the firm's post-grant practitioners are some of the most experienced in the country.

Technologies

Artificial Intelligence (AI)
Artificial Intelligence (AI)
Digital Health
Digital Health
Energy & Renewables
Energy & Renewables

Fast Facts

About Our

Law Firm

About Our Law Firm

Headquartered within steps of the USPTO with an affiliate office in Tokyo, Oblon is one of the largest law firms in the United States focused exclusively on intellectual property law.

Get to know our

History

Get to know our History

1968
Norman Oblon with Stanley Fisher and Marvin Spivak launched what was to become Oblon, McClelland, Maier & Neustadt, LLP, one of the nation's leading full-service intellectual property law firms.

Our Local and

Global Reach

Our Local and Global Reach

Outside the US, we service companies based in Japan, France, Germany, Italy, Saudi Arabia, and farther corners of the world. Our culturally aware attorneys speak many languages, including Japanese, French, German, Mandarin, Korean, Russian, Arabic, Farsi, Chinese.

A few of our

ACCOLADES

A few of our ACCOLADES

Oblon's professionals provide industry-leading IP legal services to many of the world's most admired innovators and brands.

OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUR

Career

OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUR Career

From the minute you walk through our doors, you'll become a valuable part of a team that fosters a culture of innovation, client service and collegiality.

A few ways to

GET In Touch

A few ways to GET In Touch
US Office

Telephone: 703-413-3000
Learn More +


Tokyo Office

Telephone: +81-3-6212-0550
Learn More +

Downloadable

Patent Forms

Downloadable Patent Forms

The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) issued final rules implementing the inventor's oath or declaration provisions of the America Invents Act (AIA) on August 14, 2012.

Stay informed with

Our Blogs

Boloro Tells Federal Circuit Arthrex Applies to Ex Parte Appeals As Well

  • June 1, 2020
  • Article
  • Law360

Associated People


Ex parte Boloro is a fascinating case placing into question the constitutionality of the PTAB’s review duties for ex parte examination. Full disclosure : Oblon represents the Applicant.  In this case, the Applicant is asking the CAFC to extend the 1991 Supreme Court Freytag decision, interpreting the Appointment Clause of Article II, Section 2 of the U.S. constitution, to ex parte appeals as well.  The CAFC recently relied upon the Freytag decision in Arthrex (2019) and VirnetX (2020) and held that the PTAB’s review duties were unconstitutional in the context of inter partes reviews and inter partes reexaminations, respectively.  If the CAFC agrees, Applicants who are dissatisfied with their appeals of an examiner’s rejection and raised the issue with the CAFC by their opening brief may get a second chance if the administrative patent judges involved in the appeal were not appointed in compliance with the Appointment Clause.

Resources