Thryv v. Click-To-Call Technologies
In brief
The Supreme Court said courts cannot review the Board’s use of the one-year deadline, wiped out the Federal Circuit’s ruling, and sent the case back.
- Where it stands
- Decided
Decided 7-2 · April 20, 2020 · Opinion by Justice Ginsburg
- What it’s about
- This case was about whether federal courts can review the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s decision to start an inter partes review when the Board finds that the patent challenge was not filed too late under the one-year time limit in federal patent law.
- Who it affects
- The decision blocks court review of the Board’s use of the one-year deadline when deciding whether to start an inter partes review. It did not decide whether Click-To-Call’s petition was actually too late under that deadline.
Summary: written with AI from the case record.
What it's about
The dispute arose after the Board instituted review of Click-to-Call’s patent and later canceled claims, and Click-to-Call argued the review should never have been started because the petition was time-barred.
The case is part of a larger debate over how much courts can review federal agencies’ decisions about patent challenges.
Question presented
1. Whether 35 U.8.C. § 314(d) permits appeal of the PTAB's decision to institute an inter partes review upon finding that§ 315(b)'s time bar did not apply. 2. Whether 35 U.8.C. § 315(b) bars institution of an inter partes review when the previously served patent infringement complaint, filed more than one year before the IPR petition, had been dismissed without prejudice.
What the Court decided
Holding
Section 314(d) precludes judicial review of the agency’s application of §315(b)’s time prescription. 899 F. 3d 1321, vacated and remanded.
- Result
- Vacated
The vote
From the opinions
“The relevant statute, the presumption of judicial review, and our precedent all point toward allowing, not forbidding, inventors their day in court.”
What's next
The case was sent back to the Federal Circuit (remanded) for next steps under the Supreme Court’s ruling. The Court did not itself decide whether the petition was too late under Section 315(b).
Documents
Docket activity
New analysis added
AI analysis generated: Case Briefing
AI analysis generated: Decision Record
New analysis added
Opinion added: opinion
Show 3 moreShow fewer
Brief added: Petition
Court Order added: Lower Court Orders/Opinions
Brief added: Questions Presented
More questions
- What did the Supreme Court decide in Thryv v. Click-To-Call?
- It decided that Section 314(d) blocks courts from reviewing the Board’s use of Section 315(b)’s one-year deadline.
- What was Click-To-Call’s time-limit argument?
- It argued the petition was filed more than one year after an earlier patent-infringement complaint. The complaint was dismissed without prejudice, meaning it was thrown out without a final decision.
- What happened to the Federal Circuit’s ruling?
- The Supreme Court wiped it out and sent the case back to that appeals court (vacated and remanded).
- What happens next for Thryv and Click-To-Call?
- The case returns to the Federal Circuit for next steps under the Supreme Court’s ruling. The Court did not itself decide whether the petition was too late.
Sources
Primary materials plus reporting. Best-effort analysis: this explainer relies on a mix of primary materials and trusted secondary sources. Official filings and opinions remain authoritative.