All specialists

Benjamin Niemeijer

Benjamin is partner, attorney and head of the section Intellectual Property and Technology at La Gro Geelkerken attorneys. His practice focuses on all aspects of Intellectual Property Law, including patents, trademarks, designs and copyright. Benjamin mainly works for clients in the pharma & health- life sciences, telecom & IT and energy sectors. He is an excellent (international) litigator and specializes in cases concerning technology, engineering and life sciences. In addition, Benjamin frequently advises larger academic centra in the context of research, collaboration & development agreement, exploitation agreements and other related (licensing) agreements.

Expertise

  • Intellectual property 
  • Commercial Litigation & Arbitration
  • IT-law &Privacy 

Background and other work

  • 2008, University of Leiden (Intellectual Property);
  • Grotius, Information Law (summa cumlaude);
  • Member of the Association of Competition Lawyers;
  • Member of AIPPI (Association for Intellectual Property/the Dutch group of AIPPI (l’Association Internationale pour la Protection de la Propriété Intellectuelle)
Contact details
B. (Benjamin) Niemeijer

Specialist Intellectual Property & Technology & Privacy and data protection (AVG/GDPR) & Commercial contracts and commercial litigation

Articles by Benjamin Niemeijer

31 January 2024
LGGA Pharma Update – 31 January 2024
On 23 January 2024, the Provisions Judge of the District Court of The Hague handed down a decision in the PI proceedings initiated by Janssen Biotech Inc. (“Janssen”) against Samsung Bioepis NL B.V. (“Samsung NL”). Janssen claimed that Samsung NL infringed its Stelara SPCs granted in Italy and Denmark. The Provisions Judge denied the PI as according to his preliminary assessment Samsung NL can benefit from the SPC Manufacturing Waiver.
Benjamin Niemeijer
Benjamin Niemeijer
Lawyer
25 August 2023
LGGA Pharma Update - 25 August 2023
On 15 August 2023, the Court of Appeal of The Hague (”CoA”) rendered its decision in the PI proceedings between Bristol-Myers Squibb Holdings Ireland Unlimited Company (“BMS’’) and Sandoz B.V. (“Sandoz’’), Centrafarm B.V. et al. (“Centrafarm”) & Teva B.V. et al. (“Teva’’). The CoA is of the preliminary opinion that EP 1 427 415 B1 (“EP 415”) makes the technical effect plausible, allowing post-published evidence to be taken into account. The CoA comes to its finding after the Enlarged Board of Appeal (“EBA’’) handed down its decision in G2/21. The likelihood of EP 415 being held valid in the pending final relief proceedings is high and therefore a PI against the generic companies is granted. Making this case of particular interest is that two out of the three CoA Judges are also Appeal Judges in the UPC. This case may show the position the UPC may take on plausibility.
1
Marleen van den Horst
Lawyer
Call Benjamin