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.

Taylor Stemler is an associate attorney with Merchant’s Minneapolis, Minnesota office. As a registered patent attorney, Taylor focuses his practice on both patent prosecution and intellectual property litigation.

core/paragraph

From inventors to businesses, Taylor helps his clients secure patent protection and assert their rights over their intellectual property. He primarily serves the mechanical and electrical industries. Yet, Taylor prides himself on having a broad technical knowledge base, allowing him to straddle multiple industries at once to develop the best legal solutions for his clients.

core/heading

Before becoming an attorney, Taylor worked as a Biomedical Engineer for a Minnesota-based medical device company. During this time, he developed innovative solutions to technical problems, collaborating with the company’s patent counsel to file for patent protection on these ideas.&nbsp;

Working with an attorney as an inventor provided Taylor with the insight to appreciate his clients’ unique needs. Now on the other side of the table, Taylor understands the pressures and constraints facing inventors when it comes to pushing their innovations out into the world.

To best serve his clients, Taylor is always thinking ahead, so he can come to the legal table prepared. Using his technical background and passion for knowledge, Taylor works to understand the intricacies of each invention and idea to maximize the value he provides to his clients.

Solving Legal Challenges With a Broad Perspective

Taylor Stemler is a summa cum laude graduate of Mitchell Hamline School of Law, where he served as Associate Editor-in-Chief of the Mitchell Hamline Law Review. In addition, Taylor authored an award-winning paper on construction law and scored the highest grades in his class in subjects ranging from torts, contracts, civil procedure, patent law, and IP appellate practice.

Pulling from this broad base, Taylor brings a diverse skillset that goes far beyond understanding the legal challenges of patent law. And as a result, he doesn’t approach legal issues from a narrow point of view. Instead, he looks at the bigger picture, developing legal strategies that support businesses now and in the future.

Dedicated to Building Relationships With Clients

Beyond delivering solid legal advice and strategy, Taylor is dedicated to building relationships with his clients. As a communicator, he enjoys getting to know his clients, so he can better understand their needs and business objectives.

Throughout law school, Taylor authored several papers on patent law and was the recipient of numerous awards, including the Federal Bar Association’s Harry A. Sieben Award, Mitchell Hamline’s Patent Law Certificate, and the Minnesota Justice Foundation’s recognition of public service.

During this time, he was also a judicial extern for the US District Court of Minnesota, the President of the Student IP Law Association, and a member of the Federal Bar Association.

As an Eagle Scout, Taylor’s favorite pastimes include spending time in the great outdoors with his friends and family. He enjoys canoeing, skiing, mountain biking, camping and windsurfing.&nbsp;

Mitchell Hamline School of Law, J.D., 2021, 

University of Minnesota, B.S. Biomedical Engineering, 2017

Taylor Stemler, Intellectual Property Attorney

Automotive & Powersports

Building Systems & Construction

Electronics

Manufacturing

Medical Devices

Shooting Sports

Sports & Fitness

Telecommunications

Transportation

Minneapolis

Merchant &amp; Gould is pleased to have welcomed four new associates to its Minneapolis legal team: &nbsp;<a href="/people/john-p-olson/">John P. Olson</a>, <a href="/people/samuel-m-scholz/">Samuel M. Scholz</a>, <a href="/people/taylor-r-stemler/">Taylor R. Stemler</a> and Ivan Wang.



“These attorneys add depth and experience to the firm, bringing greater perspective to our clients and knowledge to our practice groups,” said Christopher J. Leonard, Managing Director and CEO of Merchant &amp; Gould. &nbsp;“We are excited to welcome them.”



<a href="/people/john-p-olson/">John Olson</a> focuses his legal practice on protecting businesses from trademark infringement. With previous experience as a strategic partner for Fortune 500 companies, he now serves businesses as a trusted legal advisor, helping them protect their brands and assets from infringement and other unfair practices. John has supported businesses in a wide range of unique industries, including consumer products, automotive and powersports, internet products, and media and entertainment. He received his Bachelor of Arts in international business and management from Dickinson College, and his J.D. cum laude from Roger Williams University School of Law. During law school, Olson worked as a law clerk for Merchant &amp; Gould.



Samuel Scholz focuses his practice on patent prosecution, specializing in electrical, medical and mechanical industries, and patent litigation. Before becoming an attorney, he worked for 3M as a Corporate R&amp;D Technical Aide after obtaining his bachelor’s degree. During this time, Sam drafted new test methods, created new formulations, performed extensive testing, and gained an in-depth understanding of various chemical and mechanical processes.  He received his Bachelor of Science in biomedical engineering from the University of Minnesota. Sam also received his J.D. with an Intellectual Property Law Certification from the Mitchell Hamline School of Law where he served as the co-editor-in-chief of the Cybaris Intellectual Property Law Review and graduated magna cum laude.



<a href="/people/taylor-r-stemler/">Taylor Stemler</a> focuses his practice on both patent prosecution and intellectual property litigation. From inventors to businesses, he helps his clients secure patent protection and assert their intellectual property rights, &nbsp;primarily serving the mechanical and electrical industries. Before becoming an attorney, Taylor worked as a Biomedical Engineer for a Minnesota-based medical device company, collaborating with the company’s patent counsel to file for patent protection on these ideas. Taylor is a summa cum laude graduate of Mitchell Hamline School of Law, where he served as Associate Editor-in-Chief of the Mitchell Hamline Law Review, and he received his Bachelor of Science in biomedical engineering from the University of Minnesota.



Ivan Wang focuses on patent prosecution in the electrical and software industries and advises clients on IP strategies. &nbsp;His near decade-long engineering experience has honed his ability to quickly understand technical issues and has helped him develop unique industry perspectives on IP strategies. &nbsp;Ivan understands that patents, trade secrets and designs are critical components to a client’s IP strategy; and sees the bigger picture through a technical lens. &nbsp;He earned his Master of Science in electrical engineering from the University of Pennsylvania, and his J.D. from the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law. Ivan graduated from Huazhong University of Science and Technology with a Bachelor of Science in electronics and information engineering.

Merchant & Gould Welcomes Four 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/22-1043.OPINION.4-27-2023_2117731.pdf">Netflix, Inc. v. DivX, LLC, No. 2022-1049 (Apr. 27, 2023)</a>, affirming in part, vacating in part, and remanding the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s determination that Netflix had not established by a preponderance of the evidence that the claims of DivX’s patent were invalid. &nbsp;



DivX sued Netflix, alleging patent infringement. Netflix subsequently petitioned for inter partes review, contending that the asserted patent claims were invalid as obvious over the combination of two earlier patent applications (“Chen” and “Grab”). In its final written decision, the Board determined that Chen did not disclose video frames that were obtained on the receive side of a conditional access system prior to descrambling, as required by the patent claims.



Netflix appealed, arguing that the Board erred by (1) incorrectly construing the patent claims, (2)&nbsp;improperly narrowing the Chen disclosure, and (3) failing to adequately consider the Grab disclosure.



The Federal Circuit rejected Netflix’s first two arguments. As to the first argument, Netflix alleged that the Board should not have viewed the steps presented in the claim as an ordered sequence. The Court declined to reach the merits of this issue, instead noting that arguments must first be presented to the Board before they can be addressed on appeal. Because Netflix did not present its claim construction argument before the Board, it forfeited this argument on appeal. As to the second argument, the Court explained that the determination of what a piece of prior art teaches is a factual question reviewed for substantial evidence. Because the Board’s determination on the Chen teachings was based upon extensive declaration and documentary evidence, the Court affirmed the Board’s determination regarding those teachings. &nbsp;



The Court agreed with Netflix on its third argument, holding that the Board improperly failed to consider the Grab reference. In the Board’s analysis of the disputed claim element, it only considered the Chen teaching. However, Netflix had argued that this element was taught by both Chen and Grab. While DivX argued that Board need not have considered Grab because a skilled artisan would not have been motivated to combine Chen and Grab, the Court disagreed, vacating this portion of the final written decision, and remanding with instructions to consider the Grab disclosure and motivation to combine Grab with Chen.

CAFC Vacates PTAB’s Nonobviousness Finding for Video Streaming Technology

Last week, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued an opinion in <a href="https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/23-1529.OPINION.11-22-2024_2424080.pdf">Healthier Choices Mgmt. Corp. v. Philip Morris Prods. S.A., No. 2023-1529 (Nov. 22, 2024)</a>, affirming the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s denial of a motion to amend in an inter partes review (IPR) proceeding.



Philip Morris filed an IPR petition, challenging the claims of Healthier Choices’ U.S. Patent No. 10,561,170, which were directed to an improved electronic pipe. Healthier Choices filed a motion to amend the claims of the patent, seeking to add additional limitations. The Board denied the motion to amend for failing to comply with the written description requirement. Specifically, the Board found that the patent lacked written description support for the new “ambient air inlet” term, which was construed to exclude air passage through a first pipe section of the device. Healthier Choices appealed.



The Federal Circuit affirmed, noting that neither the original claim language nor the written description in the patent explicitly excluded the presence of an ambient air hole in the first pipe section. The Court held the exclusionary claim construction to be a “negative limitation,” which needed to be clearly supported by an express statement in the patent specification. The Court found that the specification of Healthier Choices’ patent did not exclude the existence of an ambient air hole in the first pipe section. The description of the figures in the patent indicated that an air inlet could be located in the external wall of the casing, allowing ambient air to enter the first chamber. The Court found that this description contradicted Healthier Choices’ argument that the patent excluded air passage through the first pipe section.



The Court also held that testimony from a skilled artisan regarding the probability of the exclusion of an element is insufficient if the specification itself is silent on the matter. Thus, the Court concluded that Healthier Choices had not established that skilled artisans would necessarily understand the exclusion of an air passage through the first pipe section because it was not mentioned in the patent. Based on these findings, the Court held that substantial evidence supported the Board&#8217;s determination that there was no written description support for an inlet that directs ambient air while excluding air passage through the first pipe section. The Court affirmed the Board’s denial of the motion to amend.

CAFC Affirms PTAB’s Motion to Amend Denial for Lack of Written Description Support

Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision in <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/24-171_bq7d.pdf">Cox Communications, Inc. v. Sony Music Entertainment, No. 24–171 (Mar. 25, 2026)</a>, reversing a Fourth Circuit ruling that affirmed contributory copyright liability for an internet service provider for continuing to serve known infringers.



Sony Music and other copyright holders sued Cox, alleging it was secondarily liable for widespread copyright infringement by its subscribers. Over a two-year period, Sony’s agent sent Cox more than 160,000 infringement notices tied to subscriber IP addresses. A jury found Cox liable for contributory and vicarious infringement and awarded $1 billion in statutory damages. The Fourth Circuit affirmed contributory liability, holding that providing service with knowledge of infringement was sufficient to establish such liability.



The Supreme Court reversed, holding that contributory copyright liability requires intent, not mere knowledge. Relying on its earlier precedent, the Court reaffirmed that such intent can be shown in only two ways: (1) the defendant induces infringement through active encouragement or promotion, or (2) the defendant provides a product or service tailored to infringement, meaning it is not capable of substantial noninfringing uses.



Applying this framework, the Court found neither basis satisfied. Cox did not promote or encourage infringement; to the contrary, it implemented a graduated response system that included warnings, suspensions, and account terminations. And Cox’s service was not tailored to infringement—providing internet access is a general-purpose service with extensive lawful uses.



The Court rejected the Fourth Circuit’s broader rule that knowledge of infringement combined with continued service is sufficient for liability, emphasizing that such a standard would improperly expand secondary liability beyond established doctrine.



The Court also addressed the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), clarifying that its safe harbor provisions do not create liability for service providers who fail to qualify for the safe harbor. Instead, the DMCA identifies defenses to liability and expressly preserves arguments that a provider’s conduct is not infringing.



The decision narrows the scope of contributory copyright liability for ISPs and other service providers, reinforcing that liability turns on purposeful conduct directed at infringement—not merely knowledge that infringement is occurring.

Supreme Court Rejects Contributory Copyright Liability Based on ISP’s Knowledge of User Infringement

Appellate

Design Patent & Trade Dress

Electrical & Software

IP Due Diligence

Licensing

Litigation

Mechanical

Post Grant Proceedings

International Group

Andrea Endris

Associate

Taylor R. Stemler

Selected for inclusion in Minnesota Super Lawyers Rising Stars, 2025-2026 
Federal Bar Association, Minnesota Chapter’s Harry A. Sieben Award, 2021 
Eagle Scout

Awards & Recognition

The Honorable Jimmie V. Reyna Intellectual Property American Inn of Court 
The American Intellectual Property Law Association 
TCDIP, Emerging Leaders Group, 2022-2024

Professional Affiliations

Adjunct Associate Professor, University of Minnesota Law School 
Instructor of the Intellectual Property Moot Court Class, 2022-2024
&nbsp;

Teaching

Taylor Stemler, Tips For Protecting Privilege On Multinational IP Teams, com (June 5, 2026)
Taylor Stemler, Why the PTAB’s new expedited filing dates for AIA petitions are positive, Life Sciences Intellectual Property Review, (August 14, 2025)
Taylor Stemler, Back to Fintiv? The USPTO’s Shifting Approach to Discretionary Denials in PTAB Proceedings, com (April 23, 2025)
Taylor Stemler and John Olson, Building Long-Term Brand Armor: The Fusion of Trade Dress &amp; Design Patent Strategies, Merchant &amp; Gould P.C. (December 19, 2024)
Forcing Creativity, Vol. 12 of Cybaris, An Intellectual Property Law Review
Mitchell Hamline School of Law, IP Institute 2021 Annual Symposium, Exploring the Boundaries of Statutory Subject Matter (April 2021), Moderator (Subject: Patent Eligibility of Artificial Intelligence)
Covid-19 Forces Contractors to Examine AIA Agreements, Minnesota Bench &amp; Bar (2021), Minnesota State Bar Association construction law writing competition first-place winner
Minor Advances, Major Consequences: Hatch-Waxman Administers Exclusivity for Drug Delivery Devices, Vol. 46 of the Mitchell Hamline Law Review
Empirically Determined Vascular Smooth Muscle Cell Mechano-Adaptation Law, 2017 Journal of Biomedical Engineering Editor’s Choice Selection, 2017 Richard Skalak Award winner

Taylor R. Stemler

Practices

Industries

Education

Admissions

Awards & Recognition

Professional Affiliations

Teaching

Publications & Speaking Engagements