Thryv, Inc. v. Click-To-Call Technologies, LP
View Official PDFBelow are plain-language sections to help you understand what the Court decided in Thryv, Inc. v. Click-To-Call Technologies, LP and why it matters. Quotes are taken from the syllabus (the Court’s short summary at the start of the opinion).
Summary
A short, plain-English overview of Thryv, Inc. v. Click-To-Call Technologies, LP.
The Supreme Court ruled that judicial review is precluded for the Patent Office's decision to institute inter partes review, even when challenged under the time-bar provision of § 315(b). This decision aligns with the purpose of inter partes review to efficiently eliminate invalid patent claims. The Court emphasized that allowing such appeals would undermine the agency's determinations and leave questionable patents enforceable.
Holding
The single most important “bottom line” of what the Court decided in Thryv, Inc. v. Click-To-Call Technologies, LP.
The Court held that § 314(d) precludes judicial review of the agency's application of § 315(b)'s time prescription.
Constitutional Concepts
These are the Constitution-related themes that appear in Thryv, Inc. v. Click-To-Call Technologies, LP. Click a concept to see other cases that involve the same idea.
-
Why Administrative Law is relevant to Thryv, Inc. v. Click-To-Call Technologies, LP
The case primarily deals with the limits of judicial review over agency decisions, specifically the Patent Office's decision to institute inter partes review.
Syllabus excerpt (verbatim)Section 314(d) precludes judicial review of the agency's application of § 315(b)'s time prescription.
-
Why Judicial Review is relevant to Thryv, Inc. v. Click-To-Call Technologies, LP
The Court's decision centers on whether the agency's decision to institute inter partes review is subject to judicial review.
Syllabus excerpt (verbatim)Section 314(d) bars review at least of matters 'closely tied to the application and interpretation of statutes related to' the institution decision.
Key Quotes
Short excerpts from the syllabus in Thryv, Inc. v. Click-To-Call Technologies, LP that support the summary and concepts above.
Section 314(d) precludes judicial review of the agency's application of § 315(b)'s time prescription.
Allowing § 315(b) appeals, however, would unwind agency proceedings determining patentability and leave bad patents enforceable.
A § 315(b) challenge easily meets that measurement.
