Supreme Court Denies Google's Certiorari Petition on PTO "Settled Expectations" IPR Denials.

On its October 19, 2026 order list, the Supreme Court denied the petition for a writ of certiorari in Google LLC v. VirtaMove, Corp., No. 25-1230. The petition names as respondents VirtaMove, Corp. and John A. Squires, Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office. Google filed the petition on April 27, 2026, and it was docketed April 29. Seven amicus briefs were filed on May 29, 2026. After the petition was first distributed for conference, the Court requested a response on June 12, 2026. VirtaMove filed a brief in opposition on July 13, the federal respondent filed one on September 11, and Google replied on September 29. The petition was distributed for the conference of October 16, 2026 and denied on October 19.

Questions presented

Google's petition presented two questions: (1) whether the PTO lacks statutory authority to deny institution of inter partes review based on "settled expectations" where the patent statutes allow for administrative review at any time during the life of a patent; and (2) whether courts have power to review a PTO decision denying inter partes review on grounds that are contrary to statute.

Decision below

On July 11, 2025, the PTO denied institution of four Google petitions for inter partes review: IPR2025-00487 and IPR2025-00488 against VirtaMove's U.S. Patent 7,519,814, titled "System for Containerization of Application Sets," and IPR2025-00489 and IPR2025-00490 against U.S. Patent 7,784,058. The decision acknowledged that no trial date was set in the parallel district court case, but found that the challenged patents "have been in force for more than 14 years, creating strong settled expectations," and that Google had not provided persuasive reasoning why inter partes review would be an appropriate use of Board resources. On October 1, 2025, Director Squires denied Google's requests for Director Review.

Google then petitioned the Federal Circuit for a writ of mandamus as to IPR2025-00487 and IPR2025-00488. In In re Google LLC, No. 2026-111 (Jan. 27, 2026), a panel of Judges Lourie, Wallach, and Stoll, in an order by Judge Wallach, denied the petition. The court said it had recently rejected similar mandamus challenges to the PTO's use of settled expectations in In re Cambridge Industries USA Inc. and In re Sandisk Technologies, Inc., and that Google had not shown a right to a different conclusion based on Celgene Corp. v. Peter, which it said addressed whether final written decisions invalidating patent claims violated the Takings Clause rather than review of institution denials.

The parallel infringement cases

The '814 patent was also asserted against Google in VirtaMove, Corp. v. Google LLC, No. 5:25-cv-00860 (N.D. Cal.). After a joint claim construction order of October 13, 2026 held a term of claim 1 of the '814 patent indefinite, the court entered a stipulated final judgment on October 22, 2026, in Google's favor, of invalidity of claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 9, 10, 13, and 14 of the '814 patent and claims 17 to 20 of U.S. Patent 7,774,762. The judgment preserves each party's right to challenge the claim construction order on appeal.

What to watch next

Watch for any notice of appeal to the Federal Circuit from the October 22 district court judgment.