It may be relevant, but explain the connection rather than relying on the shared product name. The actual knowledge and proposed U.S. work must support the specialized-knowledge claim.
Describe what transfers and what does not
Identify stable processes, changed functions and the applicant’s experience with each. Explain whether new training is needed and how that affects the role. Do not claim every skill is obsolete because the version changed or every earlier task remains qualifying because the brand is unchanged. Use concrete examples of how the knowledge will be applied.
An L-1B review must prove more than competence. Identify the specialized knowledge, where it was gained, why it is uncommon or advanced inside the organization, and why the U.S. role needs it. Also prove the qualifying organizational relationship and one continuous qualifying year abroad during the three years before filing. Hypothetical example: a glass-furnace process technologist understands a company’s unusually tuned heat-control sequence. Training logs, restricted manuals, project records, and supervisor evidence can show the knowledge; a résumé saying ‘expert’ cannot. The proposed U.S. duties should name the configuration work the employee will perform and why ordinary training would not quickly replace it. L-1B time is capped at five years in total, so remaining time must be calculated alongside the substantive evidence. Do not recast a routine production role as specialised knowledge merely because the worker is experienced.