Ryan D. Borelo

150 South Fifth Street , Suite 2200
Minneapolis, MN 55402
D: 612.766.6004


Brigham Young University - J. Reuben Clark Law School
   J.D., 2017
   Dean's List

   BYU Law Review, Managing Editor

Brigham Young University - Marriott School of Business
   M.B.A. Finance, 2014

University of Houston
   B.S. Chemical Engineering, magna cum laude, 2008
   Tau Beta Pi

Bar and Court Admissions

U.S. District Court, District of Minnesota, 2018
U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, 2017
Minnesota State Bar, 2017

Professional Affiliations

American Intellectual Property Law Association
Hispanic National Bar Association

Publications & Speaking

Judicial Clerkship

Judicial Extern to the Honorable David Sam, U.S. District Court, District of Utah


English (native)
Spanish (fluent)
Portuguese (basic proficiency)

As a Registered Patent Attorney in the Merchant & Gould Minneapolis office, Ryan practices all areas of intellectual property law with an emphasis on patent and trademark litigation and patent prosecution. He has prosecuted patents covering chemical, mechanical, semiconductor, software, electrical, and optical device technologies.

Prior to his legal career, Ryan was an engineer for five years with ExxonMobil, Chevron Phillips Chemical, and Fluor Corporation. He enjoys providing his clients with a holistic approach to resolve their legal matters by drawing upon his engineering, business, and legal experience. Ryan used these skills as a member of a law and entrepreneurship clinic where he assisted various clients while he was a law student. Ryan also served as a judicial extern to the Honorable David Sam on the U.S. District Court in the District of Utah.

Outside the firm, Ryan has volunteered with several legal clinics to help indigent clients, including the CARA pro bono initiative to provide legal assistance to immigrants in a Texas detention center. In his spare time, he enjoys Latin dancing, traveling, hiking, and rock climbing.


All Media
The Accidental Tourist:
The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in April 2018 in WesternGeco LLC v. Ion Geophysical Corp., which examined the ability of a U.S. patent owner to recover lost profits for foreign sales based on domestic acts of infringement.[1] The proceedings included ...
White Papers
Federal Circuit Holds Patentee May Challenge Timeliness Determination Regarding Inter Partes Review Petition
In Wi-Fi One, LLC v. Broadcom Corp., an en banc Federal Circuit majority held that the timeliness of a petition for inter partes review (IPR) is appealable. [1]  The opinion overruled Achates Reference Publishing, Inc. v. Apple Inc., where a Federal Circuit ...
Press Releases
Merchant & Gould Grows Minneapolis Office with Three Associates
Merchant & Gould is pleased to welcome new associate attorneys Karen Beckman, Ph.D., Ryan Borelo and Lindsay Hartman to its Minneapolis officeKaren Beckman joins Merchant & Gould’s Litigation and Chemical & Life Sciences practice groups after ...
White Papers
The Medicines Co. v. Hospira Inc.: Federal Circuit clarifies application of pre-AIA §102(b) on-sale bar
In The Medicines Co. v. Hospira Inc., the Federal Circuit further expounded upon which triggering events may invalidate a patent due to commercial activity occurring more than one year prior to filing the patent’s application.[1]The Medicines Company ...
White Papers
Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.: Supreme Court holds district courts should weigh all factors in determination of awarding attorney’s fees for copyright infringement and give substantial weight to reasonableness of losing party’s litigation position
The Supreme Court’s recent decision in Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., clarified the proper analysis for awarding attorney’s fees in copyright infringement cases.[1]Supap Kirtsaeng (Kirtsaeng) came from Thailand to the United States to ...
White Papers
Halo Electronics, Inc. v. Pulse Electronics, Inc.: Supreme Court holds the Seagate test is inconsistent with the Patent Act, changing the requirements for enhanced damages due to willful infringement
The Supreme Court’s recent decisions in Halo Electronics, Inc. v. Pulse Electronics, Inc., and Stryker Corp. et al. v. Zimmer, Inc., et al., clarified the enhanced damages standard for patent infringement.[1] The Court reversed the Federal Circuit’s ...