The United States Supreme Court has declined to hear a high-stakes challenge brought by Alphabet Inc.’s Google regarding a controversial US Patent and Trademark Office rule. The policy in question has effectively insulated older patents from validity reviews, a regulatory framework that tech companies argue has artificially limited administrative challenges and fueled a widespread surge in patent litigation across American courts.

The justices turned away Google’s appeal of a lower court decision that refused to force the agency to reconsider the company’s challenge to the validity of a patent held by software company VirtaMove. VirtaMove had previously accused Google of infringing upon the intellectual property in question.

The core of Google’s legal battle centered on the patent office’s "settled expectations" policy. Under this administrative framework, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB)—an administrative tribunal within the patent office—becomes significantly more likely to reject petitions seeking to review patents that have been in force for more than six years. Google and other major technology firms frequently rely on the board’s "inter partes review" (IPR) process as a vital mechanism to challenge and attempt to cancel patents that they are accused of infringing in broader commercial litigation.

The widespread utilization of this review process underscores its importance to the technology sector. According to a comprehensive report from intellectual property company Patexia, the three most active board petitioners between 2020 and 2025 were Samsung, Apple, and Alphabet.

Administrative policies governing the PTAB have undergone noticeable shifts across different presidential administrations. During recent years, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office introduced various internal administrative measures that successfully decreased the overall percentage of validity reviews that the board agrees to take up.

That acceptance figure fell to 37% in 2026 under John Squires, the Trump appointee who heads the patent office, compared to 65% under his predecessor Kathi Vidal, who was appointed by former President Joe Biden, according to an April report released by the agency itself.

The patent office formally outlined these considerations in a policy memo issued last year, detailing several specific factors that heavily favor rejecting an inter partes review petition. The agency has utilized these guidelines to routinely deny review requests for patents that are more than six years old, relying heavily on the legal doctrine of the "settled expectations" of the involved parties.

This exact rule was cited by the patent office when it rejected Google’s review petition in 2025 concerning the disputed VirtaMove patent, which involves specialized server software. Following the administrative rejection, Google pursued legal recourse, but the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ultimately ruled against the company’s appeal, upholding the patent office’s discretion.

Seeking a final resolution, Google elevated the dispute to the nation’s highest court. In its filings to the justices, Google argued that the "settled expectations" rule blatantly exceeds the statutory authority granted to the patent office by creating an artificial time limit for board petitions that Congress never authorized.

"The PTO has no authority to create a limitations period where Congress did not, and it has no authority to expand patent rights beyond what Congress provided," Google forcefully asserted in its Supreme Court filing.

Despite the profound implications for corporate patent strategy, the federal government maintained its defense of the administrative rule. The Trump administration formally urged the Supreme Court to reject Google’s appeal and leave the lower court’s ruling undisturbed.

The refusal to hear Google’s case marks a significant moment in an ongoing, broader campaign by Silicon Valley giants against tightening restrictions at the patent office. A coalition of major technology companies, including Google, Apple, and Intel, has filed a separate lawsuit challenging a related patent office policy. That legal challenge also ran into hurdles when the Federal Circuit ruled against the companies in February. Following that adverse decision, both Intel and Google have likewise asked the Supreme Court to grant certiorari and hear that separate case as well, keeping the door open for future judicial scrutiny over the boundaries of administrative patent authority.