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

Jay E. Rowe, Jr., Ph.D.
Michael R. Casey, Ph.D.
Richard D. Kelly
John  Sipos
Tao  Feng, Ph.D.
Thomas M. Cunningham, Ph.D.
Charles L. Gholz
Norman F. Oblon
Diane  Jones
Grace E. Kim
Kasumi  Kanetaka
Dale M. Shaw
Teddy S. Gron
Kevin M. McKinley
Stephen G. Baxter, Ph.D.
Sameer  Gokhale
Stefan Uwe  Koschmieder, Ph.D.
Eric W. Schweibenz
Alexander B. Englehart
Kurt M. Berger, Ph.D.
Yuki  Onoe
Brian B. Darville
Philippe J.C. Signore, Ph.D.
Chika (Teranishi) Iitoyo
Yorikatsu  Hohokabe, Ph.D.
Yuanyi (Alex) Zhang, Ph.D.
Surinder  Sachar
Colin B. Harris
Daniel J. Pereira, Ph.D.
Robert W. Downs
Robert T. Pous
Derek  Lightner, Ph.D.
Steven B. Chang
James R. Love
Jenchieh (Joseph) Yuan
Marina I. Miller, Ph.D.
Aldo  Martinez
Ryan W. Smith
Jeffrey B. McIntyre
Robert  Tarcu
Long  Phan, Ph.D.
John S. Kern
David M. Longo, Ph.D.
Christopher  Ricciuti
Bogdan A. Zinchenko
Tia D. Fenton
Nicholas  Rosa, Ph.D.
J. Derek  Mason, Ph.D., CLP
Arthur I. Neustadt
Alec M. Royka
Christopher I. Donahue
Elissa L. Sanford
Edwin D. Garlepp
John F. Presper
Akihiro  Yamazaki
Eckhard H. Kuesters
Andrew M. Ollis
Carl E. Schlier
Kevin Ross  Davis
Jianping (James)  Wu
Kevin L. Hartman, Ph.D.
Frank J. West
Craig R. Feinberg

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.

Frank J. West

Frank J. West

Partner ∙ US Office
E: fwest@oblon.com
T: (703) 412-7049
Join My LinkedIn Network
Download My vCard
Download Summary PDF
Download Detailed PDF

Representative Matters

  • Successfully represented Asahi Glass Company, Ltd., a Japanese glass manufacturer, and its subsidiary AFG Industries, Inc., a U.S. glass manufacturer, claiming patent infringement by Cardinal IG Co. of Asahi and AFG’s jointly owned patent relating to thin film low-emissivity coatings typically used in double-pane windows. After a four-day trial, the Federal District Court Judge granted judgment to Asahi and AFG on the issue of infringement. Thereafter, the jury returned a verdict of more than $25.1 million to which the court awarded prejudgment interest of more than $18.5 million, for a total of more than $43.7 million in damages. AFG and Asahi Glass v. Cardinal IG, No. 2:96-cv-244 (E.D. Tenn. 2005).
  • Successfully represented Toshiba at trial, obtaining a holding that competitor Loral Fairchild’s early Charge-Coupled Device (CCD) patent was invalid and not infringed. Loral Fairchild, Corp. v. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., Ltd., No. 91-5056(S.D.N.Y. 2001).
  • Representing client Buffalo Inc. and its subsidiary Buffalo Technology (USA) Inc., successfully appealed grant of summary judgment and permanent injunction in favor of CSIRO in a high-profile patent infringement case involving Wi-Fi technology relating to the transmission of wireless signals. This case was significant in that it was the first time that a court entered a permanent injunction in favor of a non-practicing entity since the Supreme Court’s landmarkeBay decision. The Federal Circuit vacated and remanded the case. CSIRO v. Buffalo, No. 2:06-cv-324 (Fed. Cir. 2008).

Other representative litigations, ITC proceedings, and 35 USC 146 actions in which Mr. West has been counsel include:

  • Astellas Pharma, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc.,07-cv-1721 (N.D. Ill.).
  • Glaxowellcome v. Ben Venue Labs,96-cv-0278 (N.D. Ohio).
  • Kyorin, Senju and Allergan v. Apotex,07-cv-779 (D. Del.).
  • Linex Technology, Inc. v. Buffalo Technology (USA), Inc., 07-cv-222 (E.D. Tex.).
  • Lupin Ltd. v. Astellas Pharma, Inc.,06-cv-400 (E.D. Va.).
  • Moore North America, Inc. v. The Standard Register Co., Inc.,98-cv-485 (W.D.N.Y.).
  • Optimumpath, LLC v. Buffalo, Inc.,09-cv-1398 (N.D. Cal.).
  • SanDisk Corp. v. MELCO Holdings, Inc., 07-cv-605 (W.D. Wis.).
  • Sigma Tau Industrie Farmaceutiche Riunite, S.p.A.v. Lonza
  • Smithkline Beecham v. Sumika Fine Chemicals, 01-cv-2602 (E.D. Pa.).
  • Wi-Lan, Inc. v. Buffalo Technology (USA), Inc.,07-cv-473 (E.D. Tex.).
  • Zambon Group S.p.A. v. Pfizer, Inc., Warner-Lambert, L.L.C., and Goedecke
  • Aktiengesellschaft,03-cv-5334 (D.N.J.)Zambon Group v. Teva, 04-cv-1157 (D.D.C.).
  • In re Certain Semiconductor Memory Devices and Products Containing Same, 337-TA-472 (USITC).
  • In re Certain Organic Photoconductor Drums and Products Containing Same, 337-TA-411(USITC).
  • Eastman Kodak Co. v. Duracell, Inc.,98-cv-234 (D.D.C.) (35 USC §146 action).
  • Ramtron Int’l Corp. v. National Semiconductor Corp., 99-cv-0146 (D.D.C.) (35 U.S.C. §146 action).
  • Univ. of Mass. v. Roslin Institute, 05-cv-353 (D.D.C.) (35 U.S.C. §146 action).