直 Japanese PDF Font
  • Our Professionals
  • Our Work
  • Our Insights
  • Offices
  • Firm
  • Careers
Finnegan
  • Articles & Books
    • Ad Law Buzz Blog
    • At the PTAB Blog
    • European IP Blog
    • Federal Circuit IP Blog
    • INCONTESTABLE® Blog
    • Prosecution First Blog
  • Events & Webinars
  • IP Updates
  • Podcasts
    • AI + Finnegan
    • AI + Copyright
    • AI + Patent
    • AI + Privacy
    • AI + Trade Secrets
    • AI + Trademark
  • Unified Patent Court (UPC) Hub

At the PTAB Blog

Not All Expirations [Re] Secured Settled Expectations for Petitioner

November 6, 2025

Authored and Edited by David L. Nielsen; Umber Aggarwal; Forrest A. Jones

Acting USPTO Director Coke Morgan Stewart’s decision in Omnivision Technologies, Inc. v. Re Secured Networks, LLC, IPR2025-01019, Paper 14 (PTAB Oct. 10, 2025) serves as an illustration of circumstances in which a patent owner retains settled expectations, even when the contested patent has expired. Specifically, the Acting Director denied institution of an IPR where the challenged patent had been in force for seventeen years and expired three years prior to the petition filing. The Director found that the twenty years that had passed since the patent issued created “strong settled expectations,” and dismissed two arguments made by Petitioner. First, the Director found that petitioner’s filing of an action for declaratory judgment of noninfringement three months earlier undermined its claim that it did not expect enforcement of the patent. Second, the Director found petitioner’s argument that it believed it was licensed “unsupported.” The petitioner argued that it “naturally assumed it had become licensed” but based this assumption on a settlement the patent owner made more than a decade earlier that did not involve the petitioner.

Omnivision stands in contrast to the Acting Director’s decision in Globus Medical, Inc. v. Spinelogik, Inc., IPR2025-00225, -00226, Paper 9 (PTAB June 12, 2025), where the contested patent had also expired several years earlier. In Globus Medical, Petitioner argued that a patent’s expiration due to non-payment of fees established an expectation of non-enforcement, which the Acting Director found “persuasive.” This abandonment, along with the relatively little investment in the ongoing district court proceedings, led to the Acting Director deciding not to invoke discretionary denial discretion.

Takeaway

While the challenged patent being expired opens up the possibility for a petitioner to argue settled expectations, both petitioners and patent owners are advised to take into account relevant circumstances when arguing settled expectations.

Tags

Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), discretionary denials, settled expectations

Related Practices

Patent Office Invalidation Proceedings

PTAB Invalidation Proceedings: IPR and PGR

Related Industries

AI, Electronics, and Information Technology

Electronic Devices and Components

Related Offices

Atlanta, GA

Reston, VA

Washington, DC

Contacts

David L. Nielsen
Associate
Atlanta, GA
+1 404 653 6443
Email
Umber Aggarwal
Associate
Reston, VA
+1 571 203 2423
Email
Forrest A. Jones
Partner
Washington, DC
+1 202 408 4019
Email

Copyright © 2025 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP. 

DISCLAIMER: Although we wish to hear from you, information exchanged in this blog cannot and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Please do not post any information that you consider to be personal or confidential. If you wish for Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP to consider representing you, in order to establish an attorney-client relationship you must first enter a written representation agreement with Finnegan. Contact us for additional information. One of our lawyers will be happy to discuss the possibility of representation with you. Additional disclaimer information.

Related Insights

Conference

4th Global Patent Litigation FORUM

October 29, 2026

Munich

Conference

31st Annual UMass Chan Research Retreat

October 14-15, 2026

Worcester

Lecture

Resolving Patent Suits Without Settlement Payments

September 3, 2026

Virtual

Webinar

U.S. Discovery for Foreign Proceedings—28 USC § 1782 Requirements and Practice Tips

September 2, 2026

Webinar

Webinar

A Year of Change for Post-Grant Patent Challenges: Key PTAB and CRU Developments, and Strategic Implications

August 19, 2026

Webinar

At the PTAB Blog

IPR and PGR Statistics for Final Written Decisions Issued in June and July 2026

August 19, 2026

At the PTAB Blog

Squires Issues Precedential Decision Clarifying Obviousness-Type Double Patenting Rejections

August 17, 2026

Articles

Privacy Law Mid-Year Update: Key EU and UK Data Protection Decisions

August 13, 2026

Conference

Finnegan IP Summit 2026: Celebrating an Inclusive Talent Pipeline

August 11-13, 2026

Washington, DC

Due to international data regulations, we’ve updated our privacy policy. Click here to read our privacy policy in full.

  • Privacy
  • Disclaimer
  • Legal Notices
  • Fraud Alert
  • EEO Statement
  • Cookies
  • Contact Us

© 2026 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP