IP Law Daily, PATENT—PTAB: USPTO Director denies institution of IPR challenging LG’s electronic display panel patent, (Mar 20, 2026)

By Saurabh Kashyap, B.A., LL.B., LL.M.

Petitioner failed to disclose and rebut potential foreign sovereign real party in interest, with the Director holding that a foreign government is not a “person” under the AIA.

In a rare precedential decision, USPTO Director John Squires has denied institution of inter partes review (IPR) against a display technology patent owned by LG Display Co., Ltd., holding that a foreign government as a real party in interest (RPI) rendered the petitioner ineligible under the America Invents Act (AIA). The Director further found that the petitioner failed to disclose all RPIs and did not meet its burden to rebut evidence of foreign sovereign involvement. The decision clarified, as a matter of first impression, that foreign governments are not “persons” entitled to file IPR petitions (Tianma Microelectronics Co., Ltd. v. LG Display Co., Ltd., No. IPR2025-01579 (PTAB Mar. 18, 2026)).

Background. The petitioner, Tianma Microelectronics Co., Ltd., and its affiliated entities, are manufacturers of display panels and electronic components. The patent owner, LG Display Co., Ltd., is a global leader in display technologies. The parties operate in overlapping segments of the display panel industry, including advanced electronic display systems.

The dispute involved U.S. Patent No. 11,251,394 B2 (the ’394 patent), which relates to structural and functional aspects of display panel technology. The patent generally concerns improvements in display device configurations used in modern electronic systems.

The petitioner filed an IPR petition challenging the patentability of claims of the ’394 patent. In response, the patent owner sought a discretionary denial, arguing that the petitioner failed to identify all RPIs and that certain undisclosed entities linked to a foreign sovereign should have been named. The patent owner relied on corporate disclosures and public records indicating that Aviation Industry Corporation of China (AVIC), a Chinese state-owned defense conglomerate, held ownership interests in the petitioner through affiliated entities. The petitioner opposed, asserting that no such entities exercised control over the IPR. The matter was presented to the Director for determination on the institution.

Foreign sovereign bar. The Director first addressed whether the Supreme Court’s decision in Return Mail, Inc. v. United States Postal Service, 587 U.S. 618 (2019), extends to foreign governments. In Return Mail, the Court held that a federal agency is not a “person” eligible to initiate post-grant proceedings under the AIA.

Applying the longstanding presumption that the term “person” excludes sovereign entities, as articulated in Vermont Agency of Natural Resources v. United States ex rel. Stevens, 529 U.S. 765, 780–81 (2000), the Director concluded that foreign governments are likewise excluded. The Director also relied on Sturdza v. United Arab Emirates, 281 F.3d 1287, 1307 (D.C. Cir. 2002), which interprets statutory references to “person” as excluding foreign sovereigns.

The Director held that a foreign government cannot file an IPR petition and, importantly, cannot be an RPI behind such a petition. Allowing otherwise would enable sovereign entities to circumvent statutory limits by acting through nominal private parties, thereby undermining the statutory framework and creating asymmetry in treatment between domestic and foreign governments.

RPI dispute framework. Turning to the facts, the Director held that the patent owner had sufficiently placed the RPI issue into dispute. Citing Worlds Inc. v. Bungie, Inc., 903 F.3d 1237, 1244 (Fed. Cir. 2018), the Director reiterated that a patent owner only needs to present “some evidence” suggesting that an unnamed party qualifies as an RPI. Here, the patent owner produced evidence showing that AVIC Innovation held a significant ownership interest in the petitioner and that AVIC, a state-owned enterprise, controlled that entity. It also pointed to AVIC’s inclusion on the U.S. Department of Commerce’s entity list. This evidence was sufficient to raise a credible question as to whether a foreign sovereign was an undisclosed RPI. The Director emphasized that accurate RPI identification is essential to ensure transparency in PTAB proceedings and to protect broader public and national security interests.

Failure to rebut. Once the RPI issue was raised, the burden shifted to the petitioner to demonstrate that it had properly identified all RPIs and that no foreign sovereign exercised control over the proceeding. Relying on Worlds, 903 F.3d at 1242, the Director reaffirmed that the petitioner bears the burden of persuasion.

The petitioner submitted a declaration asserting that no foreign entity funded, controlled, or directed the IPR. However, the Director found this evidence to be conclusory and unsupported by documentary proof. The petitioner failed to provide corporate governance documents or other materials clarifying the rights and influence of AVIC or its affiliates.

In light of the unrebutted evidence, the Director determined that the petitioner failed to carry its burden. Accordingly, the petitioner was deemed ineligible to file the IPR because a foreign government was considered an RPI.

Discretionary denial. Independently, the Director exercised discretionary authority to deny institution, citing the Office’s broad discretion under Apple Inc. v. Squires, No. 2024-1864, 2026 WL 406495 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 13, 2026). The Director emphasized that the integrity of PTAB proceedings depends on transparency regarding who funds, directs, or benefits from a petition.

The decision also referenced policy concerns regarding the use of opaque investment structures by foreign state-linked entities to influence U.S. intellectual property proceedings. The Director concluded that allowing such petitions would undermine confidence in the patent system and potentially implicate national security considerations.

Thus, the Director denied institution of inter partes review and declined to initiate trial proceedings.

The Case is No. IPR2025-01579.

Judge: NA

Attorneys: Joshua Goldberg (Garrett & Dunner, L.L.P.) for Tianma Microelectronics Co. Ltd. Amanda Bonner (Mayer Brown LLP) for LG Display Co. Ltd.

Companies: Tianma Microelectronics Co. Ltd.; LG Display Co. Ltd.

Cases: Patent USPTO