Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/18-916_f2ah.pdf
Page Number: 9.0

6 

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

Opinion of the Court 

invalidated 13 of Click-to-Call’s claims for want of the req-
uisite novelty and nonobviousness, and remanded with in-
structions to dismiss. 

We granted certiorari to resolve the reviewability issue,
587 U. S. ___ (2019), and now vacate the Federal Circuit’s 
judgment and remand with instructions to dismiss the ap-
peal for lack of appellate jurisdiction. 

III 
A 
To determine whether §314(d) precludes judicial review
of the agency’s application of §315(b)’s time prescription, we 
begin by defining §314(d)’s scope.  Section 314(d)’s text ren-
ders  “final  and  nonappealable”  the  “determination  by  the 
Director whether  to institute an inter partes review under 
this section.”  §314(d) (emphasis added).  That language in-
dicates  that  a  party  generally  cannot  contend  on  appeal
that the agency should have refused “to institute an inter
partes review.”

We held as much in Cuozzo.  There, a party contended on 
appeal that the agency should have refused to institute in-
ter partes review because the petition failed §312(a)(3)’s re-
quirement that the grounds for challenging patent claims 
must  be  identified  “with  particularity.”    579  U. S.,  at  ___ 
(slip  op.,  at  6)  (internal  quotation  marks  omitted).    This 
“contention that the Patent Office unlawfully initiated its 
agency review is not appealable,” we held, for “that is what 
§314(d) says.”  Id., at ___ (slip op., at 7).  Section 314(d), we 
explained, “preclud[es] review of the Patent Office’s institu-
tion  decisions”  with  sufficient  clarity  to  overcome  the 
—————— 
ting en banc had considered and agreed with the panel majority’s conclu-
sion that a complaint voluntarily dismissed without prejudice can trigger 
§315(b)’s time bar.  Click-to-Call Technologies, LP v. Ingenio, Inc., 899 
F. 3d 1321, 1328, n. 3 (CA Fed. 2018).  On that issue, Judge Taranto is-
sued a concurring opinion, id., at 1343–1347, and Judge Dyk, joined by
Judge Lourie, issued a dissenting opinion, id., at 1350–1355.  That ques-
tion is outside the scope of our review.