Federal Circuit disposition — 26-111

NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
In Re GOOGLE LLC,
Petitioner
______________________
2026-111
______________________
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States
Patent and Trademark Office in Nos. IPR2025-00487 and
IPR2025-00488.
______________________
ON PETITION AND MOTION
______________________
Before LOURIE, WALLACH, and STOLL, Circuit Judges.
WALLACH, Circuit Judge.
O R D E R
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (PTO)
denied Google LLC’s petitions for inter partes review of Vir-
taMove, Corp.’s patent, reasoning the “patent[] ha[s] been
in force for more than 14 years, creating strong settled ex-
pectations” and Google had not shown review would be an
appropriate use of PTO resources. Appx2. Google now
seeks a writ of mandamus directing the PTO to vacate that
decision and to reconsider its petitions for IPR without con-
sideration of those “settled expectations.” The Director of
the PTO and VirtaMove oppose the petition.
Case: 26-111 Document: 22 Page: 1 Filed: 01/27/2026

-- 1 of 2 --

IN RE GOOGLE LLC 2
In recent decisions, this court considered and rejected
similar challenges, by way of mandamus relief, to the
PTO’s use of “settled expectations” as a factor in denying
institution of inter partes review. See In re Cambridge In-
dus. USA Inc., No. 2026-101, 2025 WL 3526129 (Fed. Cir.
Dec. 9, 2025) (denying mandamus relief based on argu-
ments that use of “settled expectations” violates separation
of powers, exceeds statutory authority, and is arbitrary and
capricious); In re Sandisk Techs., Inc., No. 2025-152, 2025
WL 3526507 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 9, 2025) (same). Google has
not shown a right to a different conclusion here based on
Celgene Corp. v. Peter, 931 F.3d 1342, 1362 (Fed. Cir.
2019)—a case that did not involve or address the limits on
our review of a denial-of-institution determination but ra-
ther whether final written decisions invalidating the chal-
lenged patent claims violated the Takings Clause.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
(1) The petition is denied.
(2) The unopposed motion at ECF No. 7 for leave to file
a brief as amicus curiae is granted and the corresponding
brief is accepted for filing.
January 27, 2026
Date
FOR THE COURT
Case: 26-111 Document: 22 Page: 2 Filed: 01/27/2026

-- 2 of 2 --