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

Director Vidal Issues a Precedential Director Review Decision Regarding the Treatment of Multiple Dependent Claims

  • February 24, 2023
  • Firm News

On February 24, 2023, in the case Nested Bean v. Big Beings, USPTO Director Vidal issued a precedential decision of first impression regarding the treatment of multiple dependent claims in an Inter Partes Review proceeding before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. In this decision, Director Vidal interprets the language of the fifth paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112 (pre-AIA) based on its plain language, the language from 35 U.S.C. § 282 and 37 C.F.R. § 1.75(c), long standing MPEP guidance, and on an extensive review of prior court decisions.   Director Vidal concludes that the statute requires separate consideration of the patentability of alternative dependencies of a multiple dependent claim.  In other words, when considering the patentability of a multiple dependent claim, the PTAB must consider separately the limitations of each claim incorporated by reference into the multiple dependent claim.  Of note, paragraph (e) of 35 U.S.C. § 112 (AIA) recites the same language of interest such that the same conclusion would be expected for patents issued under the AIA.  The decision can be read here.