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

Advanced Search

Technologies

Artificial Intelligence (AI)
Artificial Intelligence (AI)
Artificial Intelligence (AI)
    LEARN MORE
    Chemicals
    Chemicals
    Chemicals LEARN MORE
    Consumer Products
    Consumer Products
    Consumer Products LEARN MORE
    Digital Health
    Digital Health
    Digital Health
      LEARN MORE
      Electronics & Software
      Electronics & Software
      Electronics & Software LEARN MORE
      Energy & Renewables
      Energy & Renewables
      Energy & Renewables
        LEARN MORE
        Heavy Industry
        Heavy Industry
        Heavy Industry LEARN MORE
        Life Sciences
        Life Sciences
        Life Sciences LEARN MORE

        Services

        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.

        LEARN MORE +
        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.

        LEARN MORE +
        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.

        +EUROPEMIDDLE EASTJAPAN
        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.

        LEARN MORE +
        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.

        LEARN MORE +
        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.

        LEARN MORE +
        Stay informed with

        Our Blogs

        Stay informed with Our Blogs

        Life Sciences Blog
        The AI Patent Blog

        LEARN MORE +

        PTAB Update: APJs "Unreviewable Authority" Reigned In By Supreme Court, But the IPR Process Survives

        • June 21, 2021
        • Article

        Associated Practices

        PTAB Proceedings
        In a closely watched case, the Supreme Court decided today United States v. Arthrex, holding that the “unreviewable authority wielded by the APJs during inter partes review is incompatible with their appointment by the Secretary to an inferior officer” and, therefore, something had to change. But rather than wait for Congress to fix the issue as Justice Gorsuch would have liked, Justices Roberts, Alito, Kavanaugh, Barrett, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan agreed that there is a simple fix: make decisions by APJs subject to review by the Director.
         
        Going forward, “[t]he Director [] may review final PTAB decisions and, upon review, may issue decisions himself on behalf of the Board.” What this means for Arthrex is that rather than getting the entirety of the IPR process declared unconstitutional (as it had hoped), or requiring the PTAB to rehear its prior decisions with a properly appointed panel of APJs (as previously determined by the Federal Circuit), the Director has the ability to review the PTAB’s final written decision and reach his or her own decision. Now, “acting Director” Drew Hirshfeld will have to decide whether to review the final written decision issued against Arthrex's patent.
         
        We will have to wait and see how the USPTO plans to implement the Supreme Court’s contemplated “Director Review.”  But no matter how implemented, the USPTO Director’s job has gotten busier and the appointment process potentially subject to more political lobbying.

        Resources

        Click here to read the decision

        Recent Publications

        ArticleJanuary 17, 2024

        5 IP Rules to Know to Protect Your Business in the United States (article in French)

        Coaching INPI Newsletter

        ArticleJanuary 10, 2024

        USPTO Releases Examiner Guidance for The Amgen Enablement Decision

        ArticleDecember 8, 2023

        Penumbra, Inc. v. RapidPulse, Inc.