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.

Director Vidal Provides Clarity On Requesting Adverse Judgment During IPR, Which Requires "An Unequivocal Abandonment Of The Contest"

  • January 4, 2023
  • Firm News

Associated Practices

On January 4, 2023, Director Vidal picked up right where she left off in 2022 with her use of sua sponte Director review decisions. This time addressing what constitutes a request for adverse judgment during an IPR.

In Apple Inc. v. Zipit Wireless, Inc. (decision available here), Apple filed six petitions for IPR, but the patent owner only filed responses in two of the cases. During a hearing before the Board, Zipit’s counsel was questioned with respect to the other four cases about whether Zipit is “not contesting if a final written decision or adverse judgment was entered with respect to those IPRs.” Zipit’s counsel responded, “[c]orrect, Your Honor. If the Board determines that they have met their burden of proof with respect to those claims Zipit hasn’t filed any opposition.” Adverse judgment was subsequently entered.

In her Director review decision, Director Vidal explained that Zipit’s position was not an unequivocal abandonment of the contest:

Instead Patent Owner’s non-opposition was contingent on the Board determining that Petitioner met its burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the challenged claims are unpatentable. “In an inter partes review . . . , the petitioner shall have the burden of proving a proposition of unpatentability by a preponderance of the evidence” and “the petitioner has the burden from the onset to show with particularity why the patent it challenges is unpatentable.” … Accordingly, I vacate the Board’s adverse judgments and remand these proceedings back to the panel to either issue a show cause order clarifying whether Patent Owner is indeed abandoning the contest or to issue a final written decision addressing the patentability of the challenged claims.

Given that it is ultimately the petitioner’s burden to prove unpatentability, this decision make sense, particularly in view of counsel’s express statement.