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.
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.
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.
Webinar
U.S. Discovery for Foreign Proceedings—28 USC § 1782 Requirements and Practice Tips
September 2, 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
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.