Director Explains Denial of Meishan CRRC's IPR Against Howmet: Majority Owner SASAC Is an Unnamed Foreign Government Real Party in Interest.

The proceeding

The proceeding is Meishan CRRC Fastening System Co., Ltd. v. Howmet Aerospace Inc., IPR2026-00268, challenging U.S. Patent 11,885,358, "Blind Fastener and Method of Installation Thereof." The Director's August 13, 2026 notice of decisions on institution denied institution in this proceeding under 35 U.S.C. 314(a), after review of discretionary and non-merits considerations, and marked it opinion forthcoming. The October 23 decision gives the reasons. Howmet had filed a request for discretionary denial, the petitioner opposed, and each side filed one more brief.

The arguments

Howmet argued that the petition failed to identify all real parties in interest, including the State-owned Assets Supervision and Administration Commission of the State Council (SASAC), which it called a division of the Chinese government with "the ability to control this IPR proceeding as the majority owner of Meishan." It also cited a CRRC Group annual report describing the group as "a large state-owned enterprise under the direct management of the SASAC." The petitioner argued that it "independently retained, directed, and paid the legal fees of its counsel" and that no governance document gives any shareholder, parent, government entity, or Party organization authority to approve, direct, or veto its decision to file an IPR.

The decision

The Director relied on Tianma Microelectronics Co. v. LG Display Co., IPR2025-01579, Paper 12 (Director Mar. 18, 2026) (precedential), which holds that Return Mail, Inc. v. United States Postal Service, 587 U.S. 618 (2019), bars a foreign government from being a petitioner or a real party in interest in an inter partes review or post-grant review. He found that Howmet's undisputed evidence that SASAC is a division of a foreign government and a majority owner of the petitioner put the identification of real parties in interest in dispute, citing Worlds Inc. v. Bungie, Inc., 903 F.3d 1237 (Fed. Cir. 2018), and Corning Optical Communications RF, LLC v. PPC Broadband Inc., IPR2014-00440, Paper 68 (PTAB Aug. 18, 2015) (precedential, except section II.E.1). The burden then fell on the petitioner.

The Director wrote that the petitioner's evidence may establish that it prepared, funded, and controlled the proceeding, but wrote that real parties in interest also include entities with the ability to control it. He noted his statement in Tianma that the Office expects each petitioner and patent owner to identify any owner of 10% or more in its mandatory notices, and found that SASAC holds majority, and thus controlling, ownership. He was "not persuaded" that governance evidence overcomes the fact that SASAC "could, based on its controlling stake, choose to exert control over this proceeding," and held that the petitioner failed to carry its burden to establish that a foreign government is not a real party in interest. The petition was denied and no trial instituted.

Counsel

Robins Kaplan LLP (Cy Morton and Li Zhu) represents the petitioner. Greenberg Traurig, LLP (Heath Briggs, Trenton Ward, and Joseph Agostino) represents Howmet.

What to watch next

Watch whether the Office designates the decision precedential or informative, and for further Director decisions applying Tianma to petitioners with government shareholders.