The USPTO has a new trick up its sleeve. If you own older patents, you may actually like it. It’s called the “settled expectations” doctrine. Acting Director Coke Morgan Stewart introduced it earlier this year. The doctrine helps decide whether the USPTO will even start an inter partes review (IPR).
Here’s the short version. The older your patent, the better your odds. Late-stage IPR challenges are now easier to shut down.
What Is the “Settled Expectations” Doctrine?
The doctrine is based on time. After enough years pass (usually seven or more), both patent owners and the public act as if the patent is valid. They plan around it, invest around it, and license it.
Because of that, disrupting those expectations is seen as unfair. It also risks destabilizing settled business decisions. As a result, the USPTO may deny an IPR. That can happen even when the challenger has decent prior art.
Why Patent Age Now Works as a Shield
Think of this as a temporal shield. If a petitioner waits too long, timing alone can sink the challenge.
This rule is discretionary. It is not a hard cutoff. It also differs from the one-year IPR deadline after a lawsuit is filed. Still, it is powerful. In practice, age now matters.
Recent USPTO Decisions Show the Pattern
In June 2025, the USPTO applied the doctrine in several cases. The message was consistent.
- iRhythm v. Welch Allyn – The petitioner knew about the patent for years and waited. The Director said, “Too late.”
- Dabico v. AXA Power – No proof of prior knowledge. The patent’s age alone created settled expectations.
- Intel v. Proxense – No litigation pressure. No imminent trial. Still denied due to a nine-year-old patent.
- Cambridge v. Applied Optoelectronics – Seven- and nine-year-old patents survived. Newer ones did not.
Across the board, age tipped the scale.
How This Changes the IPR Playbook
Until now, IPR timing followed two hard rules.
- The first nine months after grant were reserved for post-grant review.
- IPR had to be filed within one year of being sued.
Now there is a third filter. It is softer, but real. If your patent has been around long enough, the USPTO may decline review entirely.
Laches, But Turned on Its Head
Laches is an equitable doctrine. It applies when someone waits too long to assert a legal right. That delay must also prejudice the other side.
In patent law, laches traditionally worked against patent owners. If an owner knew about infringement but delayed suit, courts could step in. The concern was fairness. Defendants often invested heavily during the period of silence.
They might build factories, or launch products. They might expand operations. Late enforcement, after all that reliance, was seen as inequitable.
Although the Supreme Court limited laches as a damages defense in SCA Hygiene, the concept never vanished. Delay and reliance still matter. They continue to shape how courts think about equity.
Now the USPTO has flipped the script. Instead of punishing owners for waiting to sue, the agency penalizes petitioners for waiting to challenge. If a challenger sits on its hands too long, the IPR may never start.
Does the Public Really Rely on Old Patents?
Do I fully buy the “public reliance” argument? Not really.
The public does not celebrate bad patents staying alive. They celebrate avoiding license fees. Still, from a portfolio strategy standpoint, this doctrine is a gift.
If you own patents in the seven-to-ten-year range, you now have another shield. If you are a challenger, speed matters more than ever. Waiting for litigation to heat up could mean the IPR door never opens.
Bottom Line: Timing Is Now a Weapon
The settled expectations doctrine changes the game. Patent owners gain staying power. Challengers lose the luxury of delay. Act early, or don’t act at all.