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.
June 1, 2023 - In-Person in Tokyo
January 31, 2023
November 15, 2022
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.