For years, the “death squad” reputation of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) has cast a long shadow over the value of U.S. patents. For early-stage startups and independent inventors, the fear that a foundational patent could be invalidated a decade later—just as the company achieves commercial success—has been a major dampener on valuation and investment.
However, a critical order issued today by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) in In re Cambridge Industries USA Inc. (Case 26-101) signals a massive shift in favor of patent owners.
At SCHELLIP, we view this as a landmark moment that reinforces the concept of “Quiet Title” for intellectual property. Here is our breakdown of the ruling and why it is excellent news for the inventor community.
The Ruling: In re Cambridge Industries
On December 9, 2025, the Federal Circuit denied a petition for a writ of mandamus filed by Cambridge Industries. Cambridge had sought to force the USPTO to institute an Inter Partes Review (IPR) against a set of patents that the PTO Director had previously protected under the “Settled Expectations” doctrine.
The Challenger (Cambridge) argued that the PTO Director lacked the authority to deny IPRs based on this doctrine and raised constitutional Separation of Powers arguments. The Federal Circuit rejected these claims, effectively affirming the PTO Director’s broad discretion to deny challenges to mature patents.
What is the “Settled Expectations” Doctrine?
The “Settled Expectations” doctrine is a discretionary policy used by the USPTO Director to deny IPR institution when the patent in question has been in force for a significant period (typically nearly a decade or more) without prior challenge.
The logic is rooted in fairness and economic stability: If a patent owner has maintained their patent, paid fees, and built a business in reliance on that property right for 10+ years, it creates a “settled expectation” of validity. The PTO has decided that disrupting these mature rights via the administrative IPR process—rather than in a district court—is not the best use of agency resources.
Why This Matters for Startups and Inventors
From a pro-inventor perspective, this ruling is a game-changer for three specific reasons:
1. The “Asset Hardening” Timeline
Investors love certainty. Historically, patents were viewed as “probabilistic” rights that remained fragile throughout their lifespan. This ruling effectively creates a maturation timeline. As your patent portfolio ages, it “hardens.” If you survive the early years without a challenge, your IP becomes significantly more resistant to administrative cancellation later in its life. This increasing stability adds tangible value to the balance sheet of mature startups.
2. Defense Against “Efficient Infringement”
A common tactic by large incumbents (often called “efficient infringers”) is to ignore a startup’s patents until the startup becomes a threat or demands a license years later. Under the old regime, the incumbent could then file an IPR to kill the patent cheaply at the PTAB.
With “Settled Expectations” now firmly backed by the CAFC, incumbents can no longer sit on their hands. If they wait 10 years to attack your patent, the PTO may simply slam the door on them, forcing them into federal court where the presumption of validity is stronger and the cost of defense is higher for the infringer.
3. Restoration of “Quiet Title”
Real estate law has long held the concept of “Quiet Title”—at some point, you own the land, and people can’t keep suing you for it. Intellectual Property has sorely lacked this finality. Today’s ruling suggests that the U.S. patent system is moving back toward treating patents as true property rights rather than temporary government franchises that can be revoked at any whim.
Strategic Takeaway
For our clients at SCHELLIP, the message is clear: Persistence pays.
• Maintain Your Portfolio: Do not let older patents lapse just to save on maintenance fees. Those older assets are now your “ironclad” layer of protection.
• Commercialize with Confidence: The longer you operate and the longer your patents survive, the higher the hurdle becomes for competitors to invalidate them at the PTO.
Conclusion
The Cambridge ruling is a victory for the little guy. It tells the market that reliance matters—that if you play by the rules and build a business on your invention, the government will not easily pull the rug out from under you a decade later.
At SCHELLIP, we help inventors and startups craft strategies that maximize this kind of long-term asset value.
Are you maximizing the value of your IP portfolio in light of recent Federal Circuit shifts?
Book a Consultation at SCHELLIP.com today to discuss your strategy.
