The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday rejected Google’s bid to revive a challenge to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s refusal to review a VirtaMove patent, leaving the agency’s decision in place but its authority unresolved. The court’s order in Google LLC v. VirtaMove, Corp., No. 25-1230, gave no reason for the denial.
The case arose from a 2024 infringement lawsuit in which VirtaMove, Corp. accused Google of infringing Patent No. 7,519,814, issued in 2009, among other patents. Google asked the USPTO to examine the patent’s validity through an administrative review. On July 11, 2025, the agency rejected four Google petitions concerning two VirtaMove patents. The Supreme Court case involved two petitions directed at the ’814 patent. The USPTO said the challenged patents had been in force for more than 14 years and Google had not persuasively shown that review would be a suitable use of the board’s resources.
Google argued that Congress had not authorized the agency to impose a time limit on when a patent could be challenged. Its petition said, “The PTO has no authority to create a limitations period where Congress did not.” Google characterized the agency’s approach as effectively shielding patents after six years. The government disputed that description, citing a USPTO decision that said there was “no bright-line rule on when expectations become settled.”
A March 26, 2025, USPTO memorandum identifies the “settled expectations of the parties” as one factor in deciding whether to begin a review. The agency also says its process is intended to manage Patent Trial and Appeal Board workload and reduce delays in decisions on ex parte appeals from patent examiners. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit rejected Google’s request to compel reconsideration on Jan. 27, 2026.
The government told the justices that Google can still challenge the patent’s validity in the infringement lawsuit, while VirtaMove avoids review through this USPTO process. A separate pending petition from Google and Intel concerns judicial review of the Fintiv policy, which governs review requests when related litigation is pending. The Supreme Court docket records a government opposition filed Oct. 14 and lists no date for the court’s next action.
