In Re GOOGLE LLC

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
• Decided: January 27, 2026
• Docket: 26-111
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Case: 26-111 Document: 22 Page: 1 Filed: 01/27/2026

NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.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. ORDER 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: 2 Filed: 01/27/2026

2 IN RE GOOGLE LLC

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. FOR THE COURT

January 27, 2026 Date