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

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


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.

John F. Presper

John F. Presper

Partner ∙ US Office
T: (703)412-3536
Join My LinkedIn Network
Download My vCard
Download Summary PDF
Download Detailed PDF

Representative Matters

  • Represented Polycom, Inc. in inter partes reviews of directPacket Research, Inc. patents related to firewall traversal (IPR2019-01233, -01234, -01235).
  • Represented Aisin Seiki as respondent in Section 337 investigations at the ITC involving electric motors. Certain Thermoplastic-Encapsulated Electric Motors, Components Thereof, and Products and Vehicles Containing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-1052), Certain Thermoplastic-Encapsulated Electric Motors, Components Thereof, and Products and Vehicles Containing Same II (Inv. No. 337-TA-1073).
  • Representing patentees Grupo Petrotemex and DAK Americas in action against Polymetrix AG involving patents for crystallization of polymer pellets in the manufacture of PET. Grupo Petrotemex, S.A. de C.V. and DAK Americas LLC v. Polymetrix AG, C.A. No. 16-2401 (D. Minn.).
  • Represented Valeo as both complainant and respondent in Section 337 investigations at the ITC involving windshield wiper blade technology. Certain Windshield Wipers and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-928/937), Certain Windscreen Wipers and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-964).
  • Represented Otis Elevator Company in inter partes reexaminations of Inventio AG patents related to modernization of elevator installations.
  • Represented patentee Mirowski Family Ventures in action against Medtronic involving patent for treatment of congestive heart failure. Medtronic Inc. v. Boston Scientific Corp., et al., C.A. No. 07-823 (D. Del.). The case was remanded following a seminal decision by the U.S. Supreme Court on the burden of proof in a licensee’s declaratory judgment action.
  • Represented Covance Inc. in a copyright infringement and software licensing dispute with Attachmate Corp. Covance Inc. v. Attachmate Corp., C.A. No. 12-4088 (D.N.J.).
  • Represented Toyota and Subaru in action involving RFID-based vehicle immobilization. Rydex, Ltd. v. General Motors Co. et al., C.A. No. 11-122 (S.D. Tex.).
  • Represented defendant Optrex America in a multi-defendant action brought by Honeywell against the entire LCD industry involving a patent on a directional diffuser for an LCD. Optrex settled on favorable terms and the patent was subsequently held invalid on summary judgment. Honeywell Int’l Inc., et al. v. Apple Computer, et al., C.A. No. 04-1337 (D. Del.).
  • Represented plaintiff ArcelorMittal in a case involving aluminum coated boron steel products and methods for making same. ArcelorMittal France, et. al. v. AK Steel Corp., et al., C.A. No. 10-050 (D. Del.).
  • Represented plaintiff Solvay in an action involving a process for making a hydrofluorocarbon for use as a foam insulation blowing agent. Solvay S.A. v. Honeywell Int'l Inc., C.A. No. 06-557 (D. Del.). The case was remanded to the district court following a seminal decision by the Federal Circuit in Solvay’s favor on the applicability of Section 102(g). 622 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2010).
  • Represented Hooker Furniture Corp. in a trademark dispute with construction company Opus Group involving Hooker Furniture's activities in connection with its OPUS DESIGNS mark, which Opus Group claimed violated its trademark rights. Hooker Furniture Corp. v. Opus Corp., et al., C.A. No. 08-390 (E.D. Va.). The case settled on terms favorable to Hooker Furniture.