This educational guide is based on the linked primary sources. It is not a Court publication, is not affiliated with the Court, and is not legal advice.
In brief
Overview
According to Thryv, Inc. (Petitioner), thryv, Inc. (Petitioner) argues that Section 314(d) of the America Invents Act precludes judicial review of the director’s time‑barred determination under § 315(b).
Federal Respondent argues that Congress established inter‑partes review as a quick and efficient mechanism with statutory prerequisites to prevent duplicative proceedings.
Background and question before the Court
According to Thryv, Inc. (Petitioner), according to Thryv, Inc. (Petitioner), section 314(d) of the America Invents Act precludes judicial review of the director’s time‑barred determination under § 315(b).
According to Federal Respondent, Congress created inter‑partes review as a fast, efficient process for the PTO to reconsider issued patents, with statutory prerequisites that limit duplicative litigation.
According to Thryv, Inc. (Petitioner), thryv, Inc. (Petitioner) contends that the Court must decide whether the director’s time‑barred determination is reviewable under the statutory scheme.
What each side argues
Petitioner (Thryv, Inc.) Position
According to Thryv, Inc. (Petitioner), thryv, Inc. (Petitioner) argues that Section 314(d) bars any judicial review of the director’s time‑barred determination under § 315(b).
Respondent (Click‑to‑Call Technologies, LP) Position
Federal Respondent contends that Congress established inter‑partes review as a quick, efficient mechanism with statutory prerequisites to avoid duplicative litigation.
What happened at oral argument
Justice Kavanaugh asked how the Court should consider language from the Cuozzo decision regarding agency limits.
According to Justice Alito, justice Alito inquired about reconciling Justice Ginsburg’s reading of the SAS provision with the petitioner’s position.
According to Justice Gorsuch, justice Gorsuch questioned the traditional discretion of executive agencies and the enforceability of statutes of limitations.
Justice Kagan asked whether the Cuozzo decision extends only to issues closely related to the reasonable‑likelihood determination.
According to Justice Kagan, justice Kagan noted that if the petitioner is dismissed, another petitioner could bring a separate petition.
Justice Kagan asked when the unappealability bar under § 315(b) actually prevents a party from raising an argument.
According to Chief Justice Roberts, chief Justice Roberts thanked counsel and indicated the case was submitted.
- [1] f40c3df6c8f546ada97e-r1-22fecc6f161e8f68.pdf, p. 8
- [2] f40c3df6c8f546ada97e-r1-22fecc6f161e8f68.pdf, p. 23
- [3] f40c3df6c8f546ada97e-r1-22fecc6f161e8f68.pdf, p. 28
- [4] f40c3df6c8f546ada97e-r1-22fecc6f161e8f68.pdf, p. 32
- [5] f40c3df6c8f546ada97e-r1-22fecc6f161e8f68.pdf, p. 37
- [6] f40c3df6c8f546ada97e-r1-22fecc6f161e8f68.pdf, p. 46
- [7] f40c3df6c8f546ada97e-r1-22fecc6f161e8f68.pdf, p. 72
What the Court decided
Why it matters
Terms to know
No glossary terms are available for this guide.
Primary sources
Read the source materials on the official site or open the immutable repository copy used for this guide.
- f40c3df6c8f546ada97e-r1-22fecc6f161e8f68.pdforal argument transcript
Guide generated September 27, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.