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

Carl E. Schlier
Yuanyi (Alex) Zhang
Kevin L. Hartman, Ph.D.
Robert  Tarcu
J. Derek  Mason, Ph.D., CLP
Christopher  Ricciuti
James R. Love
Johnny  Ma
Yuki  Onoe
Alec M. Royka
Yin Y. Nelson, Ph.D.
Jeffrey B. McIntyre
Jianping (James)  Wu
Peifang  Tian, Ph.D.
Long  Phan, Ph.D.
John F. Presper
Vincent K. Shier, Ph.D.
Nicholas  Rosa, Ph.D.
Chika (Teranishi) Iitoyo
Surinder  Sachar
Akihiro  Yamazaki
Bogdan A. Zinchenko
Stefan Uwe  Koschmieder, Ph.D.
Colin B. Harris
Kevin M. McKinley
Robert W. Downs
Eckhard H. Kuesters
Brian B. Darville
Maki  Saitoh
Nanlin  Wang, Ph.D.
Charles L. Gholz
David M. Longo, Ph.D.
Grace E. Kim
Matthew H. Everhart, Ph.D.
Aristotelis M. Psitos
Andrew M. Ollis
Yanwen  Fei
Tao  Feng, Ph.D.
Stephen G. Baxter, Ph.D.
Steven B. Chang
Sameer  Gokhale
Norman F. Oblon
Ryan W. Smith
Craig R. Feinberg
Kasumi  Kanetaka
Daniel J. Pereira, Ph.D.
Jenchieh (Joseph) Yuan
Edwin D. Garlepp
John S. Kern
John  Sipos
Philippe J.C. Signore, Ph.D.
Diane  Jones
Elissa L. Sanford
Richard D. Kelly
Aldo  Martinez
Eric W. Schweibenz
Erik M. Stang, Ph.D.
Anna Z. Lloyd
Frank J. West
Alexander B. Englehart
Robert T. Pous
Kurt M. Berger, Ph.D.
Tia D. Fenton
Marina I. Miller, Ph.D.
Christopher I. Donahue
Yorikatsu  Hohokabe, Ph.D.
Jay E. Rowe, Jr., Ph.D.
Michael R. Casey, Ph.D.
Thomas M. Cunningham, Ph.D.
Teddy S. Gron
Arthur I. Neustadt
Ching-Cheng (Tony)  Chang
Dale M. Shaw
Kevin Ross  Davis
Derek  Lightner, Ph.D.
Soumya  Panda

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.

USPTO Issues Guidance On An Interim Director Review Process Following Arthrex

  • June 29, 2021
  • Article

Associated People

Associated Practices


On June 29, 2021, the Office issued the following guidance on an interim Director review process following the Supreme Court’s decision last week in United States v. Arthrex, Inc:

In this interim procedure, [Director] review may be initiated sua sponte by the Director or be requested a party to a PTAB proceeding. Parties may request Director review of a final written decision in an inter parties review or a post-grant review by concurrently (1) entering a Request for Rehearing by the Director into PTAB E2E and (2) submitting a notification of the Request for Rehearing by the Director to the Office by email to Director_PTABDecision_Review@uspto.gov, copying counsel for all parties by email.

Additional details on the interim Director review process can be found here. In that Q&A material, the office notes that “[t]he filed Request for Rehearing by the Director must satisfy the timing requirements of 37 C.F.R. 42.71(d), filing within 30 days of the entry of a final written decision or a decision on rehearing by a PTAB panel. A timely Request for Rehearing by the Director will be considered a request for rehearing under 37 C.F.R. 90.3(b) and will reset the time for appeal or civil action as set forth in that rule.”

The Office’s guidance states that a party can request Director review with panel hearing being sought as alternative relief (and in the event panel rehearing is granted, Director review will then be directly available). However, if a party requests only Director review and that request is not granted, there is no subsequent ability to request panel hearing. The Q&A material seems to suggest that serial panel rehearing and then Director review petitions may be allowed, but this point is not entirely clear. At present, the USPTO will not charge a fee for a request for Director review.

The PTAB is hosting a “Boardside Chat” webinar on Thursday, July 1, 2021, at 10 am ET to discuss the Arthrex decision, explain the interim procedure for Director review of PTAB decisions, and answer questions.