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

Technologies

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

History

Get to know our History

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.

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

ACCOLADES

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.

OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUR

Career

OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUR Career

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 +

Downloadable

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

Supreme Court Hears Oral Arguments on Affordable Care Act: Will Biosimilars Survive?

  • November 10, 2020
  • Article

Associated Technologies


Today the Supreme Court heard arguments in Texas v. Azar that the Affordable Care Act (ACA)’s individual coverage mandate is unconstitutional.  According to the ruling in the underlying case, in the absence of the individual mandate, the rest of the ACA cannot stand.

While the consequences of striking down the ACA are vast, it also includes putting the future of biosimilars in jeopardy.  By way of background, the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act (BPCIA), was passed as part of the ACA to allow for abbreviated biologics license applications to be filed for complex products which are biosimilar to/interchangeable with FDA-licensed biologics.

If the Supreme Court strikes down most — or all — of the ACA, the regulatory pathway for biosimilars would essentially disappear overnight.  This would affect millions of patients who would no longer see more affordable biosimilar versions of high-cost biologic treatments reach the market.

Even if the entire ACA is stricken, there is some hope that Congress would revive the BPCIA as a standalone law.  Amicus briefs filed to the Court stressed that the BPCIA stands on its own and serves an important public purpose entirely separate from the insurance-related provisions of the ACA under attack.

Regardless, preliminary reports from the oral arguments suggest it is unlikely that the ACA will be struck in its entirety.  Because of the ongoing pandemic, oral arguments were conducted by telephone.  Comments from two conservative justices suggest that, at most, the problematic provision would be stricken. 

Judge Roberts stated “It’s hard for you to argue that Congress intended the entire act to fall when the same Congress didn't even try to repeal the rest of the act,’ and reiterated that is not the Court’s job.  Justice Kavanaugh said he considered it “a very straightforward case,” based on precedent holding that the Supreme Court will not strike down an entire law if only one part is found to be invalid, unless that was clearly Congress’s intent.  He added that "the proper remedy would be to sever the mandate and leave the rest of the act in place.”  These comments suggest little appetite for striking down the entire ACA.

The Court will issue its decision by next Spring.