- in United States
- within Accounting and Audit, Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration and Technology topic(s)
- with readers working within the Advertising & Public Relations, Aerospace & Defence and Banking & Credit industries
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) recently
introduced a significant policy shift in America Invents Act (AIA)
patent challenges that could impact US companies in the
manufacturing, automotive, and semiconductor industries that are
involved in patent disputes. In a memorandum issued March 11, 2026 (the
“Memo”), USPTO Director John Squires announced that US
manufacturing activities of the parties will now play a critical
role in determining whether to institute inter
partes review (IPR) and post-grant review (PGR)
proceedings. This change reflects a broader effort to prioritize
domestic economic interests and address concerns about the
offshoring of US manufacturing capabilities.
Under the new policy, the Director will consider several factors
related to US manufacturing when deciding whether to institute AIA
reviews. These include:
- whether the products accused of infringement in related patent cases are manufactured in the United States,
- whether the patent owner's competing products are made domestically, and
- whether the petitioner is a small business that has been sued for infringement.
The Director will also evaluate the extent of US-based
manufacturing investments, including the production of components
and assembly processes, as well as the use of US-made products in
further processing abroad. These considerations attempt to address
AIA proceedings that the USPTO believes disproportionately benefit
entities with limited or no US manufacturing presence, particularly
foreign companies.
This policy shift introduces new complexities for both petitioners
and patent owners. US manufacturers now have an opportunity to
leverage their domestic production activities as a strategic
advantage in AIA proceedings. This will come at a cost, however,
because parties will need to gather and present detailed evidence
of their manufacturing operations and investments to avail
themselves of this advantage. This process could be time-consuming
and costly, particularly for companies with complex supply chains
or limited access to internal data from opposing parties.
For the US automotive industry, which relies heavily on domestic
manufacturing and supply chains, this development could provide a
competitive edge in defending against patent challenges. By
emphasizing their contributions to the US economy and innovation
ecosystem, automakers and suppliers may strengthen their positions
in AIA proceedings. However, foreign manufacturers and
multinational corporations with limited US operations may face
greater challenges in securing IPR or PGR institution, potentially
leading to disputes over whether the policy aligns with
international trade obligations.
The Memo also introduces significant implications for the
semiconductor and chip industry, given the sector's reliance
on complex global supply chains and its critical role in US
economic and national security. The Memo could incentivize
semiconductor companies that often are involved in US patent
disputes to bolster their domestic production capabilities to
strengthen their positions in AIA proceedings. Those companies
should consider how to document and demonstrate their US-based
manufacturing activities, including the production of chips or
components domestically or the use of US-made products in further
processing abroad. Additionally, the policy could create hurdles
for foreign semiconductor manufacturers seeking to challenge
patents in the US.
The USPTO's new focus on US manufacturing activities
represents a significant shift in AIA patent challenge proceedings.
US manufacturers that often are involved in US patent disputes,
including those in the automotive and semiconductor industries,
should work closely with their legal teams to assess how these
changes may affect their patent strategies. By proactively
documenting and presenting evidence of their domestic manufacturing
investments, these companies can better position themselves to
navigate this evolving landscape.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
[View Source]