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.
Les Nouvelles - Licensing Executives Society International (LESI)
May 20, 2025 at 13:00 JST, Tokyo Japan
November 11, 2024
October 9-10, 2024 in Tokyo and Osaka
In the most important Federal Circuit interference opinion in many years, the majority of a three-judge panel of the Federal Circuit approved (or, at least, did not reject) the Trial Section’s two-way test for interfering subject matter. Eli Lilly & Co., v. Board of Regents of the University of Washington, ____ F.3d ____, 67 USPQ2d 1161 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (opinion of the panel delivered by Circuit Judge Garjarsa and joined by Circuit Judge Michel; dissenting opinion delivered by Circuit Judge Lourie). However, the losing interferent (Eli Lilly) has sought reconsideration in banc, the court has granted an extension of time for the submission of amicus briefs supporting the request for reconsideration in banc, and several amici have supported that request. Accordingly, there is some hope either that the majority on the original panel will reverse itself or that the entire court, sitting in banc, will do that for them. This article is primarily policy-based, explaining what I think are the socially unproductive consequences of the majority’s decision, rather than precedent-based. That is because there is only one really significant precedent (i.e., the BPAI’s opinion enunciating the two-way test), and that precedent is not binding on the Federal Circuit.