BRINKHOF AND STOPETIE FORM NEW IP BOUTIQUE


Here's another piece from this week's issue of The Lawyer. Dutch M&A heavyweight law firm Stibbe is to restructure its intellectual property department following the departure of two of its partners, former judge Jan Brinkhof and patent and trade mark expert Kurt Stöpetie.The pair are leaving Stibbe along with two assistants to set up their own technology and pharmaceutical law boutique on 1 January. The departures will leave Stibbe with just five fee-earners in its IP group, which will be folded into the firm’s litigation team.

Stibbe managing partner Joost van Lanschot is reported as having described the parting as "amicable", although he admitted the reason was a dispute over the prominence of IP at the firm.
"They felt the IP team should expand and we thought that the current size was ok. They concluded that their work would be better done outside Stibbe, and we will refer matters to them".
The IPKat has seen this all before. IP specialists feel frustrated when they feel they are just a small cog in a large machine, but equally they feel exposed and vulnerable when their boutique practices have to compete against full service law firms. The result is a sort of pendulum effect. In the US the swing is away from boutiques and specialist practices, while in the Netherlands it's in quite the opposite direction.

More boutiques here, here and here
Lethal boutiques here
BRINKHOF AND STOPETIE FORM NEW IP BOUTIQUE BRINKHOF AND STOPETIE FORM NEW IP BOUTIQUE Reviewed by Jeremy on Monday, November 22, 2004 Rating: 5

No comments:

All comments must be moderated by a member of the IPKat team before they appear on the blog. Comments will not be allowed if the contravene the IPKat policy that readers' comments should not be obscene or defamatory; they should not consist of ad hominem attacks on members of the blog team or other comment-posters and they should make a constructive contribution to the discussion of the post on which they purport to comment.

It is also the IPKat policy that comments should not be made completely anonymously, and users should use a consistent name or pseudonym (which should not itself be defamatory or obscene, or that of another real person), either in the "identity" field, or at the beginning of the comment. Current practice is to, however, allow a limited number of comments that contravene this policy, provided that the comment has a high degree of relevance and the comment chain does not become too difficult to follow.

Learn more here: http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/p/want-to-complain.html

Powered by Blogger.