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


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.

Stay informed with

Our Blogs

PTAB Update: APJs "Unreviewable Authority" Reigned In By Supreme Court, But the IPR Process Survives

  • June 21, 2021
  • Article

Associated Practices

In a closely watched case, the Supreme Court decided today United States v. Arthrex, holding that the “unreviewable authority wielded by the APJs during inter partes review is incompatible with their appointment by the Secretary to an inferior officer” and, therefore, something had to change. But rather than wait for Congress to fix the issue as Justice Gorsuch would have liked, Justices Roberts, Alito, Kavanaugh, Barrett, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan agreed that there is a simple fix: make decisions by APJs subject to review by the Director.
Going forward, “[t]he Director [] may review final PTAB decisions and, upon review, may issue decisions himself on behalf of the Board.” What this means for Arthrex is that rather than getting the entirety of the IPR process declared unconstitutional (as it had hoped), or requiring the PTAB to rehear its prior decisions with a properly appointed panel of APJs (as previously determined by the Federal Circuit), the Director has the ability to review the PTAB’s final written decision and reach his or her own decision. Now, “acting Director” Drew Hirshfeld will have to decide whether to review the final written decision issued against Arthrex's patent.
We will have to wait and see how the USPTO plans to implement the Supreme Court’s contemplated “Director Review.”  But no matter how implemented, the USPTO Director’s job has gotten busier and the appointment process potentially subject to more political lobbying.