Tesla has taken the USPTO's IPR gatekeeping authority to the Supreme Court.
Tesla, Inc. v. Granite Vehicle Ventures LLC, No. 26-136, filed July 27, asks "[w]hether courts have power to review a PTO decision denying inter partes review on grounds that are contrary to statute, like an extra-statutory restriction based on time to trial in separate litigation."
For background, Granite Vehicle Ventures asserted self-driving patents against Tesla in E.D. Texas. Tesla filed four IPR petitions (IPR2025-00943, -00944, -01034, -01035) inside the Section 315(b) window plus a broadened Sotera-plus stipulation. The Office denied institution, with Deputy Director Coke Morgan Stewart reasoning that no final written decision would issue before trial. Tesla then won transfer to N.D. California, where trial is now set for June 2028, well over a year after an instituted IPR would have reached final decision. Tesla argues the premise of the denial has evaporated. Section 314(d) leaves it no forum to say so.
The Federal Circuit denied Tesla's request for mandamus (Taranto, Mayer, Stark, Feb. 27). The court never endorsed the timing rationale. Instead, the court held Tesla lacked a clear and indisputable right to relief, citing Apple v. Squires, the precedential decision issued two weeks earlier holding the Director's non-institution authority "statutorily insulated from judicial review" absent a constitutional claim.
Tesla seeks to overcome this precedent. Requesting reconsideration rather than institution, Tesla argues cases like SAS Institute and Cuozzo stand for the principle that Section 314(d) does not let the agency act outside its statutory limits.
At least four petitions now present the question. Google v. VirtaMove and Kahoot! v. Interstellar attack "settled expectations." Intel and Google v. Squires arrives from an APA suit in which no institution decision was challenged at all. The postures are not interchangeable, and the Court can resolve one without reaching the others.
Why This Matters
- The Court called for a response in Google, now due September 11 — the clearest signal yet of the Court's interest in this docket. Tesla's response is due August 28.
- A ruling for Tesla reopens Section 314(a) discretion to review. It would not automatically reach Tianma or the foreign-sovereign RPI rulings, which rest on who may petition rather than on discretion.
- A ruling against Tesla leaves the Office's pending rulemaking as the only realistic constraint and makes ex parte reexamination the practical fallback. Tesla has already filed one and moved to stay the case.
Deputy Director Stewart left the USPTO in late July. The framework outlasted its author. The Supreme Court is now the only institution positioned to test whether it outlasts the statute.
Sources
Tesla's certiorari petition, quoted above (No. 26-136, filed July 27, 2026): Tesla v. GVV Cert Petition
The mandamus denial below, In re Tesla, Inc., No. 2026-116 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 27, 2026) (nonprecedential): Federal Circuit Order
Apple Inc. v. Squires, No. 2024-1864 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 13, 2026) (precedential): Federal Circuit Opinion
SAS Institute Inc. v. Iancu, 584 U.S. 357 (2018); Cuozzo Speed Technologies, LLC v. Lee, 579 U.S. 261 (2016).
Sotera Wireless, Inc. v. Masimo Corp., IPR2020-01019, Paper 12 (PTAB Dec. 1, 2020) (precedential) — a stipulation forgoing in district court any ground raised, or reasonably raisable, in the IPR.
Tianma Microelectronics v. LG Display, IPR2025-01579 (Dir. Mar. 18, 2026) (precedential) — bars foreign governments, and entities they hold a stake in, from petitioning or serving as an RPI.
Read more from Thomas Long via #VitalLaw: Patent News: Tesla Asks Supreme Court for Directions to Detour Around USPTO Review Policies