Michael S. Borella, Ph.D.
Partner
Michael S. Borella is a partner with McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP and serves as Chair of the firm’s Software & Business Methods Practice Group. Dr. Borella provides legal and technological advice in support of validity, infringement, patentability analyses, and litigation matters. His expertise includes networking, Internet telephony, wireless communication technologies, telecommunications, financial transactions, cloud computing, routing, TCP/IP, artificial intelligence and machine learning, computer graphics and imaging, voice and facial recognition, robotics, and mobile applications.
Dr. Borella has drafted or been involved in the prosecution of hundreds of patents in the U.S., as well as in other jurisdictions. He has experience in numerous phases of patent litigation, including invalidity analysis, discovery, motion practice, and claim construction. His practice also includes patentability, validity, and infringement analyses, as well as client counseling with respect to the procurement of all types of intellectual property rights.
Dr. Borella has written extensively on the patent-eligibility of computer-implemented inventions, and has been a featured presenter for several seminars on the topic as well.
Prior to joining MBHB, Dr. Borella served on the management teams of Fastmobile, UTStarcom, and 3Com, and was in charge of several large software engineering projects, managing over 75 software engineers on two continents. He also held the position of adjunct professor at Northwestern University, and has lectured on patent law at the Chicago-Kent College of Law. Dr. Borella is a named inventor on more than seventy U.S. patent applications and has authored a similar number of academic and technical papers related to networking, telecommunications, and computer science.
Credentials
- J.D., Chicago-Kent College of Law,
Magna Cum Laude
- Ph.D., University of California,
Computer Science
- M.S., University of California,
Computer Science
- B.S., Clarkson University,
Computer Science and Technical Communications, With Distinction
- Illinois
- U.S. Patent & Trademark Office
- Developing and carrying out a large-scale patenting program for a multi-billion-dollar enterprise networking company.
- Preparing and prosecuting patent applications directed to wireless communications systems, networks, and protocols for a Fortune 100 communications service provider.
- Won a resounding victory for a patent owner in an Inter Partes Review (IPR) involving telecommunications technology. Institution was denied.
- Representing a global telecommunications operator in U.S. litigation matters involving patents directed to Internet telephony, security, and network management.
- Managing a worldwide patent prosecution portfolio for a company specializing in software, cloud computing, and mechanical products.
- Advising several software startup companies regarding their patent and trademark portfolios.
- Conducting freedom to operate and patentability analyses for several software gaming entities.
- Successfully overcoming numerous patentable-subject-matter rejections from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.
Recognition
- IAM Patent 1000
Snippets
Events
News
Published Articles
M. Borella, “Food Allergies in Public Schools: Toward a Model Code,” Chicago-Kent Law Review, vol. 85, iss. 7, pp. 761-790, 2010.
M. Borella, “Lawful Packet Data Intercept for CDMA Wireless Networks,” Wireless Security Perspectives, pp. 3-7, 2003.
M. Borella, “On Estimating Long Range Dependence of Network Delay,” International Journal of Chaos Theory and Applications, vol. 6, iss. 4, 2001.
M. Borella, “Measurement and Interpretation of Internet Packet Loss,” Journal of Communications and Networking, vol. 2, iss. 2, pp. 93-102, 2000.
M. Borella, “Source Models of Network Game Traffic,” Computer Communications, vol. 23, iss. 4, pp. 403-410, 2000.
Patent Docs
The following publications include links to the Patent Docs weblog, a site focusing on patent law news.
Federal Circuit Finds Calculating Machine Ineligible (Aug. 23, 2020)
The Three Properties of Patent-Eligibility: An Empirical Study (Jul. 30, 2020)
Federal Circuit Rules Public Key Cryptography Algorithm Invalid Under 35 U.S.C. § 101 (Jul. 22, 2020)
Packet Intelligence LLC v. NetScout Systems, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2020) (Jul. 20, 2020)
Electronic Communication Technologies, LLC v. ShoppersChoice.com, LLC (Fed. Cir. 2020) (Jul 16, 2020)
Uniloc USA, Inc. v. LG Electronics USA, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2020) (May 6, 2020)
USPTO Assesses the Impact of Patent Eligibility’s Changing Landscape (Apr. 27, 2020)
What is an Abstract Idea, Anyway? (March 1, 2020)
Artificial Intelligence-based Patents: Perspectives for Practitioners and Patent Owners (Feb. 20, 2020)
The Zombie Apocalypse of Patent Eligibility Reform and a Possible Escape Route (Feb. 4, 2020)
iLife Technologies, Inc. v. Nintendo of America, Inc. (N.D. Tex. 2020) (Jan. 27, 2020)
USPTO Support for Filing in DOCX Format Still a Work in Progress (Jan. 7, 2020)
USPTO Makes Ex Parte Linden An Informative PTAB Decision (Dec 31, 2019)
Solicitor General Files Brief in Berkheimer v. HP (Dec 9, 2019)
Koninklijke KPN N.V. v. Gemalto M2M GmbH (Fed. Cir. 2019) (Nov 19, 2019)
USPTO Subject Matter Eligibility October Update: Example 46 (Nov 17, 2019)
Federal Circuit Invalidates Edison’s Light Bulb Patent (October 20, 2019)
USPTO Publishes Update to Its Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (October 17, 2019)
Federal Circuit Invalidates A. G. Bell’s Telegraphy Patent (September 2, 2019)
The Chamberlain Group, Inc. v. Techtronic Industries Co. (Fed. Cir. 2019) (August 26, 2019)
MyMail, Ltd. v. ooVoo, LLC (Fed. Cir. 2019) (August 18, 2019)
ChargePoint, Inc. v. SemaConnect, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2019) (August 4, 2019)
The PTAB Goes to Europe: Four Recent Section 101 Decisions Designated as Informative (July 28, 2019)
Cellspin Soft, Inc. v. Fitbit, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2019) (July 7, 2019)
Senators Tillis and Coons Release Statement on Recent Patent Reform Hearings (June 26, 2019)
USPTO Presentation on Evaluating Computer-Implemented Functional Claiming under 35 U.S.C. § 112 (June 18, 2019)
Senate Subcommittee on Intellectual Property Holds Hearings on Proposed Revisions to 35 U.S.C. § 101 (June 17, 2019)
Congress Proposes Draft Bill to Change 35 U.S.C. § 101 (May 23, 2019)
Hyper Search LLC v. Facebook Inc. (D. Del. 2018) (May 20, 2019)
USPTO on Patent Eligibility — Examples 41 and 42 (January 24, 2019)
USPTO on Patent Eligibility — Example 40 (January 20, 2019)
USPTO on Patent Eligibility — Examples 38 & 39 (January 15, 2019)
USPTO on Patent Eligibility — Example 37 (January 14, 2019)
USPTO Issues Updated Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (January 7, 2019)
In re Marco Guldenaar Holding B.V. (Fed. Cir. 2018) (December 30, 2018)
Overcoming 35 U.S.C. § 101 Rejections Based on Electric Power Group (December 17, 2018)
SAP America, Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC (N.D. Tex. 2018) (December 10, 2018)
How to Draft Patent Claims for Machine Learning Inventions (November 25, 2018)
Ancora Technologies, Inc. v. HTC America, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2018) (November 18, 2018)
Data Engine Technologies LLC v. Google LLC (Fed. Cir 2018) (October 17, 2018)
Gust, Inc. v. AlphaCap Ventures, LLC (Fed. Cir. 2018) (September 30, 2018)
The Subject Matter Eligibility of Machine Learning: An Early Take (September 23, 2018)
USPTO Makes Ex Parte Jung an Informative Decision, July 25, 2018.
Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2018) July 24, 2018.
Cellspin Soft, Inc. v. Fitbit, Inc. (N.D. Cal. 2018) July 12, 2018.
Zeroclick, LLC v. Apple Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2018) June 25, 2018.
Federal Circuit Denies En Banc Review of Berkheimer and Aatrix (June 3, 2018).
SAP America, Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC (Fed. Cir. 2018) (May 20, 2018).
Ex Parte Reis (PTAB 2018) (May 14, 2018).
USPTO Updates Patent Eligibility Guidance in View of Berkheimer (April 23, 2018).
DSS Technology Management, Inc. v. Apple Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2018) (April 3, 2018).
Berkheimer Files Response to HP’s Petition for En Banc Review (April 1, 2018).
Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp. (Fed. Cir. 2018) (March 22, 2018).
Whether Facts Matter in the Patent Eligibility Analysis: HP Files Petition for En Banc Rehearing (March 20, 2018).
Aatrix Software, Inc. v. Green Shades Software, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2018) (February 18, 2018).
Berkheimer v. HP Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2018) (February 8, 2018).
Move, Inc. v. Real Estate Alliance Ltd. (Fed. Cir. 2018) (February 4, 2018).
Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L. v. LG Electronics, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2018) (January 25, 2018).
Wordlogic Corp. v. Fleksy, Inc. (N.D. Ill. 2017) (January 14, 2018).
Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Systems, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2018) (January 11, 2018).
Mastermine Software, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp. (Fed. Cir. 2017) (November 20, 2017).
Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co. (Fed. Cir. 2017) (November 14, 2017).
Smart Systems Innovations, LLC v. Chicago Transit Authority (Fed. Cir. 2017) (October 23, 2017).
Visual Memory LLC v. NVIDIA Corp. (Fed. Cir. 2017) (August 15, 2017).
Cloud9 Technologies LLC v. IPC Systems, Inc. (PTAB 2017) (July 30, 2017).
Securus Technologies, Inc. v. Global Tel*Link Corp. (Fed. Cir. 2017)(July 16, 2017).
Digital Media Technologies, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc. (N.D. Fla. 2017) (July 9, 2017).
Prism Technologies LLC v. T-Mobile USA, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2017) (June 28, 2017).
Alternative Facts on Patent-Eligibility from the Electronic Frontier Foundation (May 29, 2017).
Recognicorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co. (Fed. Cir. 2017) (May 1, 2017).
Thales Visionix Inc. v. U.S. (Fed. Cir. 2017) (March 9, 2017).
Personal Web Technologies, LLC v. Apple, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2017) (February 15, 2017).
USPTO Publishes Business Method Subject Matter Eligibility Examples: Part II (January 22, 2017).
USPTO Publishes Business Method Subject Matter Eligibility Examples: Part I (January 19, 2017).
Gust, Inc. v. Alphacap Ventures, LLC (S.D.N.Y. 2016); O2 Media, LLC v. Narrative Science Inc. (N.D. Ill. 2017) (January 10, 2017).
Verint Systems Inc. v. Red Box Recorders Ltd. (S.D.N.Y. 2016) (December 13, 2016).
Amdocs (Israel) Limited v. Openet Telecom, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2016) (November 27, 2016).
Federal Circuit Narrows USPTO’s Definition of “Covered Business Method” (November 21, 2016).
USPTO Issues Memorandum on Recent Subject Matter Eligibility Decisions (November 2, 2016).
Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp. (Fed. Cir. 2016) (October 30, 2016).
Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp. — Judge Mayer on the First Amendment (October 24, 2016).
September Was a Good Month for Patent Eligibility in the District Courts (October 16, 2016).
Iron Gate Security, Inc. v. Lowe’s Companies, Inc. (S.D.N.Y. 2016) (September 21, 2016).
McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games America Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2016) (Sept. 13, 2016).
Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L. v. LG Electronics, Inc. (E.D. Tex. 2016) (Aug. 31, 2016).
Of Technical Tools and Problems: Going Beyond the Two-Prong Alice Test (Aug. 21, 2016).
Netsirv v. Boxbee, Inc. (PTAB 2016) (Aug. 17, 2016).
In re Magnum Oil Tools Int’l, Ltd. (Fed. Cir. 2016) (Aug. 14, 2016).
Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A. (Fed. Cir. 2016) (Aug. 1, 2016).
Shortridge v. Foundation Construction Payroll Service, LLC (Fed. Cir. 2016) (July 24, 2016).
Open Parking, LLC v. Parkme, Inc. (W.D. Penn. 2016) (July 7, 2016).
USPTO Issues Memorandum Regarding Enfish and TLI (May 26, 2016).
In re TLI Communications LLC Patent Litigation (May 22, 2016).
Section 101 and the Growing Alice Backlash (May 15, 2016).
Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp. (Fed. Cir. 2016) (May 12, 2016).
Peschke Map Technologies LLC v. Rouse Properties Inc. (E.D. Va. 2016) (Mar. 22, 2016).
Advanced Marketing Systems, LLC v. CVS Pharmacy (E.D. Tex. 2016) (February 1, 2016).
Voxathon LLC v. Alpine Electronics of America, Inc. (E.D. Tex. 2016) (January 25, 2016).
Motio, Inc. v. BSP Software LLC (E.D. Tex. 2016) (January 11, 2016).
eDekka LLC v. 3balls.com, Inc. (E.D. Tex. 2015) (January 6, 2016).
Inphi Corp. v. Netlist, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2015) (November 17, 2015).