The Unreviewable Director: How § 314(d) Shields the USPTO’s IPR Denial Regime from Judicial Oversight

by Dennis Crouch

The Federal Circuit has closed the courthouse doors on the second wave of challenges to the USPTO's restrictive new IPR institution policies. In four orders issued December 8-9, 2025, the same three-judge panel (Judges Prost, Chen, and Hughes) denied mandamus petitions from Cambridge Industries, SanDisk, Western Digital, HighLevel, and Inari Agriculture, each seeking to challenge discretionary denials of inter partes review institution. The decisions follow the court's November ruling in In re Motorola Solutions, Inc., No. 2025-134, 159 F.4th 30 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 6, 2025), and collectively establish that the "final and nonappealable" language of 35 U.S.C. § 314(d) bars virtually all judicial oversight of institution decisions, whether framed as constitutional due process claims, statutory ultra vires arguments, or Administrative Procedure Act challenges. The practical effect is stark: accused infringers now have no meaningful avenue to contest the USPTO's decision to deny IPR, even when those denials rest on criteria found nowhere in the America Invents Act.

The lead case, In re Cambridge Industries USA Inc., No. 2026-101 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 9, 2025), squarely addressed the "settled expectations" doctrine that has become the USPTO's primary tool for denying institution. The agency denied institution on two patents that had been in force for seven and nine years, finding the patent owner had "settled expectations" in those rights. The Federal Circuit refused to disturb that decision, rejecting Cambridge's arguments that the settled expectations factor exceeds statutory authority, was imposed without notice-and-comment rulemaking, and violates due process. The court emphasized that it was not deciding whether the USPTO's actions were correct or permitted by statute, but only that Cambridge had not shown a "clear and indisputable right" to mandamus relief given the limits on judicial review.