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

Chika (Teranishi) Iitoyo
Ching-Cheng (Tony)  Chang
Derek  Lightner, Ph.D.
Frank J. West
David M. Longo, Ph.D.
Long  Phan, Ph.D.
John F. Presper
Brian B. Darville
John S. Kern
Stephen G. Baxter, Ph.D.
Sameer  Gokhale
Richard D. Kelly
Edwin D. Garlepp
Yin Y. Nelson, Ph.D.
Peifang  Tian, Ph.D.
Robert T. Pous
Stefan Uwe  Koschmieder, Ph.D.
J. Derek  Mason, Ph.D., CLP
Nicholas  Rosa, Ph.D.
Soumya  Panda
Philippe J.C. Signore, Ph.D.
James R. Love
Tia D. Fenton
Erik M. Stang, Ph.D.
Surinder  Sachar
Eric W. Schweibenz
Christopher I. Donahue
Craig R. Feinberg
Johnny  Ma
Anna Z. Lloyd
Nanlin  Wang, Ph.D.
Jay E. Rowe, Jr., Ph.D.
Diane  Jones
Teddy S. Gron
John  Sipos
Thomas M. Cunningham, Ph.D.
Daniel J. Pereira, Ph.D.
Tao  Feng, Ph.D.
Yanwen  Fei
Yuki  Onoe
Robert W. Downs
Kevin M. McKinley
Kevin Ross  Davis
Bogdan A. Zinchenko
Dale M. Shaw
Akihiro  Yamazaki
Eckhard H. Kuesters
Jianping (James)  Wu
Jeffrey B. McIntyre
Jenchieh (Joseph) Yuan
Yorikatsu  Hohokabe, Ph.D.
Colin B. Harris
Marina I. Miller, Ph.D.
Christopher  Ricciuti
Yuanyi (Alex) Zhang
Maki  Saitoh
Carl E. Schlier
Grace E. Kim
Ryan W. Smith
Elissa L. Sanford
Vincent K. Shier, Ph.D.
Michael R. Casey, Ph.D.
Aristotelis M. Psitos
Alec M. Royka
Andrew M. Ollis
Alexander B. Englehart
Robert  Tarcu
Kurt M. Berger, Ph.D.
Matthew H. Everhart, Ph.D.
Kevin L. Hartman, Ph.D.
Arthur I. Neustadt
Kasumi  Kanetaka
Norman F. Oblon
Steven B. Chang
Charles L. Gholz
Aldo  Martinez


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


Get to know our History

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


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.




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 +


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.

Navigating the Conflict Between CAFC Case Law and USPTO Guidance on Patent Eligibility

Schedule :

Oblon, IAM Media and Lexology Webianrs co-hosted a webinar on August 11, 2021 entitled "Navigating the Conflict Between CAFC Case Law and USPTO Guidance on Patent Eligibility." 

Mr. Kelly and Dr. Shier will discuss the conflict between the USPTO patent eligibility guidance and the Federal Circuit case law and offer some suggestions on how to comply with both. The Federal Circuit has criticized and refused to even consider the USPTO guidance when reviewing district court patent invalidations and ex parte appeals from the PTAB. The districts courts have similarly declined to consider the guidance beginning with the Cleveland Clinic II case. The problem is that claims patent eligible under the USPTO Guidance may be ineligible under the Federal Circuit case law. Part of the problem is that the Federal Circuit’s opinions often do not set out the reasons for the decision with clarity and the other is the desire of the USPTO to try and develop simple rules for determining eligibility. The problem with this effort is that the USPTO is without the authority to promulgate substantive rules. This webinar will discuss the problems and suggest some techniques for threading the eye of the needle of patent eligibility.