CLICK-TO-CALL TECHNOLOGIES v. ORACLE CORP. , No. 15-1242 (Fed. Cir. 2018)
Annotate this CaseThis opinion or order relates to an opinion or order originally issued on November 12, 2015.
Download PDF
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ CLICK-TO-CALL TECHNOLOGIES, LP, Appellant v. ORACLE CORPORATION, ORACLE OTC SUBSIDIARY, LLC, INGENIO, INC., YELLOWPAGES.COM, LLC, Appellees JOSEPH MATAL, PERFORMING THE FUNCTIONS AND DUTIES OF THE UNDER SECRETARY OF COMMERCE FOR INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY AND DIRECTOR, U.S. PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE, Intervenor ______________________ 2015-1242 ______________________ Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. IPR201300312. ______________________ ON PETITION FOR PANEL REHEARING ______________________ 2 CLICK-TO-CALL TECHNOLOGIES, LPZ v. ORACLE CORPORATION Before O’MALLEY and TARANTO, Circuit Judges, and STARK, District Judge *. PER CURIAM. ORDER Appellant Click-to-Call Technologies, LP (“CTC”) filed a petition for rehearing en banc, in which it seeks two forms of relief. First, it asks the court to vacate the panel’s November 17, 2016 opinion dismissing CTC’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction. See Click-to-Call Techs., LP v. Oracle Corp., No. 2015-1242, 2016 WL 6803054 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 17, 2016). Second, CTC asks the court to rehear its appeal, which centers on CTC’s contention that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“the Board”) erred in determining that inter partes review proceeding IPR201300312 was not barred by 35 U.S.C. § 315(b). The petition therefore requests relief that can be granted by the panel that heard the appeal. See Fed. Cir. R. 35 Practice Notes. The panel determines that rehearing of CTC’s appeal is warranted in light of this court’s en banc opinion in WiFi One, LLC v. Broadcom Corp., --- F.3d ---, 2018 WL 313065 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 8, 2018) (en banc). Upon consideration thereof, IT IS ORDERED THAT: (1) The petition for rehearing en banc filed by Appellant is construed as a petition for panel rehearing, which the panel grants. (2) The court’s opinion in Click-to-Call Technologies, LP v. Oracle Corp., No. 2015-1242, 2016 WL The Honorable Leonard P. Stark, Chief District Judge, United States District Court for the District of Delaware, sitting by designation. * CLICK-TO-CALL TECHNOLOGIES, LP v. ORACLE CORPORATION 6803054 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 17, 2016) is vacated, and the appeal is reinstated. (3) Appellant, Appellees Oracle Corporation, Oracle OTC Subsidiary, LLC, Ingenio, Inc., and Yellowpgaes.com, LLC (together, “Appellees”), and Intervenor the Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“Intervenor”), may file supplemental briefs, which shall be limited to addressing the merits of the Board’s compliance with § 315(b) in this case, and shall further be limited to addressing developments that have occurred after the date on which Appellant filed its opening appeal brief. (4) All supplemental briefs shall be electronically filed in the ECF system, and six paper copies of each brief shall be filed with the court. Two paper copies of all filings shall be served on counsel for all other parties. Briefs shall adhere to the typevolume limitations set forth in Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 32 and Federal Circuit Rule 32, with the exception that no brief may contain more than 7,000 words. (5) Appellant’s supplemental brief must be filed by Monday, February 5, 2018. Appellees’ joint supplemental brief must be filed by Wednesday, February 21, 2018. Intervenor’s supplemental brief must be filed by Monday, March 5, 2018. No other briefs shall be filed. (6) The appeal will be heard on the basis of the parties’ appeal briefs, the supplemental briefs ordered herein, and, if necessary, oral argument. 3 4 CLICK-TO-CALL TECHNOLOGIES, LPZ v. ORACLE CORPORATION FOR THE COURT January 19, 2018 Date /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner Peter R. Marksteiner Clerk of Court
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
