Director Denies IPR Over Foreign Government RPI Ties

by | Jun 12, 2026 | PTAB News, PTAB Trial Basics, Real Party in Interest, Trial Institution

By Hannah Mehrle and Matt Johnson –

The Director issued a precedential discretionary denial on the ground that a foreign government entity was an undisclosed real party in interest(“RPI”). The ruling extended Return Mail, Inc. v. United States Postal Service, 587 U.S. 618 (2019)—which barred federal agencies from petitioning for AIA post-issuance review—to include foreign governments.

LG Display Co., Ltd. (“Patent Owner”) argued that Tianma Microelectronics Co., Ltd., Tianma Microelectronics (HONG KONG) Limited, and Wuhan Tianma Microelectronics Co., Ltd. (collectively “Petitioner”) failed to disclose several RPIs, including a foreign government entity. Patent Owner argued that Tianma Microelectronics Co., Ltd. (“Tianma”) is a subsidiary of Aviation Industry Corporation of China (“AVIC”). Tianma’s Corporate Disclosure Statement identified AVIC Innovation Holding Limited (“AVIC Innovation”) as owning 10% or more of Tianma’s stock, and Patent Owner provided evidence that AVIC owns AVIC Innovation and Tianma. Patent Owner further showed that AVIC appears on the Department of Commerce’s “entity list”—parties involved in activities contrary to U.S. national security or foreign policy interests. Petitioner countered that none of the identified entities funded, controlled, or directed the IPR.

The AIA provides that only “a person” may file an IPR petition. In Return Mail, the Supreme Court held that a federal agency is not a person who can petition for post-issuance review under the AIA, applying a longstanding presumption that “person” does not include the sovereign. The Court did not address foreign governments. The Director concluded here—based on Return Mail and case law interpreting “person” to exclude both federal agencies and foreign governments–that a foreign government cannot petition for post-issuance review. The Director reasoned this interpretation would put federal agencies and foreign governments on equal ground.

The Director extended this bar to petitions where a foreign government is an RPI, reasoning that to hold otherwise would allow foreign governments to do an “end-run” around Return Mail by having nominal petitioners file on their behalf. The Director emphasized national security concerns, noting that state-linked entities have used opaque investment structures to covertly finance U.S. patent challenges in sensitive technology sectors. The Director further noted that Tianma and other “entity list” companies are frequent IPR petitioners, collectively ranking among the top ten filers from 2019–2024.

The Director found Patent Owner’s evidence sufficient to dispute whether the Petition identified all RPIs and whether an RPI is not a “person” eligible to file. With the RPI issue in dispute, the burden shifted to Petitioner to demonstrate it had named all RPIs and that none were foreign governments. The Director found Petitioner’s conclusory declaration insufficient. Accordingly, the Petition was denied.

This decision shows that the Board will evaluate ownership and control structures behind IPR petitions, and foreign government involvement—direct or indirect—may be fatal to institution. The ruling also confirms that an IPR should be terminated if a foreign government becomes an RPI after filing.

 

The following two tabs change content below.
My LinkedIn profile

Matthew Johnson

Partner at Jones Day
Matt Johnson is one of the Firm's primary contacts on practice before the PTAB. Currently co-chairing the Firm's PTAB subpractice and involved in proceedings at the Board since the first day of their availability in September 2012, Matt regularly represents clients as both petitioners and patent owners at the Board. He further works as an advocate for clients in appeals from Board proceedings at the Federal Circuit.