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

In Thryv, Inc. v. Click-To-Call Technologies, LP, the U.S. Supreme Court considered whether 35 U.S.C. § 314(d) precludes judicial review of a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) decision on whether an inter partes review (IPR) petition was timely under § 315(b)’s one-year time bar. Click-To-Call owned a patent and sued Thryv’s predecessor for infringement in 2001; the case was dismissed without prejudice. Over a decade later, Thryv filed an IPR petition, which the PTAB instituted despite Click-To-Call’s argument that the petition was untimely. The Federal Circuit, en banc, held the time-bar decision appealable and vacated the PTAB’s final decision. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that § 314(d) prohibits appeal of the Board’s application of the § 315(b) time bar because such a determination is integral to the decision to institute IPR. The Court remanded with instructions to dismiss for lack of appellate jurisdiction.

The Supreme Court reversed the Federal Circuit’s en banc decision, holding that 35 U.S.C. § 314(d) bars appellate review of the PTAB’s determination that an IPR petition was timely under § 315(b)’s time bar. The Court remanded the case with instructions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.

Whether 35 U.S.C. § 314(d), which states that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s determination “whether to institute an inter partes review under this section shall be final and nonappealable,” precludes judicial review of the Board’s decision that an IPR petition was timely under the one-year limitation period in § 315(b), even if that decision is challenged on appeal from the Board’s final written decision.

The ruling significantly narrowed the ability of patent owners to challenge PTAB institution decisions on timeliness grounds, reinforcing the finality and nonappealable nature of the Board’s institution determinations. It limited opportunities for procedural litigation in the patent review system, reducing delays and providing greater certainty for parties involved in inter partes reviews. The decision underscored the Supreme Court’s textualist approach to interpreting the America Invents Act and was seen as a victory for petitioners seeking to challenge patent validity.