USPTO Restores Pre-SharkNinja Requirement for Petitioners to Identify all RPIs Before Institution of Trial

The US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has designated Corning Optical Communications RF LLC v. PPC Broadband Inc. as precedential, marking a significant shift in inter partes review (IPR) and post-grant review (PGR) practice. With this designation, the USPTO reinstates the pre-SharkNinja requirement that petitioners identify all real parties in interest (RPIs) before trial institution. The designation reflects concern over national security and patent system integrity.

The designation of Corning Optical Communications RF LLC v. PPC Broadband Inc., IPR2014-00440, Paper 68 (PTAB Aug. 18, 2015) (except for § II.E.1), as precedential became effective on October 28, 2025. This action follows the USPTO’s September 26, 2025 de-designation of SharkNinja Operating LLC v. iRobot Corp., IPR2020-00734, as precedential, and together these steps restore the USPTO’s pre-SharkNinja practice of requiring petitioners to identify all RPIs in their petitions before institution of trial.

In the memo announcing the decision, USPTO Director John Squires emphasized that the America Invents Act (AIA), specifically 35 USC § 312(a)(2), provides that “[a] petition filed under section 311 may be considered only if ... the petition [for inter partes review] identifies all real parties in interest.”

STATUTORY BASIS AND THE SHIFT FROM SHARKNINJA

For years, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) applied a strict reading of § 312(a), requiring RPI identification before trial. SharkNinja softened this stance, acknowledging the practical complexities of determining RPIs in certain circumstances. However, the memo explains that policy considerations cannot override clear statutory mandates.

NATIONAL SECURITY CONCERNS AND FOREIGN INFLUENCE

The reinstatement of stricter RPI requirements is driven in part by mounting concerns over foreign state-backed actors seeking to use opaque investment structures to gain access to US intellectual property assets and proceedings. In testimony to the US Senate and at the Senate IP Subcommittee’s hearing on “Foreign Threats to American Innovation and Economic Leadership,” Director Squires warned that inadequate RPI disclosure raises “significant national-security concerns.”

According to the memo, sanctioned entities have used front companies to manipulate US IP systems, including PTAB proceedings, aiming to misappropriate technology and facilitate forced technology transfers.

DOCUMENTED CASES OF FOREIGN-LINKED IPR FILINGS

The USPTO has documented a substantial and increasing number of IPR filings by parties on the Department of Commerce “entity list” since SharkNinja. These include entities such as Yangtze Memory Technologies Co. Ltd., DJI, Huawei Device Co., Ltd., Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd., Semiconductor Manufacturing International Corporation, and ByteDance/TikTok. Congressional testimony has expressed concern that at least one of these petitioners may have been leveraged by the Chinese government to conduct surveillance and corporate espionage against US targets. If counted collectively, their filings would place them among the most prolific IPR petitioners in recent years.

POLICY RATIONALE FOR RPI IDENTIFICATION AS A SAFEGUARD

The memo frames the RPI requirement “not merely as a procedural safeguard, but as a national-security measure.” According to the memo, transparent identification of the parties’ funding and directing petitions is essential to ensure that PTAB proceedings are not weaponized by hostile foreign actors. Without such disclosure, the memo notes, the system is vulnerable to exploitation, technology transfer violations, and erosion of public trust in the US patent framework.

ENFORCEMENT IMPLICATIONS OF THE PRECEDENTIAL DESIGNATION

Under the Corning Optical precedent, § 312(a)(2) will again be enforced as a threshold requirement for institution. Petitions lacking complete and accurate RPI disclosures will face closer scrutiny, and noncompliant petitions may be denied outright. According to the memo, this stricter enforcement is intended to protect US patentees from harassment and strategic misuse of administrative patent procedures by foreign adversaries.

BROADER IMPACT ON US PATENT SYSTEM AND STAKEHOLDERS

This policy shift is expected to bolster both the integrity and security of the patent system. Increased transparency will likely deter foreign adversaries and opaque entities from exploiting PTAB proceedings for strategic gain. While US patent owners stand to benefit from these protections, petitioners—particularly those with complex or foreign-linked ownership—will need to adjust their practices to meet heightened disclosure standards. For practitioners, this means greater diligence at the outset of petition preparation.

FUTURE CONSIDERATIONS AND DEVELOPMENTS

The memo signals a broader trend toward more rigorous oversight of petitioners’ backgrounds and funding sources. As the USPTO enforces the restored RPI requirement, it may become more difficult for foreign state-backed actors to covertly challenge US patents. The designation may also prompt further administrative guidance, PTAB decisions, and potential legislative action designed to fortify the patent system against foreign threats. Stakeholders should remain alert to additional measures aimed at protecting US innovation and national security.