Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/18-916_f2ah.pdf
Page Number: 15.0

12 

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

Opinion of the Court 

amination).  Instead, Congress chose to shield from appel-
late review the determination “whether to institute an inter 
partes  review  under  this  section.” 
§314(d)  (emphasis
added).  That departure in language suggests a departure 
in meaning.  See Henson v. Santander Consumer USA Inc., 
582 U. S. ___, ___ (2017) (slip op., at 6). 

Click-to-Call  doubts  that  Congress  would  have  limited 
the agency’s institution authority in §315(b) without ensur-
ing judicial supervision.  Congress entrusted the institution
decision  to  the  agency,  however,  to  avoid  the  significant
costs, already recounted, of nullifying a thoroughgoing de-
termination  about  a  patent’s  validity.    See  supra,  at  8–9. 
That  goal—preventing  appeals  that  would  frustrate  effi-
cient  resolution  of  patentability—extends  beyond  §314(a)
appeals.

Click-to-Call also contends that we adopted its interpre-
tation of §314(d) in SAS Institute Inc. v. Iancu, 584 U. S. ___ 
(2018).  Neither of our holdings in that case assists Click-
to-Call, and both holdings remain governing law.  SAS In-
stitute  first  held  that  once  the  agency  institutes  an  inter 
partes review, it must “resolve all of the claims in the case.” 
Id., at ___ (slip op., at 1).  SAS Institute located that rule in 
§318(a), which requires the agency to decide “the patenta-
bility  of  any  patent  claim  challenged  by  the  petitioner.” 
Ibid. (emphasis in original; internal quotation marks omit-
ted).  SAS Institute next held that §314(d) did not bar judi-
cial review of §318(a)’s application.  Id., at ___–___ (slip op., 
at 12–14).  Our decision explained that “nothing in §314(d) 
or  Cuozzo  withdraws  our  power  to  ensure  that  an  inter 
partes  review  proceeds  in  accordance  with  the  law’s  de-
mands.”  Id., at ___ (slip op., at 14).  That reviewability hold-
ing  is  inapplicable  here,  for  Click-to-Call’s  appeal  chal-
lenges  not  the  manner  in  which  the  agency’s  review
“proceeds” once instituted, but whether the agency should 
have instituted review at all.