SIDEBAR - No Judicial Review of Certain Patent Office Decisions, Supreme Court Holds
b'In 2011, Congress enacted major patent reform in the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA). The AIA, among other things, created inter partes review (IPR), an adversarial procedure during which the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office\\u2019s (PTO\\u2019s) Patent Trial & Appeal Board (PTAB) reviews the validity of issued patents. In particular, IPR allows any person, other than the patentee, to petition the PTAB for review of a patent. \\n\\nAfter receiving a petition, the PTAB may institute an IPR if it determines that \\u201cthere is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail.\\u201d However, 35 U.S.C. \\xa7 315(b) (the so-called \\u201ctime-bar\\u201d) provides that the PTAB may not institute an IPR if the petition \\u201cis filed more than 1 year after the date on which the petitioner . . . is served with a complaint alleging infringement of the patent.\\u201d Under 35 U.S.C. \\xa7 314(d) (the so-called \\u201cno-appeal provision\\u201d), moreover, the PTAB\\u2019s determination to institute an IPR \\u201cunder this section shall be final and nonappealable.\\u201d\\n\\nIn Thryv, Inc. v. Click-to-Call Technologies, LP, decided on April 20, 2020, the Supreme Court interpreted the no-appeal provision broadly by holding that the PTAB\\u2019s determination that an IPR is not time-barred falls within \\xa7 314(d) and therefore may not be appealed. (The case was previewed before argument in this CRS sidebar.) The decision in Click-to-Call may have considerable implications for the breadth of the PTAB\\u2019s authority moving forward.'