The U.S. Supreme Court on October 19, 2026, declined to hear a challenge by Alphabet's Google to a U.S. Patent and Trademark Office policy that Google argued has insulated older patents from validity reviews and helped fuel a surge in patent litigation, Reuters reported, in reporting carried by Insurance Journal and multiple U.S. outlets. The court's official docket records the denial of Google's petition for a writ of certiorari in Google LLC v. VirtaMove Corporation, No. 25-1230, on October 19, with no accompanying merits opinion, and IPWatchdog reported the same denial on October 20.

The justices turned away Google's appeal of a lower court's decision not to force the agency to reconsider, without using its 'settled expectations' rule, Google's challenge to the validity of a patent held by software company VirtaMove. VirtaMove accused Google of infringing the patent, which covers server software and is U.S. Patent No. 7,519,814 B2. The patent office cited the 'settled expectations' rule in rejecting Google's review petition in 2025, after the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) found the challenged claims had been in force for more than 14 years, creating strong settled expectations, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled against Google's appeal.

Under the policy Google asked the Supreme Court to review, the PTAB became more likely to reject requests to review patents that have been in force for more than six years. Technology companies often use the board's inter partes review process to try to cancel patents they are accused of infringing; Samsung, Apple and Alphabet were the three most active board petitioners between 2020 and 2025, according to a Patexia report cited by Reuters. The USPTO under President Donald Trump's administration has introduced measures that decreased the share of reviews the board takes up, to 37% in 2026 under Director John Squires, compared with 65% under his predecessor Kathi Vidal, according to an April agency report.

Google told the justices in a filing that the rule exceeds the patent office's authority by creating an artificial time limit for board petitions. '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 said. The Trump administration urged the court not to hear the appeal, and the Solicitor General argued Google's approach would transform the regime governing the director's discretionary institution decisions, IPWatchdog reported. The denial leaves the settled-expectations policy in place while broader litigation continues: Google, Apple and Intel are involved in a separate challenge to a related USPTO policy, the Federal Circuit rejected that challenge in February, and Google and Intel have also asked the Supreme Court to review that dispute. Sources: Reuters, October 19, 2026, via Insurance Journal; IPWatchdog, October 20, 2026; U.S. Supreme Court docket, Google LLC v. VirtaMove Corporation, No. 25-1230.