Business Owners Alert: Why U.S.-Based Manufacturing Matters More Than Ever in Patent Defense
In a notable development for intellectual property stakeholders, USPTO Director John Squires recently issued a memorandum (link) that introduces the extent of a patent owner’s U.S.-based manufacturing and sales operations as an additional discretionary factor in decisions by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). This guidance applies to petitions for inter partes review (IPR) and post-grant review (PGR), potentially strengthening the position of domestic innovators against validity challenges.
Why Parties Seek an Inter Partes Review
Businesses and competitors frequently pursue IPR proceedings as a strategic mechanism to challenge the validity of issued patents without resorting to full-scale district court litigation. An IPR allows a third party to petition the USPTO to invalidate a patent on grounds of anticipation or obviousness based on prior art. Key motivations include the procedure’s relative speed (typically resolved within 12–18 months), lower cost compared with federal court trials, and the PTAB’s specialized expertise in patent law. Successful IPRs can result in cancellation of claims, thereby clearing competitive obstacles, reducing licensing exposure, or supporting a stay of parallel litigation. However, institution of an IPR triggers estoppel effects that limit subsequent arguments in court, requiring careful strategic evaluation before filing.
Key Points of the USPTO Director’s Guidance
The memorandum expands the PTAB’s discretionary denial framework by expressly incorporating the scope of U.S.-based manufacturing and sales activities as a relevant consideration when evaluating whether to institute an IPR or PGR. Previously established factors — such as those outlined in the Fintiv precedent for parallel proceedings — remain in effect; the new guidance adds a domestic-operations lens. Specifically, the PTAB may now weigh the extent to which the patented technology is tied to U.S. production facilities, supply chains, or commercial sales when determining whether discretionary denial is warranted. This adjustment signals an intent to balance efficient patent review with protection of American industry and innovation. The guidance applies uniformly to both IPR and PGR petitions and provides patent owners with a new avenue to argue against institution by demonstrating substantial domestic commercial presence.
Get Trent V. Bolar, Esq.’s stories in your inbox
Join Medium for free to get updates from this writer.
Key Takeaways for Business Owners
- Enhanced Patent Resilience for Domestic Operations: Companies maintaining significant U.S. manufacturing or sales footprints may experience improved protection against IPR challenges. Demonstrating these ties in PTAB responses can materially increase the likelihood of discretionary denial, preserving patent validity and supporting long-term investment certainty.
- Strategic Assessment Prior to Filing Petitions: Potential challengers should conduct a thorough pre-filing analysis of the target patent owner’s U.S. operational presence. Strong domestic ties may render an IPR less viable, prompting reconsideration of timing, venue selection, or alternative dispute-resolution pathways.
- Portfolio and Supply-Chain Alignment: Organizations with heavy intellectual-property reliance are advised to evaluate and, where feasible, strengthen U.S.-based manufacturing and distribution strategies. Such alignment not only bolsters defensive positioning under the new guidance but may also influence broader decisions regarding reshoring or domestic sourcing.
- Heightened Importance of Counsel Collaboration: IP counsel should be engaged early to integrate the memorandum’s implications into ongoing litigation strategies, licensing negotiations, and patent prosecution. Early identification of domestic-operation arguments can shape petition responses and overall risk mitigation.
- Competitive Advantage for U.S. Innovators: The guidance tilts the procedural balance toward entities invested in American infrastructure, potentially discouraging meritless or opportunistic challenges while encouraging genuine innovation within the United States.
Business owners are encouraged to monitor further PTAB decisions applying this factor and to consult qualified intellectual-property counsel for tailored application to their portfolios. This memorandum underscores the evolving intersection of patent enforcement, domestic economic policy, and procedural fairness at the USPTO.
Author: Trent V. Bolar, Esq. (LinkedIn Profile)
Disclaimer: All content in this article is intended for general information only and should not be construed as legal or financial advice. Consult a qualified attorney for personalized guidance on legal matters. Information in this article may not constitute the most up-to-date legal or other information. The content in this article is provided “as is,” and no representations are made that the content is error-free. Use of, and access to, this article or any of the links or resources contained within do not create an attorney-client relationship between the reader, user, or browser and the author. All trademarks, logos, and service marks used in this article are the property of their respective owners. The use of such trademarks does not imply any affiliation with or endorsement of this article.
© 2026 Trent V. Bolar, Esq. | All rights reserved.
