What's The Use Of 37 CFR 41.150(C)(2)?
Recent Publications
5 IP Rules to Know to Protect Your Business in the United States (article in French)
Coaching INPI Newsletter
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
There are at least four problems with 37 CFR 41.150(c)(2). First, what does “[w]hen appropriate” mean? Second, opposing counsel virtually never has the “documents and things” that I want available “during cross-examination,” which means that, even if opposing counsel does produce the “documents and things” at some subsequent time, the deposition may have to be re-scheduled in order to ask the witness questions about them--which may require lengthy and expensive travel by one or both of the parties. Third, in the unlikely event that opposing counsel does produce the “documents and things” “during cross-examination,” the best of us can’t ask good questions about “documents and things” that he or she has just been handed. And, fourth, a fair percentage of the “documents” that you may actually get handed “during cross-examination” will be in a language that you can’t read--and opposing counsel may blandly assure you that he or she doesn’t have a translation of the document into English.
Coaching INPI Newsletter