CRRC Meishan Co. Ltd. et al. v. Howmet Aerospace Inc.
Patent Trial and Appeal Board
Holding
The Director denied institution of IPR2026-00268 on Patent 11,885,358 because the Petition did not name SASAC, a Chinese government entity and majority owner of Petitioner Meishan CRRC Fastening System, as a real party in interest. Applying Return Mail and Tianma, a foreign government cannot be a petitioner or RPI, and Petitioner did not carry its burden to show that no foreign government is an RPI, so it is ineligible to file an IPR. The decision rests on RPI/eligibility grounds under § 312(a)(2), not on the NHK-Fintiv factors, § 325(d), or the merits of any prior-art ground.
Why It Matters
Petitioners with foreign-government ownership face denial where the government entity holds a controlling stake, even if governance documents and evidence show the petitioner alone funded and directed the IPR. The test turns on the ability to control the proceeding, not actual control, and the petitioner bears the burden of persuasion once the patent owner produces some evidence.
How this summary was made: Drafted with AI from the Board's or the Director's decision; before publishing, code checked that the quotation and the citations it gives appear in that document. Editorial policy
New to PTAB and post-grant? Start with IPR vs. PGR: Inter Partes Review and Post-Grant Review Compared
- PTAB Director Review · Oct. 21, 2026Notice of Decisions on Institution — 2026-10-21
- PTAB Director Review · Oct. 21, 2026Palo Alto Networks, Inc. v. Qomplx LLC
- PTAB Director Review · Oct. 19, 2026Notice of Decisions on Institution — 2026-10-19
- PTAB Director Review · Oct. 8, 2026Notice of Decisions on Institution — 2026-10-08
- PTAB Director Review · Sept. 24, 2026Biocon Biologics Limited et al. v. Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.