Context: United States Patent & Trademark Office (USPTO) policies concerning the denial or termination of inter partes reviews (IPRs) under both Trump Administrations have frustrated petitioners. Some of them have brought challenges to such decisions, or the underlying policies, in court. In most such cases, 35 U.S.C. § 314(d) presents an insurmountable hurdle:

(d)No Appeal.—

The determination by the Director whether to institute an inter partes review under this section shall be final and nonappealable.

What’s new: On Thursday (November 6, 2025), the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit threw out three parallel mandamus petitions challenging the non-institution of IPRs or vacatur of decisions to institute IPRs. One of the decisions, In re Motorola Solutions (PDF), was declared precedential; the others reference it. The common element of all three was a constitutional claim centered around their reliance on USPTO policy under the previous Director (Kathi Vidal) that had meanwhile (in February 2025) been rescinded by then-Acting Director Coke Morgan Stewart. The Federal Circuit determined that this fell far short of what would entitle any of the petitioners to the institution of an IPR (even if already granted). There was no property right because the Vidal Memorandum did not guarantee any particular outcome, much less when considering that it constituted only interim guidance.

Direct impact: Mandamus is an extraordinary relief, so Motorola Solutions (not to be confused for Motorola Mobility, a Lenovo subsidiary) and the appellants in the two parallel cases (Google, Samsung and SAP) may have to live with this outcome.

Wider ramifications:

• This set of decisions relates to §314(d) unreviewability of patent-specific institution decisions and rejects the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) as a means for an end-run around §314(d), but explicitly notes that if Motorola (or another party with standing) wanted, an APA case could be brought in district court against then-Acting Director Stewart’s rescission of the June 2022 memorandum by then-Director Vidal (as discussed further below).

• The decision is consistent with Apple v. Vidal (a case that would be more accurately captioned as Apple v. Iancu, as it targets the latter’s policies) in the sense that individual denial-of-institution decisions are unreviewable. Apple v. Vidal has given rise to a second Federal Circuit appeal after the sole theory that remained after the first appeal was rejected by the district court on remand. Apple is now challenging the district judge’s holding that notice-and-comment rulemaking was not required for then-Director Iancu’s NHK-Fintiv policy because it was just some general guidance as opposed to hard and fast rules. As discussed further below, the decision does not have the scope or authority to doom Apple’s second appeal, but it doesn’t bode well for it.

• While the present policies of the USPTO favor patentees, it is not in anyone’s long-term interest if USPTO policies go from one extreme to another after every transition of power.