# Age starts the argument. It doesn’t end it. 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. Sources checked October 16, 2026 **13 years** of patent history behind Apple v. Allani, and the Director still referred the petitions. A 2021 patent was protected. ## Before you read Five designated rulings weighed how long a patent had been in force. Were the oldest patents the ones protected from review? - Yes, every time - No: the two oldest were referred for review - Age wasn’t discussed 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. ## Thirteen years 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. Allani, pp. 2–4 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. Allani, pp. 2–4 ## What settled expectations means 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. Five informative decisions, all designated on January 9, 2026, show how the facts around age decided each result. Dabico Alliance Laundry ## Five patents, by age 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. Guess first. Each card gives the facts the Director highlighted. Tap to see how it came out. ## The change in law 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. Top Glory LKQ ## What to do Choose your side. ## Cuts the other way 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. 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. ## Related stories - [Thirteen rulings, thirteen deciding facts.](https://postgrantproceeding.com/insights/d18-thirteen-rulings-thirteen-deciding-facts) - [Past the Director is not past the Board.](https://postgrantproceeding.com/insights/d02-past-the-director-is-not-past-the-board) - [A PGR gets a head start, not a finish line.](https://postgrantproceeding.com/insights/d05-a-pgr-gets-a-head-start) ## Sources - S07. Apple Inc. v. Ferid Allani, No. IPR2025-00856, Paper 11 (USPTO Director September 5, 2025) (informative, designated Jan. 9, 2026). https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/IPR2025_00856_paper_11.pdf - S05. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. v. H2 Intellect LLC, No. IPR2025-00480, Paper 11 (USPTO Director September 4, 2025) (informative, designated Jan. 9, 2026). https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/IPR2025_00480_paper_11.pdf - S08. Dabico Airport Sols. Inc. v. AXA Power ApS, No. IPR2025-00408, Paper 21 (USPTO Director June 18, 2025) (informative, designated Jan. 9, 2026). https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/IPR2025_00408_paper_21.pdf - S09. Alliance Laundry Sys., LLC v. PayRange LLC, No. IPR2025-00950, Paper 11 (USPTO Director September 19, 2025) (informative, designated Jan. 9, 2026). https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/IPR2025_00950_paper_11.pdf - S55. Amgen Inc. v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., No. IPR2025-00601, Paper 9 (USPTO Director July 24, 2025), also covering IPR2025-00602 and -00603 (informative, designated Jan. 9, 2026). https://www.uspto.gov/patents/ptab/precedential-informative-decisions - S59. Top Glory Trading Group Inc. v. Cole Haan LLC, No. IPR2025-01395, Paper 18 (USPTO Director Jan. 12, 2026) (informative, designated Jan. 12, 2026). https://www.uspto.gov/patents/ptab/precedential-informative-decisions - S60. LKQ Corp. v. GM Global Technology Operations LLC, 102 F.4th 1280 (Fed. Cir. 2024) (en banc). https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/home/case-information/opinions-orders/ - S53. USPTO Open Data Portal: patent file-wrapper records for ex parte reexamination (90/ control numbers) and PTAB trial status, as pulled by PostGrantProceeding on Oct. 14 and 15, 2026. https://data.uspto.gov ## Not yet confirmed - What is pending has not been read. 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. General information about published decisions, not legal advice. Reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship.