最高法院拒绝受理谷歌对专利局审查政策的挑战：原因如下 通过拒绝受理上诉，最高法院维持了一项有争议的规则，该规则限制了对较旧专利的行政挑战。
Supreme Court rejects Google challenge to patent office review policy: Here's why By declining to hear the appeal, the high court preserves a controversial rule that restricts administrative challenges to older patents.
美国最高法院拒绝受理Alphabet Inc.旗下谷歌的上诉，维持了联邦专利局的一项政策，该政策限制了对较旧专利的行政审查。核心争议：该争议源自一起涉及开发者的软件专利侵权案件，该开发者指控谷歌侵犯了其服务器技术。
The U.S. Supreme Court has declined to hear an appeal from Alphabet Inc.’s Google, leaving in place a federal patent office policy that restricts administrative reviews for older patents. Core Dispute: The dispute stemmed from a software patent infringement case involving developer which accused Google of infringing upon its server technology.
法律斗争的焦点是谷歌与一名名为VirtaMove的开发者之间的软件专利侵权纠纷，VirtaMove指控谷歌侵犯了其服务器软件技术。谷歌的立场：作为回应，谷歌试图通过专利审判和上诉委员会（PTAB）挑战该专利的有效性，PTAB是设在美国专利和商标局内部的行政法庭。
The legal battle centered around a software patent infringement dispute between Google and a developer named VirtaMove, which accused Google of infringing on its server software technology. Google's stance: In response, Google sought to challenge the validity of the patent through the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), an administrative tribunal housed within the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.
然而，该机构援引其“既定期望”做法拒绝启动审查，该框架下，委员会更倾向于驳回审查已有效超过六年专利的请求。
However, the agency declined to initiate the review by applying its "settled expectations" practice, a framework under which the board more frequently rejects petitions to review patents that have been active for more than six years.
专利局认为，较旧的专利在市场上已经为其所有者建立了“既定期望”，因此不适合通过行政程序取消。
The patent office argues that older patents have built up "settled expectations" for their owners in the marketplace, making them less appropriate for administrative cancellation procedures.
作为回应，谷歌在其向最高法院提交的上诉中主张，专利局通过施加国会从未设立的人为时间限制，超越了其法定权限。
In response, Google argued in its Supreme Court appeal that the patent office exceeded its statutory authority by imposing artificial time restrictions that were never established by Congress.
最高法院拒绝受理此案，维持了下级法院的裁决，未发表详细意见。更广泛的背景：此前，下级法院驳回了谷歌的质疑，而最高法院选择不予干预，该政策仍然有效，对经常依赖这些行政程序来质疑可疑专利的大型科技公司构成了显著打击。
By refusing to hear the case, the Supreme Court left lower-court rulings intact without issuing a detailed opinion. Broader context: Previously, Lower courtsrejected Google's challenge, and with the Supreme Court opting not to intervene, the policy remains active, dealing a notable setback to major technology companies that routinely rely on these administrative procedures to contest questionable patents.
对于谷歌、苹果等科技巨头——他们经常依赖专利审判和上诉委员会（PTAB）的审查来推翻过于宽泛或可疑的软硬件专利——这一决定是一个显著的打击。
For tech giants like Google, Apple, and others—who frequently rely on PTAB reviews to invalidate overly broad or suspect software and hardware patents—this decision is a notable blow.
它巩固了专利局在行政质疑中的把关权力，使科技公司在清除被指控侵权的旧专利方面可选择的途径更少。
It solidifies the patent office's power to gatekeep administrative challenges, leaving tech firms with fewer avenues to clear out older patents they are accused of infringing.