"The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) has denied another petition for writ of mandamus seeking to challenge the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office's (USPTO's) so-called settled expectations doctrine, which was introduced by then-Acting Director Coke Morgan Stewart. In the present case, Google sought mandamus relief after the USPTO denied its petitions for inter partes review (IPR) of VirtaMove Corp.'s U.S. Patent No. 7,519,814 patent because "the patent[] ha[s] been in force for more than 14 years, creating strong settled expectations.""
"On June 9, 2025, Stewart first issued a decision in which she granted discretionary denial based on the patent owner's argument that "because one of the patents has been in force since as early as 2012 and Petitioner was aware of it as early as 2013...settled expectations favor denial of institution." Stewart found this argument persuasive despite several other factors that weighed against granting discretionary denial. That decision was seen as creating a new basis for discretionary denial."
The CAFC denied another mandamus petition challenging the USPTO's settled expectations doctrine introduced by then-Acting Director Coke Morgan Stewart. Google sought mandamus after the USPTO denied its IPR petitions for VirtaMove Corp.'s U.S. Patent No. 7,519,814 because the patent had been in force for more than 14 years, creating strong settled expectations. On June 9, 2025, Stewart granted discretionary denial citing that one patent had been in force since as early as 2012 and petitioner was aware by 2013, and she found settled expectations persuasive despite countervailing factors. Subsequent Director decisions found patents as young as six years can qualify, and in November 2025 the CAFC issued precedential rulings denying mandamus petitions including In Re Motorola, In Re Google, and In Re SAP America, with additional denials in December 2025.
Read at IPWatchdog.com | Patents & Intellectual Property Law
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]