On August 13, 2026, the Director denied institution of Meishan CRRC’s petition for inter partes review (IPR) of a Howmet Aerospace patent. The Director explained why on October 23, 2026. The Director found that China’s State-owned Assets Supervision and Administration Commission, as majority owner, was an unnamed real party in interest. Under Tianma, a foreign government can’t be a petitioner or a real party in interest.
Part 1 of 3
Meishan CRRC Fastening System Co., Ltd. petitioned for review of Howmet Aerospace’s Patent 11,885,358 B2. The Director denied institution on August 13, 2026, and issued the opinion explaining the denial on October 23, 2026.
The majority owner, a state commission, was an unnamed real party in interest.
A foreign government can’t be a petitioner or a real party in interest.
The Director found that China’s State-owned Assets Supervision and Administration Commission, as majority owner, was a real party in interest. The petition didn’t name it.
Tianma, precedential since March 18, 2026, holds that a foreign government can’t be a petitioner or a real party in interest. Tianma applies the Supreme Court’s decision in Return Mail.
Part 2 of 3
Once the identity of the real parties in interest is disputed, the petitioner has the burden.
The ability to control the proceeding is enough. The petitioner’s evidence that its governance documents give no other entity control over legal proceedings didn’t overcome majority ownership by a government entity.
Part 3 of 3
The decision isn’t designated precedential or informative.
In Tianma, the petitioner was owned in part by a state-owned group and offered only a conclusory declaration. Here, a government commission held a majority stake, and governance documents didn’t change the result.
The takeaway
Evidence about governance didn’t answer majority ownership by a foreign government here. If your ownership invites the question, name every owner that could control the proceeding before you file.
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.