1. Home
  2. |Experience
  3. |Brussels Practice
  4. |Intellectual Property — Brussels Practice

Intellectual Property

Overview

Protecting business assets and navigating the complexity

All businesses from SMEs to global companies must understand and protect their IP rights if they are to maintain their market value. For some companies, the most important issues will involve brand protection or the protection of trade secrets. Others may need to protect their copyrights, and still others, such as those that rely heavily on technology and scientific research, must navigate the complexities of patents and supplementary protection certificates.

Our Brussels IP practice is one of the largest, strongest, and most diverse in Belgium and is ranked in Band 1 for Intellectual Property - Belgium by Chambers Europe. We assist clients from a broad range of industries and we are well-known for our advisory and dispute resolution skills, especially in complex, multi-jurisdictional matters. Our creative thinking combines with a tough, no-nonsense approach to litigation and this helps protect our clients both in and outside the courtroom.  

Thanks to our cutting-edge tech abilities, we are able to help clients negotiate software license agreements, collaborative IT development agreements, outsourcing and other IT service agreements, and confidentiality and non-disclosure agreements. 

For more information about our services, click on the links below:

Comprehensive EU and national IP support

Businesses operating in Belgium and the EU come to us for help in relation to the full complement of IP matters. We advise on validity, enforcement, freedom-to-operate and infringement issues, and we represent our clients before all the relevant administrative bodies, such as the European Union Intellectual Property Office and the Benelux Intellectual Property Office, and before the Belgian civil and criminal courts and the Court of Justice of the European Union.

We also structure, negotiate and implement IP transactions (including licensing and R&D agreements), advise on IP portfolio management procedures, and design proprietary information protection programs. We offer training on IP protection, assist clients in establishing internal policing and enforcement policies, and conduct IP due diligence studies. Our experience as IP litigators also allows us to handle a variety of regulatory issues that intersect with IP rights, including antitrust issues, pricing and reimbursement, and parallel imports.

Global reach

Our clients’ cross-border business interests frequently demand multi-jurisdictional IP strategies and global litigation skills. Within Europe, we can rely on a global network of lawyers when matters pertaining to other national jurisdictions arise. We also have a truly global reach: Crowell’s in-house international team comprises more than 100 practitioners across the U.S., Europe and Asia, who collaborate to provide legal services worldwide relating to patents, trademarks and brand protection, trade secrets and copyright.

In cooperation with our U.S. colleagues, we counsel clients on trade-related IP matters, focusing on antitrust, international trade, communications, labor and employment, health care, and corporate and government contracts.

Practice depth

Our IP practitioners are thought-leaders and regular contributors to handbooks, legal journals, and blogs. They also teach, and frequently speak at conferences and seminars across Europe.

Collaborative across the board

Our team is well known for working in close partnership with clients, co-counsel, and colleagues across the firm’s other practice areas: for example, our IP/IT lawyers collaborate closely with our Privacy and Cybersecurity team to cover all aspects relating to data protection. Our collaborative approach ensures that all parties perform efficiently, smoothly, and in the client’s best interest.

Contacts

See All Professionals

Insights

Client Alert | 6 min read | 03.11.25

Europe’s Highest Court Compels Disclosure of Automated Decision-Making “Procedures and Principles” In Data Access Request Case

On February 27, 2025, the Court of Justice of the European Union (“CJEU”) issued a ruling about the requirements on data controllers to respond to data access requests regarding an automated decision-making system. In particular, the CJEU interpreted the meaning (under Article 15(1)(h) GDPR) of the phrase “meaningful information about the logic involved” in automated decision-making. Importantly, the ruling also separately addressed how to balance data access rights with the protection of the controller’s trade secrets, when the protection of trade secrets is invoked under Article 15(4) as a reason not to disclose a copy of personal data in an access request....

View All Insights

Insights

Client Alert | 6 min read | 03.11.25

Europe’s Highest Court Compels Disclosure of Automated Decision-Making “Procedures and Principles” In Data Access Request Case

Webinar | 01.28.25

The New Law on Private Investigations: Challenges, Risks, and Best Practices

Speaking Engagement | 01.28.25

"The New Law on Private Investigations of 18 May 2024: Challenges, Risks, and Best Practices ," Crowell & Moring Webinar.

Client Alert | 6 min read | 10.29.24

EU Court of Justice Rules on Copyright Protection for Non-EU Designers of Works of Applied Art: A Kwantum Leap?
|

View All Insights

Professionals

View All Professionals

Insights

Client Alert | 6 min read | 03.11.25

Europe’s Highest Court Compels Disclosure of Automated Decision-Making “Procedures and Principles” In Data Access Request Case

On February 27, 2025, the Court of Justice of the European Union (“CJEU”) issued a ruling about the requirements on data controllers to respond to data access requests regarding an automated decision-making system. In particular, the CJEU interpreted the meaning (under Article 15(1)(h) GDPR) of the phrase “meaningful information about the logic involved” in automated decision-making. Importantly, the ruling also separately addressed how to balance data access rights with the protection of the controller’s trade secrets, when the protection of trade secrets is invoked under Article 15(4) as a reason not to disclose a copy of personal data in an access request....

View All Insights

Practices

Contacts

See All Professionals

Insights

Client Alert | 6 min read | 03.11.25

Europe’s Highest Court Compels Disclosure of Automated Decision-Making “Procedures and Principles” In Data Access Request Case

On February 27, 2025, the Court of Justice of the European Union (“CJEU”) issued a ruling about the requirements on data controllers to respond to data access requests regarding an automated decision-making system. In particular, the CJEU interpreted the meaning (under Article 15(1)(h) GDPR) of the phrase “meaningful information about the logic involved” in automated decision-making. Importantly, the ruling also separately addressed how to balance data access rights with the protection of the controller’s trade secrets, when the protection of trade secrets is invoked under Article 15(4) as a reason not to disclose a copy of personal data in an access request....

View All Insights