Fundamental Innovation Systems International LLC v. LG Electronics, Inc. et al.

I'll research this case to build an accurate overview. Let me start with several searches.

Let me dig deeper into the parties, patents, IPRs, and outcome.

Case Overview — FISI v. LG Electronics, Inc. et al., No. 2:16-cv-01425 (E.D. Tex.)

The parties. Plaintiff Fundamental Innovation Systems International LLC (FISI) is a non-practicing entity (NPE/PAE) formed in Delaware in 2015 and backed by the private-equity firm Centerbridge Partners (RPX describes Centerbridge as having roughly $1.15B under management). FISI acquired a large patent portfolio — RPX reports 18 patents-in-campaign plus over 55 US assets and foreign counterparts — from BlackBerry (formerly Research In Motion) in a November 2015 transaction; the portfolio is the residual of RIM/BlackBerry's early-2000s USB charging and power-management R&D program. FISI's parent is Fundamental Innovation Systems International Holdings LLC. Monetization was initially run through TnT IP LLC and later by former IPVALUE executives (Kapu Kumar, Paul Seaman, Paul Riley), who in 2019 formed JASPAR–IP Consultants. The defendants are the LG and Huawei corporate families: LG Electronics, Inc., LG Electronics U.S.A., LG Electronics Mobilecomm U.S.A., LG Electronics Mobile Research U.S.A., and LG Electronics Alabama; and Huawei Investment & Holding, Huawei Technologies, Huawei Device USA, and Futurewei Technologies. (A parallel Huawei action, No. 2:16-cv-01424, was consolidated with the LG action and stayed pending settlement, per FISI's § 42.8 notice in IPR2018-00215.)

Accused technology and patents. The accused products are ordinary USB-equipped smartphones/tablets and their wall/car power adapters. FISI's theory is that Huawei devices such as the Honor 8, P9, Mate 8/Mate S, P8, Ascend Mate 7/P6, MediaPad M2 and adapter models (HW‑050100C2W, HW‑059200CHQ, etc.) — and comparable LG handsets and chargers — detect an "identification signal" on the USB data lines (an "abnormal USB data condition") that tells the device it is connected to a dedicated charger rather than a USB host, letting it draw current above the USB Specification's limits without going through USB enumeration (search result reproducing FISI's infringement contentions). The case as litigated asserted up to seven patents across three families (not just the '586 listed in the metadata): the "Fischer Patents" — '111, '586, '766, '550 — and the "Veselic Patents" — the '319 family ('319, '514) and the '655 patent. In one line each: the '111 ("Universal Serial Bus Adapter for a Mobile Device," issued 2007, priority March 1, 2001) claims a USB power adapter with a plug unit, power converter, and an identification subsystem signaling that the source is not a USB host/hub; the '586 (issued Nov. 16, 2010, titled "Multifunctional Charger System and Method" in FISI's later complaints) is a continuation sharing the '111 specification and covers the adapter/charger side of the same scheme; the '766 claims the device side — a USB communication path plus charging subsystem that draws current unrestricted by USB limits upon detecting an abnormal USB data condition; the '550 covers the corresponding charger; the '319 ("Circuit and Method of Operation for an Electrical Power Supply," issued 2010, filed 2003) claims a battery charge controller, semiconductor switch, and voltage-sensing circuit that split power between the device and battery; the '514 is a '319 continuation; and the '655 ("Charging and Power Supply for Mobile Devices," priority Dec. 13, 2005) claims a USB-compliant charging/power circuit with switch-mode charging and battery-isolation circuitry. Note one metadata caveat: only the '586 is listed in the case header, but the docket and the claim-construction opinion confirm a much broader asserted set, and RPX's case page lists five patents-in-suit — the exact final count may have narrowed over time.

Procedural posture. Filed December 16, 2016, in the Marshall Division of the Eastern District of Texas before Judge Rodney Gilstrap, with Magistrate Judge Roy S. Payne (docket suffix JRG‑RSP) — one of the most active and historically plaintiff-friendly patent venues in the country (RPX confirms Judge Gilstrap and a closure date of Oct. 22, 2018). Claim construction (Markman) was held March 26, 2018, and the court issued its Claim Construction Memorandum Opinion and Order, Dkt. 146 (Apr. 2, 2018), construing terms in all seven patents, largely adopting defendants' narrower positions — e.g., construing "USB" as "Universal Serial Bus as described in USB Specification Revision 2.0 and related versions of this standard at the time of the claimed invention." The court had earlier construed the same terms in the parallel Samsung case (No. 2:17-cv-145, Dkt. 140, Jan. 31, 2018), which FISI's adversaries invoked as collateral estoppel. The parties also litigated a § 101 judgment-on-the-pleadings motion by LG (Dkt. 198, July 2018) and a wave of Daubert/expert motions in August 2018, but the case settled before trial. The docket shows extensive IPR activity: Huawei filed IPR2018-00485 on the '586 patent, but the Board denied institution (decision Sept. 4, 2018); LG's IPR2018-00676/00678 (and IPR2018-00215, -00683) challenged the '319-family and '655 patents, with IPR2018-00678 (the '514) dismissed October 16, 2018 pursuant to a settlement agreement. Across 2017–2018, roughly 18 petitions were filed against the Fischer-family patents, with the Board denying institution in 13, issuing a final written decision in IPR2018-00111 on the '550 patent, and terminating the rest (per FISI's 2021 patent-owner preliminary response in IPR2021-00597).

Why it matters. First, the asserted portfolio is foundational to modern USB charging: the "identification subsystem"/abnormal-data-condition mechanism is essentially the behavior standardized later in USB Battery Charging (BC 1.2) that lets a phone negotiate more than 500 mA from a dedicated charger — so FISI's campaign touched nearly every smartphone and charger maker. Second, it is a template NPE/PE-backed monetization story: a former operating-company (BlackBerry) portfolio acquired and asserted broadly, with roughly 20 suits since late 2016 against Apple, Samsung, Huawei, LG, Lenovo, ZTE, TCL, Hon Hai/Belkin, Anker, and others — and licensing reportedly reached 50+ entities. Third, it illustrates the interplay between district-court assertion and PTAB challenges: despite the breadth of the campaign, the Board's repeated denials of institution (including on the '586) left the patents largely intact, and FISI's own submissions later cited the licensing wave as evidence the family withstood "extreme scrutiny." Fourth, the case is a post-TC Heartland venue-era data point in E.D. Tex., and it settled on the eve of trial (case closed Oct. 22, 2018; Samsung settled in July 2018 amid a reported change in FISI's licensing management), which is why the metadata's "later outcome not confirmed" should now be read as settled/dismissed.

Sourcing note: Party/portfolio facts are well supported (RPX Insight case page; RPX March 5, 2021 news item; FISI § 42.8 notices and POPRs on PTAB dockets; the Dkt. 146 opinion). The precise final list of asserted patents and the exact terms of the LG/Huawei settlement are not public (settlement agreements were filed as business-confidential under 35 U.S.C. § 317(b)), so statements about which claims remained in suit at settlement and the settlement value should be treated as unconfirmed.

I'll research this case systematically, starting with the docket and key developments.

Let me dig into the docket details, consolidation, and final disposition.

Let me examine the full docket and the IPR proceedings more closely.

Fundamental Innovation Systems Int'l LLC v. LG Electronics, Inc. — Litigation Chronology & Outcome

Note on the case summary: The metadata's "later outcome not confirmed" can now be resolved. This case did not end at claim construction. It terminated by stipulated dismissal with prejudice on 2018-10-22, after both defendant families settled. Also, although the metadata lists only the '586 patent, the consolidated case actually asserted seven patents — a fact that matters a great deal to the outcome analysis below.

---

1. Parties, patents, and procedural skeleton

Source: RPX Insight case page (filed 12/16/2016, closed 10/22/2018, Judge Gilstrap +1); Dkt. 146 background section.

---

2. Filing & initial pleadings (Dec 2016 – 2017)

• 2016-12-16 — FISI filed two parallel complaints in E.D. Tex.:
  • 2:16-cv-01425 against the LG entities (the later lead case);
  • 2:16-cv-01424 against the Huawei entities and Futurewei.
  • The Huawei action was consolidated into the LG action, with 2:16-cv-01425 designated the lead case. (Confirmed in FISI's PTAB mandatory notices, e.g., IPR2018-00493 (2018-01-22), which describe the Huawei action as "consolidated with the LG action.")
• Initial patents asserted, per RPX's contemporaneous report (2016-12-22): LG was accused on '111, '586, '766, '550; Huawei was accused on those four plus '655. The operative set later expanded to all seven (including '319 and '514). The '586 — the patent singled out in your metadata — was therefore one of the original four against LG and one of the original five against Huawei.
• Claim volume / pleading scope: Defendants' claim construction brief complained that FISI asserted "over 90 claims against the LG defendants, and over 50 claims against the Huawei defendants."
• Notice / willfulness: FISI pleaded willful infringement and a pre-suit notice campaign. Its Huawei complaint alleged Huawei had "specific notice" of the patents no later than 2015-12-14 (a letter to Huawei's US corporate SVP), with continued sales after that date. This notice date later drove Huawei's summary-judgment motion to exclude pre-notice damages (see §4).
• Answers / counterclaims: I could not retrieve the specific answer docket entries or verify the counterclaim counts. However, the final dismissal order expressly disposes of "all claims and counterclaims" (Dkt. 382), confirming that dispositive counterclaims (at minimum non-infringement/invalidity, plausibly declaratory-judgment counterclaims) were on file. Treat specific counterclaim counts as unconfirmed.
• Service: FISI's later IPR petition record states LG was served 2017-05-05 — apparently service of an amended/expanded pleading, since the complaint was filed in Dec. 2016 (flagged as uncertain).

---

3. Pre-trial motions of substance

Venue / transfer: I found no evidence of a §1404(a) motion to transfer in this case, and no ruling on one. This is a negative finding from the sources retrieved, not a confirmed absence. (A Korean-language academic commentary cited this case as an example of defendants not challenging E.D. Tex. venue, which is weakly corroborative.)

Dispositive motions (filed mid-2018, never decided):

Daubert / expert motions (filed 2018-08-21 to 08-22): A dense wave of motions to exclude:

• By LG: to exclude opinions of FISI technical expert Dr. Thomas M. Conte; damages experts Ryan Sullivan, Roy Weinstein, Mark Chandler; and portions of Dr. Kenneth Fernald's rebuttal.
• By Huawei: to exclude Chandler (opening and supplemental), Conte, Fernald, Sullivan, and Weinstein; plus a motion to exclude Huawei's own expert Brian A. Berg.
• By FISI: motions to exclude LG damages expert Dr. Keith Ugone; invalidity experts Robert Dezmelyk and Robert W. Erickson.

Outcome of these motions: none reached decision. The final order deemed "the parties' respective pending motions … withdrawn" (Dkt. 382). This is strategically important — the §101 motion and the two summary-judgment motions were never adjudicated, so they carry no preclusive or precedential effect.

Docket Control Order: amended by joint motion at least twice (2018-07-13 and 2018-08-07), consistent with a case slipping toward a settlement-squeezed schedule.

---

4. Claim construction (Markman)

• 2018-03-26 — Markman hearing held (per the face of Dkt. 146).
• 2018-04-02 — Claim Construction Memorandum Opinion and Order, Dkt. 146 (93 pages), by Magistrate Judge Payne. It construed terms across all seven patents — the "Fischer patents" ('111/'586/'766/'550), the '319 family ('319/'514), and the '655 patent. Inputs: Dkt. 123 (FISI opening brief), 127, 130.

Key constructions:

• "USB" — construed as limited to "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" — i.e., a temporal limitation excluding later USB standards. Defendants had pressed this hard; it was the central battleground. (Applied in the parallel Samsung case via the court's 2018-01-31 order; defendants argued collateral estoppel barred FISI from relitigating it.)
• "generate"/"generating" — construed as "provide"/"providing" (FISI-favorable; the magistrate relied on the specification's interchangeable use of the terms).
• "abnormal USB data condition"/"abnormal USB data line condition" ('550, '766) — data conditions not defined as valid USB data conditions (a middle-ground construction, narrower than defendants' "invalid or illegal … specified in USB").
• Numerous means-plus-function terms construed under §112 ¶6 (e.g., means for receiving energy from a power socket; means for generating an identification signal; means for measuring/responding to a voltage drop across a battery charge controller).
• '319-family terms: "battery charge controller," "voltage drop across [a/the] battery charge controller," "power," "reference voltage," "a switch"/"a semiconductor switch," "voltage sensing circuit."

Post-construction objections: 2018-04-18 — Defendants filed Objections to the April 2, 2018 Memorandum Opinion and Order (Dkt. 158), targeting principally (a) "generate/generating" (they wanted "produce/producing" and argued the magistrate misread the spec and ignored claim differentiation) and (b) the "abnormal" constructions. These objections were never resolved on the merits — mooted by settlement.

Cross-case signal: The earlier Samsung claim-construction order (2018-01-31, Case 2:17-cv-145-JRG-RSP, Dkt. 140) construed many of the same terms first, and FISI's objections there were overruled (Dkt. 157). The LG/Huawei Markman was thus effectively a follow-on to Samsung — a strategically significant fact.

---

5. Discovery milestones of strategic significance

• Expert discovery was the real battlefield. By August 2018 the parties had exchanged opening and rebuttal reports from at least: technical experts Conte (FISI) and Fernald; invalidity experts Dezmelyk and Erickson; Huawei's Brian A. Berg; and damages experts Chandler, Weinstein, Sullivan (FISI) and Ugone (LG). The sheer number of Daubert motions signals that damages and infringement theories were being aggressively contested on both sides.
• Sealed filings of exhibits and expert materials were routine (e.g., Dkt. 204 and its sealed additional attachments), indicating confidential licensing and financial data were in play.
• Claim-construction discovery: Defendants complained FISI changed its proposed constructions for nearly all USB-component terms "weeks after the close of claim construction discovery," which defendants argued prejudiced them. This is a notable procedural skirmish.
• No dispositive discovery-sanction or summary-judgment rulings were ever issued.

---

6. Trial, verdict, and post-trial motions

None. The case never reached trial. No jury was empaneled, no verdict, no JMOL/new-trial/fee motions. The final order provides only that "each party shall bear its own costs and attorneys' fees" — i.e., no fee-shifting. Any post-trial or appeal posture is therefore nonexistent.

---

7. Settlement and final disposition

• 2018-09-04 — FISI and the Huawei defendants (Huawei Device Co., Ltd. and Huawei Device USA, Inc.) filed a Joint Motion to Stay All Deadlines and Notice of Settlement, reporting that "all matters in controversy between them have been settled, in principle," and requesting a 30-day stay to file dismissal papers. The court granted the stay (order attached to the same filing).
• Notably, on the same date (2018-09-04) the PTAB denied institution in Huawei's IPR2018-00485 on the '586 patent — the two events appear coordinated.
• 2018-10-15/16 — In the parallel IPRs, LG and FISI jointly moved to dismiss and the Board dismissed IPR2018-00678 (the '514 patent) pursuant to settlement (Termination Decision, 2018-10-16), treating the settlement agreement and related correspondence as business-confidential under §317(b).
• 2018-10-22 — Final disposition. Order (Dkt. 382) by Judge Gilstrap adopting Magistrate Judge Payne's dismissal order (Dkt. 380) as a report and recommendation and granting FISI and LG's Stipulation of Dismissal Under Rule 41 (Dkt. 379). The order:
  • DISMISSED all claims and counterclaims WITH PREJUDICE;
  • deemed all pending motions withdrawn; and
  • ordered each party to bear its own costs and attorneys' fees.
• No appeal was taken (a stipulated dismissal is not appealable as a merits judgment).
• Campaign context: FISI's related Samsung action (2:17-cv-00145) settled and was dismissed in July 2018; the Huawei and LG settlements followed weeks later. FISI then moved on — most visibly suing Apple (and later Anker/Fantasia and Cyber Power in 2021). Per press coverage, FISI's licensing was handled first by TnT IP LLC, then (from 2018) by a successor team that later co-founded JASPAR – IP Consultants.

---

8. Parallel PTAB proceedings and their effect

LG and Huawei (and others) filed a coordinated IPR barrage in January–February 2018 against the asserted families. Confirmed or reported proceedings:

Effect on the litigation:

1. The IPRs were filed while the district case was live, but the district court did not stay the case on their account (at least no stay was confirmed) — and in any event settlement overtook the schedule.
2. Huawei's IPR on the '586 failed at the institution stage (2018-09-04) — meaning the district case's '586 claims survived the primary validity challenge at the Board, which likely strengthened FISI's leverage going into settlement.
3. Conversely, Huawei's '655 IPR was instituted, creating real cancellation risk — a countervailing pressure. The '655 invalidity exposure and Huawei's SJ motion on claim 8 of the '586 collectively formed the settlement backdrop.
4. All remaining PTAB proceedings were swept away by the global settlements (settlement-driven dismissal/termination), so no IPR produced a final written decision cancelling claims in this campaign — a meaningful litigation-quality data point.

---

9. Bottom line / present posture

• Final disposition: All claims and counterclaims dismissed with prejudice (2018-10-22) on a Rule 41 stipulation following confidential settlements with Huawei (Sept. 2018) and LG (Oct. 2018). Each side bore its own fees and costs. No judgment, no verdict, no appeal.
• The '586 patent specifically: one of the original asserted patents against both LG and Huawei; it survived PTAB institution (Huawei's IPR2018-00485 denied), and was the subject of Huawei's never-decided SJ motion on claim 8.
• The litigation's real value: the 2018-04-02 Markman ruling (Dkt. 146) is the durable artifact — it fixed a temporally limited "USB" construction and construed means-plus-function terms across both patent families, feeding the parallel Samsung case and FISI's later suits.
• Case is closed; no active docket, no appeal.

---

10. Sourcing caveats

• Docket entry numbers (146, 158, 198, 204, 379, 380, 382) and the 2018-04-02 / 2018-10-22 orders are well-sourced (Justia, Docket Alarm, Unified Patents docket mirror, PTAB exhibits).
• The 2018-03-26 Markman hearing date is sourced from the face of Dkt. 146 and the case metadata.
• Unconfirmed / treat with caution: the precise answer and counterclaim entries and counts; the identity of the petitioner in IPR2018-00215 and IPR2018-00676; the termination date of LG's '586 IPR (IPR2018-00493); whether any venue/transfer motion was filed; and the 2017-05-05 service date's significance. I did not fabricate these — they simply could not be verified from the sources retrieved.
• Attorney names appearing in docket text (e.g., Waldrop, Gardner for LG; DeRieux, Capshaw for FISI; Pehrson for Huawei) are drawn from the docket mirror but are not verified against firm records.

I'll research press coverage of this case across multiple angles.

Initial results show mostly docket/PTAB documents and one RPX news item. Let me search more targeted press angles.

Press coverage of FISI v. LG Electronics (E.D. Tex. 2:16-cv-01425)

Coverage of this specific docket in mainstream and legal-trade press is thin, and what exists comes almost entirely from the patent-analytics/trade outlet RPX rather than from Reuters, Bloomberg Law, Law360, Ars Technica, The Verge, IPWatchdog, Patently-O, or EFF Deeplinks. I searched the case caption, the plaintiff and defendant names, the '586 patent number, the "BlackBerry USB charging" framing, and settlement/verdict angles, and did not surface any mainstream-outlet article devoted to this case. The most directly on-point piece is RPX Empower, which reported on 2016-12-22 that Fundamental Innovation Systems International LLC (FISI) — described as a "TnT IP affiliate" — filed its first litigation asserting "a group of USB charging patents, acquired from BlackBerry late last year," against Huawei (2:16-cv-01424) and LG Electronics (2:16-cv-01425). Per that report, each defendant was accused of infringement "through the provision of devices that offer USB fast charging, which allows connected devices to draw more power than the USB specification typically allows," with LGE alleged to infringe four patents (7,239,111; 7,834,586; 8,232,766; 8,624,550) via mobile devices, monitors, and chargers, and Huawei accused of those same four plus the '655 patent through its own phones and chargers. No damages figure, settlement amount, or verdict was reported in that piece.

Later coverage frames the case as one data point in a broader NPE campaign rather than as an individually significant dispute. RPX Insight reported on 2021-03-05 that FISI, "backed by the private equity firm Centerbridge Partners and asserting former BlackBerry patents," was formed in Delaware in 2015 and "has filed roughly 20 suits since late 2016," naming Apple, Aukey, BBK Electronics (OnePlus), BLU Products, Hon Hai (Belkin), Huawei, Jasco, Lenovo, LG Electronics, Samsung, TCL (TCT Mobile), Coolpad, ZTE, Anker, and Cyber Power among targets — with the newer complaints focused on "USB charging adapters (including wall chargers, car chargers, desktop chargers, and power banks)." This is portfolio-level context; it does not report on the LG/Huawei docket's procedural outcome.

One non-U.S. trade item goes beyond the court record. A Chinese-language EEWorld report (dated 2020-04-28) described FISI's April 2020 filings against Lenovo, TCL, and Belkin (D. Del.) and against Coolpad, OnePlus, Aukey, and Jasco (E.D. Tex.), and referenced the December 2016 suits against Huawei and LG as having been filed "to reach patent license agreements." It also listed FISI's licensee roster as including Samsung, Huawei, LG, and Dell (reportedly 38 companies per FISI's website), and speculated that FISI would likely seek a Section 337 ITC investigation to pressure defendants into licensing. That characterization — litigation-as-licensing-leverage and the ITC prediction — is the outlet's analysis, not a court finding, and I could not independently confirm the licensee list or the settlement status of the LG/Huawei matters from press reporting.

Bottom line: for the '586 patent case itself, I found no Reuters/Bloomberg/Law360/Ars/Verge/IPWatchdog/Patently-O/EFF article, and the verdict/settlement outcome is not documented in any article I located. RPX's two news items are the substantive press record I could verify; the EEWorld piece adds industry-reaction/analyst color but is a secondary source with unverified specifics. Note also that RPX's own litigation tracker page for 2:16-cv-01425 lists the case as closed on 2018-10-22, and PTAB records reflect a settlement dismissal of the related LG IPR on the '514 patent — but those are docket/PTAB sources, not press, and I did not find an article reporting settlement terms.

Sources

• IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION
• UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
• UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
• THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION
• Fundamental Innovation Systems International LLC v
• Case 2:16-cv-01425-JRG-RSP Document 146 Filed 04/02/18 Page 1 of 93 PagelD #: 6390
• LG Electronics, Inc. v. Fundamental Innovation Systems International LLC
• IPR2018-00678, No. 10 Termination Decision Document - Termination Decision Document (P.T.A.B. Oct. 16, 2018) - IPR2018-00678, No
• LG ELECTRONICS, INC. v. Fundamental Innovation Systems International LLC
• 2:16-cv-01425 | Fundamental Innovation Systems International LLC v. LG Electronics, Inc. et al | RPX Insight
• THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION
• IPR2021-00410, No. 1016 Exhibit - Ex 1016 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 11, 2021)

I'll research the counsel of record for the plaintiff in this case. Let me start with several searches.

Let me dig into the docket and the district court filings specifically.

Now let me find the actual docket sheet and complaint signature block.

Counsel of Record — Plaintiff Fundamental Innovation Systems International LLC (FISI)

Bottom line up front: This docket (E.D. Tex. 2:16-cv-01425, closed 10/22/2018 on a stipulated dismissal with prejudice) was staffed the way most Marshall Division patent cases are — out-of-state lead trial counsel paired with Texas local counsel who are the attorneys who actually e-file and sign on this docket. The names below are the ones I can source to filings; I flag confidence levels and the gaps explicitly, because I could not pull the full PACER attorney-appearance list.

---

Confirmed from this docket (signature/filer data)

Source: Unified Patents' litigation docket extract for 2:16-cv-01425, which lists per-entry filer tags — "…by Fundamental Innovation Systems International LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Capshaw, Sidney)," and "…filed by Fundamental Innovation Systems International LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Hagiz…)(DeRieux, Elizabeth)." https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/Texas%20Eastern%20District%20Court/case/2:16-cv-01425

Lead trial counsel — strongly supported but not positively confirmed on this docket

Source: IPR2021-00598 petition (Feb. 26, 2021), certificate of service listing FISI's litigation counsel at Quinn Emanuel in D. Del. 1:20-cv-00552: https://cmosedu.com/jbaker/expert_witness/2021/IPR2021_00598.pdf

PTAB / IPR counsel for FISI — fully confirmed (register numbers), separate from the district court docket

Sources: FISI Patent Owner Power of Attorney (Jan. 17, 2018) and Updated Mandatory Notices (Sept. 13, 2018), e.g. IPR2018-00215, -00276, -00493: https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2018-00485/Huawei_Device_Co._Ltd._v._Fundamental_Innovation_Systems_International_LLC/docs/06-12-2018-Patent_Owner/ ; https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/[1512476](/patent/1512476)/download-documents

---

Important caveats (please read before relying on this)

1. The PACER attorney-appearance list was not directly retrievable. I could not open a formatted docket sheet showing every attorney appearance. The names above are reconstructed from per-entry filer tags and signature blocks in reproduced filings. Counsel who entered pro hac vice and whose names appear only in a PACER "attorney" pane (common for out-of-town lead counsel) would not necessarily surface this way. Recommend verifying against the live PACER docket (2:16-cv-01425-JRG-RSP) before filing or relying on this list.
2. Irell & Manella's role is verified for the PTAB proceedings (IPR2018-00215, -00276, -00485, -00493, -01076), not for this district court docket. FISI's IPR notices list the LG action as a related matter but do not establish that the Irell attorneys entered in the district court case. Treat the Irell names as confirmed IPR counsel, not confirmed district court counsel.
3. Quinn Emanuel as lead trial counsel is an inference — supported by the "Affidavit Hagiz" attachment to FISI's Dkt. 204 filing and by Quinn Emanuel's documented role as FISI's litigation counsel in the parallel FISI cases — but I did not retrieve a formal notice of appearance.
4. Many merits filings in this case were sealed ("SEALED PATENT MOTION," sealed exhibits to Dkt. 204), and several expert- and damages-related motions were resolved under seal. To the extent any counsel appeared only in sealed papers, they would not be visible in public sources.
5. No in-house counsel for FISI appeared on this docket in any document I found. FISI is an NPE that acquired the portfolio from BlackBerry; Craig Thompson (President) executed the IPR power of attorney, but I found no FISI in-house attorney of record.
6. Posture: the case was dismissed with prejudice by stipulation under Rule 41 (Dkt. 379), adopted by Judge Gilstrap on 10/22/2018 (Dkt. 382), following settlement; all pending motions were deemed withdrawn. Local counsel's appearance would have been withdrawn as part of the closing. https://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/texas/txedce/2:2016cv01425/[173156/382](https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/search/patent/reelFrameDetail?reelFrame=173156-0382)

If you need a definitive "counsel of record" list for a Rule 11 / service / conflict purpose, pull the PACER docket and the "Attorneys" tab — that is the authoritative source, and it is cheap at $0.10/page.

I'll research defense counsel across the LG and Huawei sides, drawing on docket mirrors, PTAB filings, and firm records.

Defense Counsel of Record — FISI v. LG Electronics et al., No. 2:16-cv-01425-JRG-RSP

Bottom line: This docket had two separate defense groups (LG and Huawei) who coordinated on claim construction but were represented by different firms. The LG side is well documented: Kasowitz, Benson, Torres & Friedman LLP (now Kasowitz LLP) as lead trial counsel out of its Redwood Shores, CA office, with Allen F. Gardner as the Texas/E.D. Tex. filer of record. The Huawei side is the weak spot in the public record — I could not verify its counsel of record from retrievable sources, and I will not guess at names.

⚠️ Important framing note: this case never went to trial and all merits motions were deemed withdrawn on dismissal (Dkt. 382, 10/22/2018). Several defense filings were sealed ("SEALED PATENT MOTION," sealed exhibits). So a complete attorney list requires the PACER "Attorneys" tab, which I could not open.

---

1. LG Electronics defendants — confirmed

(LG Electronics, Inc.; LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc.; LG Electronics MobileComm U.S.A., Inc.; LG Electronics Mobile Research U.S.A. LLC; LG Electronics Alabama, Inc.)

Supporting docket evidence: Dkt. 157/158 redaction filed by "(Gardner, Allen)"; Dkt. 158 (Defendants' Objections to the April 2, 2018 Claim Construction Order) is a joint LG + Huawei filing; the August 2018 sealed Daubert motions and the SJ motion "of Non-Infringement Based on Defenses of License and Exhaustion" (with the Corrected Declaration of Jonathan K. Waldrop) are attributed to the LG entities and Waldrop.

LG-adjacent names I could NOT confirm on this docket

• Darcy L. Jones, Marcus A. Barber, John W. Downing, Jack Shaw, Aaron H. Marks, Heather S. Kim (Kasowitz) — these attorneys appear in Kasowitz's signature blocks for LG and Huawei in the parallel Fujinomaki v. Google N.D. Cal. matter (3:16-cv-03137). They are plausibly the Kasowitz team staffed here, but I found no appearance or signature tying them to 2:16-cv-01425. Treat as inference only.
• David Folsom (former E.D. Tex. Chief Judge; Jackson Walker LLP) — his third-party litigation profile (PlainSite) lists 2:16-cv-01425 with a 12/16/2016 date, i.e., he appears in the case's attorney/data record. His client and role are unverified — do not assume he was LG's or Huawei's counsel without checking PACER.
• LG in-house counsel — no LG in-house attorney appeared on this docket in any document I found. (An LG in-house attorney, James Suh, LG Electronics Inc. IP Center, Seoul, appears in unrelated Federal Circuit filings; not this case.)

---

2. Huawei defendants — NOT confirmed (explicit gap)

(Huawei Investment & Holding Co., Ltd.; Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd.; Huawei Device USA, Inc.; Futurewei Technologies, Inc.)

I could not verify Huawei's counsel of record in 2:16-cv-01425. What the record does show:

• The Unified Patents docket extract shows Huawei's filings as "SEALED PATENT MOTION … by Huawei Device Co., Ltd., Huawei Device USA, Inc." — i.e., the Huawei side filed under seal and without a visible signature block in the public extract.
• By 2018 the active Huawei defense entities on this docket appear to be Huawei Device Co., Ltd. and Huawei Device USA, Inc. (the movants on the Daubert and SJ motions), rather than the full Huawei/Futurewei group named in the 2016 complaint.
• Dkt. 158 was styled "DEFENDANTS' OBJECTIONS" and filed on behalf of "LG and Huawei (collectively 'Defendants')" — so Huawei shared a common claim-construction position, but that does not establish shared counsel.
• A name fragment ("Pehrson") appears in secondary docket commentary as Huawei-side counsel. I could not verify this against any filing, signature block, or firm record, and I am not asserting it. Huawei's IPR-side counsel in the parallel PTAB proceedings were different from its district-court team and are separately documented (see below) — do not conflate them.

To close this gap: pull the PACER docket for 2:16-cv-01424-JRG-RSP and 2:16-cv-01425-JRG-RSP and open the "Attorneys" report; Huawei's appearances and any pro hac vice orders are there. Cost is trivial (~$0.10/page).

---

3. Related but DISTINCT — PTAB counsel (do not attribute to this docket)

These are IPR counsel in the parallel PTAB proceedings against the same patents. Prior sections of this case already detail FISI's Irell & Manella team; for completeness, the petitioner side:

• LG's PTAB work was handled by Mayer Brown LLP — e.g., Robert Gary Pluta (Chicago), Jamie B. Beaber, Andrew John Pincus, Paul Whitfield Hughes, Kfir Levy (Washington, DC), with Allen F. Gardner (Allen Gardner Law, Tyler) as Texas local/back-up counsel in LG's IPRs. (Sourced to LG PTAB filings such as IPR2023-01267–01273 and the Federal Circuit amicus filing listing LG's Mayer Brown team — these are NOT this case's district-court appearances.)
• ZTE/TCL-side PTAB petitioners used Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP (Jeffrey Johnson, Reg. No. 53,078, Houston; Robert J. Benson, Irvine; Jeremy Jason Lang, Menlo Park) — relevant only as competitor petitioners in the same patent family.

---

4. Practical caveats before you rely on this

1. Sealed filings hide signatures. LG's and Huawei's Daubert motions, the Huawei SJ motions, and FISI's sealed response attachments were filed under seal; counsel appearing only in those papers may not surface in public docket text.
2. No trial team was ever finalized. The case settled with all motions "deemed withdrawn" (Dkt. 382), so there was no trial exhibit list, pretrial order, or voir dire that would enumerate the full defense bench. Any claim of a "full trial team" for either side is unsupported.
3. Kasowitz's own website is the best single confirmation that Waldrop led LG's defense here: https://www.kasowitz.com/people/all/jonathan-k-waldrop. It is a party-adverse-source self-description, but it matches the docket.
4. Attorney-name quality tiers: Waldrop and Gardner = confirmed. Kasowitz colleagues, Folsom, and "Pehrson" = unconfirmed/do not cite. Huawei lead counsel = unknown.

Primary sources: Unified Patents docket mirror for 2:16-cv-01425 (per-entry filer tags) — https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/Texas%20Eastern%20District%20Court/case/2:16-cv-01425; Dkt. 146 (Claim Construction Opinion, 4/2/2018) and Dkt. 158 (Defendants' Objections, 4/18/2018), reproduced as Exs. 2013–2014 to IPR2018-00485; Kasowitz attorney bio (Waldrop); RPX Insight case page (closed 10/22/2018).