Careers

At M&G, we dedicate ourselves to finding the best solutions to our clients’ challenges, no matter where it takes us.

Case Studies

Industries

Offices

About Merchant & Gould

Pages

People

News Room

Practices

Staff

Home - Merchant & Gould P.C.

Bridget Carmichael is a skilled patent litigation attorney at Merchant &amp; Gould’s Minneapolis office. She serves various industries, including biotechnology, Hatch-Waxman litigation, and general litigation.

contentpilot/introduction

A Versatile Weaver of Patent Language&nbsp;

core/heading

Bridget Carmichael is committed to helping clients navigate the complex arena of patent litigation. Patent language requires a balance between being equivocal and precise. To help clients achieve the best possible outcome, Bridget takes her time to properly interpret this language.

core/paragraph

During the process of supporting inventors and scientists, Bridget focuses on using the best possible language to get them the most coverage. Her analytical eye and linguistic skills help her identify potential gaps or expirations to create an effective litigation approach.

No two days are alike in the world of patent litigation. When analyzing a client’s unique legal situation and learning all the facts of a case, Bridget skillfully prioritizes pressing issues and ensures efficient timelines. By taking the time to learn about their unique situations and providing reliable communication, Bridget works to provide clients with trustworthy recommendations so they may achieve the best possible outcome.&nbsp;

Bridget is a trusted advocate for her clients. Her goal is to provide clients with the most efficient course of action that aligns with their overall goals. She understands that each client’s time and resources are valuable, and helps clients determine which actions are most worth pursuing.

To streamline tailored strategies, Bridget keeps her eye on the big picture while considering each client’s specific needs. She’s accomplished in crafting thorough arguments from various sources of authority and keeps efficiency at the forefront. Her ultimate goal is to help scientific minds protect their great ideas in the most productive way possible.

From Molecular Biology Scientist to Patent Litigation Attorney

From a young age, Bridget was passionate about the law and science. She attended the Ohio State University and earned her Bachelor’s degree in Molecular Genetics. Bridget then spent three years as a technician in a preclinical research lab where she evaluated leukemia treatments in in-vitro and in-vivo models.&nbsp;

While she loved the hands-on aspect of her work and learning about the scientific subject matter, Bridget knew it was time to pursue her legal passions. Interested in patent law, she attended the University of Minnesota and earned her Juris Doctor, graduating cum laude.

During her time in law school, Bridget served as a judicial extern at the US District Court of the District of Minnesota for two summers. There she honed her abilities to formulate reasonable arguments and conduct meaningful research.&nbsp;

Born in Ohio and raised in Connecticut, Bridget now happily resides in Minnesota. In her spare time she enjoys creative pursuits, including painting canvases and miniature figures, and knitting cozy clothes.

contentpilot/expand-more

University of Minnesota Law School, J.D.

The Ohio State University, B.S. Molecular Genetics; Minor in Clinical Psychology & Individual Differences

Bridget Carmichael, Intellectual Property Attorney

Pharmaceuticals

Minneapolis

Merchant &amp; Gould is pleased to have welcomed seven associates to the firm: Bridget Carmichael, Zachary Krenz, River Lord, Andrew Nemecek, Rhett Sexton, Sophia Vogeler, and Zachary Zadow.



“These highly credentialed associates bring fresh perspective and new experience to our practice groups and clients. They are excellent additions to the firm, and we are excited to welcome them to our M&amp;G team,” said Heather Kliebenstein, partner and member of the firm’s Executive Committee.



<a href="https://www.merchantgould.com/Professionals/Bridget-Carmichael">Bridget Carmichael</a>, Minneapolis, works in the Litigation Practice Group. She serves various industries, including biotechnology, Hatch-Waxman litigation, and general litigation. Bridget received a B.S. in molecular genetics from Ohio State University, and a J.D., cum laude, from University of Minnesota Law School.



<a href="https://www.merchantgould.com/Professionals/Zachary-L-Krenz">Zachary Krenz</a>, Minneapolis, works in the Electrical and Software Practice Group. He focuses on preparing and prosecuting patents for clients in the fields of electrical engineering, software, and mechanical products, while assisting the litigation teams in patent-related matters. Zachary received a B.S. in computer science from University of Minnesota, and a J.D., magna cum laude, from University of Minnesota Law School.



<a href="https://www.merchantgould.com/Professionals/River-E-Lord">River Lord</a>, Minneapolis, works in the Litigation Practice Group. She helps clients protect their intellectual property through litigation of trademarks, copyrights, trade secrets, and patents. River received a B.S. in molecular biology from University of Denver, and a J.D. from University of Minnesota Law School.



<a href="https://www.merchantgould.com/Professionals/Andrew-J-Nemecek">Andrew Nemecek</a>, Minneapolis, works in the Electrical and Software Practice Group. He is a patent prosecution attorney, helping clients protect their technologies through every step of the patent application process. Andrew received a B.S. in computer engineering from University of Notre Dame, and a J.D. from University of Notre Dame Law School.



<a href="https://www.merchantgould.com/Professionals/Rhett-A-Sexton">Rhett Sexton</a>, Knoxville, works in the Electrical and Software Practice Group. As a patent prosecution attorney, he specializes in protecting inventors in the mechanical and electrical software industries.&nbsp;Rhett received a B.S. in electrical engineering from University of Tennessee, and a J.D. from University of Tennessee College of Law.



<a href="https://www.merchantgould.com/Professionals/Sophia-I-Vogeler">Sophia Vogeler</a>, Minneapolis, works in the Mechanical Practice Group. She focuses on patent prosecution and litigation in the life sciences, mechanical industries, and electrical industries.&nbsp;Sophia received a B.S. in biochemistry from University of Iowa, and a J.D., cum laude, from University of Minnesota College of Law.



<a href="https://www.merchantgould.com/Professionals/Zachary-W-Zadow">Zachary Zadow</a>, Minneapolis, works in the Mechanical Practice Group. He brings a detail-oriented point of view and years of engineering experience to both patent prosecution and litigation matters. Zachary has a B.S. in engineering from University of Minnesota, and a J.D., summa cum laude, from Mitchell Hamline School of Law.



<hr class="wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity"/>







<figure class="wp-block-image alignleft size-full is-resized is-style-cover-graphic"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" src="https://admin.merchantgould.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/BCarmichael-0501.png" alt="" class="wp-image-21907" width="221" height="150" srcset="https://admin.merchantgould.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/BCarmichael-0501.png 885w, https://admin.merchantgould.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/BCarmichael-0501-300x203.png 300w, https://admin.merchantgould.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/BCarmichael-0501-768x521.png 768w" sizes="(max-width: 221px) 100vw, 221px" /><figcaption class="wp-element-caption">Bridget Carmichael</figcaption></figure>



<figure class="wp-block-image alignleft size-full is-resized is-style-cover-graphic"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" src="https://admin.merchantgould.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/ZKrenz-0501.png" alt="" class="wp-image-21967" width="221" height="150" srcset="https://admin.merchantgould.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/ZKrenz-0501.png 885w, https://admin.merchantgould.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/ZKrenz-0501-300x203.png 300w, https://admin.merchantgould.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/ZKrenz-0501-768x521.png 768w" sizes="(max-width: 221px) 100vw, 221px" /><figcaption class="wp-element-caption">Zachary Krenz</figcaption></figure>



<figure class="wp-block-image alignleft is-resized is-style-cover-graphic"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" src="https://admin.merchantgould.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/RLord-0501.png" alt="" class="wp-image-21971" width="221" height="150" srcset="https://admin.merchantgould.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/RLord-0501.png 885w, https://admin.merchantgould.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/RLord-0501-300x203.png 300w, https://admin.merchantgould.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/RLord-0501-768x521.png 768w" sizes="(max-width: 221px) 100vw, 221px" /><figcaption class="wp-element-caption">River Lord</figcaption></figure>



<figure class="wp-block-image alignleft size-full is-resized is-style-cover-graphic"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" src="https://admin.merchantgould.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/ANemecek-0501.png" alt="" class="wp-image-22005" width="221" height="150" srcset="https://admin.merchantgould.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/ANemecek-0501.png 885w, https://admin.merchantgould.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/ANemecek-0501-300x203.png 300w, https://admin.merchantgould.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/ANemecek-0501-768x521.png 768w" sizes="(max-width: 221px) 100vw, 221px" /><figcaption class="wp-element-caption">Andrew Nemecek</figcaption></figure>



<figure class="wp-block-image alignleft size-full is-resized is-style-cover-graphic"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" src="https://admin.merchantgould.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/RSexton-0501.png" alt="" class="wp-image-22028" width="221" height="150" srcset="https://admin.merchantgould.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/RSexton-0501.png 885w, https://admin.merchantgould.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/RSexton-0501-300x203.png 300w, https://admin.merchantgould.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/RSexton-0501-768x521.png 768w" sizes="(max-width: 221px) 100vw, 221px" /><figcaption class="wp-element-caption">Rhett Sexton</figcaption></figure>



<figure class="wp-block-image alignleft size-full is-resized is-style-cover-graphic"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" src="https://admin.merchantgould.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/SVogeler-0501.png" alt="" class="wp-image-22043" width="221" height="150" srcset="https://admin.merchantgould.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/SVogeler-0501.png 885w, https://admin.merchantgould.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/SVogeler-0501-300x203.png 300w, https://admin.merchantgould.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/SVogeler-0501-768x521.png 768w" sizes="(max-width: 221px) 100vw, 221px" /><figcaption class="wp-element-caption">Sophia Vogeler</figcaption></figure>



<figure class="wp-block-image alignleft size-full is-resized is-style-cover-graphic"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" src="https://admin.merchantgould.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/ZZadow-0501.png" alt="" class="wp-image-22050" width="221" height="150" srcset="https://admin.merchantgould.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/ZZadow-0501.png 885w, https://admin.merchantgould.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/ZZadow-0501-300x203.png 300w, https://admin.merchantgould.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/ZZadow-0501-768x521.png 768w" sizes="(max-width: 221px) 100vw, 221px" /><figcaption class="wp-element-caption">Zachary Zadow</figcaption></figure>

Merchant & Gould Welcomes Seven Associates to the Firm

Last week, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit issued an opinion in H&amp;R Block, Inc. v. Block, Inc., No. 22-2075 (January 24, 2023), reversing the grant of a preliminary injunction.



H&amp;R Block offers financial services, including tax preparation software and in-person tax preparation. It has a registered green square mark and common law rights in the term “Block.” Square, Inc. was a holding company offering financial products under various brands, including Cash App. Its tax service “Cash App Taxes” is integrated into the Cash App platform. Cash App’s name and logo—a dollar sign within a green rounded-edge square—are federally registered trademarks. Square, Inc. changed its name to Block, Inc. in December 2021, and the company filed an application to register “Block” for certain holding company services. Shortly after the name change was announced, H&amp;R Block sued for trademark infringement and subsequently moved for a preliminary injunction. The district court granted the motion. Block, Inc. appealed.



A majority of the Eighth Circuit panel reversed. The Court reviewed the district court’s ruling under an abuse of discretion standard. Addressing the probability of success on the merits, the Court evaluated each of the SquirtCo factors relevant to likelihood of confusion. The Court held that the district court clearly erred in finding that the “similarity of the marks” factor “strongly” favored H&amp;R Block. Specifically, observable differences in the green square marks, differing means of accessing the products, and Cash App’s limited use of the term “Block” undermined the district court’s finding. The Court also held it was clearly erroneous for the district court to find in H&amp;R Block’s favor on the “evidence of actual confusion” factor because H&amp;R Block failed to present evidence of confusion by ordinary customers and because the social media posts presented, discussing potential for confusion, were split. On balance, the Court held it was “clear error to find a likelihood of confusion from the thin evidence here.” The Court further held that absent a showing of likelihood of confusion, H&amp;R Block was not entitled to a presumption of irreparable harm and the record contained insufficient evidence demonstrating irreparable harm. The Court further held that the balance of the equities did not favor an injunction. Accordingly, the Court reversed and vacated the preliminary injunction.



Judge Melloy, writing separately in dissent, emphasized the high hurdle associated with a finding of clear error and would have affirmed.

Eighth Circuit Vacates Preliminary Injunction in Tax Preparation Trademark Dispute

Last week, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued a precedential decision in <a href="https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2023/07/17/22-15293.pdf">Hunley v. Instagram, LLC, No. 22-15293 (July 17, 2023)</a>, affirming dismissal of the plaintiff photographers’ indirect copyright infringement claims against Instagram because no direct infringement occurred as a matter of law under the Server Test articulated in<a href="https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2007/12/03/0655405.pdf"> Perfect 10 v. Amazon, 508 F.3d 1146 (9th Cir. 2007)</a>.



Under the Server Test, websites do not directly infringe the display right by showing embedded images unless the images are also stored on the website’s servers. The Copyright Act’s definition of display requires showing a fixed copy; in the computer context, a copy is the server or hard drive location where an image is stored. When images are not stored on a website’s servers the website does not have a copy of the image to display and therefore does not directly infringe the display right.



In the case at hand, photographers’ copyrighted images, originally shared on Instagram, were embedded into third-party websites without permission. Embedding allows websites to show images using text-based instructions directing a web browser to retrieve images from specified server locations. Here, the third-party websites’ embedding instructions directed web browsers to retrieve the copyrighted images directly from Instagram’s servers. Importantly, the images were never stored on the websites’ servers. The photographers claimed Instagram indirectly infringed their exclusive display rights by allowing third-party websites to directly infringe by embedding images without the copyright owner’s permission. The district court dismissed because the direct infringement claim underlying Instagram’s alleged indirect infringement failed under Perfect 10’s Server Test. The photographers appealed.



The Ninth Circuit affirmed. The Court explained that application of the Server Test is not limited to the search engines at issue in Perfect 10, but instead articulates the rules that apply depending on the method a website uses to show images. The Court rejected the photographers’ assertion that the Supreme Court’s intervening decision in ABC, Inc. v. Aereo, Inc., 573 U.S. 431 (2014), was inconsistent with the Server Test, distinguishing that case because it involved performance rights, not display rights. Direct infringement of a performance right can occur without a copy existing on the infringer’s servers, but the same is not true of the display right, regardless of user perception.

Ninth Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Photographers’ Copyright Claims Under the Server Test

Last week, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit issued a precedential decision in <a href="https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/211168.P.pdf">Sony Music Entertainment v. Cox Communications, Inc., No. 21-1168 (Feb. 20, 2024)</a>, affirming Cox’s liability for contributory copyright infringement but reversing a vicarious infringement verdict, vacating a $1&nbsp;billion statutory damages award, and remanding for a new trial on damages.



The Fourth Circuit previously determined that Cox, an internet service provider, could be held liable for its subscribers’ infringement between 2013 and 2014 because it failed to implement a sufficient anti-piracy program as required under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act’s safe harbor provision. BMG Rts. Mgmt. (US) LLC v. Cox Commc’ns, Inc., 881 F.3d 293 (4th Cir. 2018). Cox received more than 160,000 infringement notices from Plaintiffs’ representative but terminated only 32&nbsp;subscribers under its Acceptable Use Policy. Back in the trial court, a jury found Cox willfully liable for vicarious and contributory infringement of 10,017 copyrighted works and awarded statutory damages of roughly $100,000&nbsp;per work, totaling $1&nbsp;billion for both theories combined. Cox appealed.



The Fourth Circuit affirmed the contributory infringement verdict. The Court explained that substantial evidence supported a determination that Cox continued to provide the internet service necessary for online infringement to certain repeat infringers despite a substantial certainty that those subscribers would continue infringing Plaintiffs’ copyrights.



However, the Court reversed the jury’s finding of vicarious infringement because the evidence failed to show that Cox directly profited from its subscribers’ infringement. The Court explained that the price of Cox’s monthly fee depended on the amount of accessible data, not on the nature of the data use. Thus, while Cox benefitted by continuing to collect fees from repeat infringers, it did not have a direct financial interest in their infringement because the fee remained static regardless of subscribers’ online activities. The Court noted that the relatively data-intensive nature of the infringing conduct did not show that any infringer paid for more data specifically to infringe because many legitimate online activities are also data-intensive.



The Court vacated the combined statutory damages award and remanded for a new trial on damages. The jury calculated a single award considering the circumstances underlying both theories. The Court concluded that the erroneous finding that Cox directly benefitted from the infringement likely influenced the jury’s exercise of its wide discretion necessitating a new trial on damages limited to contributory infringement.

4th Circuit Vacates and Remands $1 Billion Copyright Damages Award

Merchant &amp; Gould P.C., a national technology and trial law firm, is pleased to announce a crucial victory for our clients TYC Brother Co., Ltd. and Genera Corp. before the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC). In a pair of investigations concerning design patents related to automotive lamps, the ITC found no violation of section 337 by TYC Brother and Genera based on Complainants Hyundai’s and Kia’s failure to satisfy the ITC’s domestic industry requirement.



Merchant and its co-counsel Holland Law LLP were retained to defend TYC Brother and Genera against twin complaints filed with the ITC by automotive manufacturers Hyundai and Kia. The complaints asserted a combined 41 design patents against TYC Brother and Genera’s replacement headlights and taillights and sought orders that would have stopped all imports and domestic sales of those products.



An early evidentiary hearing was ordered under the ITC&#8217;s early disposition pilot program to determine whether the complainants satisfied the ITC’s domestic industry requirement. These investigations are the only ones to date for which the pilot program has been used.



Merchant identified numerous flaws in the complainants’ domestic industry evidence and analysis and developed a comprehensive record supporting our clients&#8217; positions. Following the ALJ’s initial determination, Merchant obtained full review by the ITC and submitted extensive briefing.



After considerable deliberations, the ITC agreed with Merchant, concluding that the complainants failed to satisfy the domestic industry requirement as to all 41 asserted patents. As a result, the ITC terminated the investigations with findings of no violation by TYC Brother and Genera, enabling their accused lamps to remain available to U.S. consumers, securing their access to high-value replacement parts.



&#8220;We are thrilled with the ITC&#8217;s ruling in favor of our clients, TYC Brother Co., Ltd. and Genera Corp. From the outset, we were confident in our case and in the merits of our clients&#8217; position. This outcome underscores the importance of thorough domestic industry analysis in section 337 investigations. And it is a significant win, both for the Respondents and for U.S. consumers who will continue to have access to high-quality, affordable automotive parts,&#8221; said Josh Hartman, Lead Counsel at Merchant &amp; Gould.&nbsp;

ITC Rules in Favor of TYC Brother Co., Ltd., and Genera Corp., Represented by Merchant & Gould

Recently, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued an opinion in <a href="https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/22-2025.OPINION.11-1-2024_2412643.pdf">Cellspin Soft, Inc. v. Fitbit LLC, et al., Nos. 2022‑2025, ‑2028, ‑2029, ‑2030, ‑2032, ‑2037 (Nov. 1, 2024)</a>, affirming summary judgment of noninfringement.



In separate cases (later consolidated for appeal), Cellspin alleged defendants Fitbit, Fossil, Garmin, Nike, Nikon, and Under Armour infringed three patents relating to automatic data transfer from a data capture device to the internet via a mobile device. Generally, the claims recite data transfer methods whereby a Bluetooth enabled data capture device—e.g. a camera—is paired with a mobile device such that newly acquired data is automatically transferred from the data capture device to the mobile device, which attaches user-identifying information to the data before transferring it to a web service. The district court’s claim construction, which was not appealed, required continuous pairing between the data capture device, which acquires new data, and the mobile device, which receives the new data and supplements it with user-identifying information. The district court granted summary judgment of noninfringement in favor of all defendants. Cellspin appealed.



The Federal Circuit affirmed. For the Fitbit, Fossil, and Garmin devices, the Court held Cellspin failed to adduce evidence that data sent from those devices is supplemented with user-identifying information. The only feature Cellspin asserted satisfied these limitations—OAuth—was not disclosed in its infringement contentions, and the district court did not abuse its discretion in rejecting the argument for failure to comply with the local patent rules.



Regarding Nike’s alleged infringement, the Court affirmed the district court’s determination that Cellspin failed to show the data capture device, rather than the mobile device, attached user-identifying information. And the Court further affirmed the district court’s determination that Cellspin failed to show that the processor performed all the functions it was required to perform. Finally, regarding the Nikon and Under Armour devices, the Court affirmed the district court’s determination that Cellspin failed to show the accused devices maintained a continuous Bluetooth connection, as required by the unchallenged claim construction.

CAFC Affirms Summary Judgment of Noninfringement of Data Transfer Patents

Litigation

Chemical & Life Sciences

ITC Section 337 Investigations

Lisa Amos

Associate

Bridget Carmichael

The Honorable Jimmie V. Reyna Intellectual Property American Inn of Court

Bridget Carmichael

Practices

Industries

Education

Professional Affiliations