The “Settled Expectations” Doctrine in PTAB Practice: A Case Study of iRhythm and Dabico

I. Introduction

In the practice of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), the “Settled Expectations” doctrine has increasingly emerged as an independent ground for discretionary denial of Inter Partes Review (IPR) petitions. In June 2025, PTAB explicitly invoked this doctrine to deny institution in two representative cases: iRhythm Technologies Inc. v. Welch Allyn and Dabico Airport Solutions Inc. v. AXA Power ApS. These decisions laid the foundation for the institutionalization of the doctrine. This report analyzes the reasoning and institutional significance of these rulings, while also exploring their impact on future invalidation strategies and patent defense.

II. Case Analysis

(1) iRhythm Technologies Inc. v. Welch Allyn

Case Numbers: IPR2025-00363, 00374, 00376–00378

Decision Date: June 6, 2025

Key Document: Paper 10

Summary of Decision:

• iRhythm Technologies filed five IPR petitions challenging several ECG-related patents held by Welch Allyn.

• PTAB found that the petitioner had been aware of the challenged patents since at least 2013, as they had been disclosed in the petitioner's own Information Disclosure Statements (IDS), yet failed to file a challenge for over 12 years—severely undermining the patent owner’s settled expectations.

• Even though other Fintiv factors (such as absence of parallel litigation) did not present major barriers, PTAB exercised its discretion solely on the basis of the “settled expectations” doctrine, and denied institution.

Excerpt from Decision:

“When a petitioner has long known about the challenged patent and offers no justification for its delay, the Director may exercise discretion to deny institution based on the reasonable settled expectations of the patent owner.”— Paper 10, p. 9

Institutional Significance:

• This case marks the first time that the “settled expectations” doctrine was used as a standalone ground for denial, strengthening the PTAB’s deference to the rights and reliance interests of patent holders.

• It signals a shift away from evaluating institution solely through the lens of Fintiv's “parallel litigation”, and toward harmonizing the timing of challenges with the patent's life cycle.

(2) Dabico Airport Solutions Inc. v. AXA Power ApS

Case Number: IPR2025-00408

Decision Date: June 18, 2025

Key Document: Paper 21

Summary of Decision:

• Dabico attempted to invalidate a patent held by AXA Power related to airport ground power systems. The patent had been granted since 2017—approximately eight years at the time of decision.

• PTAB noted that the petitioner failed to justify why it waited so long to file the challenge and failed to present any significant new evidence or arguments.

• Although the patent owner did not raise the “settled expectations” issue, PTAB nonetheless invoked the doctrine sua sponte to deny institution, emphasizing that “the longer a patent has been granted, the stronger its settled expectations become.”

Excerpt from Decision:

“Even where the patent owner does not raise the issue, we may independently consider the settled expectations of patent validity when a patent has been long issued and relied upon.”— Paper 21, p. 7

Institutional Significance:

• Demonstrates PTAB’s proactive application of the settled expectations doctrine to protect systemic integrity.

• Suggests a de facto temporal threshold, with the Board referencing the six-year statute of limitations for damages to support its view that long-issued patents carry stronger expectations of validity.

III. Development and Trends

1. Relation to Fintiv Factors

Although not explicitly included among the six Fintiv factors, the “settled expectations” doctrine aligns with Fintiv’s sixth factor (“other circumstances”) and the Advanced Bionics framework. It complements existing tools used to combat abusive practices like serial petitions and delayed challenges.

2. Case Comparison

Factor	iRhythm v. Welch Allyn	Dabico v. AXA Power
Time Since Patent Issued	≥12 years	~8 years
Petitioner’s Prior Knowledge	Confirmed (since 2013)	Unclear (constructive notice)
Doctrine Raised by Patent Owner	Yes	No
New Evidence or Arguments	No	No
Grounds for Discretionary Denial	Settled Expectations (primary basis)	Settled Expectations (invoked sua sponte)

IV. Practical Implications and Recommendations

For Patent Owners

• Assert the “settled expectations” doctrine: If a patent has been long-issued or has withstood previous challenges, it is critical to assert this defense.

• Build a record of reliance: Evidence such as licensing history, commercial investment, and operational implementation can support a stronger claim of reliance and institutional stability.

For Petitioners

• Act promptly: Delays in filing IPR petitions against known patents can be fatal under this doctrine.

• Provide strong justification: If filing late, petitioners must clearly explain why the challenge is warranted despite the patent’s age and prior status.

• Avoid serial or abusive filings: PTAB is increasingly skeptical of repeated or overlapping challenges that drain administrative resources.

V. Conclusion

The iRhythm and Dabico decisions demonstrate how PTAB is evolving to prioritize procedural fairness and administrative efficiency by anchoring its discretion in the Settled Expectations doctrine. This development raises the bar for late-stage invalidity petitions and urges petitioners to act strategically and with urgency. Moving forward, this doctrine is likely to stand alongside the Fintiv framework as a decisive tool for discretionary denial.

(Disclaimer: The information released is for information only and should not be construed as legal advice or a basis for decisions on any topic. All rights reserved. Reproduction requires permission from Allbelief Law Firm.)

Bill Deng

bdeng@allbelief.com

Managing Partner, U.S. Attorney and Registered Patent Attorney with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)

Mr. Deng focuses his practice on U.S. intellectual property dispute resolution, with particular emphasis on patent, trademark, and copyright matters, as well as Section 337 investigations before the U.S. International Trade Commission and intellectual property litigation and defense involving cross-border e-commerce. His professional admissions cover multiple key institutions and procedures involved in U.S. intellectual property disputes, including the District of Columbia, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, the U.S. Court of International Trade, the U.S. International Trade Commission, and the United States Patent and Trademark Office.

Holding both USPTO Registered Patent Attorney status and admission to practice before the U.S. International Trade Commission and several federal courts, Mr. Deng is able to provide clients with comprehensive and strategically coordinated legal support across patent validity proceedings, Section 337 investigations, and federal litigation.

For brand owners, rights holders, and Chinese sellers alike, whether in enforcement litigation, infringement defense, or settlement negotiations, Mr. Deng communicates directly with both sides in Mandarin and English. In the complex, high-pressure, and fast-moving environment of cross-border e-commerce intellectual property disputes, he assists clients in identifying risks more efficiently, formulating effective strategies, and advancing implementation.

Allbelief Law Firm

Based in Washington, D.C., Serving at the Frontline of Cross-Border Intellectual Property Disputes

Allbelief Law Firm focuses on U.S. intellectual property and cross-border dispute resolution, with particular emphasis on patents, trademarks, copyrights, Section 337 investigations before the U.S. International Trade Commission, cross-border e-commerce infringement litigation, anti-counterfeiting enforcement, and related dispute matters. The firm is located in Washington, D.C., the capital of the United States, in close proximity to the U.S. Congress, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, and USPTO. This geographic advantage enables the firm to engage more efficiently with federal judicial and administrative institutions.