Law360 released the article "These Firms Racked Up the Most Patent Work Last Decade," which lists the top ten ‘Go-To Firms' for Patent Plaintiffs, Patent Suit Targets, and PTAB Litigation. Oblon is ranked in the Top Ten Go-To Firms for PTAB Litigation for 2012-2019.
In a petition for a writ of certiorari, JTEKT said it is planning a product that may be at risk of a suit by rival GKN Automotive Ltd. alleging infringement of the patent at issue on a drivetrain for a four-wheel...
Oblon ranks as the 10th Firm in the PTAB Leaderboard by Docket Navigator. In addition Chris Ricciuti has been named a top practitioners.
Oblon is ranked in the top 10 list for Best IP Boutique Law Firms by Vault.
Oblon's Intellectual Property practice has received a prestigious Band 1 ranking from Chambers & Partners USA. The publication identified the firm as one of Northern Virginia's leading firms in the area of intellectual property law, while also ranking four Oblon partners whose specialties range from full IP litigation to prosecution and handling proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB).
Chambers & Partners USA
Alexander Hadjis is featured in this Law360's article.
Oblon Files Brief with Supreme Court Outlining Venue Abuses of Patent Trolls In TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC., the high court is considering whether the Federal Circuit went too far in liberalizing the patent venue statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b). This statute provides that patent infringement actions "may be brought in the judicial district where the defendant resides . . . ." The statute governing "[v]enue generally," 28 U.S.C. § 1391, has long contained a subsection (c) that, where applicable, deems a corporate entity to reside in multiple judicial districts. In Fourco Glass Co. v. Transmirra Products Corp., 353 U.S. 222 (1957), the Supreme Court held that §1400(b) is not to be supplemented by § 1391(c), and that as applied to corporate entities, the phrase "where the defendant resides" in § 1400(b) "mean[s] the state of incorporation only." Id. at 226. The Court's opinion concluded: "We hold that 28 U.S.C. §1400(b) is the sole and exclusive provision controlling venue in patent infringement actions, and that it is not to be supplemented by the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1391(c)." Id. at 229.
Alexandria, VA – Oblon, McClelland, Maier & Neustadt, LLP is pleased to announce the election of one new senior attorney – Robert Tarcu - effective January 1, 2017.