直 Japanese PDF Font
  • Our Professionals
  • Our Work
  • Our Insights
  • Offices
  • Firm
  • Careers
Finnegan
  • Articles & Books
    • Ad Law Buzz Blog
    • At the PTAB Blog
    • European IP Blog
    • Federal Circuit IP Blog
    • INCONTESTABLE® Blog
    • Prosecution First Blog
  • Events & Webinars
  • IP Updates
  • Podcasts
    • AI + Finnegan
    • AI + Copyright
    • AI + Patent
    • AI + Privacy
    • AI + Trade Secrets
    • AI + Trademark
  • Unified Patent Court (UPC) Hub

At the PTAB Blog

Made in the USA? USPTO Adds Manufacturing and Small-Business Factors to PTAB Discretion

March 13, 2026

Authored and Edited by Umber Aggarwal; Forrest A. Jones

On March 11, 2026, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) issued a Director Memorandum titled “Additional Discretionary Institution Considerations – U.S. Manufacturing and Small Business Use of AIA Proceedings.” The memorandum signals that, in deciding whether to institute inter partes review (IPR) and post-grant review (PGR) proceedings, the Director may consider not only traditional discretionary frameworks, but also where accused and competing products are manufactured, whether those products are tied to U.S. manufacturing investment, and whether the petitioner is a small business that has been sued for infringement.

Additional Discretionary Considerations

When determining whether to institute an IPR or PGR, the Director may now consider, in addition to existing discretionary frameworks, the following non-merits factors:

1. Accused Products and U.S. Manufacturing – The extent to which products accused of infringement in a parallel proceeding are manufactured in the United States or are related to investments in U.S. manufacturing operations.

2. Patent Owner’s Competing Products – The extent to which products made, sold, or licensed by the patent owner that compete with the accused products are manufactured in the United States.

3. Small-Business Petitioners – Whether the petitioner is a small business that has been sued for infringement of the patent at issue.

The memorandum encourages parties to address these considerations in discretionary briefing, where relevant, to assist the Office in evaluating the broader economic context of a petition.

Scope of “Manufacturing” and Small-Business Status

The USPTO clarifies that manufacturing is not limited to final assembly in the United States. Parties may address, among other things, where components are produced and whether products made domestically are sent abroad for further processing. For method claims, the relevant “product” is identified as the device used to perform the claimed method, with the example from the memo being a computer used to implement a method of operating a computer

In assessing whether a petitioner qualifies as a small business, the Director may consider factors raised by the parties, including Small Business Administration size standards and USPTO regulations governing small-entity status for fee purposes.

Applicability

The memorandum applies to all IPR and PGR proceedings in which the due date for a patent owner’s discretionary denial brief has not yet passed. It does not alter the statutory merits standards for institution but signals that manufacturing footprint and small-business status may play a role in the Director’s discretionary analysis going forward.

Related Practices

Patent Office Invalidation Proceedings

PTAB Invalidation Proceedings: IPR and PGR

Related Industries

Chemicals, Industrials, and Materials

Manufacturing

Related Offices

Washington, DC

Contacts

Umber Aggarwal
Associate
Reston, VA
+1 571 203 2423
Email
Forrest A. Jones
Partner
Washington, DC
+1 202 408 4019
Email

Copyright © 2026 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP. 

DISCLAIMER: Although we wish to hear from you, information exchanged in this blog cannot and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Please do not post any information that you consider to be personal or confidential. If you wish for Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP to consider representing you, in order to establish an attorney-client relationship you must first enter a written representation agreement with Finnegan. Contact us for additional information. One of our lawyers will be happy to discuss the possibility of representation with you. Additional disclaimer information.

Related Insights

At the PTAB Blog

Consistency Is Key – USPTO Issues Three New Informative Decisions

May 29, 2026

At the PTAB Blog

Discretion All the Way Down: USPTO Uses a Discretionary IPR Denial to Justify a    
§ 325(d) EPR Denial

May 28, 2026

At the PTAB Blog

Claim Disclaimer Derails Instituted IPR in Freightcar America

May 26, 2026

At the PTAB Blog

Before the Holding, the Message: Director Squires Uses Magnolia Medical to Outline PTAB Discretionary Denial Policy Changes

May 20, 2026

Webinar

Changes at the PTAB from Settled Expectations to Real Parties in Interest to Director Involvement

May 18, 2026

Webinar

Articles

Unpacking Squires’ Recent Discretionary Denial Guidance Focusing on American Manufacturing

April 24, 2026

Federal Circuit IP Blog

Federal Circuit Affirms District Court’s Invalidation of Patents Because Inventorship Could Not Be Corrected Without Giving All Inventors Notice and an Opportunity to Be Heard

April 22, 2026

Federal Circuit IP Blog

Federal Circuit Reverses Indefiniteness Ruling on Means-Plus-Function Claim

April 15, 2026

Articles

Prosecution History Estoppel: Navigating Limits on Equivalents in Patent Litigation

March/April 2026

Due to international data regulations, we’ve updated our privacy policy. Click here to read our privacy policy in full.

  • Privacy
  • Disclaimer
  • Legal Notices
  • Fraud Alert
  • EEO Statement
  • Cookies
  • Contact Us

© 2026 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP