Insights: News Releases Kilpatrick Townsend Wins Closely Watched U.S. Supreme Court Patent Case for Thryv, Inc.
DALLAS (April 20) -- Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton announced today that the firm has won a closely watched U.S. Supreme Court patent case on behalf of Thryv, Inc. The case, Thryv, Inc. v. Click-To-Call Technologies, No. 18-916, was argued on December 9, 2019 by Kilpatrick Townsend partner Adam Charnes, and was considered one of the top cases at the high court to watch this term according to legal experts. In addition to Mr. Charnes, Kilpatrick Townsend’s Mitchell Stockwell, Amanda Brouillette, and Jason Steed represent Thryv, Inc.
Today, the U.S. Supreme Court held that decisions ruling that an inter partes review petition was timely filed cannot be appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). The Court’s 7-2 decision states that because the America Invents Act asserts that a PTAB decision instituting review are final and nonappealable, the lower court should not have ruled that appeals on the time-bar issue are allowed since it is not certain that Congress meant to prohibit them.
This ruling, written by Justice Ginsburg, provides that the 35 U.S.C §314(d) bar on judicial review of the agency’s decision to institute inter partes review precluded appeal of the PTAB application of §315(b)’s time bar. The Court held that application of the time bar “is closely related to its decision whether to institute inter partes review and is therefore rendered nonappealable by §314(d).” In so doing, the high court overturned the Federal Circuit’s en banc decision in Wi-Fi One, LLC v. Broadcom Corp., 878 F.3d 1364, 1367 (2018).
Justice Gorsuch dissented, joined in part by Justice Sotomayor, asserting that the majority’ decision “carries us another step down the road of ceding core judicial powers to agency officials and leaving the disposition of private rights and liberties to bureaucratic mercy.”
The obvious takeaway from today’s decision is that §314(d) means what it says, “The determination by the Director whether to institute an inter partes review under this section shall be final and nonappealable.”
For additional background on this case, please click here.
Related People View All
While we are pleased to have you contact us by telephone, surface mail, electronic mail, or by facsimile transmission, contacting Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP or any of its attorneys does not create an attorney-client relationship. The formation of an attorney-client relationship requires consideration of multiple factors, including possible conflicts of interest. An attorney-client relationship is formed only when both you and the Firm have agreed to proceed with a defined engagement.
DO NOT CONVEY TO US ANY INFORMATION YOU REGARD AS CONFIDENTIAL UNTIL A FORMAL CLIENT-ATTORNEY RELATIONSHIP HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED.
If you do convey information, you recognize that we may review and disclose the information, and you agree that even if you regard the information as highly confidential and even if it is transmitted in a good faith effort to retain us, such a review does not preclude us from representing another client directly adverse to you, even in a matter where that information could be used against you.