The US Supreme Court on Monday declined to consider a challenge brought by Alphabet Inc.’s Google against a federal patent review policy, leaving in place restrictions that the technology giant argues make it more difficult for companies to contest questionable patents.
The decision preserves the US Patent and Trademark Office’s authority to consider how long a patent has been in effect when deciding whether to initiate an administrative review of its validity, according to Reuters reporting published Monday.
At the center of the dispute is the agency’s policy concerning “settled expectations,” which increases the likelihood that patent challenges will be rejected when the patents involved have been in force for more than six years.
Google argued that the policy improperly limits a process established by Congress to allow businesses to challenge patents without pursuing potentially expensive federal court litigation.
The Supreme Court’s refusal to hear the case leaves an earlier appellate decision undisturbed, although it does not constitute a ruling on the underlying legality of the agency’s policy.
Dispute Stems From Software Patent Challenge
The legal confrontation arose after software company VirtaMove accused Google of infringing a patent related to server technology.
Google sought to challenge the patent through the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, an administrative tribunal within the Patent and Trademark Office that evaluates disputes over patent validity.
The board declined to initiate the requested review in 2025, citing its policy concerning longstanding patent rights, Reuters reported.
Google subsequently pursued relief through the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which rejected its challenge. The company then asked the Supreme Court to intervene.
In its filing, Google maintained that the patent agency had exceeded its statutory powers by effectively introducing a time-based restriction that Congress had not authorized.
The company argued that the policy could protect older patents from administrative scrutiny even when substantial questions existed about their validity.
The Trump administration opposed Supreme Court consideration of the dispute, according to Reuters.
Technology Industry Faces Narrower Review Options
The outcome comes as major technology companies confront a more restrictive environment for challenging patents through administrative proceedings.
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s inter partes review system provides an alternative to federal court litigation by allowing parties to seek cancellation of patent claims they contend should never have been granted.
The mechanism has become particularly important to companies facing frequent intellectual property lawsuits.
Related: US Judge Dismisses Publisher Antitrust Cases Against Google Over AI Search
Samsung Electronics, Apple Inc. and Alphabet were the three most active petitioners before the board between 2020 and 2025, according to research by intellectual property analytics company Patexia cited by Reuters.
We’d love to be your preferred source for news.
Please add us to your preferred sources list so our news, data and interviews show up in your feed. Thanks!
Under the Trump administration, the patent office has implemented changes that have reduced the proportion of petitions accepted for review.
Those restrictions have intensified disagreements over the appropriate balance between protecting established patent rights and allowing companies to challenge potentially invalid claims.
Patent owners can benefit from greater certainty about the durability of their intellectual property, while companies accused of infringement may face additional obstacles when attempting to invalidate patents through administrative proceedings.
Google has argued that the agency’s approach contributes to increased patent litigation by making it more difficult to contest older patents.
That position remains a contention advanced by the company rather than a conclusion established by Monday’s Supreme Court action.
Broader Implications for Patent Litigation
The court’s decision represents another setback for technology companies seeking judicial intervention in the patent office’s review practices.
In a separate case earlier this year, the Federal Circuit rejected a challenge brought by Apple, Google, Intel Corp., Cisco Systems Inc. and Edwards Lifesciences Corp. against another patent office policy that expanded discretion to deny administrative reviews, according to Reuters reporting from February 2026.
The disputes reflect a broader struggle over how much discretion federal patent officials should possess when deciding which challenges deserve examination.
For businesses, the availability of administrative review can influence litigation costs, settlement negotiations and strategies for defending against infringement allegations.
For patent holders, restrictions on repeated or delayed challenges can offer greater confidence that established intellectual property rights will remain enforceable.
Monday’s decision does not resolve those competing interests. Instead, it leaves the existing administrative framework in place and allows the patent office to continue applying its current approach.
Source: Reuters
Add as Preferred Source