1Home Depot v. H2 Intellect
The rulingReferred.
Since thenThe Board denied institution October 20, 2025.
In five designated rulings on settled expectations, the two oldest patents, at 12 and 13 years, were referred for review, while a patent issued in 2021 was protected. What decided them was what happened after issuance: a letter, a long silence, a license, a market.
Before you read
Five designated rulings weighed how long a patent had been in force. Were the oldest patents the ones protected from review?
No. The 12- and 13-year-old patents were referred. A patent issued in 2021 was protected, with licensing and two earlier merits denials behind it.
Part 1 of 6
Ferid Allani contacted Apple about his patent rights in 2012. Apple concluded it didn’t need a license and said so. Allani didn’t assert the patents against Apple for another eleven years, and by then they had expired.
The Director recognized strong owner expectations in a thirteen-year patent history. Apple’s account of its own expectations helped outweigh them, and on September 5, 2025, the petitions were referred to the Board.
Part 2 of 6
Since 2025 the Director has weighed settled expectations in deciding whether to deny review on discretionary grounds. The idea is simple: the longer a patent has been in force, the more its owner and the market have built around it, and the stronger the case against reopening it at the PTAB.
The tempting reading
The older the patent, the safer it is from review.
What five designated rulings show
Age is the starting point, not the answer. The 12- and 13-year-old patents in this set were referred for review. The patent that was protected had issued in 2021.
Five informative decisions, all designated on January 9, 2026, show how the facts around age decided each result.
Part 3 of 6
Each ruling says it rests on the totality of the circumstances. Line them up by age and the pattern is plain: age points both ways.
Ages as each decision states them. Alliance’s decision says only that the patent issued in 2021; about four years is an estimate. Dark bars were denied; light bars were referred.
Guess first. Each card gives the facts the Director highlighted. Tap to see how it came out.
Part 4 of 6
A sixth informative decision adds another route. In Top Glory v. Cole Haan, decided and designated January 12, 2026, the petitioner argued that the Federal Circuit’s en banc LKQ decision “fundamentally changed the obviousness standard for design patents.” The Director agreed that settled expectations should give way.
A letter and a long silence (Allani). A market the owner never touched (Home Depot). A change in the governing law (Top Glory).
Years in force with no reason to disturb them (Dabico). Licensing, plus earlier failed petitions (Alliance Laundry).
Part 5 of 6
Choose your side.
Part 6 of 6
These decisions are informative, so they guide the Board but don’t bind it. Each turns on the totality, so no single fact works as a rule. And a referral didn’t settle anything.
The rulingReferred.
Since thenThe Board denied institution October 20, 2025.
The rulingReferred.
Since thenThe Board denied institution November 4, 2025.
The rulingReferred.
Since thenTerminated October 1, 2025, before institution.
The rulingDenied.
Since thenODP lists the case as “Pending Director Review.” What is pending has not been read.
The rulingDenied.
Since thenODP lists a discretionary denial.
Two of the three referred petitions were later denied by the Board, and the third ended before institution. A referral on settled expectations opened the door to the merits. It didn’t predict them.
The takeaway
The strongest expectations argument may be in the correspondence file, not on the patent’s front page.
Each item is marked in the story with a dashed outline. We update the story when the official record confirms or corrects it.
Precedential decisions bind the Board within their designated scope. Informative decisions show the Office’s reasoning but do not bind the Board. Court opinions are cited for what they decided; later history was checked on the date shown above.