The opinion
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.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. IPR2013-
00312.
______________________
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 IPR2013-
00312 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 Wi-
Fi One, LLC v. Broadcom Corp., --- F.3d ---, 2018 WL
313065 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 8, 2018) (en banc). Upon consider-
ation thereof,
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
(1) The petition for rehearing en banc filed by
Appellant is construed as a petition for panel re-
hearing, which the panel grants.
(2) The court’s opinion in Click-to-Call Technolo-
gies, 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 3
v. ORACLE CORPORATION
6803054 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 17, 2016) is vacated, and
the appeal is reinstated.
(3) Appellant, Appellees Oracle Corporation, Ora-
cle OTC Subsidiary, LLC, Ingenio, Inc., and Yel-
lowpgaes.com, LLC (together, “Appellees”), and
Intervenor the Director of the United States Pa-
tent and Trademark Office (“Intervenor”), may file
supplemental briefs, which shall be limited to ad-
dressing the merits of the Board’s compliance with
§ 315(b) in this case, and shall further be limited
to addressing developments that have occurred af-
ter 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 type-
volume 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 or-
dered herein, and, if necessary, oral argument.
4 CLICK-TO-CALL TECHNOLOGIES, LPZ
v. ORACLE CORPORATION
FOR THE COURT
January 19, 2018 /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner
Date Peter R. Marksteiner
Clerk of Court