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.

Discover how the fusion of science and law can fuel intellectual property (IP) protection. Marra Clay provides IP counsel with a unique blend of scientific and legal expertise. Based out of our Minneapolis office, she serves companies across the country.

core/paragraph

Marra brings a distinct perspective to IP law by going beyond litigation to see how it aligns with broader business strategies. Her chemistry training and technical background include both practical experience and research, including conducting research at a national laboratory and serving as the first author of a scientific publication.&nbsp;

Tie all this together with her interest and penchant for issues involving copyright and trademark litigation, and you’ll find Marra to truly be a triple threat in her legal practice.&nbsp;

Creative &amp; Scientific Intellectual Property Litigator&nbsp;

core/heading

Businesses often fear that IP litigation can harm their companies and finances, especially if they’ve been accused of infringement. That’s why Marra’s approach makes the litigation process as easy and cost-effective as possible by protecting company assets for continued success.

Marra creatively counsels inventors, marketing professionals, and entrepreneurs on building a loyal consumer base through brand management and protection. Through the creation of strong attorney-client relationships, she evaluates all parts of an equation with her clients to decide the best course of action based on their goals.

By developing lasting legal strategies, Marra helps achieve a company’s long-term business goals. It’s not just about the IP; it’s about representing clients in a way that consistently supports the bottom line.&nbsp;

This is true no matter the industry or the location. Having spent time in Southeast Asia, Marra is drawn to foreign IP protection. She also finds joy and drive in working with clients in the fashion, entertainment, and food and beverage industries.&nbsp;

Professional Legal Experience and Personal Values

What sets Marra apart is her diverse background. Combining scientific knowledge with highly skilled legal writing, Marra showcases her commitment to excellence in presenting cases and arguments during litigation.&nbsp;

She’s also more than comfortable in the courtroom. Before entering litigation practice, Marra was a judicial clerk at the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota and externed at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.&nbsp;

Her values include promoting accessibility and diversity in the IP law field. She sees herself contributing to the increase in women’s representation in a predominantly male legal niche.

Moreover, Marra knows how much trust it takes to ask for someone else’s help to protect your creations, designs, words, and art. You’ve created something that’s going to make an impact. Marra is here to serve and support you, putting integrity first and ensuring you know you’ve found the right lawyer for you.

Marra isn’t just an attorney; she’s a dedicated partner. She helps clients protect their hard work without the burden of legal complexities. And when she’s not working, you’ll find her pursuing her favorite pastimes of yoga, crocheting, and running with her dog.

University of Minnesota, J.D., 2022, 

Whitman College, B.A Chemistry, Environmental Studies, 2017, 

she / her / hers

Alternative Energy

Food & Beverage

Industrial Chemistry

Media & Entertainment

Sports & Fitness

Minneapolis

Last week, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion in <a href="https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/23-1272.OPINION.7-23-2024_2355065.pdf">ZyXEL Communication Corp. v. UNM Rainforest Innovations, No. 2023-1272 (July 22, 2024)</a>, reversing-in-part, affirming-in-part, and remanding for further consideration of UNM’s substitute claims.



ZyXEL initiated an inter partes review proceeding for U.S. Patent No. 8,265,096 (the “’096 Patent”), which is owned by UNM. The claims of the ’096 Patent relate to methods of organizing information being transmitted across time and frequency to “allow simultaneous transmission of data from different users without interference from one [an]other.” In addition to opposing ZyXEL’s arguments, UNM presented substitute claims via a motion to amend, and sought preliminary guidance from the PTAB pursuant to the Motion to Amend Pilot Program. The motion to amend identified written description support for the new limitations but did not address written description support for the original ones. The PTAB issued preliminary guidance identifying this deficiency. UNM filed a reply identifying the written description support for the original limitations.



In a final written decision, the PTAB cancelled all challenged claims on grounds of obviousness except for Claim 8. As to Claim 8, the PTAB found ZyXEL failed to show sufficient motivation to combine the asserted prior art references. The PTAB also granted UNM’s motion to amend. ZyXEL appealed, and UNM cross-appealed.



On ZyXEL’s appeal, the Federal Circuit reversed as to Claim 8 and affirmed the PTAB’s ruling on the motion to amend. Specifically, the Court found the ruling on Claim 8 was not supported by substantial evidence because the motivation to combine was present in the prior art references themselves. As to the substitute claims, the Court rejected ZyXEL’s argument that the PTAB improperly allowed UNM to identify written description support in a reply brief. The Court explained that the very purpose of the MTA Pilot Program is to provide preliminary guidance to patent owners so errors in the original motion may be corrected. Additionally, ZyXEL had failed to establish prejudice. Based on its ruling that Claim 8 is invalid as obvious, however, the Court remanded the matter to the PTAB to determine whether the substitute claims are invalid as obvious on grounds of collateral estoppel or by exercise of the PTAB’s discretion to reassess the issue. On UNM’s cross-appeal, the Court affirmed the PTAB’s ruling that the challenged claims are invalid as obvious.



Coauthored by Marra Clay &amp; Jack Goldberg.

CAFC Affirms PTAB’S Application of USPTO’S Motion to Amend Pilot Program

Recently, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued an opinion in <a href="https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/23-1841.OPINION.3-24-2025_2486454.pdf">Wash World Inc. v. Belanger Inc., No. 2023-1841 (Mar. 24, 2025)</a>.



Belanger manufactures car washes and owns U.S. Patent No. 8,602,041 for a spray car wash system. Wash World, another car wash system manufacturer, sought a declaratory judgment that its “Razor EDGE” car wash system did not infringe the ’041 Patent. Belanger counterclaimed for infringement.



During claim construction, the district court sided with Belanger and held that two claim terms—“outer cushioning sleeve” and “predefined wash area”—did not require construction. The case proceeded to a jury trial, where Belanger’s damages expert presented a convoyed sales lost profits theory. The jury returned a verdict that Wash World’s Razor EDGE car wash system infringed several claims of the ’041 Patent and awarded Belanger, inter alia, lost profit damages of $9.8 million, which included $2.6 million in lost profits for auxiliary products. Wash World moved for judgment of a matter of law of noninfringement and, alternatively, for a new trial or remittitur of the damages award. The district court denied the motions and Wash World appealed.



The Federal Circuit affirmed-in-part, reversed-in-part, and vacated-in-part. On Wash World’s challenge to the district court’s claim construction ruling, the Court held the alternative constructions Wash World advanced on appeal, which differed from those presented to the district court, were forfeited. The Court explained that while “a party is not always confined to the precise wording of the constructions it advanced below,” and may present “new or additional arguments” in support of the scope of its claim constructions, such arguments must still “incorporate an understanding of the parties’ dispute that has developed through the course of litigation.” Here, Wash World’s arguments on appeal were too far removed from its district court arguments. Accordingly, the Court affirmed on infringement. The Court agreed with Wash World, however, that the district court abused its discretion by entering judgment on the jury’s damages award. Specifically, the Court held that the district court should not have allowed the $2.6 million the jury awarded in connection with auxiliary products. Notably, even though Belanger chose to bundle certain components in its car wash “packages,” these additional components bore no functional relationship to the patented system, which is required to support convoyed sales damages. Accordingly, the Court vacated and remanded the damages judgment with instruction to remit the $2.6 million.

CAFC Vacates Jury’s Lost Profits Damages Award and Remits Convoyed Sales

Litigation

Appellate

Copyright

Design Patent & Trade Dress

Emerging Technologies

Trade Secret

Trademark

Jasmine D. Brower

Associate

Marra M. Clay

Adjunct Professor, University of Minnesota Law School
Courses taught include:
<ul>
<li>Intellectual Property Moot Court Course &#8211; 2023 &#8211; Present</li>
<li>Coach, University of Minnesota Law School Moot Court Team; Cardozo Fashion, Arts, Media &amp; Entertainment (FAME) Center Intellectual Property National Moot Court Competition &#8211; 2023-2024</li>
</ul>

Teaching

<ul>
<li>Children&#8217;s Law Center of MN &#8211; Development &amp; Marketing Committee Member (2025); Volunteer Attorney (2023 &#8211; present)</li>
<li>Federal Bar Association, Minnesota Chapter &#8211; Digital Communications Committee Co-Chair</li>
</ul>

Professional Affiliations

Selected as one of Minnesota Lawyer’s Up &amp; Coming Attorneys award recipients (2025)

Awards & Recognition 

<ul>
<li>United States District Court for the District of Minnesota, 2022-2023 Law Clerk to the Honorable John R. Tunheim.</li>
<li>United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, 2021 Judicial Extern to the Honorable David R. Stras.</li>
</ul>

Judicial Clerkships

<ul>
<li><a href="https://protect-us.mimecast.com/s/-7fuCpYzp8u9QKMBsDG0FL?domain=scholarship.law.umn.edu">Copycat Cosmetics: The Beauty Industry and the Bounds of the American Intellectual Property System</a>, 106 Minn. L. Rev. 425 (2021)</li>
<li><a href="https://protect-us.mimecast.com/s/7RPuCqx2q7u1Ll0ohQHhpT?domain=setac.onlinelibrary.wiley.com">Spatial Distribution and Location of Natural Organic Matter on Sediment Particles by Scanning Electron Microscopic Analysis and the Development of a New Persistent Organic Pollutant-Sediment Kinetic Desorption Model</a>, 40 J. Env. Toxicology &amp; Chem. 323, co-authored with Jack A. Morgan and Frank M. Dunnivant (2020)</li>
</ul>