USPTO Director Vacates All Seven TikTok IPRs Over Foreign Government RPI Under Tianma Framework

USPTO Director John A. Squires vacated all seven inter partes review (IPR) proceedings that TikTok Inc. had filed against CellSpin Soft, Inc., in an order issued on March 30, 2026. The Director found that TikTok failed to carry its burden of establishing that entities of the Chinese national government were not real parties-in-interest (RPIs) at the time the petitions were filed. The decision applies the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (PTAB) precedential ruling in Tianma Microelectronics Co., Ltd. v. LG Display Co., Ltd. (IPR2025-01579), and marks the most prominent application yet of foreign-government RPI restrictions in AIA trial proceedings.

The legal foundation for the Director’s order traces to the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2019 decision in Return Mail, Inc. v. United States Postal Service, 587 U.S. 618, which held that federal agencies cannot be “persons” eligible to petition for IPR. The PTAB’s Tianma precedential decision extended this logic to foreign governments: because foreign state entities, like the U.S. government, are not “persons” within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 311, a petition filed by or on behalf of a foreign government-controlled entity is ineligible for institution. When the Tianma framework was applied to TikTok, the Director concluded that TikTok had not sufficiently demonstrated that Chinese state-linked entities — which indirectly hold ownership interests in TikTok’s parent company ByteDance — were absent as RPIs at the time of filing. The Director’s order (Paper 42) covered seven proceedings led by IPR2024-00757, all challenging data-transfer and sharing patents held by CellSpin Soft.

A central issue in the order is the allocation of the burden of proof on RPI disclosure. Under prior PTAB practice, deficiencies in RPI disclosures were often treated with relative leniency. Following the Tianma precedent, however, petitioners with any plausible foreign government connection must affirmatively and specifically establish the absence of governmental RPI status. Director Squires stated in the order that RPI disclosure is not merely a procedural formality but “a legal requirement and a security imperative” — knowing who funds, directs, and benefits from a petition is “essential to fair, accountable, and trusted adjudication.”

For TikTok, the decision represents a significant setback in its IP defense strategy. The company faces multiple patent infringement actions brought by CellSpin Soft, and the seven IPR petitions had been intended to invalidate the asserted patents before the PTAB rather than contesting their validity in district court, where the standard of proof — clear and convincing evidence — is considerably more demanding than the preponderance standard applied in IPR. With all seven proceedings vacated, TikTok must now pursue validity challenges through alternative routes. CellSpin Soft’s litigation activity has expanded: the company filed a new complaint against Autel Robotics and others in the Eastern District of Texas (2:2026cv00226) in January 2026.

The TikTok decision reflects a broader directional shift at the USPTO under Director Squires. According to data reported by IPWatchdog, the PTAB’s overall IPR institution rate dropped from approximately 65% in October 2024 to roughly 37% in February 2026 — a 43% reduction. Discretionary denials on RPI grounds are one contributing factor, alongside a March 2026 USPTO memorandum directing PTAB judges to consider whether the products at issue are manufactured and sold in the United States as an additional discretionary institution factor. Together, these policy shifts signal that non-U.S. petitioners — especially those with state ownership linkage — now face materially higher barriers to obtaining IPR institution.

For practitioners advising foreign clients on PTAB strategy, the practical implications are direct. Any petitioner with indirect government ownership, whether through sovereign wealth funds, state-owned enterprises, or national development banks, must conduct a thorough RPI analysis before filing. The TikTok order makes clear that even minority government ownership can trigger the threshold eligibility problem under the Tianma framework. An incomplete or inadequate RPI disclosure risks not just denial at institution but vacatur of a proceeding that has already been instituted — leaving the petitioner without access to the PTAB’s favorable invalidity standard at precisely the moment it matters most.