FrançaisInternational English

    Print version Version imprimable

    Press>Press reviews 2011

    Press 2011


    Innovation, Technology & Intellectual Property.

    November 2011



    "Véron & Associés: succession guaranteed for the market leader

    This firm, founded by Pierre Véron, has become the outright benchmark in the patent litigation field. It owes this recognition to its organisation, which is fully devoted to patent affairs, and its capacity to handle the most complex cases in their entirety, thanks to significant internal human and physical resources - a scientific consultant, an economic litigation consultant, a graphic designer and an in-house translation service work alongside the firm's team of 13 lawyers. This legal team also includes three partners of recognised expertise (Isabelle Romet, Thomas Bouvet and Sabine Agé), wisely selected by founding partner has to ensure the firm's continuation and the organisation's response capacity."

    Full article in French 
    3795 Ko


    Innovation and its Protection.
    Information technologies & Telecommunications

    August 2011



    Véron & Associés: 10 years as a reference

    Leader: Pierre Véron
    Partners: Pierre Véron, Isabelle Romet, Thomas Bouvet, Sabine Agé
    Team: 4 partners, 8 associates
    Creation: 2001

    "Track record: The firm has recently stood out by winning the French part of a global litigation brought by Novartis whom it represented concerning a patent covering contact lenses. An achievement on which the law firm can pride itself, as the victory in France contributed to reach a worldwide settlement signed at the end of 2010 also with effect in countries where the trial had been lost.

    Team & differentiation: Véron & Associés is the outright benchmark in patent litigation. Its organisation, which is fully devoted to patent affairs, is able to handle all the different aspects of the most complex cases thanks to significant internal human and physical resources: a scientific consultant, an economic litigation consultant, a graphic designer and an in-house translation team who work closely with the firm’s team of lawyers. The three partners surrounding Pierre Véron ensure the firm’s continuation and the organisation’s response capacity."

    Full article in French 
    3795 Ko


    Option Droit & Affaires
    Rankings - Patent and New Technologies (June 2010 – June 2011)

    Juillet 2011

    “Law firms made up of specialists

    Other law firms, more traditional, have made the choice not to compete with patent agents and excel in their legal domain. Among them, of course, the law firm Véron & Associés  famed for its patent litigation excellence. One client comments “Excellent legal work quality. All aspects are examined, scrutinised and studied, the approach to the case work is innovative, great client care including taking on board its aspirations, its entrepreneurial vision as well as its constraints”.

    Full article 
    2840 Ko


    ALM American Lawyer Magazine – Focus Europe

    Summer 2011


    On the way to fair balance, the French approach for patent litigation.

    Article written by Pierre Véron and Isabelle Romet, Véron & Associés

    (A shorter version of an article originally published in The International Who's Who of Patent Lawyers 2011.)




    Full article
    1825 Ko


    Mai 2009


    May 2011

    FRANCE CONTENTIOUS WINNER VÉRON

    Véron
    represents Novartis in the French part of a global litigation against Johnson & Johnson over a patent covering extended wear contact lenses. In May 2010, it successfully defended Siemens Healthcare Diagnostics in infringement claims over a patent for the detection of HIV in blood samples.

    Full article
    2199 Ko


    April 2011

    What is the point of a patent without enforcement? [Extract]

    Last month saw a series of events in the long-running history of the single European patent. Rulings were issued, councils and parliaments voted. Yet it is hard not to feel that nothing has changed.

    On March 8, the Court of Justice of the EU issued its decision on the single EU patent court. As expected by many, it said the court was not compatible with the EU treaties. Later that day, the European Commission said it would do its best to find solutions to the problems identified by the Court of Justice. It also restated that the patent court and single patent are separate proposals. Two days later, the Competitiveness Council overwhelmingly approved plans to introduce the single patent through enhanced cooperation by 25 votes to two.

    So what is the future of Europe's patent system likely to be?



    "The opinion is much harsher than the Advocate Generals' opinion," said Pierre Véron of Véron & Associés in Paris. "It leaves absolutely no room for manoeuvre."

    Full article
    201 Ko


    February 2011

    Managing Intellectual Property - Global Awards 2011 - Survey results

    Patent contentious.

    Véron & Associés






    Full article
    1263 Ko


    January 2011

    An illustration of failed Europe
    Novartis y Johnson & Johnson.
    Various European courts

    Contact lenses have been a great aid to those with vision difficulties, enabling them to see clearly without worrying about losing or breaking their glasses. Unfortunately, a number of cases in EU countries over the technology behind extended wear contact lenses have generated anything but clarity for patent practitioners.
    The cases, essentially between Novartis and Johnson 8c Johnson and their various subsidiaries, concern just one European patent owned by Novartis (number 819,258) but have resulted in a wide range of outcomes (see table). The patent bas been variously held to be valid and infringed; invalid due to anticipation; and not anticipated or obvious but nevertheless invalid due to insufficiency. In the latter case, the judge added that, while the patent was invalid, J&J's competing product nevertheless fell within its scope: in other words, if the validity finding could be overturned, then there would be infringement. For critics of Europe's patchwork litigation system, therefore, the Novartis/J80 dispute bas become the perfect example of what is wrong with patent enforcement and why a single EU court is urgently needed. Citing this very case, while speaking at a seminar in Brussels last month, Margot Fröhlinger (director in the internal market directorate in the European Commission) said the legal insecurity caused by divergent decisions increases costs for business and hinders the development of a market for patents such as the one in the US. "
    It’s extremely difficult in Europe to carry out auctions or have an IP exchange due to the system we have," she said.



    Judges are human beings and they may reach different conclusions based on substantially the same evidence by taking a different approach to the objective issues," Pierre Véron, of Véron Associés, who acted for Novartis in France, explained to Managing IP.”

    Full article
    2532 Ko