Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/18-916_f2ah.pdf
Page Number: 33.0

14 

THRYV, INC. v. CLICK-TO-CALL TECHNOLOGIES, LP 

GORSUCH, J., dissenting 

these same sources.  All the rest is generously filled in by
the company’s own account about how inter partes review 
ought to work. 

That’s far from enough.  The historic presumption of ju-
dicial review has never before folded before a couple stray 
pieces of legislative history and naked policy appeals.  Be-
sides, Thryv’s submissions cannot withstand the mildest in-
spection even on their own terms.  No one doubts that Con-
gress  authorized  inter  partes  review  to  encourage  further 
scrutiny of already issued patents.  But lost in Thryv’s tell-
ing about the purposes of the AIA is plenty of evidence that 
Congress also included provisions to preserve the value of 
patents and protect the rights of patent owners.  For exam-
ple, Congress sharply limited the legal grounds that might 
be pursued in inter partes review, §311(b); afforded patent 
owners an opportunity to respond to petitions prior to insti-
tution,  §313;  and,  most  relevant  today,  protected  patent 
owners from the need to fight a two-front war before both 
the Board and federal district court, §315.  Legislating in-
volves compromise and it would be naive to think that, as
the price for their zealous new procedures for canceling pat- 
ents,  those  who  proposed  the  AIA  didn’t  have  to  accept 
some protections like these for patent holders.  Yet, Thryv
glides past all these provisions without comment.  Worse, 
taking  the  company’s  argument  to  its  logical  conclusion
could render these protections into “ ‘merely advisory’ ” fea-
tures  of  the  law.  Bowen,  476  U. S.,  at  671.    If  adopted,
Thryv’s  vision  of  an  administrative  regime  singularly  fo-
cused  on  the  efficient  canceling  of  patents  could  become 
self-fulfilling.

A case decided just weeks ago supplies a telling point of 
comparison.  In  Guerrero-Lasprilla  v.  Barr,  589  U. S.  ___ 
(2020),  Congress  sought  to  expedite  the  removal  of  aliens
convicted of certain aggravated felonies by foreclosing judi-
cial  review  of  their  cases  unless  they  raised  “questions  of
law.”  See 8 U. S. C. §§1252(a)(2)(C), (D).  But the statute