# An unnamed state owner got an IPR petition denied.

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.

Sources checked October 29, 2026

**Denied** institution of Meishan CRRC’s petition, after the Director found its majority owner, a state commission, was an unnamed real party in interest.

## What the Director held

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. Meishan CRRC, Paper 27 Meishan CRRC, Paper 29

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. Meishan CRRC, Paper 29

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. Tianma Return Mail

## Who has to prove what

Once the identity of the real parties in interest is disputed, the petitioner has the burden. Meishan CRRC, Paper 29

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. Meishan CRRC, Paper 29

## Read the limits

The decision isn’t designated precedential or informative. Meishan CRRC, Paper 29

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. Tianma Meishan CRRC, Paper 29

## 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.

## Related stories

- [Once state control is disputed, petitioners bear the burden.](https://postgrantproceeding.com/insights/d08-a-foreign-government-cant-petition-prove-you-arent-one)
- [De-designated decisions can hide in old templates.](https://postgrantproceeding.com/insights/d20-the-precedent-in-your-template-may-have-retired)
- [IPR one-year bar: petitioners lost seven of ten.](https://postgrantproceeding.com/insights/d12-the-one-year-clock-runs-on-paper)

## Sources

- S109. Meishan CRRC Fastening System Co., Ltd. v. Howmet Aerospace Inc., No. IPR2026-00268, Paper 27 (USPTO Director August 13, 2026) (notice denying institution). https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/1558920/download-documents?artifactId=DcNg-cM-F_u2Ja8gvH9dr03SM1HKT0IwOvhCBG9fvUwXdZw1aoFg5xA
- S99. Meishan CRRC Fastening System Co., Ltd. v. Howmet Aerospace Inc., No. IPR2026-00268, Paper 29 (USPTO Director October 23, 2026) (decision explaining denial of institution). https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/1558920/download-documents?artifactId=ad_UIvrPsBdE5LWcNBaFvadEUdPFpVMsubCna-m92fumTH6usMrriYc
- 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
- S65. Return Mail, Inc. v. United States Postal Service, 587 U.S. 618 (2019). https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/slipopinion/18

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.

General information about published decisions, not legal advice. Reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship.