Spring direct naar de hoofdnavigatie of de inhoud

Multinationals

Large companies often have their own in-house patent department. Nevertheless they frequently employ services of external patent attorneys for matters that require a very specific expertise or when workload exceeds the capacity of their in-house attorneys.  In these cases we are there to help.

Expertise on demand

Our expertise is helpful in, for example, conducting oral proceedings in examination, opposition or appeal, assisting with key patent applications that turn out to be particularly difficult to prosecute, rendering advice on patent validity and infringement and assisting in conducting patent litigation.  When needed, we also provide routine drafting and prosecutions services. We have the man-power to work on an urgent, sometimes last-minute basis.

You can count on us

With more than 60 attorneys, our expertises cover a broad field of specialisms and sectors, nationally and internationally. We have attorneys experienced in handling oppositions and in conducting oral proceedings.  Some attorneys run a practice largely devoted to patent litigation and are experienced in handling infringement and validity opinions. Several of our patent attorneys have years’ long experience as in-house corporate patent counsel.  For them, the switch-over to in-house counseling is natural. You can count on us, whenever and wherever we are needed.

From 'high-profile' to extra capacity

We can handle worldwide prosecution of parts of existing patent portfolios. Also, we can temporarily second our attorneys to companies to work  in-house. With our seasoned private practice attorneys and highly experienced former in-house counsels, we are uniquely equipped to provide support for “high-profile” cases.

Contact our experts

Marco Box

Marco Box

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

News

UPC anti-anti-suit injunctions as interim measures: Munich Local Division in Huawei v Netgear (UPC_CFI_791/2024)

In its Order of 11 December 2024 in UPC_CFI_791/2024 (Munich Local Division), the Unified Patent Court (UPC) granted an ex parte anti-anti-suit/anti-enforcement injunction (AASI/AAEI) to prevent steps in US proceedings that were said to obstruct UPC patent enforcement. The decision is noteworthy for its articulation of the UPC’s jurisdictional basis and the procedural framework for […]Continue reading

R 0016/23: the Enlarged Board confirms the mandatory nature of oral proceedings upon request under Article 116(1) EPC 

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

Medical-device infringement and “standard use”: LD Munich on lege artis use and conditional revocation counterclaims (UPC_CFI_628/2024) 

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