Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/18-916_f2ah.pdf
Page Number: 7

4 

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

Opinion of the Court 

filed in 2001, which ended in a voluntary dismissal without 
prejudice.2  In  Click-to-Call’s  view,  that  2001  suit  started 
§315(b)’s  one-year  clock,  making  the  2013  petition
untimely.

The Board disagreed.  Section 315(b) did not bar the in-
stitution  of  inter  partes  review,  the  Board  concluded,  be-
cause  a  complaint  dismissed  without  prejudice  does  not
trigger §315(b)’s one-year limit.  Finding no other barrier to 
institution,  the  Board  decided  to  institute  review.  After 
proceedings on the merits, the Board issued a final written 
decision  reiterating  its  rejection  of  Click-to-Call’s  §315(b) 
argument and canceling 13 of the patent’s claims as obvious 
or lacking novelty.

Click-to-Call appealed, challenging only the Board’s de-
termination that §315(b) did not preclude inter partes re-
view.  The Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal for lack of 
jurisdiction, agreeing with Thryv and the Director (who in-
tervened on appeal) that §314(d)’s bar on appeal of the in-
stitution decision precludes judicial review of the agency’s 
application  of  §315(b).  Citing  our  intervening  decision  in 
Cuozzo, see infra, at 6–7, we granted certiorari, vacated the
judgment, and remanded.  Click-to-Call Technologies, LP v. 
Oracle Corp., 579 U. S. ___ (2016).  On remand, the Court 
of Appeals again dismissed the appeal on the same ground.
Thereafter, in another case, the en banc Federal Circuit 
held  that  “time-bar  determinations  under  §315(b)  are  ap-
pealable”  notwithstanding  §314(d).  Wi-Fi  One,  LLC  v. 
Broadcom Corp., 878 F. 3d 1364, 1367 (2018).  The majority
opinion construed §314(d)’s reference to the determination
whether to institute inter partes review “under this section” 

—————— 

2 The 2001 suit was brought by Inforocket.Com, Inc.—then the exclu-
sive licensee of the ’836 patent—against Keen, Inc.  See Inforocket.Com, 
Inc. v. Keen, Inc., No. 1:01–cv–05130 (SDNY).  While the suit was pend-
ing, Keen acquired Inforocket and the District Court dismissed the suit
without prejudice.  By the time of the inter partes review petition, Keen 
had become Ingenio (now Thryv).