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

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


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.

Navigating the Conflict Between CAFC Case Law and USPTO Guidance on Patent Eligibility

Schedule :

Oblon, IAM Media and Lexology Webianrs co-hosted a webinar on August 11, 2021 entitled "Navigating the Conflict Between CAFC Case Law and USPTO Guidance on Patent Eligibility." 

Mr. Kelly and Dr. Shier will discuss the conflict between the USPTO patent eligibility guidance and the Federal Circuit case law and offer some suggestions on how to comply with both. The Federal Circuit has criticized and refused to even consider the USPTO guidance when reviewing district court patent invalidations and ex parte appeals from the PTAB. The districts courts have similarly declined to consider the guidance beginning with the Cleveland Clinic II case. The problem is that claims patent eligible under the USPTO Guidance may be ineligible under the Federal Circuit case law. Part of the problem is that the Federal Circuit’s opinions often do not set out the reasons for the decision with clarity and the other is the desire of the USPTO to try and develop simple rules for determining eligibility. The problem with this effort is that the USPTO is without the authority to promulgate substantive rules. This webinar will discuss the problems and suggest some techniques for threading the eye of the needle of patent eligibility.