The Supreme Court’s decision in Thryv, Inc. v. Click-to-Call Technologies has significant implications for the landscape of patent litigation, particularly concerning the doctrine of inter partes review (IPR). This case, decided in April 2020, addressed the question of whether the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) can determine whether a petition for IPR is timely filed. The Court’s ruling has clarified the role of the PTAB in reviewing petitions for IPR and has implications for patent holders and challengers alike.

Background of the Case

The case originated from a dispute between Thryv, Inc. and Click-to-Call Technologies over a patent related to a method for placing telephone calls over the internet. Click-to-Call filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Thryv, which responded by filing a petition for IPR with the PTAB. Click-to-Call argued that the petition was time-barred under the America Invents Act (AIA) because it was filed more than one year after Thryv was served with the infringement complaint.

Key Issues

The main issue before the Supreme Court was whether the PTAB’s determination of whether a petition for IPR is time-barred is subject to judicial review. The AIA includes a provision stating that the PTAB’s decision to institute an IPR is “final and non-appealable.” Thryv argued that this provision precluded judicial review of the timeliness of its petition, while Click-to-Call contended that the provision only applied to the PTAB’s decision to institute review, not its determination of whether a petition is time-barred.

Supreme Court’s Decision

In a 7-2 decision, the Supreme Court sided with Thryv, holding that the PTAB’s determination of whether a petition for IPR is time-barred is not subject to judicial review. The Court reasoned that the AIA’s provision making the PTAB’s decision to institute review final and non-appealable extends to all aspects of the decision, including determinations of timeliness. The Court emphasized that Congress intended for IPR proceedings to be a quick and cost-effective alternative to litigation, and allowing for judicial review of timeliness determinations would undermine this purpose.

Impact of the Decision

The Thryv decision has significant implications for patent litigation, particularly concerning the availability of IPR as a tool for challenging patents. By precluding judicial review of timeliness determinations, the decision makes it more difficult for patent holders to challenge the validity of patents through the IPR process. This could lead to an increase in the use of IPRs and potentially result in more patent litigation being resolved through administrative proceedings rather than in court.

Additionally, the decision highlights the importance of understanding the procedural rules and requirements of the PTAB when pursuing or defending against an IPR. Parties involved in patent litigation should carefully consider the timing of their actions and ensure compliance with all relevant deadlines to avoid potential issues with timeliness.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s decision in Thryv, Inc. v. Click-to-Call Technologies clarifies the role of the PTAB in determining the timeliness of petitions for IPR. The decision underscores the importance of the IPR process in patent litigation and highlights the need for parties to understand and comply with the procedural rules governing IPR proceedings.

Resources:

Thrive, Inc. v. Click-To-Call Technologies, LP https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/18-916_f2ah.pdf