Auto groups urge Trump to keep Chinese carmakers out of US | WKZO | Everything Kalamazoo

By David Shepardson

WASHINGTON, March 13 (Reuters) – Major auto trade groups urged the U.S. government to keep Chinese carmakers out of the country, according to a letter seen by Reuters, potentially complicating President Donald Trump’s planned summit with Chinese ​President Xi Jinping.

The groups raised “serious concerns about China’s ongoing efforts to dominate global ‌automotive manufacturing and to gain access to the U.S. market. These actions pose a direct threat to America’s global competitiveness, national security, and automotive industrial base.”

The five groups representing automakers, car dealers and parts manufacturers called for maintaining a 2025 Commerce Department cybersecurity regulation that effectively keeps nearly all Chinese vehicles ‌out ​of the U.S. market.

The Chinese embassy in Washington rejected ⁠the criticism, saying Chinese-made cars are ⁠popular globally “not by using so-called ‘unfair practices’ but by emerging from the fierce market competition with technological innovation and superb quality. China’s door has been open to global auto companies, including US auto companies who have fully shared in the dividends ​of China’s big market.”

The auto industry letter also criticized Canada’s announcement it would allow some Chinese vehicles into its market.

Trump is expected to visit China from March 31, ⁠as the world’s two biggest economies seek to ⁠maintain the stability that has characterized their relations since late last ​year, after a bruising period marked by Trump’s tariffs and China’s chokehold on rare earths ​exports.

“We also strongly urge the Administration to reject any attempt by Chinese ‌manufacturers to circumvent these existing restrictions by establishing production facilities in the U.S.,” said the letter, dated Thursday, from the Alliance for Automotive Innovation, the National Automobile Dealers Association, Autos Drive America, the American Automotive Policy Council and MEMA, the Vehicle Suppliers Association.

“The market ⁠distortions and risks to the auto industry in the U.S. are fundamentally the same whether these vehicles are imported or produced domestically,” it said.

In January, Trump said he was open ⁠to Chinese automakers building vehicles ‌in the United States. “If they want to come in and ⁠build a plant and hire you and hire your friends and ​your neighbors, ‌that’s great, I love that,” he told the Detroit Economic ​Club.

In December, ⁠the Alliance for Automotive Innovation, which represents General Motors, Ford, Toyota Motor, Volkswagen, Hyundai, Stellantis and other major automakers, said “China poses a clear and present threat to the auto industry in the U.S.” and urged Washington to prevent Chinese government-backed automakers and battery manufacturers from opening U.S. manufacturing plants.

(Reporting by David Shepardson and Parth Chandna; Editing by Alan Barona, Anna ​Driver and William Mallard)

Source link

USPTO Expands Discretionary Framework

Key Takeaways

• The USPTO has formally expanded its discretionary framework. As of March 11, the Director will consider U.S. manufacturing footprint and small business status when deciding whether to institute IPR and PGR proceedings, for cases where the patent owner’s discretionary brief deadline has not yet passed.
• The Director is now weighing domestic investment and supply chain footprint, a shift that embeds real-economy policy considerations into institution decisions and could influence close cases.
• Petitioners and patent owners alike should build an early evidentiary record on U.S. manufacturing activity and small business eligibility and integrate those facts into their overall discretionary narrative.

USPTO Director John A. Squires issued a short policy memorandum on March 11 adding U.S. manufacturing footprint and small business status as explicit considerations in the Director’s discretionary analysis of whether to institute inter partes review (IPR) and post-grant review (PGR) proceedings.

This update is best understood as the next incremental step in the post‑2025 discretionary institution framework — a framework that has moved well beyond “classic” Fintiv timing/overlap questions and now routinely incorporates broader reliance, efficiency and policy considerations. While the March 11 memo is not a wholesale recalibration of discretionary denials, it gives petitioners a new hook for potentially surviving discretionary denials and may signal a slight shift in the pendulum toward granting more petitions. 

What Changed on March 11

Director Squires announced that, when deciding whether to institute IPRs/PGRs, the Director will consider:

1. The extent to which products accused of infringement in a parallel proceeding are manufactured in the United States or are related to investments in American manufacturing operations;
2. The extent to which the patent owner’s competing products are manufactured in the United States; and
3. Whether the petitioner is a small business that has been sued for infringement of the patent at issue.

The memo also adds practical guidance on what counts as U.S. manufacturing/investment and how small business status will be evaluated:

• The Director will look beyond final assembly to include U.S.-made components and situations where products made in the U.S. are sent abroad for further processing.
• For method claims, the “relevant product” is the device used to carry out the method (e.g., a computer for a method of operating a computer).
• For “small business,” the Director will consider facts the parties raise, including SBA size standards and 37 C.F.R. § 1.27(a) (reduced-fee eligibility).

The memorandum applies to IPRs and PGRs where the patent owner discretionary brief due date has not yet elapsed.

Why These New Factors Matter in the Bigger Discretionary Picture

Discretionary institution decisions are now functioning as a policy gatekeeper, not merely a docket-management tool tethered to parallel litigation schedules. The changes from March 2025 and October 2025 centralized institution decisions at the Director level and expressly broadened the set of discretionary considerations to include settled expectations, changes in law, expert reliance and macro-level policy interests (economic, public health, national security). 

The March 11 memo is notable because it connects “investment” to the real economy, not just litigation timing or the passage of time. Historically, “investment” in the discretionary context often meant (i) court/party investment in a parallel proceeding (Fintiv factor 3) and (ii) reliance-type “settled expectations” that the Director has increasingly treated as meaningful once a patent has been in force for years (often argued around a six‑year benchmark). 

Now, the Director is explicitly inviting parties to brief a different kind of investment: domestic manufacturing operations and supply-chain footprint. That is a meaningful rhetorical and strategic shift, even if it will often operate as a “plus factor” rather than a standalone dispositive rule.

Finally, the memo reinforces a reality PTAB practitioners have been living with since 2025: discretionary outcomes are increasingly driven by case-specific factual showings made early, on a tight briefing schedule, and often in an environment where routine institution decisions may come as summary notices. The practical consequence is that discretionary briefing is becoming more like a mini-record-building exercise — and manufacturing footprint / small business status are exactly the type of issues that can swing outcomes when the Director views a case as otherwise close.

Practical Guidance: How to Brief this Effectively

For patent owners:

• Develop a clean evidentiary record on U.S. manufacturing of your competing products: where assembly occurs, where key components are made and what “further processing” occurs outside the U.S. (if any). The memo signals the Director will look beyond final assembly.
• If the accused products are imported or largely manufactured abroad, consider whether the record supports framing the dispute as one where AIA review would disproportionately benefit entities without U.S. manufacturing investment, a theme the memo expressly highlights.
• For method claims, be explicit about the relevant device/product used to perform the method and where that device is manufactured.

For petitioners (especially operating companies):

• If you have U.S. manufacturing operations, or are making concrete U.S. manufacturing investments, do not assume the Director will “find” that story without help. Put it in the discretionary record with supporting evidence.
• If you qualify as a small business, say so early and substantiate it (SBA size standards and reduced-fee eligibility are explicitly referenced).
• If you do not have a strong U.S. manufacturing footprint, anticipate that the patent owner may raise this memo offensively. Consider whether other discretionary factors (e.g., Fintiv timing, stipulations, strong merits, or changes-in-law arguments) need to be more thoroughly developed than in prior years. 

For both sides:

• Treat this as an additional layer on top of existing discretionary themes, not a replacement. The Director’s discretionary process is explicitly holistic and considers existing PTAB precedent plus other circumstances the parties raise. 
• Expect the other side to seek leverage from supply chain ambiguity (“assembled here, components there”) — so declarations and documentary support matter.

Source link