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.
April 28-30, 2024
November 16, 2023 - In-Person in Munich
October 27, 2023
Arthur Neustadt is quoted in Law360’s recent article regarding the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to hear Medtronic Inc.’s appeal of a Federal Circuit decision holding that licensee Medtronic bore the burden of proof to show that its products are not covered by the licensed patents. Mr. Neustadt said that Federal Ciruit’s ruling does not make any substantial changes to the patent laws because the decision was based on the language of the licensing agreement. He went on to say that the Federal Circuit’s decision should be affirmed by the Supreme Court because “[t]hey went out of their way to say that this is not a blanket rule.” Oblon Spivak represents licensor Mirowski Family Ventures, LLC in the dispute. Mr. Neustadt expects that oral argument before the Supreme Court will be scheduled for November 2013. The U.S. Supreme Court case is Medtronic Inc. v. Boston Scientific Corp. et al., case number 12-1128. To read the full article, please click here or on the publication link.