# A foreign government can’t petition. Prove you aren’t one. Two Director rulings in January and March 2026 extend a Supreme Court case about the Postal Service to foreign states. Once the patent owner credibly raised state control, the petitioner had to prove its real parties in interest with documents. Neither petitioner did, and neither was found to be a foreign government. Sources checked October 16, 2026 **0** findings that either petitioner was a foreign government. Both lost on the burden of proof. ## Before you read The owner says the petitioner is controlled by a foreign government. The petitioner files a declaration denying it. Who has to prove what? - The owner must prove control - The petitioner must prove, with evidence, that no foreign government is a real party in interest - Nobody: the Board decides on the petition alone Tianma (precedential) puts the burden on the petitioner once real parties in interest are credibly disputed. A declaration alone, without documents, was insufficient. ## From the Postal Service to a display maker In 2019, the Supreme Court held in Return Mail that the U.S. Postal Service couldn’t petition the PTAB, because a federal agency isn’t a “person” under the America Invents Act. Return Mail Seven years later, that holding reached a display maker. On March 18, 2026, the Director denied Tianma Microelectronics’ petition against an LG Display patent under a heading that says it plainly: “Return Mail Bars a Foreign Government from Filing an IPR Petition.” Tianma ## Only a person may petition The statute lets “a person” other than the patent owner petition for an IPR or a PGR. 35 U.S.C. §§ 311(a), 321(a) Drawing on Return Mail, the Dictionary Act and court decisions excluding foreign states, the Director concluded that “a foreign government is not a ‘person’ under the AIA.” If a petitioner or its real party in interest turns out to be one, “the trial could not be instituted, or if instituted, would have to be terminated.” Tianma A real party in interest is, roughly, any party that funds, directs or controls the petition, or has the ability to control it. Every petition must name all of them. 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(2) ## Who has to prove what LG Display argued that Tianma was a subsidiary and affiliate of the Aviation Industry Corporation of China, AVIC, “a large aerospace and defense conglomerate wholly owned by the Chinese government,” and that Tianma hadn’t named it. Tianma The Director put the burden on the petitioner. With real parties in interest in dispute, “it is Petitioner’s burden to bring forth evidence or arguments demonstrating that it had named all RPIs—and that none were foreign governments or entities a foreign government had the ability to control.” Tianma Tianma was “deemed ineligible to file an IPR and the Petition is denied.” Nothing had been instituted, so nothing was vacated. Tianma ## Yangtze: undone after institution Yangtze Memory v. Micron, decided January 15, 2026 and designated informative the next day, is the same pattern later in the case. The Board had instituted two IPRs. Micron sought Director Review, arguing that Yangtze was controlled by a foreign government. Yangtze Memory In November 2025 the Director ordered Yangtze to show cause because it was on the Commerce Department’s Entity List, but the decision says it “does not rely on that listing.” It turned on the burden: Yangtze “did not meet its burden to identify all real parties in interest.” The Director vacated both institution decisions and denied the petitions. Yangtze Memory ## What to do Choose your side. ## Cuts the other way Neither ruling found that the petitioner was a foreign government. Both turned on insufficient proof, so a petitioner with clean, documented ownership should be able to proceed. Yangtze is informative and doesn’t bind. Tianma is precedential, and it came alongside other designations that enforce disclosure of real parties in interest: Corning Optical (precedential except § II.E.1, designated October 28, 2025) and Curium (informative, designated February 25, 2026). Corning Optical Curium The Office is enforcing disclosure. That is not the same as barring every state-linked petitioner. ## The takeaway If your ownership invites the question, have the documents ready before you file. ## Related stories - [The precedent in your template may have retired.](https://postgrantproceeding.com/insights/d20-the-precedent-in-your-template-may-have-retired) - [The one-year clock runs on paper, not excuses.](https://postgrantproceeding.com/insights/d12-the-one-year-clock-runs-on-paper) - [Same patent, same petitioner, opposite results.](https://postgrantproceeding.com/insights/d04-same-patent-same-petitioner-opposite-results) ## Sources - S17. Tianma Microelectronics Co., Ltd. v. LG Display Co., Ltd., No. IPR2025-01579, Paper 12 (USPTO Director March 18, 2026) (precedential, designated Mar. 18, 2026). https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/IPR2025-01579Paper12.pdf - S64. Yangtze Memory Technologies Co. v. Micron Technology, Inc., No. IPR2025-00098, Paper 38 (USPTO Director Jan. 15, 2026), also covering IPR2025-00099 (informative, designated Jan. 16, 2026). https://www.uspto.gov/patents/ptab/precedential-informative-decisions - S65. Return Mail, Inc. v. United States Postal Service, 587 U.S. 618 (2019). https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/slipopinion/18 - S13. Federal patent statutes, 35 U.S.C. §§ 253(a), 303(a), 311–315, 317 and 321–325. Reproduced in MPEP Appendix L (currency date stated by the appendix: Jan. 31, 2024). https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/mpep-9015-appx-l.html - S66. Corning Optical Communications RF, LLC v. PPC Broadband, Inc., No. IPR2014-00440, Paper 68 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 18, 2015) (precedential except § II.E.1, designated Oct. 28, 2025). https://www.uspto.gov/patents/ptab/precedential-informative-decisions - S41. Curium US LLC v. Universität Heidelberg, No. IPR2025-01582, Paper 11 (USPTO Director February 25, 2026) (informative, designated Feb. 25, 2026). https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/IPR2025_01582_paper_11.pdf Precedential decisions bind the Board within their designated scope. Informative decisions show the Office’s reasoning but do not bind the Board. Court opinions are cited for what they decided; later history was checked on the date shown above. Updated - October 17, 2026: Corning Optical is precedential except § II.E.1, as the USPTO list shows. The story now says so. General information about published decisions, not legal advice. Reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship.