1. “Did the USPTO violate due process by applying its ‘settled expectations’ rule post-hoc to pre-filed petitions?” 2. “Did the USPTO violate the APA by applying its ‘settled expectations’ rule post-hoc, without authority and without considering relevant concerns?” 3. “Did the USPTO violate the APA and AIA by skipping notice-andcomment procedures for its ‘settled expectations’ rule—a new IPR limit determining stakeholder rights?” 4. “Did the USPTO exceed its authority—violating the APA and the Constitution’s separation of powers—by inventing an extra-statutory ‘settled expectations’ rule for ‘old’ patents?”
“We arrive at the same conclusion we reached today in In re Cambridge Industries USA Inc., 2026-101 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 9, 2025). . . . Petitioners here have failed to identify the kind of property rights or retroactivity concerns that might give rise to a colorable constitutional claim. And, for the same reasons provided in Cambridge, Petitioners’ non-constitutional challenges to the PTO’s consideration of ‘settled expectations’ as a factor in declining to institute IPR do not establish a clear and indisputable right to relief.”
