Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/18-916_f2ah.pdf
Page Number: 2

2 

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

Syllabus 

least “where the grounds for attacking the decision to institute inter
partes review consist of questions that are closely tied to the applica-
tion and interpretation of statutes related to the Patent Office’s deci-
sion to initiate inter partes review.”  Id., at ___.  Pp. 6–7.

(b) The question here is whether a challenge based on §315(b) ranks 
as an appeal of the agency’s decision “to institute an inter partes re-
view.”  §314(d).  There is no need to venture beyond Cuozzo’s holding
that §314(d) bars review at least of matters “closely tied to the appli-
cation  and  interpretation  of  statutes  related  to”  the  institution  deci-
sion, 579 U. S., at ___.  A §315(b) challenge easily meets that measure-
ment.  Section 315(b), setting forth a circumstance in which “[a]n inter
partes review may not be instituted,” expressly governs institution and 
nothing more.  Pp. 7–8.

(c) This  conclusion  is  strongly  reinforced  by  the  statute’s  purpose 
and  design.    Congress  designed  inter  partes  review  to  weed  out  bad 
patent  claims  efficiently.    Allowing  §315(b)  appeals,  however,  would
unwind agency proceedings determining patentability and leave bad 
patents enforceable.  Pp. 8–10. 

(d) In Click-to-Call’s view, §314(d)’s bar on judicial review is limited
to the agency’s threshold determination under §314(a) of the question
whether  the  petitioner  has  a  reasonable  likelihood  of  prevailing. 
Cuozzo is fatal to that interpretation, for the Court in that case held
unreviewable  the  agency’s  application  of  a  provision  other  than 
§314(a).  Contrary to Click-to-Call’s contention, §314(d)’s text does not 
limit the review bar to §314(a).  Rather than borrowing language from 
related provisions that would have achieved Click-to-Call’s preferred 
meaning,  Congress  used  broader  language  in  §314(d).    Click-to-Call 
also insists that Congress intended judicial supervision of the agency’s 
application of §315(b), but the statute instead reflects a choice to en-
trust that issue to the agency.  Finally, SAS Institute Inc. v. Iancu, 584 
U. S.  ___,  offers  Click-to-Call  no  assistance.    Unlike  the  appeal  held 
reviewable in SAS Institute, Click-to-Call’s appeal challenges not the 
manner  in  which  the  agency’s  review  proceeds  once  instituted,  but 
whether the agency should have instituted review at all.  Pp. 10–13.

(e) Click-to-Call argues in the alternative that its §315(b) objection 
is  authorized  as  an  appeal  from  the  Board’s  final  written  decision, 
which addressed the §315(b) issue.  Even labeled that way, Click-to-
Call’s appeal is still barred by §314(d) because Click-to-Call’s conten-
tion remains, essentially, that the agency should have refused to insti-
tute inter partes review.  P. 14. 

899 F. 3d 1321, vacated and remanded. 

GINSBURG, J., delivered  the  opinion  of  the  Court,  in  which  ROBERTS, 
C. J.,  and  BREYER,  KAGAN, and  KAVANAUGH,  JJ.,  joined,  and  in  which