Thryv, Inc. v. Click-To-Call Technologies, LP

Background

Click-to-Call, a patent owner, challenged an administrative petition filed by Thryv asking the Patent Office to reexamine certain patent claims. Thryv filed the petition years after an earlier infringement suit involving its predecessor had been dismissed without prejudice. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board instituted inter partes review, later canceling 13 claims, and Click-to-Call appealed only the Board's ruling that the petition was timely under the one-year limit in §315(b).

Reasoning

The Court considered whether a statutory provision, §314(d), that makes the Director's decision to institute review "final and nonappealable," prevents courts from reviewing the Board's application of §315(b)'s one-year time bar. Relying on prior decisions, the Court held that §315(b)'s timeliness rule is integral to the institution decision and therefore falls within §314(d)'s bar on judicial review. The Court vacated the Federal Circuit's contrary judgment and instructed dismissal for lack of appellate jurisdiction.

Real world impact

The ruling means courts generally cannot hear appeals that seek to undo the agency's choice to start inter partes review by arguing a petition was time-barred under §315(b). Patent owners still may challenge patentability in final agency decisions on the merits, but they cannot short-circuit the agency's institution decision through the normal appeals process. The decision preserves the Board's authority to proceed once it institutes review in many cases.

Dissents or concurrances

A dissent warned that insulating institution decisions from review can leave property rights subject to agency error and criticized the Court for limiting judicial supervision even when petition timeliness may have been unlawful.