Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/18-916_f2ah.pdf
Page Number: 1

(Slip Opinion) 

OCTOBER  TERM,  2019 

1 

Syllabus 

NOTE:  Where  it  is  feasible,  a  syllabus  (headnote)  will  be  released,  as  is 
being  done  in  connection  with  this  case,  at  the  time  the  opinion  is  issued. 
The  syllabus  constitutes  no  part  of  the  opinion  of  the  Court  but  has  been 
prepared  by  the  Reporter  of  Decisions  for  the  convenience  of  the  reader. 
See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337. 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

Syllabus 

THRYV, INC., FKA DEX MEDIA, INC. v. CLICK-TO-
CALL TECHNOLOGIES, LP, ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR 
THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT 

No. 18–916.  Argued December 9, 2019—Decided April 20, 2020 

Inter partes review is an administrative process that permits a patent 
challenger to ask the U. S. Patent and Trademark Office to reconsider 
the validity of earlier granted patent claims.  For inter partes review 
to proceed, the agency must agree to institute review.  See 35 U. S. C. 
§314.  Among other conditions set by statute, if a request comes more
than a year after suit against the requesting party for patent infringe-
ment, “[a]n inter partes review may not be instituted.”  §315(b).  The 
agency’s “determination . . . whether to institute an inter partes review 
under this section shall be final and nonappealable.”  §314(d).  

Entities  associated  with  petitioner  Thryv, Inc.  sought  inter  partes 
review  of  a  patent  owned  by  respondent  Click-to-Call  Technologies, 
LP.  Click-to-Call  countered  that  the  petition  was  untimely  under 
§315(b).    The  Patent  Trial  and  Appeal  Board  (Board)  disagreed  and 
instituted review.  After proceedings on the merits, the Board issued a
final written decision reiterating its §315(b) decision and canceling 13 
of the patent’s claims as obvious or lacking novelty.  Click-to-Call ap-
pealed the Board’s §315(b) determination.  Treating the Board’s appli-
cation  of  §315(b)  as  judicially  reviewable,  the  Court  of  Appeals  con-
cluded  that  the  petition  was  untimely,  vacated  the  Board’s  decision, 
and remanded with instructions to dismiss. 

Held: Section 314(d) precludes judicial review of the agency’s application 

of §315(b)’s time prescription.  Pp. 6–14.

(a) A  party  generally  cannot  contend  on  appeal  that  the  agency 
should  have  refused  “to  institute  an  inter  partes  review.”    §314(d). 
That follows from §314(d)’s text and Cuozzo Speed Technologies, LLC 
v.  Lee,  579  U. S.  ___.    In  Cuozzo,  this  Court  explained  that  §314(d) 
“preclud[es]  review  of  the  Patent  Office’s  institution  decisions”—at