Michael S. Borella

, Ph.D.

Overview

Michael S. Borella is Chair of MBHB’s Software and Business Methods Practice Group, and co-Chair of the firm’s Diversity and Inclusion Committee.

Dr. Borella leverages his knowledge of complex software to help his clients – from individual inventors and global technology companies – solve intellectual property challenges and build and manage patent portfolios. Dr. Borella is a named inventor on more than 70 U.S. patent applications and has drafted or been involved in the prosecution of hundreds of patents in the U.S. and around the world. Clients also seek Dr. Borella’s counsel on patent eligibility, validity, infringement, patentability analyses and litigation matters.

With a doctorate in computer science, he has expertise in a wide variety of technologies, including networking, cloud computing, enterprise software, machine learning and robotics.

Prior to joining MBHB, Dr. Borella spent more than a decade in the software industry, where he worked on wireless data gateways, voice-over-IP technologies, and mobile application development. He has authored dozens of academic and technical papers related to networking, telecommunications and computer science. His research on the self-similar (fractal) nature of network latency and what it means to users has been particularly well-cited over the last two decades.

Dr. Borella writes frequently about intellectual property matters and is a regular contributor to Patent Docs, a website featuring news and commentary on patent law. He is a sought-after speaker, particularly in the area of patent eligibility.

Education
  • 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

Bar Admissions
  • Illinois
  • U.S. Patent & Trademark Office

Recognition

  • IAM Patent 1000

Experience

  • Developed and carried out a large-scale patenting program for a multibillion-dollar enterprise networking company.
  • Conducted freedom to operate and patentability analyses for several software companies.
  • Advised dozens of software startup companies regarding their patent and trademark portfolios.
  • Won victories for his clients in proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board and Trademark Trial and Appeal Board.
  • Prepared and prosecuted patent applications directed to wireless communications systems, networks, and protocols for a Fortune 100 communications service provider.
  • Represented a global telecommunications operator in U.S. litigation matters involving patents directed to Internet telephony, security, and network management.
  • Managed a worldwide patent prosecution portfolio for a company specializing in software, cloud computing, and mechanical products.
  • Successfully overcame numerous patentable-subject-matter rejections from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.

Published Articles

M. Borella, “Gree, Inc. v. Supercell Oy (Fed. Cir. 2020),” Wolters Kluwer IP Litigator, January / February 2021, pp. 13-15, 2021.

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.

Eight Patent Examination Annoyances and How to Respond to Them (May 1, 2022)

Before You Complain About So-Called Bad Patents, Read This (April 17, 2022)

Repifi Vendor Logistics, Inc. v. Intellicentrics, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2022) (Mar. 23, 2022)

Mentone Solutions LLC v. Digi International Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2021) (Feb. 8, 2022)

USPTO Announces Deferred Subject Matter Eligibility Response Pilot Program (January 6, 2022)

CosmoKey Solutions GmbH v. Duo Security LLC (Fed. Cir. 2021) (October 5, 2021)

The Federal Circuit Addresses Commercial Success (August 29, 2021)

MyMail, Ltd. v. ooVoo, LLC (Fed. Cir. 2021) (August 22, 2021)

On the Nature of Prior Art in the 35 U.S.C. § 101 Inquiry (August 10, 2021)

Sensormatic Electronics, LLC v. Wyze Labs, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2021) (July 26, 2021)

Senate Passes the Endless Frontier Act (June 21, 2021)

Yu v. Apple (Fed. Cir. 2021) (June 13, 2021)

Supreme Court Requests View of Solicitor General in American Axle v. Neapco (May 3, 2021)

Could Alice Be Used to Invalidate Diehr? Of Course It Could (April 20, 2021)

Raytheon Technologies Corp. v. General Electric Co. (Fed. Cir. 2021) (April 18, 2021)

VLSI Technology, LLC v. Intel Corp. (W.D. Texas 2021) (March 21, 2021)

On the Patent Eligibility of Information Processing (March 15, 2021)

Infinity Computer Products, Inc. v. Oki Data Americas, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2021) (February 23, 2021)

Simio, LLC v. FlexSim Software Products, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2020) (December 29, 2020)

Adaptive Streaming Inc. v. Netflix, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2020) (December 22, 2020)

Gree, Inc. v. Supercell Oy (Fed. Cir. 2020) (December 3, 2020)

C R Bard Inc. v. AngioDynamics, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2020) (November 15, 2020)

On the Patent Eligibility of Graphical User Interfaces: Part II (Nov. 9, 2020)

On the Patent Eligibility of Graphical User Interfaces: Part I (Nov. 8, 2020)

Stupid § 101 Tricks (Nov. 1, 2020)

Realtime Data LLC v. Reduxio Systems, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2020) (Oct. 26, 2020)

USPTO Publishes Report on AI-Related Policies (Oct. 10, 2020)

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).