Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/18-916_f2ah.pdf
Page Number: 12.0

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

9 

Opinion of the Court 

Allowing  §315(b)  appeals  would  tug  against  that  objec-
tive,  wasting  the  resources  spent  resolving  patentability 
and leaving bad patents enforceable.  A successful §315(b) 
appeal would terminate in vacatur of the agency’s decision; 
in lieu of enabling judicial review of patentability, vacatur
would  unwind  the  agency’s  merits  decision.   See  Cuozzo, 
579 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 8).  And because a patent owner 
would need to appeal on §315(b) untimeliness grounds only 
if  she  could  not  prevail  on  patentability,  §315(b)  appeals 
would operate to save bad patent claims.  This case illus-
trates the dynamic.  The agency held Click-to-Call’s patent
claims invalid, and Click-to-Call does not contest that hold-
ing.  It resists only the agency’s institution decision, mind-
ful  that  if  the  institution  decision  is  reversed,  then  the 
agency’s  work  will  be  undone  and  the  canceled  patent 
claims resurrected. 

Other features of the statutory design confirm that Con-
gress prioritized patentability over §315(b)’s timeliness re-
quirement.  A petitioner’s failure to satisfy §315(b) does not
prevent the agency from conducting inter partes review of
the challenged patent claims; the agency can do so at an-
other petitioner’s request.  §311(a).  Nor does failure to sat-
isfy §315(b) prevent the original initiator from participating
on the merits; the §315(b)-barred party can join a proceed-
ing initiated by another petitioner.  §315(b), (c).  And once 
inter partes review is instituted, the agency may issue a fi-
nal written decision even “[i]f no petitioner remains in the 
inter partes review.”  §317(a).  It is unsurprising that a stat-
utory scheme so consistently elevating resolution of patent-
ability above a petitioner’s compliance with §315(b) would 
exclude §315(b) appeals, thereby preserving the Board’s ad-
judication of the merits. 

—————— 
honest count on first view, but a jaundiced one on second look?  See post, 
at 19–20.