Thryv, Inc. v. Click-To-Call Technologies, LP
Headline: Court bars appeals over whether to start patent inter partes review, preventing courts from reviewing timing objections and making it harder for patent owners to undo canceled claims.
Holding: Section 314(d)’s bar on appeals prevents courts from reviewing the agency’s application of §315(b)’s one-year time limit, so timing challenges to institution decisions are nonappealable and such appeals must be dismissed.
- Prevents courts from reviewing whether a patent challenge was filed too late.
- Keeps many Board institution decisions final and nonappealable.
- Makes it harder for patent owners to undo canceled claims on timing grounds.
Summary
Background
Click-to-Call owned a patent; companies now called Thryv asked the Patent Office to reconsider some of its claims through an administrative process called inter partes review. Click-to-Call argued the petition was untimely under a one-year rule because an earlier 2001 lawsuit had been filed against Thryv’s predecessors. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board instituted review and later canceled 13 claims; Click-to-Call appealed only the Board’s ruling on the timing issue. The Federal Circuit treated that timing question as reviewable and ordered the Board’s work set aside.
Reasoning
The Court addressed whether a statute (§314(d)) that makes the Director’s decision to institute inter partes review “final and nonappealable” prevents courts from reviewing the Board’s application of the one-year limit in §315(b). Relying on earlier precedent and the statute’s text and purpose, the Court concluded §315(b) is integral to the institution decision and thus is barred from judicial review. The majority explained that allowing such appeals would unwind agency merits decisions, frustrate the efficient correction of bad patents, and that prior decisions (including SAS Institute) do not permit this kind of review.
Real world impact
The ruling means courts generally may not review agency rulings about whether a petitioner filed too late, so many institution-stage timing objections must be raised and resolved at the Patent Office. The decision does not decide patent validity on the merits; parties can still appeal final Board decisions on patentability under the statute. It also drew a dissent arguing the statute and long-standing presumption of judicial review favor allowing court review and warning about agency power over private rights.
Ask about this case
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).
What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?
How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?
What are the practical implications of this ruling?