The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit denied Google LLC's petition for a writ of mandamus in a nonprecedential order filed Jan. 27, 2026, rejecting the tech giant's attempt to force the Patent and Trademark Office to reconsider denied inter partes review petitions against VirtaMove Corp.'s patent.
Google had sought mandamus relief directing the USPTO to vacate its decision denying IPR petitions numbered IPR2025-00487 and IPR2025-00488, and to reconsider those petitions without considering what the agency termed 'settled expectations.' The three-judge panel, consisting of Circuit Judges Lourie, Wallach, and Stoll, with Judge Wallach writing the order, found Google had not demonstrated grounds for the extraordinary relief.
The USPTO had originally denied Google's petitions for inter partes review of VirtaMove's patent, reasoning that the patent had 'been in force for more than 14 years, creating strong settled expectations' and that Google had not shown the review would be an appropriate use of USPTO resources. This denial prompted Google to seek mandamus relief, arguing the agency should reconsider the petitions without factoring in those settled expectations.
Both the Director of the USPTO and VirtaMove Corp. opposed Google's petition, supporting the agency's original determination to deny the IPR proceedings based on the long-standing nature of the patent rights.
The Federal Circuit's denial comes amid a series of similar rulings where the court has consistently rejected challenges to the USPTO's use of 'settled expectations' as a factor in denying institution of inter partes review proceedings. The court specifically cited two recent decisions that addressed nearly identical arguments to those raised by Google.
In *In re Cambridge Industrial USA Inc.*, decided Dec. 9, 2025, the Federal Circuit denied mandamus relief based on arguments that the USPTO's use of 'settled expectations' violates separation of powers principles, exceeds the agency's statutory authority, and constitutes arbitrary and capricious decision-making. Similarly, in *In re Sandisk Technologies, Inc.*, also decided Dec. 9, 2025, the court rejected the same set of arguments in another mandamus petition.
The court noted that Google had not demonstrated a right to reach a different conclusion in its case, despite citing *Celgene Corp. v. Peter*, a Federal Circuit precedent that addresses USPTO discretionary denials of IPR petitions. The court's reference to *Celgene* suggests Google attempted to distinguish its case based on that decision's analysis of the agency's discretionary authority in patent review proceedings.
Inter partes review proceedings, established under the America Invents Act, allow parties to challenge the validity of issued patents before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. The USPTO has discretionary authority to institute or deny IPR proceedings, and the agency has increasingly considered factors beyond the statutory requirements when making these determinations.
The 'settled expectations' standard reflects the USPTO's position that long-established patents create reliance interests that weigh against instituting review proceedings years after issuance. Patent holders and their licensees may have made business decisions, entered licensing agreements, or pursued enforcement actions based on the assumption that patents surviving for many years without challenge possess a degree of stability.
Google's challenge represented part of ongoing tensions between technology companies seeking to invalidate patents they view as problematic and patent holders defending rights they have maintained for extended periods. The tech industry has frequently used IPR proceedings to challenge patents, particularly in cases involving allegations of infringement or licensing disputes.
The Federal Circuit's consistent rejection of mandamus petitions challenging the settled expectations standard suggests the court views the USPTO's discretionary authority in IPR institution decisions as largely unreviewable, at least through extraordinary writs. Mandamus relief is available only when petitioners can demonstrate a clear and indisputable right to the relief sought, with no other adequate means of obtaining relief.
VirtaMove Corp., the patent holder in this dispute, benefits from the Federal Circuit's deference to USPTO discretion in IPR institution decisions. The company's patent, having been in force for over 14 years, represents exactly the type of long-standing intellectual property right the settled expectations standard aims to protect from late-stage challenges.
The nonprecedential nature of the order means it cannot be cited as binding authority in future cases, though it adds to the body of Federal Circuit decisions supporting the USPTO's discretionary authority in IPR proceedings. The pattern of similar denials suggests the court has settled into a consistent approach of declining to second-guess agency decisions based on settled expectations reasoning.
For Google and other technology companies, the decision reinforces limitations on their ability to challenge long-standing patents through IPR proceedings. Companies seeking to invalidate older patents may need to pursue district court litigation or other avenues rather than relying on the USPTO's post-grant review procedures.