Google Petitions U.S. Supreme Court Over USPTO’s ‘Settled Expectations’ IPR Denials

Google filed a petition for a writ of certiorari at the U.S. Supreme Court on April 27, 2026, challenging the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s authority to deny inter partes review (IPR) petitions on the basis of a patent owner’s “settled expectations” in patent rights of long standing. The petition arises from the USPTO’s rejection of Google’s challenge to a patent owned by VirtaMove Corp., which had been in force for more than fourteen years at the time of Google’s filing.

The Settled Expectations Doctrine

USPTO Director John A. Squires has applied a discretionary policy under which the agency declines to institute IPR proceedings against patents that have been in force for an extended period — in practice, generally those beyond six years into their twenty-year term. Director Squires characterises the policy as protecting the reasonable settled expectations of patent owners who have held their rights without validity challenge for a significant portion of the patent’s life.

In the underlying dispute, VirtaMove’s patent had been in force for over fourteen years before Google sought to challenge its validity through IPR. Invoking the settled expectations rationale, Director Squires denied institution of the IPR petition.

Proceedings Below

Google sought a writ of mandamus from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, arguing that the Director’s denial was contrary to the statutory framework of the America Invents Act (AIA), which makes IPR available throughout the life of a patent without time-based restrictions. The Federal Circuit denied the mandamus petition in January 2026, concluding that discretionary denials of IPR institution are not subject to judicial review under 35 U.S.C. § 314(d).

Questions Presented to the Supreme Court

Google’s certiorari petition presents two principal questions. First, whether the USPTO lacks statutory authority under the AIA to consider settled expectations as a basis for denying IPR when the statute makes the proceeding available throughout the patent’s twenty-year term. Second, whether federal courts have jurisdiction to review IPR denials that rest on grounds that are contrary to statute, notwithstanding the general bar on judicial review of institution decisions under § 314(d).

Both questions go to the scope of the Director’s discretionary authority and the availability of judicial check on exercises of that authority that allegedly exceed its statutory bounds.

Broader Context

The settled expectations policy has had material consequences beyond the Google-VirtaMove dispute. In a separate proceeding, Samsung faced a damages verdict of $278 million after its own IPR petition against patents held by Headwater Research was reportedly denied on similar grounds, leaving Samsung without an administrative invalidity defense. The accumulation of such outcomes has prompted growing criticism from implementer-side stakeholders who argue the policy has shifted the balance of the IPR system in favour of patent holders.

IAM Magazine has assessed Google’s petition as a long shot at the Supreme Court, noting that the Court grants certiorari in a small fraction of petitions filed each term and that the Federal Circuit’s § 314(d) jurisprudence has generally resisted judicial review of institution decisions. However, if certiorari is granted, the case would present the Supreme Court with its first direct opportunity to address the outer limits of Director discretion in IPR denial and the reviewability of such decisions.

Implications

A Supreme Court ruling in Google’s favour would constrain the Director’s ability to use settled expectations — and potentially other non-statutory factors — as grounds for discretionary IPR denial. This would reopen the IPR pathway for challenges to patents of long standing, a significant development for technology companies and other industries that face infringement assertions from non-practising entities holding older patent portfolios. Conversely, a ruling upholding the settled expectations doctrine would entrench the current policy and could encourage its broader application. The petition’s outcome will be watched closely by both patent holders and accused infringers across all technology sectors.