you patent something illegal?

Can an invention whose manufacture, sale or use is illegal still qualify for patent protection? It is a question that surprises many people, because the answer is less straightforward than you might expect. Under European patent law, illegality does not automatically preclude an invention from being patentable.Continue reading

G 1/25: the description must be adapted only where an inconsistency leads to non-compliance with the EPC

In G 1/25 (Enlarged Board of Appeal, 3 September 2026), the Enlarged Board of Appeal of the European Patent Office (EPO) decided whether, and on what legal basis, the description must be adapted when the claims are amended. The decision resolves a long-standing divergence in the case law of the Boards of Appeal and builds […]Continue reading

UPC clarifies lack of entitlement as a ground for revocation under Article 138(1)(e) EPC 

In UPC_CFI_523/2025, Wittenstein SE v Vestas Wind Systems A/S, the Court of First Instance, Central Division (Section Munich), decided on 2 September 2026 how lack of entitlement may operate as a ground for revocation under Article 138(1)(e) EPC. The Court held that it is not sufficient for a claimant to establish rights to only part […]Continue reading