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


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.

Stay informed with

Our Blogs

Arthur I. Neustadt

Arthur I. Neustadt

Senior Partner ∙ US Office
T: (703) 413-3000
Download My vCard
Download Summary PDF
Download Detailed PDF

Representative Matters

  • Medtronic, Inc. v. Boston Scientific Corp., 134 S.Ct. 843 (2014)(defendant/patentee not requesting any relief held to have burden of proof in declaratory judgment action brought by licensee).
  • Norgren Inc. v. International Trade Commission, 699 F.3d 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2012)(FRL connector patent held invalid as obvious).
  • Medtronic, Inc. v. Boston Scientific Corp., 695 F.3d 1266 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (non-claim coverage holding vacated on basis that licensee, not licensor, had burden of proof).
  • GPS Industries Inc. v. Altex Corp., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 67480 (N.D. Tex. July 27, 2009), aff’d, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 11583 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (global positioning system (GPS) patent infringement action dismissed for lack of standing).
  • Saint-Gobain Corp. v. Xinyi Glass N.A., Inc., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 36129 (N.D. Ohio April 13, 2010) (automotive windshield patents held valid and infringed, double damages and attorney fees awarded).
  • Cardiac Pacemakers, Inc. v. St. Jude Medical, Inc., 576 F.3d 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (en banc) (pioneer implantable cardioverter defibrillator ('ICD') patent invalidity ruling reversed, 35 U.S.C. §271(f) reinterpreted).
  • Tokyo Keiso v. SMC, 533 F.Supp.2d 1047 (C.D. Cal. 2007), aff’d, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 302 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (volume flow meter patent held invalid as obvious).
  • Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzuko Kogyo Kabushiko Co., 493 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (judgment of non-infringement based upon prosecution history estoppel affirmed).
  • Medtronic v. Guidant, 465 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (pioneer patent for treatment of congestive heart failure held valid).
  • Cardiac Pacemakers, Inc. v. St. Jude Medical, Inc., 381 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (jury validity verdict reinstated for pioneer ICD patent).
  • Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzuko Kogyo Kabushiko Co., 344 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (en banc) (rebuttable prosecution history estoppel defined).
  • Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzuko Kogyo Kabushiko Co., 535 U.S. 722 (2002) (revised standard for prosecution history estoppel to limit doctrine of equivalents).
  • Loral Fairchild v. Matsushita Elec. Industrial, 208 F.Supp.2d 344 (E.D.N.Y. 2002) (Rader, J., sitting by designation) (early charge coupled device (CCD) patent held invalid and not infringed).
  • Ajinomoto Co. v. Archer-Daniels-Midland Co., 228 F.3d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (multi-million dollar damages award for mutation genetics and recombinant DNA patent).
  • Li Second Family Limited Partnership v. Toshiba Corp.,231 F.3d 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (early semiconductor patent held inequitably procured, attorney fees awarded).
  • Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzuko Kogyo Kabushiko Co., 234 F.3d 558 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (en banc) (revised standard for prosecution history estoppel to limit doctrine of equivalents).
  • Biacore v. Thermo Bio-Analysis Corp., 79 F.Supp.2d 422 (D. Del. 1999), aff’d, 2002 U.S. App. LEXIS 13957 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (affinity biosensor patent held valid and infringed and damages awarded).
  • Shoketsu Kinzuko Kogyo Kabushiko Co. v. Festo Corp., 520 U.S. 1111 (1997) (petition for writ of certiorari granted; Federal Circuit decision vacated and case remanded (GVR)).
  • Ricoh Co. v. Nashua Corp., 974 F.Supp. 21 (D.N.H. 1996) (motion to add subsidiary as party for purpose of damages granted).
  • Valutron N.V.  v. NCR Corp., 33 U.S.P.Q.2d 1986 (S.D. Ohio 1992), aff’d, 5 F.3d 1506 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (early electronic accounting system patent infringement action barred by laches).
  • Geovision Inc. v. Geovision Corp., 928 F.2d 387 (11th Cir. 1991) (geographical information computer display service mark awarded priority).
  • Car-Freshner Corp. v. Scentex, Inc., 927 F.2d 594 (2d Cir. 1991) (settlement agreement enforced).
  • LHD Enterprises v. Austin Rover Group, 3 U.S.P.Q.2d 1226 (N.D. Cal. 1987) (motion for preliminary injunction denied for use of service mark).
  • NRM Corp. v. Kobe Steel, Ltd., C86-157Y (N.D. Ohio 1987) (tire press patent held non-infringed and inequitably procured).
  • Jamesbury Corp. v. Litton Industrial Products, Inc., 756 F.2d 1556 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (pioneer ball valve patent held valid as non-obvious).
  • NCR Corp. v. ELCO Corp., 228 U.S.P.Q. 55 (9th Cir. 1985) (liability and damages established for failure to defend patent infringement action).
  • Loctite Corp. v. Ultraseal Ltd., 781 F.2d 861 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (anaerobic impregnant patent claims construed).
  • Mississippi Chemical Co. v. Swift Agricultural Chemicals Co., 717 F.2d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (collateral estoppel writ of mandamus granted).
  • In re Certain Vacuum Bottles and Components Thereof, 219 U.S.P.Q. 637 (ITC 1982) (respondents’ vacuum bottles held not to unfairly compete with petitioners’ bottles, ALJ’s determination to the contrary rejected).
  • Nippon Electric Glass Co., Ltd. v. Sheldon, 539 F.Supp. 542 (S.D.N.Y. 1982) (television x-ray protection patent held invalid).
  • Dayton-Hudson Corp. v. Dart Drug Corp. 221 U.S.P.Q. 288 (D.D.C. 1982) (junior user entitled to continued use of target mark).
  • Fund for Government Investors, Inc. v. Government Investors Trust, 215 U.S.P.Q. 54 (E.D. Va. 1981) (money market mutual fund service mark held not confusingly similar).
  • Jamesbury Corp. v. United States, 207 U.S.P.Q. 131 (Cl. Ct. 1980) (infringement damages awarded for pioneer ball valve patent widely used in nuclear submarine fleet).
  • Jamesbury Corp. v. Litton Industrial Products, Inc., 586 F.2d 917 (2d Cir. 1978) (“overclaiming” invalidity judgment reversed).
  • Ferri v. United Aircraft, 178 U.S.P.Q. 634 (D. Conn. 1973) (motion for lack of subject matter jurisdiction due to improper transfer granted).
  • Deering Milliken v. Vecchioni, 168 U.S.P.Q. 59 (E.D. Va. 1970) (motion by foreign defendant to quash service of process and dismiss denied where service was made on agent within jurisdiction of court).
  • Uniflow Mfg. Co. v. King-Sealey Thermos Co., 428 F.2d 335 (6th Cir. 1970) (patent infringement attorney fee award reversed).
  • Underwater Storage v. U.S. Rubber, 314 F.Supp. 546 (D.D.C. 1970) (scope of attorney-client privilege construed).