Tianma Microelectronics Co., Ltd. v. LG Display Co., Ltd.

A foreign government is not a "person" under 35 U.S.C. § 311(a) (and § 321(a)), so under Return Mail it cannot be a petitioner in an AIA proceeding, and the bar also applies when a foreign government is a real party in interest of a petitioner. When the patent owner puts into dispute whether all RPIs were named and a foreign government is an RPI, the petitioner bears the burden to show it named all RPIs and that none was a foreign government or an entity a foreign government could control, and a conclusory declaration unsupported by relevant documents fails that burden, so institution is denied. The Director calls this an issue of first impression: Return Mail addressed only a U.S. federal agency, and the decision extends it symmetrically to foreign governments and to foreign-government RPIs. A petitioner with foreign state-linked owners or affiliates must now affirmatively prove, with documents, who funds, controls or directs the petition, or face denial; the decision also says a later-arising foreign sovereign RPI warrants termination. A patent owner can defeat institution by producing some evidence of an unnamed RPI, such as ownership chains, entity-list status and disclosure statements, which shifts the burden of persuasion to the petitioner. The analysis rests on Return Mail, Inc. v. United States Postal Service, 587 U.S. 618 (2019), and Worlds Inc. v. Bungie, Inc., 903 F.3d 1237 (Fed. Cir. 2018), on the RPI burden, and the Director also cites Apple Inc. v. Squires on broad discretion not to institute. LEGAL TEST OR STANDARD: Only "a person" other than the patent owner may petition for IPR (35 U.S.C. § 311(a); § 321(a) for PGR); a foreign government is not a "person" and neither may be an RPI of a petitioner. The factual questions are: (1) at the time the petition was filed, a foreign government was Petitioner's RPI and, therefore, the petition was barred; or (2) whether Patent Owner at least put the RPI question into dispute and, if so, whether Petitioner sufficiently rebutted that argument by showing that the foreign government was not an RPI. The patent owner must produce some evidence tending to show a third party should be named an RPI; then the petitioner bears the burden of persuasion. TRIGGERING FACTS: Patent Owner showed Tianma's Corporate Disclosure Statement listing AVIC Innovation as owning 10% or more of its stock, articles and reports that AVIC owns AVIC Innovation and Tianma, that AVIC is wholly owned by the Chinese government, AVIC's appearance on the Commerce entity list, and Petitioner's naming of other foreign government-owned entities as RPIs in other IPRs. Petitioner answered only with a conclusory declaration (Ex. 1014 ¶ 4) and no documents on AVIC's share rights or relationship. KEY QUOTE: "A government cannot evade the Return Mail bar simply by enlisting a “person” to do its IPR bidding." (Paper 12, p. 6) PRIOR PRECEDENT AFFECTED: Extends Return Mail, Inc. v. United States Postal Service, 587 U.S. 618 (2019), to foreign governments. Follows Corning Optical Commc'ns RF, LLC v. PPC Broadband, Inc., IPR2014-00440, Paper 68 (PTAB Aug. 18, 2015) (precedential, except § II.E.1) on the obligation to identify all RPIs, and cites Yangtze Memory Techs. Co. v. Micron Tech., Inc., IPR2025-00098, Paper 38 (Director Jan. 15, 2026) (informative). PRACTICE TIP: If any petitioner or RPI has foreign-government ownership or links, identify the 10%-or-more owners in the mandatory notices and file documentary evidence, such as share rights and control documents, with the petition or opposition showing no foreign government funded, controlled or directed the IPR; do not rely on a conclusory declaration.