Click-To-Call Technologies, Lp v. Oracle Corporation
622 F. App'x 907
Fed. Cir.2015Background
- Click-to-Call Technologies, LP (CTC) appealed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (PTAB/Board) final written decision in IPR2013-00312, challenging the Board’s institution of inter partes review (IPR).
- CTC argued the IPR should have been barred by the § 315(b) one-year time bar (petition filed more than one year after petitioner was served with an infringement complaint).
- Oracle (and co-petitioners) had filed the IPR petition; Board instituted review despite CTC’s § 315(b) challenge.
- While this appeal was pending, this court decided Achates Reference Publishing, Inc. v. Apple Inc., holding that 35 U.S.C. § 314(d) bars appellate review of the Board’s institution decision, including § 315(b) time-bar determinations.
- Oracle cited Achates and asked the court to dismiss CTC’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction; CTC argued (1) an ultra vires exception allows review when the agency violates a clear statutory mandate and (2) it had sought mandamus relief.
- The Federal Circuit concluded Achates controlled, rejected CTC’s ultra vires/statutory-interpretation exception, found no mandamus petition properly before the court, and dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Board’s institution decision based on § 315(b) is reviewable on appeal | CTC: § 315(b) time-bar should bar institution; appellate review is available because Board violated statutory mandate | Oracle: § 314(d) bars appellate review of institution decisions, including § 315(b) determinations | Held: Appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction under Achates; § 314(d) precludes review of Board’s institution decision on § 315(b) grounds |
| Whether mandamus is available to obtain review of the Board’s institution decision | CTC: alternatively sought writ of mandamus because Board exceeded statute by ignoring § 315(b) | Oracle: no mandamus pending; standards for mandamus not met | Held: No mandamus petition before court; CTC’s cursory alternative allegations insufficient to warrant consideration of mandamus relief |
Key Cases Cited
- Cheney v. United States Dist. Court, 542 U.S. 367 (2004) (three-part standard for issuance of writ of mandamus)