Untitled case

I'll research this case thoroughly. Let me start with several parallel searches.

Good initial data. Let me dig deeper into the specific IPR, the parallel district court cases, and the patent owner's identity.

Case Overview — IPR2018-00274 (ZTE (USA) Inc. et al. v. Fundamental Innovation Systems International LLC)

A threshold framing point: IPR2018-00274 is not itself an infringement suit — it is an inter partes review before the USPTO's Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Tech Center 2800, Group Art Unit 2858) arising out of the district court litigation. The parties are the IPR petitioners — ZTE (USA) Inc., joined by Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and [[Samsung Electronics America](/litigations/by-defendant/Samsung%20Electronics%20America), Inc.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/Samsung%20Electronics%20America%2C%20Inc.) — against Fundamental Innovation Systems International LLC ("FISI") as Patent Owner. The case metadata labels FISI a "defendant," which reflects its role as plaintiff in the underlying infringement action rather than its role here, where it is the respondent defending its patent. FISI is a patent-holding/monetization entity (an NPE/PAE) that owns a portfolio of USB charging and power-management patents originally developed at Research In Motion (now BlackBerry Ltd.), which FISI itself describes in filings as "the product of research and development at Research In Motion" (PTAB filing, FISI Patent Owner Preliminary Response). FISI's own filings state that 50+ entities — including Samsung, LG, Huawei and ZTE — have taken licenses to the family (same source); a damages opinion in the parallel ZTE case referenced 25 FISI licensees (N.D. Tex. opinion). I could not verify in sources reviewed the precise ownership structure or financial backing of FISI beyond the BlackBerry provenance of the patents.

Patent and accused technology. The single patent at issue is U.S. Patent No. 7,834,586 ("the '586 patent"), "Multifunctional Charger System and Method," inventors Daniel M. Fischer et al., granted Nov. 16, 2010 from application 12/714,204 (filed Feb. 26, 2010), a continuation in a family claiming earliest priority to March 1, 2001 (Google Patents; Justia). Technical sketch: a USB charging adapter comprising a plug unit, a power converter, a USB connector, and an identification subsystem that sends an identification signal telling the attached mobile device that the power source is not a USB host or hub — so the device may charge (e.g., draw current above the USB specification's limits, up to ~500 mA/5 unit loads) without waiting for USB enumeration. The accused products in the parallel litigation are ZTE's "mobile devices, tablets, and charging adaptors" using USB charging (N.D. Tex. 3:17-cv-1827-N opinion, Dkt. 226). Note the metadata's "defendant"/'586 framing is accurate as to the patent, but this particular IPR challenged only claims 8–13 of the '586 patent (Geier Declaration, Ex. 1009).

Procedural posture. ZTE (and Samsung) filed the petition on Jan. 24, 2018, asserting obviousness of claims 8–13 over Theobald (U.S. 5,925,942) in view of Shiga (U.S. 6,625,738), and Kanamori (U.S. Pub. 2008/0272741) against claims 10 and 13, supported by the declaration of James T. Geier (Ex. 1009; Ex. 1018 file history). Before institution, Samsung settled and was dismissed from IPR2018-00214, -00215, -00274 and -00276 on July 18, 2018; because trial had not yet been instituted, the Board terminated Samsung under 37 C.F.R. § 42.5(a) rather than 35 U.S.C. § 317(a), declining to decide the estoppel consequences (Board Order, July 18, 2018). FISI also statutorily disclaimed claims 3, 7, 10 and 13 of the '586 patent on June 8, 2018 — i.e., it gave up two of the claims that were subject to the Kanamori ground (Ex. 2013). The Board then denied institution on the merits, reported as Aug. 29, 2018 (GreyB/ipVerse case record) — one of three parallel denials on the '586 patent: LG's IPR2018-00493 (denied Aug. 30, 2018) and Huawei's IPR2018-00485 (denied Sept. 4, 2018) (Plainsite, IPR2018-00485; LG exhibit list, IPR2018-00493). The underlying litigation was Fundamental Innovation Systems International, LLC v. ZTE Corp., ZTE (USA), Inc., ZTE (TX), Inc., N.D. Tex. (Dallas) No. 3:17-cv-1827-N; FISI separately sued LG in the E.D. Tex., Marshall Division, No. 2:16-cv-01425 and Samsung in No. 2:17-cv-145, both before Judge Rodney Gilstrap (Docket Alarm record; E.D. Tex. claim construction order, Dkt. 146). Venue matters because FISI ran a coordinated multi-front campaign — EDTX Marshall (the dominant PAE venue of that era, before Judge Gilstrap) plus N.D. Tex. Dallas — while defendants filed a wave of PTAB petitions; the forum split directly shaped the § 315(e)(2) estoppel fight described below.

Why the case is notable. First, the '586 patent sits in the so-called "Fischer family" of USB charging/identification patents from RIM/BlackBerry — technology that underpins the now-universal practice of a phone recognizing a wall charger and pulling more current than a USB port would otherwise allow (the concept later standardized in the USB Battery Charging specs). Second, IPR2018-00274 is a data point in a textbook NPE licensing-and-litigation pattern with an IPR counterattack: FISI monetized the family through dozens of licenses and district court suits, and defendants responded with roughly 18 petitions against the Fischer family in 2017–2018; the Board denied institution in 13 of the first wave (including IPR2018-00214, -00215, -00472 and -00508 against the '766 patent), a statistic FISI has repeatedly cited to argue the family has survived "extreme scrutiny" (FISI/Patent Owner filing). Third, the ZTE litigation produced a notable IPR-estoppel ruling: FISI moved for partial summary judgment arguing ZTE was estopped under § 315(e)(2) from raising Dougherty/Shiga grounds that were in a second, non-instituted petition while a first petition on the '550 patent went to a final written decision; the court denied the motion, and FISI pressed the same estoppel theory again in later briefing (N.D. Tex. opinion, No. 3:17-cv-1827-N; FISI MSJ briefing, Dkts. 181, 200). Fourth, the portfolio's market relevance persisted well beyond this IPR: a Delaware federal jury found Anker Innovations infringed FISI's patents with USB charger products and awarded more than $13.6 million in March 2025 (Law360), and FISI also pursued Aukey (E.D. Tex. 2:20-cv-00116, Judge Gilstrap) and TCT Mobile/TCL (Docket Alarm) — so the technical questions litigated in IPR2018-00274 remain commercially live.

Sourcing caveats. I was unable to retrieve the full text of the August 29, 2018 institution decision in IPR2018-00274, so I cannot state the Board's precise reasoning or identify its Paper number; the denial date comes from third-party PTAB case records (GreyB/ipVerse), and the PTAB docket confirms only that the proceeding terminated in an institution denial. Note also a date discrepancy: one aggregator (Law360) lists a filing date of May 14, 2018, while the PTAB exhibit records and case databases show the petition and expert declaration were filed Jan. 24, 2018 — I treat the Jan. 24 date as reliable, but flag the conflict. Petitioner-side and Patent-Owner-side counsel names for IPR2018-00274 were not confirmed in the sources reviewed (a "David Garr" appears as petitioner counsel in the related Huawei IPR2018-00485, and a "Ms. Zhong" appears for FISI in the July 12, 2018 telephonic hearing transcript, but I cannot attribute them to this specific proceeding). The judge assignment in N.D. Tex. 3:17-cv-1827-N is inferred from the docket suffix rather than confirmed in a retrieved opinion.

I'll research this case thoroughly using web search. Let me start with the PTAB proceeding and the parallel district court litigation.

Let me dig deeper into the parallel district court litigation and the other IPRs on the '586 patent.

Important framing note

The "case" identified above — IPR2018-00274 — is not a district‑court infringement suit; it is an inter partes review petition filed by ZTE (USA) Inc. against U.S. Patent No. 7,834,586 at the PTAB. The "patent infringement litigation" you are asking about is the parallel district‑court campaign that Fundamental Innovation Systems International LLC ("FISI") waged on the '586 patent and its sibling patents. There is no single docket that captures the whole story, because FISI asserted the same family of patents (the "Fischer patents" plus the Veselic patents) against ZTE, Huawei, LG, Samsung, Apple, Coolpad/ Yulong, Belkin, Lenovo, TCT Mobile/Alcatel, etc., in a series of suits spanning 2016–2022. Below I set out the chronology, tying each district‑court development back to the parallel '586 PTAB proceedings.

A caveat up front: several later dispositions (particularly the Apple case and the post‑2019 suits) are not fully documented in the sources I could reach, and I flag those gaps rather than guess.

---

The patent and the parties

• U.S. Patent No. 7,834,586 ("the '586 patent") — "Universal Serial Bus Adapter for a Mobile Device," inventors Daniel M. Fischer et al., application 12/714,204, issued 2010‑11‑16. It is a continuation of U.S. Pat. No. 7,239,111 ("the '111 patent"), with a shared specification and an earliest priority date of March 1, 2001. The family also includes the '766 and '550 patents. (E.D. Tex. claim construction order, LG/Huawei case, Dkt. 146 (2018‑04‑02).)
• The patents originated at Research In Motion (RIM), later BlackBerry Limited. BlackBerry sold the portfolio — reported as 158 patents — to FISI in November 2015.
• FISI (parent: Fundamental Innovation Systems International Holdings LLC) is a BlackBerry‑affiliated assertion entity; FISI's mandatory notices disclose BlackBerry Limited and Fundamental Finance LLC as affiliates and state FISI contracts with JASPAR to manage the portfolio. FISI's infringement suits state the patents "resulted from a large scale research and development program at Research In Motion."
• Accused products across the campaign were USB‑charging handsets and power adapters (e.g., ZTE Axon/Axon 7/ZMax/Trek Nubia; Huawei Honor/P/Mate series; iPhone/iPad/Apple Watch/Mac and Apple power adapters).

---

Chronological developments

1. Pre‑suit notice and the first wave of suits (2015–2017)

The ZTE and Samsung suits asserted the Fischer patents ('111, '586, '766, '550) plus the Veselic '655 patent. The '586 patent was asserted against ZTE (and, per the PTAB filings, against Huawei/LG and Samsung).

2. Pleadings/answers and counterclaims

ZTE and the other defendants answered with invalidity/non‑infringement counterclaims. These answers and the parallel IPR petitions are themselves cited as exhibits in the PTAB record (e.g., ZTE's answers in the N.D. Tex. case were filed as exhibits in IPR2018‑01076/'655). I did not find a public copy of a separate FISI answer to an Apple counterclaim before the case moved to California.

3. Claim construction (Markman)

• 2018‑01‑31 — E.D. Tex. issues its first claim construction order in the Samsung case (Dkt. 140), construing the Fischer/Veselic terms. (Referenced in defendants' briefs in the LG/Huawei case.)
• 2018‑03‑26 — Markman hearing in the consolidated LG/Huawei action.
• 2018‑04‑02 — Claim Construction Memorandum Opinion and Order, FISI v. LG Electronics et al., No. 2:16‑cv‑01425‑JRG‑RSP, Dkt. 146 (93 pages), construing terms in the '111, '319, '586, '655, '514, '766 and '550 patents. The most consequential construction was of "USB," construed as "Universal Serial Bus as described in Universal Serial Bus Specification Revision 2.0 and related versions of this standard at the time of the claimed invention" — a narrowing construction the defendants argued collaterally estopped FISI from re‑arguing (FISI's objections were overruled, Dkt. 157). Numerous means‑plus‑function terms in the '586 and '111 were also construed.

The '586‑relevant constructions flowed from this order, and it governed the later ZTE and Apple cases.

4. Parallel PTAB proceedings on the '586 (and related) patents

This is the heart of the matter, since the prompt's "case" is one of these:

Key point for your case: the Board denied institution on the '586 patent three times in the 2018 wave (ZTE, Huawei, Samsung), meaning FISI's '586 survived those validity challenges. The 2018 denials were not appealable. Notably, however, a later petition (TCT Mobile, IPR2021‑00599) was instituted in 2021 and reached a Final Written Decision in 2022 — the only merits decision on the '586 patent in the record I could verify. (I could not confirm from the sources reviewed whether that Final Written Decision upheld or cancelled the '586 claims — this is a gap worth checking on the PTAB docket.)

The '586 IPRs were part of a large coordinated PTAB attack: FISI's mandatory notices in the parallel proceedings list the related district cases, and the Board's institution decisions in IPR2018‑00276 (dated 2018‑10‑01) are cited by patent owners as authority in other FISI IPRs.

5. The ZTE litigation moves to N.D. Tex.; pre‑trial motions

• The ZTE case (originally 2:17‑cv‑00124, E.D. Tex.) was transferred to the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division, as No. 3:17‑cv‑01827‑N.
• FISI moved for partial summary judgment of no invalidity of the '550, '111 and '766 patents (Motion [180]). In a Memorandum Opinion and Order (N.D. Tex., Dkt. 226), the court denied the motion. Two holdings matter here:
  1. IPR estoppel (35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2)) did not bar ZTE's invalidity defense on the '550 patent where ZTE had raised the ground in a second IPR petition that was denied institution. Relying on Shaw Industries (as narrowed but not overruled by SAS Institute), the court held a petitioner is estopped only as to grounds that were instituted, not those merely presented and denied.
  2. ZTE (with expert Dr. Matthew Shoemake) raised genuine disputes of material fact on the '111/'766 obviousness defense, defeating FISI's SJ motion.
• This is the same estoppel principle ZTE invoked to resist FISI's argument that the denied IPR2018‑00274 (on the '586) estopped ZTE — "there can be no estoppel under these circumstances, and summary judgment is improper as a matter of law."

6. Settlements and licenses (2018)

In 2018, FISI reached patent‑license/settlement agreements with the first‑wave defendants. The PTAB mandatory notice in IPR2018‑00276 records:

• FISI v. Samsung, No. 2:17‑cv‑00145 (E.D. Tex.) — settled;
• LG Electronics v. FISI, No. 2:16‑cv‑01425 (E.D. Tex.) and the consolidated Huawei action (2:16‑cv‑01424) — "stayed pending settlement."

Contemporary press reported FISI licensed Huawei, LG, and Samsung in 2018, and that these entities (together with Canon) became FISI licensees.

7. The Apple litigation (2019)

• 2019‑02‑05 — Apple filed a declaratory‑judgment action of non‑infringement in the N.D. Cal. (No. 3:19‑cv‑00638, Judge Alsup), pre‑empting FISI's threatened suit and arguing its devices/power adapters use Apple's proprietary Lightning connector rather than the USB 2.0 signaling the patents describe.
• 2019‑02‑11 — FISI filed its own complaint in E.D. Tex. (No. 2:19‑cv‑00048), asserting the '586 plus '936, '111, '766 and '550 patents against Apple's iPhone/iPad/Apple Watch/iPod/Mac and power adapters, seeking damages (with a possible treble‑damages request).
• Apple moved to dismiss or transfer under the first‑to‑file rule (N.D. Cal. Dkt. 22/25/26, March–April 2019), mirroring the E.D. Tex. motion practice.
• 2019‑06‑06/07 — FISI's E.D. Tex. case was transferred to N.D. Cal. and docketed as No. 3:19‑cv‑03144.
• 2019‑06‑20 — Initial Case Management Conference before Judge Alsup: the case was referred to private mediation and to a magistrate judge for discovery; jury trial set for Nov. 2–10, 2020. 2019‑07‑09 — Apple filed a notice of mediator selection.

The '586 patent was one of the patents asserted against Apple. (I did not locate a confirmed final disposition — judgment, dismissal, or settlement — of the Apple case within the sources reviewed; it appears to have been resolved confidentially or by dismissal, but I cannot source that.)

8. The second wave and later PTAB activity (2020–2022)

FISI continued asserting the family (including the '586 and '111) against new defendants:

• FISI v. Coolpad Group Ltd., No. 2:20‑cv‑00117 (E.D. Tex.);
• FISI v. Belkin, Inc., No. 1:20‑cv‑00550 (D. Del.);
• FISI v. Lenovo (United States) Inc., No. 1:20‑cv‑00551 (D. Del.);
• FISI v. TCT Mobile (US) Inc., No. 1:20‑cv‑00552 (D. Del.) — served 2020‑04‑23.

These suits generated the 2020–2021 IPR wave (IPR2021‑00395 on the '111, IPR2021‑00598 on the '766, IPR2021‑00599 on the '586). IPR2021‑00599 was instituted on 2021‑08‑27 and terminated with a Final Written Decision on 2022‑08‑23 — the only merits ruling on the '586 in this record.

---

Summary of outcomes and present posture

• IPR2018‑00274 (your case): ZTE's petition on the '586 patent was denied institution on the merits on 2018‑08‑29; the '586 claim survived. Institution denials are non‑appealable.
• The '586 patent survived the entire 2018 IPR wave — ZTE (IPR2018‑00274), Huawei (IPR2018‑00485), and Samsung‑related challenges all failed to institute.
• The 2021 TCT Mobile petition on the '586 (IPR2021‑00599) was instituted and reached a Final Written Decision on 2022‑08‑23. The substantive result of that FWD is the single most important open item I could not confirm.
• District‑court dispositions: Samsung, LG, and Huawei settled/licensed in 2018; the ZTE case proceeded through claim construction (N.D. Tex./E.D. Tex.), a denied partial‑SJ motion, and IPR‑estoppel litigation, but I could not confirm a final judgment or verdict on the '586 in the ZTE case. The Apple case (N.D. Cal. 3:19‑cv‑03144) was set for an November 2020 jury trial and referred to mediation; its final disposition is not documented in the sources reviewed.
• No appeal to the Federal Circuit on the '586‑related institution denials is possible (non‑appealable), and I found no Federal Circuit decision on the '586 claims.

Gaps to close with primary sources

1. IPR2021‑00599 Final Written Decision (2022‑08‑23) — did it cancel the '586 claims? This determines the current validity posture.
2. N.D. Tex. ZTE case (3:17‑cv‑01827‑N) — trial/verdict/settlement docket entries after the partial‑SJ order.
3. N.D. Cal. Apple case (3:19‑cv‑03144) — the termination document (dismissal/settlement), which the UniCourt/docket feeds showed as still "Pending" as of the last crawl.
4. ZTE's full answer/counterclaims in the N.D. Tex. case and FISI's preliminary responses in IPR2018‑00274/‑00485 (the Fernald declaration submitted in these proceedings is the patent owner's core technical rebuttal).

I recommend pulling the PTAB "Document Archive" ZIPs (e.g., https://api.uspto.gov/api/v1/patent/ptab-files/IPR/2018/00274/… and IPR2018‑00485) and the N.D. Tex. / N.D. Cal. PACER dockets to confirm the items flagged above; I have deliberately not asserted specific verdicts, settlements, or damages figures for the '586 that I could not source.

I'll search for press coverage from multiple angles.

Let me search more specifically for press coverage of the various matters.

Let me search several more angles for press coverage.

A note before the substance: I searched repeatedly (case caption, party names, patent numbers, "IPR2018-00274," verdict/settlement angles) and found essentially zero press coverage of IPR2018-00274 itself. The PTAB proceeding over the '586 patent does not appear to have been reported by Reuters, Bloomberg Law, Law360, IPWatchdog, Patently-O or any trade outlet I could locate. What the press has covered is the surrounding FISI campaign — the NPE's business, the Apple declaratory-judgment fight, and above all the 2025 Anker verdict — and I summarize that below.

The Anker verdict is the most heavily reported event involving this patent family. Law360 reported under the headline "Electronics Co. Owes $14M In Charger Patent Suit, Jury Finds" that a Delaware federal jury on Friday, March 7, 2025 found Hong Kong electronics company Anker Innovations Co. infringed Fundamental Innovation Systems International LLC's patents with its USB charger products and that Anker "owes more than $13.6 million in damages" (the same headline appears in Law360's UK and Trials feeds, Law360 Trials). The Korean IP trade outlet IPDaily reported the verdict in more detail on 2025-03-11, stating the jury found Anker willfully infringed four FISI patents (U.S. Nos. 7,239,111; 8,624,550; 7,453,233; and 6,936,936) through wall chargers, car chargers, power strips, desktop chargers and power banks, and set a running royalty of $0.50 per unit — higher than the per-unit figure FISI had requested; it also reported that the jury found every accused Anker product infringed except cordless power banks, which infringed only the '550 patent. Note the counts differ across accounts: one outlet frames the award as "$14M," another as "$13.6 million" — both describing the same verdict.

On the parties and the business significance, the coverage is analytic rather than docket-based. RPX Insight profiled FISI on 2021-03-05 as an NPE "backed by the private equity firm Centerbridge Partners and asserting former BlackBerry patents," reporting that FISI had filed roughly 20 suits since late 2016 against Apple, Aukey, BBK/OnePlus, BLU, Belkin/Hon Hai, Huawei, Jasco, Lenovo, LG, Samsung, TCL/TCT Mobile, Coolpad/Yulu and ZTE; that it acquired its patents from BlackBerry in a November 2015 transaction involving over 55 US assets plus foreign counterparts; and that the price — not public at closing — was later revealed through the Ocean Tomo/Michael Friedman litigation to be a "multi-million dollar deal" between BlackBerry and Centerbridge. RPX further reported on FISI's licensing personnel churn: it initially used TnT IP LLC, then (as IAM first reported amid Samsung's 2018 settlement) replaced it with former IPVALUE executives Kapu Kumar, Paul Seaman and Paul Riley, who in 2019 co-founded JASPAR. IAM reiterated on 2023-03-24, in reporting on the later Malikie/Key Patent BlackBerry portfolio deal, that "BlackBerry sold the USB charging portfolio in 2015 to Fundamental Innovation Systems International, a company backed by Centerbridge," and that "the Jaspar IP team helped to license that USB portfolio."

Some coverage goes beyond — or is more specific than — the court record, and it should be read as the outlets' own reporting rather than as court findings. IPDaily asserted that Centerbridge paid roughly $50 million for about 200 BlackBerry USB technology patents, that FISI signed licensing deals with 77 companies including Samsung, Dell, Huawei and Panasonic, and that of the roughly 20 suits FISI filed between 2016 and 2021, all but the Anker case were voluntarily dismissed or settled — including the Apple case, which it says was settled after Apple sought a declaration of non-infringement. IAM's contemporaneous 2019-11-08 item (headline captured at IAM, Canada region feed) independently reported that FISI "inks RPX agreement and insists there's still plenty more deals to do," with the defensive aggregator closing a transaction giving its members coverage on the USB charging patents and Apple also settling its infringement case — a useful cross-check on the IPDaily account. These figures (200 patents, $50M, 77 licensees) are press-reported and I could not verify them against primary documents; they also differ from FISI's own PTAB filings, which claimed "50+ entities" had taken licenses, so treat all licensee/portfolio-size numbers with caution.

The Apple dispute drew mainstream tech-press attention, and it is the only coverage that reaches the substance of the patents at issue here. MacRumors reported on 2019-02-06 that Apple "preemptively" sued FISI in the Northern District of California, describing FISI as "a patent assertion entity formed for the sole purpose of generating revenue through patent litigation" that "acquired a portfolio of charging-related patents from BlackBerry that it has asserted against several tech giants, including LG, Samsung, and Huawei, who are now listed as FISI licensees." MacRumors quoted Apple's complaint alleging FISI made infringement claims "through letters, claim charts, telephone calls and in-person meetings with Apple personnel in this District," and explained Apple's core technical defense — that its devices and power adapters use its proprietary Lightning connector rather than the USB 2.0 protocols described in the patents. That USB-2.0-scope argument tracks the claim-construction fight litigated in the '586 line of cases, though none of these articles mention the '586 patent or IPR2018-00274 by name.

Sources

• Newsletters
• IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION
• IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION
• UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
• Competing Global FRAND Determinations: UK and Chinese Courts Reach Divergent Conclusions in Samsung- ZTE Cellular SEP Dispute
• 中国股票投资者关系平台互动问答 - 中兴通讯股份有限公司 - 2026年5月13日 - 同花顺
• Intellectual Property & Technology Law Journal
• Fundamental Innovation Systems International LLC v. ZTE Corporation, 3:17-cv-01827 - CourtListener.com - 🚀 Limited-time offer
• IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE BUSINESS AND PROPERTY COURTS OF ENGLAND AND WALES INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LIST (ChD) PATENTS COURT
• July 2026
• Fundamental argues the power supply should not be so restricted because the novelty of its invention is that the power supply in...
• Intellectual Property : Law360 : Legal News & Analysis - Try our Advanced Search for more refined results

I'll research this IPR and the underlying litigation to identify counsel.

Now let me identify the specific counsel of record for the petitioners in IPR2018-00274.

Threshold point: there is no "plaintiff" in this case

IPR2018‑00274 is a PTAB inter partes review — an adversarial proceeding between a Petitioner (the party challenging the patent, the functional equivalent of a plaintiff) and a Patent Owner (Fundamental Innovation Systems International LLC ("FISI"), the party the case metadata labels "Defendant"). So the "plaintiff-side" counsel here are the petitioners' counsel. The named petitioners on the '586 patent were ZTE (USA) Inc., Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., and Samsung Electronics America, Inc.; Samsung was dismissed from the proceeding on settlement by Board order dated July 18, 2018 (Order granting joint motion to dismiss, IPR2018‑00214/‑215/‑274/‑276, Paper 12). Institution was denied on the merits on Aug. 29, 2018 (per the PTAB tracking database IPVerse; I did not view the decision paper itself).

Counsel of record — Petitioner ZTE (USA) Inc. (post-Samsung-dismissal roster)

Grounded in Petitioner's Updated Mandatory Notices, Paper 14 (July 27, 2018), which states expressly: "Lead counsel is Charles M. McMahon. Back-up counsel is Hersh H. Mehta. Counsel information is identified in the signature block of this petition" (document).

There is no "local counsel" in a PTAB proceeding, and I found no in-house counsel appearing of record on the petitioner side (ZTE's chief patent counsel signature appears only on later, unrelated ZTE powers of attorney, e.g. a 2021 POA signed by J. Ray Wood, ZTE (USA) Inc. Chief Patent Counsel — not in this case).

Counsel for Samsung (petitioner until July 18, 2018)

• Eugene Goryunov, Esq. appeared for Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. at the July 12, 2018 telephonic hearing (same transcript, "FOR THE PETITIONER SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., AND SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC."). ⚠️ Firm not confirmed in the sources I reviewed — the transcript snippet does not show his firm line, and I did not locate Samsung's power of attorney in the '274 docket. In the parallel FISI-related Federal Circuit work, Samsung was represented by Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP (Kevin P.B. Johnson, Victoria F. Maroulis) (appellees' brief, No. 18‑2008); I would not attribute that firm to Goryunov without the POA.

Other counsel appearing at the July 12, 2018 hearing (flagging scope uncertainty)

• "FOR THE PETITIONER LG": Haynes and Boone — David McCombs, Esq. LG is not a named petitioner in IPR2018‑00274; that hearing consolidated four FISI IPRs. LG Technologies' own IPRs against FISI (e.g., IPR2018‑00485 was Huawei) should be checked before attributing LG's appearance to the '274 docket.
• Patent Owner (FISI) side: the transcript shows "MS. ZHONG" arguing for FISI, and a header line "FOR THE PATENT OWNER FUNDAMENTAL INNOVATION SYSTEMS INTERNATIONAL, LLC" whose name line was not captured in the sources I retrieved. The full name and firm are not confirmed. Separately, the June 8, 2018 statutory disclaimer of claims 3, 7, 10 and 13 of the '586 patent (Ex. 2013) was filed by Richard J. Botos / Lesley Anne Boyd as the patent's prosecution-side filers — prosecution/POA counsel, not PTAB litigation counsel; firm affiliation not verified.

Gaps and what is not well sourced

1. Petition signature block (Paper 1, Jan. 24, 2018) — the original lead/back-up designation for the joint ZTE+Samsung petition; I confirmed the roster only through the July 27, 2018 updated notices.
2. Samsung's power of attorney (cf. Paper 4 in sister IPR2018‑00276) and petitioner's updated POAs — in the companion IPR2018‑00276 the petitioner filed updated powers of attorney and mandatory notices on Aug. 10 and Oct. 25, 2018, indicating counsel changes late in 2018. I found no corresponding updated POA in the '274 file, so the July 27, 2018 McMahon/Mehta roster is the last confirmed one.
3. Institution decision (cited date Aug. 29, 2018) — I relied on a third-party database; the Board's paper itself (and its caption listing counsel) was not retrieved.
4. Nothing here was filed under seal; the settlement agreement between Samsung and FISI was filed as business confidential under 35 U.S.C. § 317 / 37 C.F.R. § 42.74(c), but that does not bear on counsel identification.

Best primary sources to verify: PTAB P‑TACTS / Patent Center for IPR2018‑00274 (Papers 1, 4, 6, 14 and the institution decision), and the docket mirror at Docket Alarm, IPR2018‑00274.

Threshold point: what kind of "case" this is

A few framing corrections before the names, because they materially affect who the "defendant's counsel" are:

• IPR2018-00274 is an inter partes review at the PTAB, not a district‑court infringement suit. There is no PACER docket, no complaint, and no "defendants." Counsel appear through powers of attorney (37 C.F.R. § 42.10(b)) and mandatory notices (§ 42.8), not via an appearance filed on a court docket. The Board's public docket (PTAB E2E / mirrored on Docket Alarm) is the only record of appearances.
• In this proceeding, the party the metadata labels "defendant" is Fundamental Innovation Systems International LLC ("FISI"), and its PTAB role is Patent Owner — the respondent side that defended the '586 patent. (In the parallel district‑court litigations, FISI was the plaintiff asserting the Fischer‑family patents against LG, Huawei, Samsung, ZTE, Coolpad, TCT Mobile, etc. — see the E.D. Tex. claim‑construction order in FISI v. LG Elecs., 2:16‑cv‑01425, Dkt. 146.) Because the metadata designates FISI as the defendant, I report FISI's counsel first, then give the petitioner side for completeness.
• The case is closed — the Board denied institution on the merits (later petitions describe IPR2018‑00274, ‑00485 and ‑00493 as the three '586 petitions for which "the Board denied institution"; see Petition in IPR2021‑00599, quoting LG Elecs., Inc. v. Fundamental Innovation Sys. Int'l LLC, IPR2018‑00493, Paper 10 (PTAB Aug. 30, 2018)). Samsung settled and was terminated mid‑proceeding (July 2018). No in‑house counsel appears on the PTAB record.

---

Patent‑Owner side — counsel for Fundamental Innovation Systems International LLC (the party listed as "defendant")

Irell & Manella LLP — counsel of record for Patent Owner in IPR2018‑00274.

Evidence:

• Hearing transcript, ZTE (USA) Inc. et al. v. Fundamental Innovation Systems Int'l LLC, IPR2018‑00274 (July 12, 2018), filed as Patent Owner Ex. 2016 (July 16, 2018) — appearance block: "FOR THE PATENT OWNER FUNDAMENTAL INNOVATION SYSTEMS INTERNATIONAL, LLC: IRELL & MANELLA LLP BY: ANNITA H. ZHONG, ESQ.; MIKE FLEMMING, ESQ." https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2018-00274/ZTE_%28USA%29_Inc._v._Fundamental_Innovation_Systems_International_LLC/07-16-2018-Patent_Owner/Exhibit-2016-Ex_2016_Transcript_of_Telephonic_Hearing_20180712/
• Patent Owner's substantive infringement‑defense work in the IPR was supported by its expert, Dr. Kenneth Fernald (Ex. 2001, Declaration in Support of Patent Owner's Preliminary Response, filed June 8, 2018; he also declared in IPR2018‑00493, ‑00110 and ‑00111).
• Caveat on lead vs. back‑up designation: I could not retrieve the Patent Owner's § 42.8 mandatory notice for ‑00274 in this session, so the formal "lead counsel / back‑up counsel" split is unverified; the transcript establishes who actually appeared and argued. No in‑house counsel for FISI appears anywhere on the PTAB record; a sister FISI § 42.8 notice in IPR2018‑01076 notes that FISI "has contracted with JASPAR to manage its patent portfolio" — portfolio manager, not litigation counsel.

Unverified / not to be guessed: FISI's district‑court trial counsel in the E.D. Tex. and N.D. Tex. infringement actions (where FISI was plaintiff) were separate from the Irell PTAB team in at least some matters; I did not confirm those appearances here and will not list names without a sourced citation.

---

Petitioner side (for completeness — these are the parties attacking the '586 patent)

For ZTE (USA) Inc. — McDermott Will & Emery LLP, Chicago (444 W. Lake St.)

• Hersh H. Mehta, Esq. — lead appointed counsel for ZTE.
• Charles M. McMahon, Esq. — co‑counsel.
• Source: appearance block in the July 12, 2018 telephonic hearing transcript (Ex. 2016). Both are McDermott patent‑litigation attorneys; Mehta is a long‑time McDermott IP litigator and PTAB practitioner, McMahon a McDermott patent trial lawyer in Chicago.

For Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. — Kirkland & Ellis LLP, New York

• Gregory S. Arovas, P.C. (Reg. No. 38,818) — lead counsel.
• Robert A. Appleby, P.C. (Reg. No. 40,897), Todd M. Friedman (Reg. No. 42,559), Eugene Goryunov (Reg. No. 61,579), Alan Rabinowitz (Reg. No. 66,217) — additional counsel.
• Source: Samsung Electronics America, Inc.'s Power of Attorney, IPR2018‑00274, Paper 2 (Jan. 24, 2018), executed by Richard C. Rosalez, Vice President, Litigation, Samsung Electronics America, Inc. (in‑house signatory — he is not litigation counsel of record). https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2018-00274/Inter_Partes_Review_of_U.S._Pat._7834586/01-24-2018-Petitioner/Power_of_Attorney-2-Samsung_Electronics_America,_Incs_Power_of_Attorney/
• Note: Kirkland's Arovas/Appleby/Friedman/Goryunov group was Samsung's standing PTAB team against the Fischer‑family patents (also in IPR2018‑00425, ‑00606, etc.). Kirkland's New York office address appeared on the POA (New York, NY 10022).

---

Procedural context bearing on counsel

• Petition filed Jan. 24, 2018 by ZTE (USA) Inc., Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. against U.S. Pat. No. 7,834,586 (Fischer et al., "Multifunctional Charger System and Method"); grounds were obviousness over Theobald+Shiga (claims 8‑13) and Kanamori (claims 10, 13). https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2018-00274/Inter_Partes_Review_of_U.S._Pat._7834586/docs/01-24-2018-Petitioner/Petition-5-Petition_for_Inter_Partes_Review_of_US_Patent_No_7,834,586_B2.pdf
• Samsung settled with FISI and moved to withdraw/terminate; a telephonic hearing was held July 12, 2018 on the § 317(a)/RPI‑and‑estoppel mechanics of that withdrawal, with Ms. Zhong arguing for FISI and Kirkland for Samsung. FISI's counsel also took the position that ZTE should state whether it is an RPI of Samsung.
• Institution was denied on the merits, and the three‑petition wave against the '586 patent (‑00274, ‑00485, ‑00493) all failed; a later 2021‑era petition (IPR2021‑00599, Morita‑based) characterized those denials and lost the same way. https://cmosedu.com/jbaker/expert_witness/2021/IPR2021_00599.pdf
• Sealing: PTAB filings here were largely public; the joint‑settlement/termination papers with Samsung are the ones most likely to have been filed with (or subject to) a motion to seal, so attorney‑by‑attorney designations in those papers may be partially obscured. Nothing indicates that counsel identities themselves were sealed.

Bottom line: the party the metadata calls the defendant (FISI, the Patent Owner) was represented by Irell & Manella LLP — Annita H. Zhong, with Mike Flemming appearing as co‑counsel; the opposing petitioners were represented by McDermott Will & Emery (ZTE) and Kirkland & Ellis LLP (Samsung).