Technologies
Counseling & Strategic Advice
IP Transactions
Litigation
PTAB Proceedings
Start-Up
Technology Transfer
Trademark & Designs
U.S. Patent Procurement (Application Drafting & Prosecution)Fast Facts
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.
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.
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.
ACCOLADES
Oblon's professionals provide industry-leading IP legal services to many of the world's most admired innovators and brands.
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.
GET In Touch
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.
Our Blogs
LATEST NEWS
PUBLICATIONS
Les Nouvelles - Licensing Executives Society International (LESI)
Events
May 20, 2025 at 13:00 JST, Tokyo Japan
November 11, 2024
October 9-10, 2024 in Tokyo and Osaka
Blogs
Firm News
Oblon Ranked One of The Top Firms for Handling Mayo/Myriad Rejections
Oblon is proud to announce that the firm has been ranked as one of the top firms handling Mayo/Myriad Rejections by Juristat.
Oblon Recognized for 2018 "Top 150 Under 150"
Oblon is recognized for Top 150 Under 150, Vault's list of leading midsize law firms.
Vault
Oblon Ranked Among Top 10 Best Intellectual Property Boutique Law Firms 2018
Oblon is ranked in the top 10 list for Best IP Boutique Law Firms by Vault.
Vault
Derek Mason recognized as "IP Transactions Legal Advisor of the Year" – USA
Derek Mason has been recognized as the "IP Transactions Legal Advisor of the Year - USA" by M&A Insider Awards 2017.
M&A Insider
Oblon Receives Prestigious Band I ranking from Chambers & Partners USA
Oblon's Intellectual Property practice has received a prestigious Band 1 ranking from Chambers & Partners USA. The publication identified the firm as one of Northern Virginia's leading firms in the area of intellectual property law, while also ranking four Oblon partners whose specialties range from full IP litigation to prosecution and handling proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB).
Chambers & Partners USA
Oblon's Derek Mason identified as "Top IP Strategist" by IAM Strategy 300
Oblon is proud to announce that partner J. Derek Mason, Ph.D., CLP has been selected by Intellectual Asset Management for its annual Strategy 300 guide of "The World's Leading IP Strategists 2017."
IAM Strategy 300 by IAM
Oblon Attorney Recognized in Managing Intellectual Property's IP Stars 2017
One Oblon attorney has been recognized in Managing Intellectual Property's IP Stars 2017.
Managing IP
Oblon Adds Patent Partner From Cadwalader
Alexander Hadjis is featured in this Law360's article.
Oblon Ranked Among Top 20 Patent Firms by Juristat
Oblon Ranked Among Top 20 Patent Firms by Juristat.
Juristat
Oblon Files Brief with Supreme Court Outlining Venue Abuses of Patent Trolls
Oblon Files Brief with Supreme Court Outlining Venue Abuses of Patent Trolls In TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC., the high court is considering whether the Federal Circuit went too far in liberalizing the patent venue statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b). This statute provides that patent infringement actions "may be brought in the judicial district where the defendant resides . . . ." The statute governing "[v]enue generally," 28 U.S.C. § 1391, has long contained a subsection (c) that, where applicable, deems a corporate entity to reside in multiple judicial districts. In Fourco Glass Co. v. Transmirra Products Corp., 353 U.S. 222 (1957), the Supreme Court held that §1400(b) is not to be supplemented by § 1391(c), and that as applied to corporate entities, the phrase "where the defendant resides" in § 1400(b) "mean[s] the state of incorporation only." Id. at 226. The Court's opinion concluded: "We hold that 28 U.S.C. §1400(b) is the sole and exclusive provision controlling venue in patent infringement actions, and that it is not to be supplemented by the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1391(c)." Id. at 229.
