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
On March 21, 2011, Predator Outdoor Products, LLC (“Predator”) filed suit against Oakley, Inc. (“Oakley”) in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Predator’s Complaint seeks a declaratory judgment that Predator does not infringe any valid claim of U.S. patent no. 5,387,949 (“the ‘949 patent”) or U.S. D523,461 (“the D461 patent”).
Predator filed suit after receiving a letter from Oakley asserting that Predator’s i-Kam Extreme products infringe the ‘949 and D461 patents. Oakley’s letter further demanded that Predator “immediately cease” infringing the patents, demanded an accounting for the sales of all allegedly infringing products, and enclosed a draft Complaint against Predator.
This case provides another example of a patent holder obtaining design and utility patent protection on a product and then asserting both the design and utility patents against a competitor. The case further illustrates that an assertion of a design patent can give rise to a declaratory judgment action as with the assertion of a utility patent.
For reference, Fig. 1 of the D461 patent and one of the commercially available i-Kam Extreme glasses is shown below:
D461 Fig. 1
i-Kam Extreme