June 4, 2026 | GableGotwals has been recognized by Chambers USA 2026 as a leading firm in the areas of Corporate/Commercial (Band 1), Energy & Natural Resources (Band 1), Environment (Band 1), Insurance (Band 1), Intellectual Property (Band 2), Labor & Employment (Band 3), Litigation – General Commercial (Band 1), Native American Law (Band 1), Real Estate (Band 2), and Tax (Band 1) in Oklahoma by Chambers & Partners. In addition, 25 GableGotwals attorneys have also been recognized as leaders in their field.

Chambers rankings are assessed on technical legal ability, professional conduct, client service, commercial astuteness, diligence, commitment, and other qualities most valued by the client. Interviews are conducted with peers outside of the firm and clients in order to determine inclusion and rankings.

Attorneys recognized include:

Corporate/Commercial – Band 1

Jason B. Coutant (Band 3)

Jeffrey D. Hassell (Band 1)

Thomas Hutchison (Band 3)

Stephen W. Lake (Band 2)

Energy & Natural Resources – Band 1

Rob Robertson (Band 3)

Environment – Band 1

Lloyd Landreth (Band 1)

Tim Sowecke (Up and Coming)

Insurance – Band 1

Lance Leffel (Band 2)

Carrie McNeer (Up and Coming)

Leasa Stewart (Band 1)

Intellectual Property – Band 2

James F. Lea, III (Band 3)

Todd A. Nelson (Band 1)

Paul E. Rossler (Band 3)

David G. Woodral (Band 2)

Labor & Employment – Band 3

Ellen Adams (Band 3)

Chris S. Thrutchley (Band 2)

Litigation—General Commercial – Band 1

Adam Doverspike (Band 3)

Amelia A. Fogleman (Band 2)

Robert G. McCampbell (Band 2)

Amy Stipe (Band 3)

Native American Law – Band 1

Amelia A. Fogleman (Band 3)

Dean Luthey (Band 1)

Barrett L. Powers (Up and Coming)

Trent Shores (Band 2)

Real Estate – Band 2

Tina N. Soin (Band 3)

Tax – Band 1

James Scears (Band 2)

June 5, 2025 | GableGotwals has been recognized by Chambers USA 2025 as a leading firm in the areas of Corporate/Commercial (Band 1), Energy & Natural Resources (Band 1), Environment (Band 1), Insurance (Band 1), Intellectual Property (Band 2), Labor & Employment (Band 3), Litigation – General Commercial (Band 1), Native American Law (Band 1), Real Estate (Band 2), and Tax (Band 1) in Oklahoma by Chambers & Partners. In addition, 24 GableGotwals attorneys have also been recognized as leaders in their field.

Chambers rankings are assessed on technical legal ability, professional conduct, client service, commercial astuteness, diligence, commitment, and other qualities most valued by the client. Interviews are conducted with peers outside of the firm and clients in order to determine inclusion and rankings.

Attorneys recognized include:

Corporate/Commercial – Band 1

Jason B. Coutant (Band 3)

Jeffrey D. Hassell (Band 1)

Stephen W. Lake (Band 2)

Thomas Hutchison (Band 3)

Energy & Natural Resources – Band 1

Rob Robertson (Band 3)

Terry Ragsdale (Band 2)

Environment – Band 1

Lloyd Landreth (Band 1)

Insurance – Band 1

Leasa Stewart (Band 1)

Lance Leffel (Band 2)

Carrie McNeer (Up and Coming)

Intellectual Property – Band 2

James F. Lea, III (Band 3)

Todd A. Nelson (Band 1)

David G. Woodral (Band 2)

Paul E. Rossler (Band 3)

Labor & Employment – Band 3

Chris S. Thrutchley (Band 2)

Ellen Adams (Band 3)

Litigation—General Commercial – Band 1

David Bryant (Senior Statespeople)

Amelia A. Fogleman (Band 2)

Robert G. McCampbell (Band 3)

Native American Law – Band 1

Amelia A. Fogleman (Band 3)

Dean Luthey (Band 1)

Barrett L. Powers (Up and Coming)

Trent Shores (Band 2)

Real Estate – Band 2

Tina N. Soin (Band 3)

Tax – Band 1

James Scears (Band 2)

July 25, 2024 | By: Ellen A. Adams

Since 2022, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has been focused on heat-related hazards and possible heat-related injuries and illnesses in indoor and outdoor workplaces. As we discussed in this previous Alert, OSHA’s prior focus was through its National Emphasis Program and enforcement of the “general duty” clause. Now, OSHA has proposed workplace regulations designed to protect workers from heat-related illnesses and fatalities, specifically.

Obligations under the proposed regulations are triggered when the ambient air temperature hits 80 degrees Fahrenheit, whether inside or outside. The obligations become more intense when temperatures climb to 90 degrees Fahrenheit. For example, at the initial heat trigger, paid rest breaks must be encouraged and provided when needed. At the second heat trigger, rest breaks are mandatory, must last at least 15 minutes, and must occur at least every two hours.

While there are several exceptions, if these regulations come to fruition, they will have a significant impact on myriad employers and their respective employees. In the post-Chevron deference world and in the midst of an election year at the White House, it is impossible to know whether this proposed rule will become final. However, it’s reasonable to assume OSHA will attempt to continue its enforcement efforts under the general duty clause regardless. In summary, the proposed regulations will require employers to do the following:

• Develop and implement a Heat Injury and Illness Prevention Plan (HIIPP) that includes covered work activities; policies and procedures; methods for measuring and monitoring temperatures; designation of a Heat Safety Coordinator(s); emergency response and planning; and input from non-managerial employees and their representatives, if applicable;
• Provide cool, accessible drinking water;
• Provide one or more readily accessible shaded or air-conditioned break areas for outdoor work sites and an air-conditioned break area for indoor work sites;
• Provide fans, natural ventilation, or barriers from radiant heat sources in the work area for indoor work sites;
• Institute acclimatization protocols for new employees and employees who are returning to work after a leave of more than 14 days.
• Provide rest breaks;
• Institute methods to monitor employees to include either a mandatory buddy system, a supervisory system for groups of no more than 20 employees, or regular two-way communication for employees who are working alone at a site
• Covered employers will be required to train every employee and all supervisors on heat stress hazards, risk factors and warning signs for heat-related injury or illness, the importance and location of water and break areas, all policies and procedures applicable to their work site in general and their specific work duties, and their rights and responsibilities under those policies.
• Employers must repeat training annually and when any change to the work site affects heat exposure, when any policies or procedures change, when a heat-related injury or illness occurs on the job, or when there is an indication that an employee or supervisor is not understanding or retaining the necessary understanding.

Proposed regulations also contain record retention requirements and specify that all compliance should be completed at no cost to employees and that any employee time required for compliance, e.g. training, should be compensated at the employees’ normal rate of pay.

GableGotwals’ Employment & Labor team is committed to helping employers navigate changes in the legal landscape. Please contact any member of the team for further assistance.

Ellen A. Adams 405-235-5520 eadams@gablelaw.com

The author would like to give credit to GableGotwals summer associate, Trisha E. Bunce, for research and assistance in preparing this Alert.

This article is provided for educational and informational purposes only and does not contain legal advice or create an attorney-client relationship. The information provided should not be taken as an indication of future legal results; any information provided should not be acted upon without consulting legal counsel.

June 21, 2024 | By: Christopher Shrock

Five former Directors of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office recently called on current USPTO Director Kathi Vidal to withdraw proposed changes to terminal disclaimer rules 37 CFR 1.321(c) and (d) (89 FR 40439). Vidal’s predecessors claimed, among other things, that the proposed rule would depart the “normal process of considering each patent claim on its own merits.” What do they mean? Why is this significant?

Currently, terminal disclaimers stop patent applicants from securing rights to their inventions for more than the 20-year limit prescribed by Congress. When a first patent application won’t cover the full scope of an invention, the applicant can file a second or “continuation” application, based on the first application, to pursue rights on the rest of the breakthrough. However, if the USPTO believes that the scope of the second application is “obvious” in view of the first application, the examiner will require the applicant to shorten the life of the patent sought in the second application. You can’t have 20 years on a first “parent” patent plus additional time on a second, nearly-identical “child” patent. So the applicant must submit a disclaimer terminating the child patent whenever its parent would reach its natural end.

The problem with continuation applications, from the USPTO’s point of view, is the potential for abusive redundancies. For example, an applicant with deep pockets could use continuation applications to obtain “multiple patents directed to obvious variants” so that, even if a court or the USPTO later invalidates one patent, the invention will still have protection from the others. And a defendant in an infringement action seeking to escape liability through invalidation (i.e., arguing that the USPTO should never have issued the patent at issue) would have to challenge each and every variant individually—a daunting task for shallow-pockets (89 FR 40439).

The USPTO’s proposal would solve this problem by adding a new function to terminal disclaimers, namely, making child patents depend on their parents for validity. Under the proposed rule, a child patent would become unenforceable if claims from the corresponding parent application were invalidated. The deep-pocketed troll could fire its barrage of infringement claims, but the defendant could escape liability through invalidation of just one patent—the parent. Thus, the rule would try to level the playing field for shallow-pocketed defendants.

Most likely, the proposed rule would make little difference to some patent families, for example, those obtained by the following one-two strategy: quickly obtaining a narrow patent before pursuing a broader, more methodical one. If the claims of the second patent fully eclipse the claims of the first, then, logically, if the first is invalid, so is the second. If you can’t patent a Tyrian purple adamantine cylinder with a hole through one end, then you also can’t patent a more generic metal cylinder with a hole through one end. Thus, the rule would do away with the formality of arguing the broader claim.

But consider another scenario. Suppose a parent patent has two independent claims, for example, (1) a Tyrian purple adamantine cylinder with a hole in one end, and (2) the use of that cylinder as a bathroom doorstop. Also suppose the applicant obtains a child patent, expanding the original claims to cover (1’) the cylinder in various shades of aubergine and (2’) methods applying it to sliding-glass and doggie doors. The USPTO demands a terminal disclaimer for the second patent, which the applicant files. Later, an alleged infringer of claim (2’) uses a Tyrian purple adamantine cylinder with a hole in one end as a doorstop for a doggie door. The patent holder files suit. The defendant, instead of arguing the claim at issue, challenges (1), the device claim from the parent. Under the USPTO’s propose rule, an invalidation of any claim from the first patent renders the second patent unenforceable. Thus, when the court invalidates claim (1), claim (2’) becomes unenforceable, and the defendant prevails—even though no court reviewed claim (2’), or even claim (2). The defendant escapes liability with zero consideration of the infringed claim.

The USPTO leaves no ambiguity about how it intends to apply the rule if adopted. Its Examples 4 and 5 show that any invalidated claim in a parent patent would render every claim from every child patent unenforceable, regardless of relationships among claims. If using a Tyrian purple adamantine cylinder with a hole through one end as a doorstop for a doggie door proved to be the most ingenious and economically efficient innovation of a generation, then the inventor would not reap a reward after the claim for the cylinder itself was invalidated. The applicant and the USPTO’s failure to omit claim (1) from the parent patent would doom the true innovation without direct consideration. Hence, the former directors’ concern to preserve the “normal process,” whereby each claim stands or falls on its own merits.

Arguably, circumventing the “normal process” in the manner proposed by the USPTO threatens to undermine inventors’ statutory rights, which promise enforceable patent rights for new and nonobvious inventions. If so, then the proposed rule may be unlawful. Without the rule, however, the USPTO’s concern about redundant child patents remains unresolved. Perhaps the notice-and-comment procedure will reveal some less radical approaches to the problem. Comments on the proposed rule will close on July 9, 2024.

Christopher Shrock 918-595-4890 cshrock@gablelaw.com