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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
April 28-30, 2024
November 16, 2023 - In-Person in Munich
October 27, 2023
In a rather unusual manner, the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (BPAI) in Ex parte Grado (Appeal No. 2010-005832 in U.S. application serial no. 10/801,951), issued an order in an ex parte appeal requiring the Appellants to brief issues on restriction practice and Markush when restriction is not at issue, rather an obviousness type double patenting rejection over an earlier filed patent.
Citing 35 U.S.C. 121 the Board requires briefing on the apparent conflict between the authority provided in section 121 and case law (In re Weber, 580 F.2d 455,458 (CCPA 1978) allowing “the inventor to claim the invention in the way he chooses (subject to the other requirements of law), including claiming multiple independent and distinct inventions in a single claim.” The Board also requires briefing on the aspect of whether a general formula, having a general property with a single step of administration is sufficient to satisfy “unity of invention.”
Rarely, if ever, does the Board require further briefing on an issue. However, the Board has that plenary authority and clearly exercised it in this case That Commissioner Stoll joined in his capacity as an APJ is also noteworthy and may indicate a broader PTO standard or “Examiner training guideline” on these issues.