Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/18-916_f2ah.pdf
Page Number: 29.0

10 

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

GORSUCH, J., dissenting 

left to toss.  If Congress had wanted to insulate from review 
only “[t]he” “determination” that a petition has a “reason- 
able likelihood” of success, the company suggests, Congress 
could have spoken of insulating “the determination under
subsection  (a)”  rather  than  “the  determination  under  this 
section.”  And  Thryv  reminds  us  that  Congress  used  that 
latter formulation in nearby and predecessor statutes.  See, 
e.g., §303(c) (“[a] determination by the Director pursuant to
subsection (a) of this section . . . will be final and nonappeal-
able”); §312(c) (2006 ed.; repealed 2011) (“[a] determination
by  the  Director  under  subsection  (a)  shall  be  final  and 
non-appealable”).

But so what?  One could replace the phrase “my next-door
neighbor  to  the  west”  with  “my  neighbor  at  123  Main 
Street”  (assuming  that  is  her  address)  and  the  meaning
would  be  the  same.  Likewise,  it  hardly  matters  whether 
Congress spoke of the “determination” “under this section” 
or “under subsection (a).”  Either way, our attention is di-
rected within, not beyond, §314.  And what’s Thryv’s alter-
native?  It would have us read language speaking of the Di-
rector’s  determination  “under  this  section”  to  encompass
any decision related to the initiation of inter partes review 
found anywhere in the AIA—an entire chapter of the U. S. 
Code.  That’s sort of like reading “my next-door neighbor to
the  west”  to  include  “anyone  in  town.”  Nor  do  things  get
better  for  Thryv  with  a  careful  assessment  of  nearby  and
predecessor statutes.  They reveal that Congress knew ex-
actly how to give broader directions like the one Thryv ima-
gines when it wished to do so.  See, e.g., §314(b) (directing
our attention to the Director’s decision whether to institute 
inter partes review “under this chapter” rather than “under 
this section”).

Without any plausible textual or contextual hook for its 
position,  Thryv  finishes  by  advancing  a  parade  of  policy 
horribles.  It notes that the AIA imposes lots of other con-
straints on inter partes review besides the §315(b) timing