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

What's The Use Of 37 CFR 41.150(C)(2)?

  • Jan 2005
  • Article
  • Intellectual Property Today, Vol. 12, No. 1 at page 14

Associated People

Associated Practices


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.

Resources