By Sarah Schlotter, Ph.D., and Adam R. Wichman, Ph.D.
In September 2026, the Commerce Department finalized CHIPS Act R&D awards up to $100 million each to several quantum computing companies—including D-Wave, Rigetti, Quantinuum, and PsiQuantum—to improve their manufacturing capabilities and domestic supply chains.
Since March 2026, the U.S. Patent Office has treated domestic manufacturing as a factor affecting whether it will hear a challenge to the patentability of issued patent claims. Consequently, how a company describes funding like the CHIPS Act awards, and its manufacturing plans, can affect a challenge it later brings or defends in a Patent Office proceeding called inter partes review (IPR). IPR is a fast-track trial before an expert administrative panel (called the PTAB) that tests the validity of patent claims.
- A company sued for patent infringement, or that wants freedom to operate, may bring IPR to cancel a patent.
- A company that asserts a patent in litigation, or has a key patent that blocks a competitor, may find itself defending that patent’s validity in IPR.
A company’s public statements about its domestic manufacturing activities, such as in press releases describing these CHIPS awards, may become evidence that influences whether the Patent Office will even consider a patentability challenge.
Domestic Manufacturing as a Factor to Institute an IPR
In a March 11, 2026 memorandum, Additional Discretionary Institution Considerations -U.S. Manufacturing and Small Business Use of AIA Proceedings, the Patent Office’s Director named two domestic manufacturing factors that bear on whether an IPR will be allowed to proceed, and asked parties to address them:
- “the extent to which any products accused of infringement in a parallel proceeding are manufactured in the United States or are related to investments in American manufacturing operations,”
- “the extent to which any products made, sold, or licensed by the patent owner that compete with the accused products are manufactured in the United States.”
A company should write its manufacturing statements knowing that it, or a competitor, may later use them to prove these factors.
The Director’s Decision Applying Domestic Manufacturing Factors
As of this writing the Office has published one decision, Tesla v. Bulletproof Property Management, evaluating domestic manufacturing evidence. Although Tesla did not involve quantum computing, it gives some guidance on how the Director regards different manufacturing evidence.
Bulletproof sued Tesla for infringing patents to an automatic gear-shift feature. Tesla filed petitions asking the Patent Office to cancel patent claims in IPR, which Bulletproof argued that the Office should refuse to consider. Both sides argued that the domestic manufacturing factor favored their position.
Tesla. Tesla argued that the cars Bulletproof accused of infringement are American-made, relying on a range of evidence:
- The Cars.com American-Made Index for 2025, ranking Tesla’s Model 3, Y, S and X first through fourth based on final-assembly location, U.S. and Canadian parts content, where the engines and transmissions come from, and U.S. workforce.
- Tesla’s press release about the Cars.com ranking.
- Federal labeling data that automakers report to the government, listing each accused model with U.S. final assembly and a U.S.-made motor and transmission.
- Tesla’s annual report to the SEC projecting more than $20 billion in capital spending for 2026.
- A statement to another federal agency describing Tesla’s U.S. factories.
- An outside study of Tesla’s economic impact in California.
Tesla also argued that Bulletproof makes no products of its own—i.e., it has no domestic manufacturing activity—citing a blog post by Bulletproof’s owner.
Bulletproof. Bulletproof argued that the accused cars, while assembled in the United States, contain 30 to 40 percent foreign-sourced components. Bulletproof did not provide any evidence to support this argument and said nothing about its own products.
Patent Office. The Director allowed Tesla’s challenge to proceed on unrelated grounds, but specifically commented that Tesla’s domestic manufacturing evidence supported the result. The Director credited six of Tesla’s documents: the Cars.com index, the press release, the federal labeling data, the SEC filing, the agency statement, and the economic study. And the Director rejected Bulletproof’s foreign-components figure as lacking supporting evidence. The Director said nothing about Bulletproof’s lack of products and did not mention Tesla’s social media posts or comment letters.
What this Means for Quantum Computing Companies
The Commerce Department’s CHIPS awards shine a light on investment in domestic manufacturing activities.
- Companies can highlight that focus in manufacturing announcements that describe their domestic manufacturing efforts and product roadmaps using those domestic capabilities. This is analogous to the Tesla press release, which the Director credited, concerning the extent that Tesla’s cars are made domestically.
- Companies that have joint manufacturing efforts with partner companies can consider including partner statements in their manufacturing announcements that highlight the domestic nature of their contributions.
- Describing a hardware roadmap can further connect investments in domestic manufacturing with specific products that might later be the subject of infringement litigation.
Best Practices
- Expect announcements will be evidence. Either side in a later patent dispute may file anything a company says publicly about where and what it manufactures.
- Support each manufacturing statement with a document. In Tesla, the Director credited government filings and third-party rankings.
- Connect manufacturing activities to products. In Tesla, the Director credited evidence tied to the specific products accused of infringement. Use this by providing a roadmap naming the systems that an investment supports.
- Account for components as well as assembly. The Director considers where a party makes components. In Tesla, Bulletproof never provided evidence on this point.
- Keep organized award documents, supplier agreements, and site records. Those are what support a press release in a proceeding.
Conclusion
The Patent Office now considers domestic manufacturing when deciding whether a patent challenge goes forward, and the Director’s one decision on the subject credited documented, product-specific evidence over more circumspect assertions. For quantum computing companies building U.S. supply chains, records describing that work may later serve as evidence in IPR. An announcement that names sites and products, and matches the records around it, can support arguments over this factor at the Patent Office.
Sarah Schlotter is an attorney with Wolf, Greenfield & Sacks, P.C.; Adam R. Wichman is a shareholder at Wolf, Greenfield & Sacks, P.C. This article is general commentary and is not legal advice.
October 15, 2026