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

USPTO Updates Its Guidance On Interim Director Review Process

  • July 21, 2021
  • Article

Associated Practices

On July 20, 2021, and in response to the Office’s request for feedback on the interim Director review process, the USPTO has updated and revised its Arthrex Q&As to clarify certain aspects of the interim procedure.

For example, and as discussed in my June 29, 2021 post, the Office’s original guidance was unclear as to whether serial panel rehearing and then Director review petitions would be allowed. The Q&A now makes clear that a party cannot request both Director review and panel rehearing after issuance of a final written decision:

[A]fter a panel issues a final written decision in an inter partes review or a post-grant review, a party may request either Director review or rehearing by the original PTAB panel, but may not request both. If a party requests Director review, and that review is not granted, the party may not then request PTAB panel rehearing. If a party requests rehearing by the original PTAB panel and the panel denies rehearing, the party may not request Director review of that decision. In the event a panel grants rehearing, however, a party may request Director review of that panel decision following the same procedure described above. If a party requests both Director review and panel rehearing (either together, or in the alternative) of a final written decision or a decision granting rehearing by a PTAB panel, the Office will treat such a request as a request for Director review.

The Office also provided the following guidance as to what happens to a Director review request when it is received by the USPTO:

Requests for Director review will be evaluated by an advisory committee established by the Director. That committee will advise the Director on whether decisions merit review. The advisory committee will include members from various business units within the Office, such as the Office of the Under Secretary, the PTAB, the Office of the Commissioner for Patents, the Office of the General Counsel, and the Office of Policy and International Affairs. The Director will determine whether review will be granted or denied.

As to the criteria for evaluating whether to grant or deny a request for Director review, the Q&A’s state that “[a]lthough there is no exclusive list of criteria, decisions may warrant review if they include, for example, material errors of fact or law, matters that the Board misapprehended or overlooked, novel issues of law or policy, issues on which Board panel decisions are split, issues of particular importance to the Office or patent community, or inconsistencies with Office procedures, guidance, or decisions.”

We will continue to monitor developments in this area and provide updates on our website.