Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/18-916_f2ah.pdf
Page Number: 8

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

5 

Opinion of the Court 

Id.,  at  1372. 

as trained on the likelihood-of-success requirement stated 
The  §315(b)  timeliness 
in  §314(a). 
determination,  the  majority  concluded,  “is  not  ‘closely
related’  to  the  institution  decision  addressed  in  §314(a).” 
Id., at 1374 (quoting Cuozzo, 579 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 
12)).  The majority therefore held that for §315(b) appeals,
§314(d)  does  not  displace  the  usual  presumption  favoring
judicial review of agency action.  Wi-Fi One, 878 F. 3d, at 
1374–1375. 
In  a  concurring  opinion,  Judge  O’Malley 
emphasized a “simpler” basis for the same conclusion.  Id., 
at 1375.  In her view, §314(d) shields from review only the 
agency’s assessment of a petition’s “substantive adequacy,” 
not questions about the agency’s “authority to act.”  Id., at 
1376. 

Judge Hughes, joined by Judges Lourie, Bryson, and Dyk,
dissented,  expressing  a  position  that  today’s  dissent 
characterizes as “extraordinary.”  Post, at 6.  Those judges
concluded  that  §314(d)  conveys  Congress’  “clear  and
unmistakable”  “intent  to  prohibit  judicial  review  of  the
Board’s  [inter  partes  review]  institution  decision.”  Wi-Fi 
One, 878 F. 3d, at 1378.  That prohibition applies to §315(b)
issues, the Federal Circuit dissenters maintained, because 
§315(b)  “describes  when  an  [inter  partes  review]  may  be 
‘instituted.’ ”  Id., at 1377, 1378–1379 (quoting §315(b)). 

In light of its en banc decision in Wi-Fi One, the Court of 
Appeals granted panel rehearing in this case.  Treating the 
Board’s application of §315(b) as judicially reviewable, the 
panel’s revised opinion held that the Board erred by insti-
tuting review.  The petition for inter partes review here was
untimely, the Court of Appeals held, because the 2001 in-
fringement complaint, though dismissed without prejudice,
started the one-year clock under §315(b).3  The court there-
fore vacated the Board’s final written decision, which had 

—————— 

3 A footnote in the panel’s opinion noted that the Court of Appeals sit-