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.

River Lord is an Associate Attorney at Merchant &amp; Gould. They help clients protect their intellectual property through litigation of trademarks, copyrights, trade secrets, and patents.

core/paragraph

A Holistic Approach to Finding Legal Solutions

core/heading

River works to fully understand their clients, including their unique goals and situations. With the bigger picture in mind, they examine each detail to help evaluate potential ancillary issues or follow-up situations. This allows them to form a holistic strategy for each client that addresses their long-term objectives.

Whether clients face litigation or wish to pursue it, River focuses on guiding clients to the best pathway forward. They use their attention to detail and creative aptitude to provide clarity and insight into each situation. Their efforts assist clients and the legal team with making informed decisions and avoiding potential risks.

River’s extensive research skills play a significant role in developing the best possible solutions. By examining similar situations, they determine which steps have the highest potential for success. When clients have pressing questions, River works to find answers as quickly and proactively as possible.

By keeping their overarching business goals at the forefront, River uses litigation to help clients protect their technologies, brands, and ideas. Their critical thinking and ability to synthesize information enable them to evaluate risks, reduce exposure, strengthen claims, and strategize solutions.

From Molecular Biology to Litigation Attorney

River earned their Bachelor’s degree in Molecular Biology from the University of Denver. During their time working for a biotechnology startup company, River was exposed to the process of forming and applying for patents. They loved how this legal process employed their critical thinking and reasoning skills.

After contemplating whether to pursue medical or law school, they decided to become an attorney. They traveled to Minnesota and graduated with their Juris Doctor from the University of Minnesota. During their time at law school, their interest was further sparked in the realm of patent law.

Even though River is well-versed in the world of molecular biology, they assist a wide range of industries with their legal knowledge. Their scientific background has trained them to analyze the smallest details and examine how processes interact and form a holistic picture. This allows them to discover valuable nuggets of information that support the overarching business goals and strategies of clients.

A Creative Both Inside &amp; Outside of Work

River is both resourceful and creative. Using their research skills, analytical mindset, and innovative approach, they help clients navigate the litigation process with custom-tailored strategies. Their ability to think ahead helps River prepare multi-faceted solutions that support a client’s business growth.

Outside of their professional life, River uses their unique skillset to write poetry, with several of their poems being published throughout the years. They also enjoy playing pool, riding their bike, and spending time with their dog.

University of Minnesota Law School, J.D., 

University of Denver, B.S. Molecular Biology, Minors in English, Spanish, and Chemistry, 

River Lord, Intellectual Property Attorney

they / them / theirs

Transportation

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="auto, (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="auto, (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="auto, (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="auto, (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="auto, (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="auto, (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="auto, (max-width: 221px) 100vw, 221px" /><figcaption class="wp-element-caption">Zachary Zadow</figcaption></figure>

Merchant & Gould Welcomes Seven Associates to the Firm

Last week, a unanimous U.S. Supreme Court ruled in <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/18/18-877/97173/20190422115845271_Allen%20v.%20Cooper%20BIO.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Allen v. Cooper, No. 18-877</a> (Mar. 23, 2020), that sovereign immunity bars lawsuits against states for copyright infringement. The Plaintiff, Allen, had been hired to film the salvage operation of a famous shipwreck—the Queen Anne’s Revenge. The legendary pirate Blackbeard sailed the Queen Anne’s Revenge until it hit a sandbar and sank off the coast of North Carolina in 1718. After it was discovered, the salvage operations began. Allen obtained federal copyright registrations on his salvage film. Without his permission, the state of North Carolina used Allen’s film on its website. Allen sued for infringement alleging North Carolina willfully and deliberately “pirated” his copyrighted works.



The predominant question before the Supreme Court was one of state sovereign immunity under the 11th Amendment. North Carolina moved to dismiss, asserting it was immune from suit. Allen countered that the Copyright Remedy Clarification Act (CRCA) of 1990 removed state sovereign immunity in copyright cases. Specifically, Allen argued, Congress had enacted the CRCA in 1990 to abrogate state sovereignty and allow citizens to sue a state for copyright infringement.



On review, the Supreme Court struck down the CRCA as unconstitutional. Writing for the Court, Justice Elena Kagan explained “precedent made clear that Article I’s Intellectual Property Clause could not provide the basis for an abrogation of sovereign immunity . . .&nbsp; [and] that Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment could not support an abrogation on a legislative record like the one here.”



While the CRCA has been vitiated, dicta suggests that nothing bars Congress from attempting to pass a new version of the law. The Court stated: “Going forward, Congress will know those rules. And under them, if it detects violations of due process, then it may enact a proportionate response. . . . That kind of tailored statute can effectively stop states from behaving as copyright pirates. Even while respecting constitutional limits, it can bring digital Blackbeards to justice.”

SCOTUS Holds States Immune from Copyright Infringement Suits

Last week, the Supreme Court issued an opinion in <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/21-757_k5g1.pdf">Amgen Inc. et al. v. Sanofi et al., No. 21-757 (May 18, 2023)</a>, affirming a Federal Circuit decision invalidating claims 19 and 29 of U.S. Patent 8,829,165 (“’165 Patent”) and claim 7 of U.S. Patent 8,859,741 (“’741 Patent”) for lack of enablement under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a).



In 2014, Amgen obtained the ’165 and ’741 Patents claiming the genus of antibodies that (1) “bind to specific amino acid residues on PCSK9” and (2) “block PCSK9 from binding to [LDL receptors].” In those patents, Amgen disclosed the amino acid sequences of 26 different antibodies, depicted the three-dimensional structure of 2 of those 26 antibodies, and provided two methods of making other, undisclosed antibodies performing those functions – the “roadmap” and “conservative substitution” methods.



The “roadmap” method directed scientists to generate antibodies in the lab and then test those antibodies following a series of sequential steps to identify antibodies that perform the claimed functions. The “conservative substitution” method required scientists to start with an antibody known to perform the claimed functions, substitute select amino acids, and confirm the new antibody maintained the claimed functions.



Amgen sued Sanofi for infringement of the ‘165 and ‘741 Patents and Sanofi counterclaimed, arguing that the asserted claims were invalid on enablement grounds. Amgen admitted that it sought to claim an entire universe of antibodies defined by their function. Sanofi did not dispute that the 26 antibodies with disclosed amino acid sequences were enabled. The Court was left to address whether simply following Amgen’s “roadmap,” or its proposal for “conservative substitution” enabled the full scope of the claimed genus. The Court’s evaluation noted “[a] specification may call for a reasonable amount of experimentation to make and use a claimed invention, and reasonableness in any case will depend on the nature of the invention and the underlying art.” Ultimately, the Court upheld the Federal Circuit’s decision, finding that the 26 disclosed antibodies and the roadmap and conservative substitution methods were not sufficient to enable the full scope of the claims, “even allowing for a reasonable degree of experimentation,” because the disclosed methods “amount to little more than two research assignments.”

Supreme Court Upholds Federal Circuit Decision Invalidating Patent Claims for Lack of Enablement

Last week, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit issued an opinion in <a href="http://media.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/19-1927P-01A.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Markham Concepts, Inc. v. Hasbro, Inc.</a>, No. 19-1927 (June 14, 2021), affirming the District of Rhode Island’s use and application of the instance and expense test to determine whether a copyrighted work, transferred under the 1909 Copyright Act, was a work for hire.



Toy designer Bill Markham’s successors-in-interest brought an action against the copyright owners of “The Game of Life,” seeking a judicial declaration that they possess “termination rights” under the 1976 Copyright Act. Those termination rights permit the transferor of a pre-1978 copyright, other than a copyright in a work for hire, to terminate the transfer. Specifically, Markham’s successors sought to terminate a 1960 agreement that assigned Markham’s interest in the game.



Because the copyright and transfer pre-dated the 1976 Copyright Act, the district court held a bench trial to determine whether the game was a work for hire. Applying the so-called “instance and expense” test established under the 1909 Copyright Act, the court found that Hasbro had “provided the instance for and bore the expense of the [game] prototype’s invention.” The court, therefore, held that&nbsp;&nbsp; Markham’s contribution was a work for hire, and that Markham’s successors held no termination rights. Markham’s successors appealed, arguing that the instance and expense test had been abrogated under the 1976 Copyright Act and precedent interpreting that Act.



The First Circuit affirmed the holding of the district court. The Court rejected appellants’ argument that the 1976 Copyright Act, as interpreted by that the Supreme Court in Community for Creative Non-Violence v. Reid, abrogated the 1909 Copyright Act’s “instance and expense” test thus narrowing the circumstances under which a work qualifies as a work for hire. Noting that, even after Reid, the First Circuit has continued to apply the “instance and expense” test to the evaluation of copyrights pre-dating the 1976 Copyright Act, the Court confirmed that the test still applies in cases involving these older copyrights. The Court further reviewed the district court’s application of the ‘instance and expense” test to the facts of the case before it and found no error in the district court’s analysis.



This blog post was co-authored by Eric Chad and River Lord.

First Circuit Upholds Use of Instance and Expense Test for Works Under the 1909 Copyright Act

Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision in <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-1078_4gci.pdf">Warner Chappell Music, Inc., et al. v. Sherman Nealy, et al., No. 22–1078 (May 9, 2024)</a>, holding that damages may be recovered under Copyright Act for conduct occurring greater than three years prior to filing suit.



In 2018, Sherman Nealy sued Warner Chappell Music in the Southern District of Florida for the unauthorized use of music created in the mid-1980s with former collaborator Tony Butler. While Nealy was serving prison terms, Butler entered into a license agreement with Warner Chappell Music for music created by Nealy and Butler, eventually landing it in popular songs by modern artists such as Flo Rida, the Black Eyed Peas, and Kid Sister. &nbsp;



Under the Copyright Act, claims must be brought within three years of accrual. 17 U.S.C. § 507(b). The Eleventh Circuit applies the discovery rule to assessing compliance with the Copyright Act’s statute of limitations. Under the discovery rule, accrual occurs when a claim is discovered or should have been discovered by the exercise of due diligence. Relying on precedent from the Second Circuit, the district court held that even if Nealy’s claims were timely filed under the discovery rule, monetary relief on those claims is “limited” to “the three years prior to the filing” of the action. Nealy appealed, and the Eleventh Circuit reversed, holding that a plaintiff with a timely claim under the discovery rule may obtain “retrospective relief for [an] infringement” even if it “occurr[ed] more than three years before the lawsuit’s filing.”



The Supreme Court granted certiorari to answer the question “[w]hether, under the discovery accrual rule applied by the circuit courts,” a copyright plaintiff “can recover damages for acts that allegedly occurred more than three years before the filing of a lawsuit.” For purposes of deciding the question under review, the Court assumed that, but declined to decide whether, the discovery rule should apply to statute of limitations assessments in copyright actions. On the question under review, the Court affirmed the decision of the Eleventh Circuit, noting that the “time-to-sue prescription” in the Copyright Act establishes no separate time limit for the recovery of damages. The Court further noted that the contrary view espoused by the Second Circuit would gut the efficacy and purpose of the discovery rule by allowing a plaintiff to sue for past infringements while denying them damages.

Supreme Court Upholds Eleventh Circuit’s Rejection of Three-Year Damages Bar on Timely Copyright Claim

Recently, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued an opinion in <a href="https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/23-2211.OPINION.5-23-2025_2519843.pdf">Sigray, Inc. v. Carl Zeiss X-Ray Microscopy, Inc., No. 23-2211</a> (May 23, 2025), reviewing a decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board concerning the validity of U.S. Patent No. 7,400,704.



The &#8216;704 patent claims an X-ray imaging system that incorporates projection magnification to enlarge images generated by X-ray beams. Sigray filed a petition for inter partes review (IPR), challenging all claims of the ‘704 patent based on prior art, specifically the Jorgensen reference. The Board initially found that Sigray demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that at least one claim was unpatentable and instituted the IPR, but it ultimately declined to hold any of the asserted claims unpatentable.



Sigray appealed only with respect to the Board’s determination that claims 1–6 were not unpatentable. In particular, Sigray contested the Board&#8217;s decision that claims 1, 3, and 4 were not anticipated by the Jorgenson reference and that claims 1–6 were not obvious over Jorgensen, either alone or in combination with other references. Jorgenson describes using an X-ray beam to image rodent organs and references a process known as collimation, which has the potential to reduce beam divergence and, consequently, magnification. There was no dispute that Jorgenson explicitly disclosed all elements of claim 1, except for the projection magnification limitation: “a magnification of the projection X ray stage . . . between 1 and 10 times.”



The Court considered whether Jorgenson inherently disclosed a diverging X-ray beam producing magnifications within the claimed range. The Court noted that the Board impermissibly narrowed the scope of claim 1 in determining that Sigray “fail[ed] to show that the . . . X-ray beam in Jorgensen diverges enough to result in projection magnification ‘between 1 and 10 times’,” implicitly construing “between 1 and 10” to exclude small amounts of magnification. The Board’s narrowing construction and the evidence of some divergence disclosed in Jorgenson led the Court to ultimately reverse the Board&#8217;s decision concerning the lack of anticipation of claims 1, 3, and 4, finding that Jorgensen disclosed all elements of claim 1 and dependent claims 3 and 4. However, the Court did not make a final determination on the validity of claims 2, 5, and 6, and remanded the case to the Board for further proceedings to assess whether these claims would have been obvious in light of the Court&#8217;s opinion.

River E. Lord

Practices

Industries

Education

Admissions