Supreme Court of the United States · Official docket →
Google LLC v. VirtaMove, Corp., et al.
Paid petition · United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, No. 2026-111 · judgment January 27, 2026
(petition-stage, structural)
Well below the 4.1% base rate, with no standout signals pointing toward a grant.
Questions presented
Congress has long provided that a patent may be held invalid at any point during its term, including when the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) determines that the patent should not have been issued in the first place—that is, that it never met the requirements for patentability. In the America Invents Act, Congress created inter partes review to enable third parties to petition the PTO to adjudicate the validity of, and potentially cancel, a patent. The PTO recently announced that a patent owner acquires “settled expectations” in a patent when that patent has been in force for six years—regardless of whether it is invalid—and, further, that such “settled expectations” provide a justification for refusing to institute inter partes review and therefore refusing to adjudicate whether the patent is invalid. The questions presented are:
-
Whether the PTO lacks statutory authority to deny institution based on “settled expectations” where the patent statutes allow for administrative review at any time during the life of a patent.
-
Whether courts have power to review a PTO decision denying inter partes review on grounds that are contrary to statute.
Counsel of record
For petitioner
Ginger D. Anders
Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP
For respondent
Brian David Ledahl
Russ, August & Kabat
Case
Conference history
Distributed for 1 conference
Amicus briefs
7 cert-stage
Proceedings
- Jul 30 2026Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is further extended to and including September 11, 2026.
- Jul 29 2026Motion of the Solicitor General to extend the time to file a response from August 12, 2026 to September 11, 2026, submitted to The Clerk.
- Jul 13 2026Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including August 12, 2026, for all respondents.
- Jul 13 2026Brief of respondent VirtaMove, Corp., in opposition filed.
- Jul 10 2026Motion of the Solicitor General to extend the time to file a response from July 13, 2026 to August 12, 2026, submitted to The Clerk.
- Jun 12 2026Response Requested. (Due July 13, 2026)
- Jun 09 2026DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 6/25/2026.
- May 29 2026Brief amicus curiae of Unified Patents, LLC filed.
- May 29 2026Brief amici curiae of 35 Intellectual Property Law Professors filed.
- May 29 2026Brief amicus curiae of Association for Accessible Medicines filed.
- May 29 2026Brief amicus curiae of The PTAB Bar Association filed.
- May 29 2026Brief amicus curiae of Askeladden L.L.C. filed.
- May 29 2026Brief amici curiae of US*Made, et al. filed.
- May 29 2026Brief amicus curiae of Association for Competitive Technology filed.
- May 22 2026Waiver of right of respondent US Patent and Trademark Office to respond filed.
- Apr 27 2026Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due May 29, 2026)