No. A tool purchase does not prove the applicant’s knowledge, role, or qualifying employment.
Separate project tools from immigration facts
No, and the reason is worth stating plainly: the specialized-knowledge test looks at what this person knows about this organisation and why the American role needs it. A licence fee is a business expense on the company ledger, not evidence about the transferee. Keep three budgets apart.
The petition budget covers government filing charges, read from the current USCIS fee schedule on the day of filing rather than from an older quote, together with certified translations of any foreign-language exhibit and professional fees for preparing and reviewing the package. The project budget covers tooling, documentation work, travel to the receiving site, and whatever the plant needs to run the method. The household budget covers relocation, schooling and housing for anyone travelling as a dependant.
Mixing them creates two problems: a total that starts to look like a price for approval, and an inability to answer the plain question of what the employer is actually paying for. Who pays matters commercially too. An employer willing to carry filing and legal costs should say so in writing before the assignment starts, because that conversation becomes much harder once an amendment turns out to be necessary.
No budget supplies an element either: the qualifying parent, branch, subsidiary or affiliate relationship between two actively trading entities, the continuous qualifying year abroad within the preceding three years, and knowledge special to this organisation rather than general to the trade — which need not be secret or unique — all still have to be proved, as does the petitioner's control over any work performed at an unaffiliated client's site.