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

Blijke Kroezen

Blijke Kroezen

  • European and Dutch Patent Attorney, European Patent Litigator
  • Senior Associate
Frits Schut

Frits Schut

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

News

UPC jurisdiction over UK designations and conditional infringement relief in Fujifilm v Kodak

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

Case Law Clarity

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

Claim interpretation and the inescapable trap in T 0837/24

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