Marie McKiernan Image

Marie McKiernan

Associate, Litigation Practice

Wolf Greenfield

Marie McKiernan is an Associate with Wolf Greenfield Intellectual Property Law. She focuses her practice on patent, trademark, trade secret and copyright litigation, as well as post-grant proceedings.

Marie represents clients at all stages of litigation on intellectual property issues spanning a wide range of technologies, such as semiconductors, entertainment systems and software, streaming technology, personal computing devices and software, helmets, consumer health products, and geolocation devices.

Marie has experience litigating in multiple jurisdictions, including the Central District of California, the Northern District of California, the Southern District of California, the District of Colorado, the District of Delaware, the Northern District of Illinois, the District of Massachusetts and the Western District of Texas.

In addition to her litigation practice, Marie actively participates in firm pro bono projects. She also frequently writes about timely litigation topics.

During law school, Marie participated in a co-op internship program, interning at the First Circuit Court of Appeals for the Honorable Norman H. Stahl and the US Food and Drug Administration’s Office of Chief Counsel. While completing her Masters at Tufts University, Marie did research for the Tufts Center for the Study of Drug Development, analyzing the development of personalized medicines.

After graduating from the dual-degree program, Marie interned with Wolf Greenfield for four months prior to beginning a judicial clerkship for the Honorable Mary Thomas Sullivan of the Massachusetts Appeals Court. Prior to joining the firm, Marie was an associate at a Boston-based litigation and insurance law firm.

Recent Articles by Marie McKiernan

An Exercise in Restraint: Seeking and Combatting Injunctive Relief

Prior to the Supreme Court’s ruling in eBay v. MercExchange, when there was a finding of infringement, granting an injunction was almost automatic. See Richardson v. Suzuki Motor Co., Ltd., 868 F.2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1989). But eBay rejected this categorical grant of injunctions, raising the bar for obtaining such relief.  The Court’s decision in eBay sets forth the test used in United States district courts for establishing the necessity of a permanent injunction. The four eBay factors represent four high hurdles for patentees to meet for the entry of this exceptional relief and four avenues for alleged infringers to attack such requests. After looking at the contemporary grant rates for injunctive relief, we outline just some of the ways in which patentees can meet these hurdles and ways in which alleged infringers may refine their attacks.