About

Supreme Court declines Google's challenge to USPTO "settled expectations" patent review policy

Published
Score
15

Why it matters

The Supreme Court on October 19, 2026, declined to hear Google's challenge to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office's practice of refusing patent review requests when the patent is old. Google argued that the agency lacks statutory authority to impose what amounts to an artificial time limit, and asked the justices whether courts can review such denials at all, given the bar on appeals of institution decisions under 35 U.S.C. 314(d). By leaving in place a Federal Circuit ruling against Google over a VirtaMove patent, the Court let the USPTO's "settled expectations" rule stand for now. The rule is applied in inter partes review (IPR) at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). The Trump administration had urged the Court not to take the case. The dispute began in 2025, when the PTAB denied Google's petition on the ground that the patent had "been in force for more than 14 years, creating strong settled expectations." Google filed its certiorari petition on April 27, 2026.

Four alternative petitions remain pending, and the Court has not said whether it will take up any of them. Separately, Google, Apple and Intel challenged a related USPTO institution policy in a different case. The Federal Circuit ruled against them in February, and Google and Intel have since sought Supreme Court review. Whether that case moves forward is not yet clear.

For attorneys, the stakes are practical. The rule affects how often companies can use PTAB reviews to challenge older patents in infringement cases. According to an April agency report, the share of patent review requests the board took up fell to 37% in 2026 under Director John Squires, down from 65% under his predecessor Kathi Vidal. Patexia data show Samsung, Apple and Alphabet were the three most active board petitioners from 2020 to 2025, so these firms are the most exposed. Clients with older patents in litigation should plan for denials under the settled expectations rule, and should watch the four pending petitions and the Google and Intel case for any change in the Court's position.

Sources

mail Subscribe to Intellectual Property email updates

Primary sources. No fluff. Straight to your inbox.

Also on LawSnap