Cases compared
Google LLC v. VirtaMove, Corp. vs. Evangelos Souliotis, Petitioner v. Donald C. Darnell vs. Ali Mif Bey, Petitioner v. United States
Administrative Law cases on the Supreme Court docket, side by side.
No. 25-1230No. 25-1379No. 25-7299
Side by side
| Fact | Google LLC v. VirtaMove, Corp. | Evangelos Souliotis, Petitioner v. Donald C. Darnell | Ali Mif Bey, Petitioner v. United States |
|---|---|---|---|
| Docket | 25-1230 | 25-1379 | 25-7299 |
| Status | Before Arguments | Before Arguments | Before Arguments |
| Date | October Term 2025 (2025–2026) | October Term 2025 (2025–2026) | October Term 2025 (2025–2026) |
| Question presented | 1. Whether the PTO retains statutory authority to deny institution based on the “settled expectations” factor, where discretion is committed to the PTO and no statutory provision prohibits consideration of settled expectations. 2. Whether the “drastic and extraordinary” remedy of mandamus is appropriate where Google identifies no statutory text that has been violated and the Federal Circuit has held that an alternative vehicle—a notice-and-comment rulemaking challenge—remains available. | 1. Does the stare decisis authority of a court’s decision infringing on exclusive legislative power permit that court’s decision to perpetuate and broadly apply that decision against Petitioner and all subsequent litigants? 2. Does stare decisis require a court to uncritically and broadly apply against Petitioner that prior decision that unmistakably infringes upon the separation of powers, and upon the contract rights, agency, and self-determination of our citizenry—thereby undermining the right of millions of Americans to choose what they are, or are not, willing to agree to within a contract? 3. At the core, should the broadly applied stare decisis authority of the court be allowed to infringe on fundamental legislative power and thereby create a new class of contract law, a non-consensual contract? | Whether a court of appeals correctly applies Kisor when it finds a term "genuinely ambiguous" based on a multiplicity of dictionary definitions alone, or by invoking the regulation's purpose to introduce rather than resolve ambiguity. |
| Summary | Google asks the Court to review the Patent and Trademark Office’s policy of refusing to start certain inter partes reviews because a patent owner has “settled expectations” after the patent has been in force for six years. Google also challenges the Federal Circuit’s refusal to issue mandamus requiring the PTO to reconsider that policy. | Souliotis asks the Supreme Court to review a Sixth Circuit decision that he argues improperly created or enforced contractual obligations without consent. He contends that continued reliance on that precedent violates separation-of-powers principles and interferes with individuals’ freedom to choose the terms of their contracts. | Ali Mif Bey asks the Supreme Court to review a Fourth Circuit ruling about when courts may defer to a federal agency’s reading of its own regulation. The petition argues that the Fourth Circuit wrongly treated regulatory language as genuinely ambiguous under Kisor v. Wilkie based only on competing dictionary definitions or by using the regulation’s purpose to create, rather than resolve, ambiguity. |
Relationship
- Shared issue
- Administrative Law
- Why compared
- Reviewed Administrative Law tags connect these current-term public cases.
Related
Sources
- Built from reviewed issue tags and official docket records. Status lines and questions presented come from the tracked case data.