The US Supreme Court has chosen not to hear Google’s appeal regarding a policy that makes reviewing the validity of older patents more difficult. This outcome preserves a US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) guideline that restricts Google’s capacity to contest patents at the center of infringement lawsuits.
This legal matter focuses on the “settled expectations” policy, which places greater emphasis on a patent’s age when evaluating review requests. Google contended that this policy exceeds the legal authority granted to the patent office and potentially strengthens the position of patent holders defending aging patents from challenges.
Google Disputed the Patent Office’s Authority
The conflict arose when software firm VirtaMove alleged that Google infringed on one of its server-software patents. In response, Google petitioned the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) to assess whether the existing patent should remain valid.
In 2025, the patent office turned down Google’s request by enforcing the settled expectations policy, citing that the patent had been active for over six years. Although Google contested the ruling, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit upheld it prior to the Supreme Court appeal.
Google maintained that Congress never set a time constraint for these challenges, meaning the patent office lacked the power to institute one via internal policy. Meanwhile, the Trump administration advised the Supreme Court against hearing the case.
Also Read: Lawyer Uses AI to Prepare Lawsuit Against Meta and Google, Helps Secure Rs. 50-Crore Jury Verdict
Patent Reviews Become Harder to Secure
This development arrives as the USPTO adopts stricter criteria for selecting which patent disputes to examine. Reuters reports that the board approved merely 37% of petitions in 2026, marking a significant drop from the 65% approval rate under past leadership.
Technology companies frequently rely on inter partes review (IPR) to contest patents they are accused of infringing. This mechanism provides an alternative pathway to traditional court litigation for resolving patent conflicts.
Additionally, Google, along with Apple and Intel, has contested a distinct yet connected USPTO policy. Following a February defeat in that case at the Federal Circuit, Google and Intel petitioned the Supreme Court for review as well.
The Supreme Court’s action does not resolve whether VirtaMove’s patent is valid or was infringed. Rather, it maintains the current administrative review policy, which could complicate efforts by companies seeking to challenge older patents through the patent office.
