Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/18-916_f2ah.pdf
Page Number: 6.0

Cite as:  590 U. S. ____ (2020) 

3 

Opinion of the Court 

“[a]n inter partes review may not be instituted if the peti-
tion requesting the proceeding is filed more than 1 year af-
ter the date on which the petitioner, real party in interest,
or privy of the petitioner is served with a complaint alleging 
infringement of the patent.”  §315(b).

After  receiving  the  petition  and  any  response,  the  PTO 
“Director  shall  determine  whether  to  institute  an  inter 
partes review under this chapter.”  §314(b).  The Director 
has delegated institution authority to the Patent Trial and
Appeal  Board  (Board).    37  CFR  §42.4(a)  (2019).    As  just 
noted,  the  federal  agency’s  “determination  . . .  whether  to 
institute an inter partes review under this section” is “final
and nonappealable.”  35 U. S. C. §314(d). 

Upon electing to institute inter partes review, the Board
conducts a proceeding to evaluate the challenged claims’ va-
lidity.  See  §316.    At  the  conclusion  of  the  proceeding—if 
review  “is  instituted  and  not  dismissed”—the  Board  “is-
sue[s] a final written decision with respect to the patenta-
bility of ” the challenged claims.  §318(a).  “A party dissatis-
fied  with  the  final  written  decision  . . .  may  appeal  the 
decision”  to  the  Court  of  Appeals  for  the  Federal  Circuit.
§319. 

II 
Respondent  Click-to-Call  owns  a  patent  relating  to  a 
technology for anonymous telephone calls, U. S. Patent No.
5,818,836 (’836 patent).  In 2013, petitioner Thryv sought
inter  partes  review,  challenging  several  of  the  patent’s 
claims.1 

In opposition, Click-to-Call urged that §315(b) barred in-
stitution of inter partes review because Thryv filed its peti-
tion too late.  Click-to-Call pointed to an infringement suit 

—————— 

1 More  precisely,  the  petition  was  filed  by  four  companies,  including 
YellowPages.com, LLC, and Ingenio, LLC.  Through “a series of mergers, 
sales,  and  name  changes,”  both  became  Thryv.  Brief  for  Petitioner  8. 
For simplicity, we refer to Thryv and its predecessor entities as “Thryv.”