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.

Ariel Howe is an Associate Attorney at Merchant and Gould’s Minneapolis office. Ariel helps companies protect their intellectual property through strategic, proactive support and litigation. Her practice includes patents (utility and design), trademark, trade secret and copyright litigation, as well as pre-litigation support.

contentpilot/introduction

Experienced in IP Litigation &amp; Pre-Litigation Support

core/heading

Ariel is passionate about helping creatives and their companies protect their intellectual property. Much of her work focuses on protecting their patented, trademarked, and copyrighted goods, preventing litigation where possible, and preparing for and engaging in IP litigation.

core/paragraph

Before pursuing expensive litigation, Ariel ensures that every effort is made to resolve infringement issues. By focusing on cost-effective strategies to secure their intellectual property, Ariel helps many clients avoid unnecessary litigation.

Ariel is dedicated to being an advocate for her clients. She knows it’s important for clients to have someone they can trust. She learns everything she can about their technology and focuses on providing consistent, relatable communication.&nbsp;

Ariel’s committed to providing clients with trustworthy recommendations so they can achieve a satisfactory outcome.&nbsp;

Supporting Clients in a Wide Range of Industries

For years, Ariel has been protecting intellectual property in a wide range of industries. Many of her efforts have supported the medical device and pharmaceutical industries. However, she has enforced and defended IP in many other niches both big and small, from HVAC and farm equipment to lighting devices.

Ariel loves learning about her clients’ innovative products and technologies. Her enthusiastic interest and fearless ability to dive into any subject matter allow her to work effectively with all sorts of patents. Ariel studies each client’s technology extensively and is devoted to knowing every pertinent detail.

Ariel is highly proficient in how businesses operate and function. Prior to working at Merchant and Gould, she was a pharmaceutical chemist and project manager. She collaborated with multiple departments, interpreted customer needs and improved company workflow.&nbsp;

As a result, Ariel is well-versed in the structures and needs of businesses. Coupled with her legal experience, she is able to help innovators and companies grow their businesses with cost-efficient IP strategies.

Ariel earned her Bachelor of Science in Chemistry degree from Minnesota State University in 2006, with a minor in mathematics. During this time she extensively studied quantum mechanical theory, working alongside a professor on the mathematical modeling of space.

In 2014 she graduated magna cum laude from the William Mitchell College of Law with her Juris Doctor degree. She was also recognized as a North Star Lawyer for her pro bono work.

In her spare time, Ariel loves to bike around the many bike paths within the Twin Cities and visit their breweries. She practices fire poi, a performance art that spins fire-lit wicks around the body. Ariel is also an avid camper and hiker.&nbsp;

Ariel Howe, Intellectual Property Attorney

Minneapolis

Merchant &amp; Gould is pleased to have welcomed one partner and two associates to its Minneapolis team: Christian J. Hansen, partner; Heather S. Chatterton, associate; and Ariel O. Howe, associate.



“These three attorneys bring IP experience in growing industries for Minnesota, adding depth to our practice groups and helping local and global innovators protect their brands and technologies. They are excellent additions to our firm and leaders in the IP community,” said Christopher J. Leonard, Managing Director and CEO of Merchant &amp; Gould.



<a href="/people/christian-j-hansen/">Christian</a>, partner and experienced IP attorney, provides enforcement strategies and patent protection for both domestic and international clients. For more than 10 years, he has helped a range of large corporations and small startups with their technological innovations and ideas in some of the following industries: manufacturing, consumer products, aerospace, computer software, medical devices, electrical vehicles, agriculture, and metallurgy. Christian focuses on drafting and preparing patent applications; following up with the USPTO; and negotiating licensing agreements to monetize patent applications. He also provides client counsel, including freedom-to-operate, clearance, and non-infringement opinions.  Christian received his B.S. in mechanical engineering from the University of Minnesota and his J.D. magna cum laude from the William Mitchell College of Law.



<a href="/people/heather-s-chatterton/">Heather</a>, associate, supports inventors and companies through patent prosecution. She began her career as a patent agent; and, now, as an attorney applying that experience, develops patent strategies and defending patents before the USPTO. Heather works with clients in a wide range of industries, including software, mechanics, medical device, and biotech. She received three degrees from the University of Minnesota, including a B.S. in genetics, cell biology, and development; an M.S. in patent law; and a J.D. from the Law School.



<a href="/people/ariel-o-howe/">Ariel</a>, associate, helps companies protect their intellectual property through strategy and litigation. Her practice includes utility and design patents, trademark, trade secret, and copyright litigation, as well as pre-litigation support. Ariel has enforced and defended many industries, including medical device, pharmaceutical, HVAC, and farming equipment. She earned her B.S. in chemistry from Minnesota State University and her J.D. magna cum laude from the William Mitchell College of Law.

Merchant & Gould Welcomes One Partner and Two Associates in Minneapolis Office

Last week, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued an opinion in <a href="https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/22-1631.OPINION.9-12-2023_2188913.pdf">Apple Inc. v. Corephotonics, Ltd., Nos. 2022-1350, -1351 (Sept. 11, 2023)</a>, vacating and remanding two final written decisions of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board holding Apple had not shown the challenged claims of U.S. Patent No. 10,225,479 were unpatentable as obvious.



Corephotonics owns the ’479 patent, which is directed to the creation of “portrait photos” using a cellphone-sized digital camera by combining images taken by a wide lens and a tele lens to create a fused still image. Apple filed two petitions for inter partes review, both challenging claims of the ’479 patent as obvious. In the first proceeding, the Board adopted a claim construction requiring the fused image to maintain both Wide perspective and Wide position point of view (POV) and determined the prior art did not disclose maintaining both. In the second proceeding, the Board focused on an error in the calculation conducted by Apple’s expert to support its nonobviousness determination. Apple appealed.



The Federal Circuit vacated and remanded. On the claim construction issue presented in the first proceeding, the Court held that the intrinsic evidence aligned better with Apple’s proposed construction, which required the fused image to maintain Wide perspective POV or Wide position POV, but not both. Accordingly, the Court vacated and remanded the Board’s final written decision in the first proceeding.



In reviewing the Board’s determination in the second proceeding, the Court focused on Apple’s assertion that the Board’s decision violated the Administrative Procedure Act’s requirements concerning notice and opportunity to be heard. The Court explained that the APA requires the Board to “base its decision on arguments that were advanced by a party, and to which the opposing party was given a chance to respond.” The Court concluded that the Board’s decision on patentability was focused almost entirely on typographical errors in Apple’s expert’s declaration, “that neither party asserted were material to the claimed invention—and only one of which Corephotonics even identified as an error.” The Court held that the Board’s failure to explain why it found these errors meaningful in the patentability analysis, particularly where the parties’ arguments had “focused entirely on questions of manufacturability and scalability,” did not comport with the notice requirements of the APA. Accordingly, the Court vacated and remanded the Board’s final written decision in the second proceeding as well.