USPTO Dismisses TikTok’s Patent Challenges, Finding Chinese Government May Be a Real Party in Interest

On March 30, 2026, USPTO Director John Squires issued an order vacating the decisions to institute seven inter partes review (IPR) proceedings filed by TikTok Inc. against patents held by Cellspin Soft, Inc. The basis for the decision was TikTok’s failure to establish that the Chinese government was not a real party in interest (RPI) at the time the petitions were filed.

Background

According to IPWatchdog, TikTok filed IPR petitions in 2024 challenging multiple Bluetooth-related patents owned by Cellspin Soft. During the proceedings, Cellspin Soft raised concerns about the relationship between TikTok’s parent company ByteDance and the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), arguing that the Chinese government constituted an RPI.

Under IPR rules, petitioners must accurately identify all RPIs. Failure to disclose an RPI constitutes grounds for dismissal of the petition.

Application of the Tianma Precedent

As MLex reported, Director Squires applied the PTAB’s 2025 precedential decision in Tianma Microelectronics v. LG Display to the present case. The Tianma decision established that when a foreign government may be behind a patent invalidity challenge, the petitioner bears the burden of proving that no such government involvement exists.

In this case, Cellspin Soft raised concerns about the relationship between TikTok and the Chinese government, and TikTok declined to submit rebuttal evidence. Director Squires treated this silence as significant, concluding that TikTok had failed to carry its burden regarding RPI disclosure.

Rejection of the U.S. Joint Venture Argument

Bloomberg Law reported that TikTok argued the creation of an American-owned joint venture in January 2026 eliminated what it called “rank speculation” about CCP control. However, Director Squires rejected this argument, noting that the IPR petitions were filed in 2024 and the relevant inquiry focuses on the circumstances at the time of filing.

IP Policy Implications

This decision raises several important intellectual property policy issues.

First, it significantly expands the reach of the Tianma precedent. While Tianma itself involved a Chinese state-owned enterprise, this decision makes clear that even nominally private companies may face RPI challenges if there are concerns about foreign government ties.

Second, the allocation of the burden of proof is noteworthy. In typical civil litigation, the party making the assertion bears the burden of proof. Here, the petitioner is required to prove the negative: that a foreign government is not an RPI. This effectively requires proof of a negative fact, creating a high bar for foreign-connected entities.

Third, this reasoning could extend beyond Chinese companies. The logical structure of the Tianma decision is theoretically applicable to any entity suspected of foreign government influence. Companies with ties to Russia, Iran, North Korea, or other countries could face similar challenges when seeking to use IPR proceedings.

Practical Impact

Following this decision, foreign companies, particularly those with potential links to foreign governments, will need to provide detailed RPI disclosures and affirmative evidence negating government involvement at the petition stage. Remaining silent is no longer a viable option.

For patent owners, the decision establishes a new defensive tool against IPR challenges from foreign entities. Raising concerns about a petitioner’s government connections and asserting RPI disclosure deficiencies can serve as an effective strategy.

As a case where geopolitical tensions directly impact intellectual property proceedings, this decision will serve as an important reference point. The situation where the validity of patents, a fundamentally technical and legal inquiry, may be influenced by a petitioner’s nationality and background, raises critical questions about the neutrality of the international patent system.