Fundamental Innovation Systems International LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.

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

Good initial results. Let me dig deeper into the parties, patent, IPRs, and outcome.

Let me verify the '586 patent details, the IPR on it, and the case resolution.

Case Overview and Background — Fundamental Innovation Systems Int'l LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co., No. 2:17-cv-00145-JRG-RSP (E.D. Tex.)

The parties. Plaintiff Fundamental Innovation Systems International LLC ("FISI" or "Fundamental") is a non-practicing entity / patent assertion entity formed in Delaware in 2015. FISI does not make or sell products; it holds a portfolio of former BlackBerry (Research In Motion) patents and monetizes them through licensing and litigation. FISI is financially backed by the private-equity firm Centerbridge Partners, and reporting by RPX and IAM indicates the patents came from a November 2015 transaction between BlackBerry and Centerbridge described in later court filings as a multi‑million‑dollar deal involving over 55 U.S. assets (plus Australian, European, and Asian counterparts), with some sources citing figures in the 150–200‑asset range. FISI's licensing effort was initially run by the monetization firm TnT IP LLC and, as of 2018 (reportedly around the time of the Samsung settlement), by three former IPVALUE Management executives (Kapu Kumar, Paul Seaman, and Paul Riley). (RPX Insight; dockets.justia.com) Defendants Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (Korea) and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. are operating companies — the world's largest smartphone/consumer‑electronics manufacturer and its U.S. sales and marketing arm — squarely the type of large operating-company target typical of this campaign.

The accused technology and the patents. The accused products are Samsung consumer devices with USB power/charging subsystems — pleadings identify the Galaxy S7/S7 Edge, S6/S6 Edge, Note 4/Note 5/Note Edge, J3/J7, and Tab S2/TabPro S — plus Samsung-branded power adapters such as the "adaptive fast‑charging" chargers (e.g., EP‑TA20, EP‑TA300) and 5V wall chargers (e.g., EP‑TA12, ETA‑U90, EP‑TA10, EP‑TA50). (FISI infringement contentions excerpt) Although the case metadata flags only U.S. Patent No. 7,834,586 as "the patent at issue," the complaint and the court's claim construction order show FISI actually asserted ten patents-in-suit spanning three BlackBerry families: the Fischer "Multifunctional Charger System and Method" family (the '936 patent and its continuations '111, '586, '766, '550; earliest priority March 1, 2001); the '319 "Circuit and Method of Operation for an Electrical Power Supply" family ('319, '514, '983; filed February 21, 2003); and the Veselic "Charging and Power Supply for Mobile Devices" family ('173 and its continuation '655; filed December 13, 2005). (Claim Construction Memorandum and Order, Dkt. 140) In one line each: the '586 (issued Nov. 16, 2010; app. 12/714,204; inventors Daniel M. Fischer et al.) claims an adapter that delivers power to a mobile device through an industry‑standard port using a power converter plus an identification subsystem that signals the device it is not connected to a USB host/hub, allowing the device to draw current outside normal USB limits; the '319‑family patents allocate power between device operation and battery charging from a limited source such as a USB port; and the '173‑family patents cover switch‑mode USB charging/power‑supply and battery‑isolation circuitry. The complaint did not identify specific asserted claims, and the metadata's focus on the '586 is narrower than what was actually litigated.

Procedural posture, venue, and outcome. FISI filed on February 21, 2017, in the Marshall Division of the Eastern District of Texas, assigned to Judge Rodney Gilstrap with Magistrate Judge Roy S. Payne ("JRG‑RSP"). E.D. Tex./Marshall was a deliberately chosen venue: a small, patent‑experienced bench with a heavy patent docket and a reputation (especially in that era) for plaintiff‑friendly procedures and comparatively fast time to trial. Judge Payne issued a 105‑page Claim Construction Memorandum and Order on January 31, 2018 (Dkt. 140), construing dozens of disputed terms across the three patent families and denying FISI's motion to exclude Samsung's claim‑construction experts (Dkt. 83). That order became influential: in FISI's parallel case against ZTE in the Northern District of Texas (No. 3:17‑cv‑01827‑N), the court expressly adopted Judge Payne's constructions (Dec. 21, 2018). The Samsung case did not reach trial — Samsung and FISI entered a settlement agreement on July 6, 2018, and the case was dismissed shortly thereafter (RPX records the closure date as July 16, 2018; IAM reported the official dismissal on July 19, 2018). Note the discrepancy: one aggregator (Ex Parte) lists a 2019 closure, which appears unreliable given the July 2018 dismissal and the concurrent PTAB terminations.

Parallel proceedings and why the case matters. The Samsung suit was one front in a coordinated campaign. FISI sued LG (2:16‑cv‑01424) and Huawei (2:16‑cv‑01425) in E.D. Tex. in late 2016 and ZTE in N.D. Tex. in 2017; all appear to have resolved via licenses/settlements. Samsung filed three IPRs in January 2018 against the '111, '655, and '173 patents (IPR2018‑00276, ‑00425, ‑00426), and Huawei filed IPR2018‑00485 against the '586 patent — which the Board denied to institute on September 4, 2018, meaning the '586 was never invalidated on the merits at the PTAB. Samsung's IPRs were terminated as part of the settlement (joint motions filed July 12–13, 2018). In the ZTE litigation, the Board instituted only on the '550 patent (Rogers + Shiga) and ultimately upheld patentability; it denied institution on the '111 and '766 challenges. FISI also later drew a declaratory‑judgment action from Apple in the Northern District of California (No. 3:19‑cv‑00638, Judge Alsup) before FISI sued Apple in E.D. Tex. The case is notable as a textbook example of (i) a private‑equity‑backed PAE acquiring a large operating‑company portfolio and extracting settlements from major OEMs, (ii) assertion of ubiquitous USB‑charging/power‑management patents that arguably touch nearly every modern smartphone and charger, and (iii) the interplay between district‑court claim construction and IPR institution denials — the Samsung matter produced a construction order that other courts adopted, while the asserted patents largely survived PTAB screening, and the dispute ended in a license rather than a merits judgment. FISI continued the same portfolio campaign against other device makers and, beginning in 2021, against automotive defendants (GM/Aptiv, Toyota/Denso, Hyundai).

Sourcing caveat: the acquisition price, exact asset count, and the detailed settlement terms are not public (the Samsung‑FISI IPR settlement agreement was filed "Only to Board" as confidential business information), and the specific asserted claims and ultimate dollar/license terms of the Samsung resolution are not confirmed in the sources reviewed. Party names, court, and case number are taken as authoritative from the provided metadata; the broader ten‑patent scope is drawn from the complaint and Dkt. 140.

I'll research this case thoroughly, starting with the docket and then branching into related proceedings.

Let me dig deeper into the docket and outcome.

Now let me get the docket details, the answer/counterclaims, and the '586-specific parallel IPRs.

Fundamental Innovation Systems Int'l LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., No. 2:17-cv-00145-JRG-RSP (E.D. Tex.)

Bottom line: The case was short-lived and ended in a confidential settlement — the court dismissed it in July 2018, roughly 17 months after filing and about five months after the Markman order. There was no trial, verdict, JMOL, or appeal. The '586 patent that anchors this case file was separately attacked at the PTAB, and years later its asserted claims were held unpatentable in an IPR brought by TCT/TCL. My verified chronology follows; I flag the gaps explicitly at the end.

---

1. Filing and initial pleadings

2017-02-21 — Complaint filed (Dkt. 1). FISI sued Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. in the Marshall Division of the Eastern District of Texas. Case assigned to Judge J. Rodney Gilstrap, referred to Magistrate Judge Roy S. Payne. Pleading sought willful infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271, with a jury demand. (Justia docket; RPX Insight)

Important scope note: Your case metadata lists only the '586 patent, but the complaint actually asserted ten patents, all tracing to BlackBerry/Research In Motion battery-charging and USB power-management research:

Source: the court's own Markman order, Dkt. 140 at 4–5. Accused products included Galaxy S7/S7 Edge, S6, Note 5-era phones and tablets, plus Samsung-branded "adaptive fast-charging" and 5V wall adapters. (complaint analysis)

FISI is the NPE successor to RIM/BlackBerry's charging research program; assignment of the portfolio to FISI is reported as recorded around 2016-12-01. (comported IP Trend report)

Answer / counterclaims — not verified. Samsung plainly litigated invalidity (it filed invalidity contentions and claim-construction briefing, and its own claim-construction experts were deposed), but I could not confirm the answer/counterclaim docket entries (document numbers or dates) from the sources retrieved. Samsung asserted invalidity instead primarily through nine IPR petitions filed January–February 2018 (see §6) — a parallel-track defense rather than a counterclaim-centric one.

---

2. Pre-trial motions of substance

The only substantive contested motions I could verify are the two resolved inside the Markman order:

• Plaintiff's Motion to Exclude Defendants' Claim Construction Experts (Dkt. 83) — DENIED.
• Plaintiff's Motion to Expedite that motion (Dkt. 85) — DENIED AS MOOT.

Both rulings appear on the face of the 2018-01-31 Claim Construction Memorandum and Order (Dkt. 140). The dispute concerned Samsung's experts' opinions given in expert depositions taken 2017-11-20 to 2017-11-21, before FISI's opening claim-construction brief was filed 2017-12-05.

No motion to transfer, motion to stay pending IPR, or summary judgment motion is confirmed in this case. Notably, FISI appears not to have sought a stay, and the case resolved before any dispositive-motion practice ripened. Two adjacent data points:

• In the consolidated LG/Huawei actions (2:16-cv-01424 and 2:16-cv-01425), where the same patents were asserted, the case was "consolidated … and stayed pending settlement" (per FISI's 2018-09-13 updated § 42.8 notice in IPR2018-01076).
• In the parallel FISI v. ZTE, No. 3:17-cv-01827-N (N.D. Tex.), the court denied FISI's motion for partial summary judgment of no invalidity of the '550, '111 and '766 patents, addressing IPR estoppel under § 315(e)(2). (N.D. Tex. opinion)
• Note also that the ZTE case had been transferred out of E.D. Tex. (originally 2:17-cv-00124) to N.D. Tex. on 2017-07-12 — a transfer event, but in a sister case, not this one.

---

3. Claim construction (Markman)

2018-01-31 — Claim Construction Memorandum and Order (Dkt. 140), 105 pages, Magistrate Judge Roy S. Payne. (full order via PTAB exhibit; vLex copy)

Briefing sequence (from the order): Joint Claim Construction & Prehearing Statement 2017-10-30; expert depositions 2017-11-20/21; FISI opening brief 2017-12-05; Joint Claim Construction Chart under P.R. 4-5(d) dated 2018-01-05. The docket lists Dkt. 102 (FISI opening brief), Dkt. 106 and Dkt. 114 (responsive briefs).

Structure of the order — the court construed terms across three separate patent families (roughly 30 terms), a strong signal of the breadth of what FISI was asserting:

• '936 family (including '586): "USB" / "USB connector"; "USB adapter"; "USB port," "USB interface," "USB controller," "USB communication path," "USB cable"; "abnormal USB data condition"; "power limits imposed by the USB specification"; "configured to supply current on the VBUS line without regard to at least one USB Specification imposed limit" (and parallel "unrestricted by … / in excess of" limitations); "identification signal"; "A mobile device"; "microprocessor"; and three § 112 ¶ 6 means terms ("means for receiving energy from a power socket," "means for generating an identification signal that indicates to the mobile device that the power socket is not a USB hub or host," "means for coupling the power output and identification signal to the mobile device").
• '319 family: "battery charge controller"; "voltage drop across [a/the] battery charge controller"; "power"; "a remainder of the power available"; "reference voltage"; "a [semiconductor] switch"; "the voltage sensing circuit"; the "wherein the supply current passes through the external driving semiconductor rather than through the battery charge controller" clauses; "USB / USB power / non-USB source"; and several means-plus-function terms.
• '173 family: "A USB-compliant charging and power supply circuit comprising"; "power"; "reference voltage"; "a [semiconductor] switch"; "switch means for shutting off said semiconductor switch if charging is disabled."

'586-specific: the claim chart in the order confirms that the asserted claims of the '586 patent were claims 9 and 12, and that the disputed '586 terms were "USB"/"USB connector" (construed jointly across the '936 family) and the "power limits imposed by the USB specification" terms.

Downstream impact of the Markman order (significant): Judge Payne's constructions became the de facto constructions for the whole FISI campaign:

• The order was filed as Exhibit 2007 in Samsung's IPRs (e.g., IPR2018-00605/00606) and as Exhibit 2010 in the TCT IPRs (IPR2021-00410, IPR2021-00599) — i.e., the PTAB panels used the district court's constructions.
• The N.D. Tex. court in FISI v. ZTE expressly adopted Judge Payne's constructions by order dated 2018-12-21.

I could not verify which party "won" each individual '586-related term from the sources retrieved; the order's text shows both sides largely urging competing constructions and the court issuing its own.

---

4. Discovery milestones of strategic significance

Discovery was compressed and is only partially visible:

• 2017-10-30: Joint P.R. 4-3 Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement (Dkt. ~95 range, cited in Dkt. 140).
• 2017-11-20/21: Depositions of Samsung's claim-construction experts — the target of FISI's (denied) Dkt. 83 motion to exclude.
• 2018-01-05: Joint P.R. 4-5(d) Claim Construction Chart.
• Undated in my sources but strategically important: the deposition of Dr. John Irving Garney was taken in this case and excerpts were later used as Exhibit 2003 in Samsung's IPR2018-00606 (and as Ex. 2003 in IPR2018-00274's record) — an unusual instance of district-court discovery being recycled into the PTAB track. (IPR2018-00606 docket)
• The case settled before expert invalidity/infringement reports, pretrial disclosures, or Daubert practice in this docket.

---

5. Trial events, verdict, post-trial motions

None. No trial date was set or reached, no verdict, and therefore no JMOL, new-trial motion, or fee motion. RPX records the case as 511 days in litigation, with 54 accused products and 10 patents-in-suit.

---

6. Settlement, dismissal, and final disposition

This is the key correction to the prior case summary: the "later outcome not confirmed" can now be resolved.

• 2018-07-06 — Settlement. Samsung and FISI entered into a confidential settlement agreement. FISI's own later filings describe this case as "settled." (FISI § 42.8 notice, IPR2018-01076)
• 2018-07-13 — Joint motions filed at the PTAB. Samsung and FISI jointly moved to dismiss Samsung from IPR2018-00214, -00215, -00274 and -00276 under 35 U.S.C. § 317(a), stating the agreement required Samsung to "withdraw with prejudice" from the IPRs and to be dismissed from the district court case. The agreement was filed "Only to Board" so that co-petitioner ZTE could not see it. (Joint Motion to Dismiss, IPR2018-00274)
• 2018-07-16 / 2018-07-18 — PTAB dismisses Samsung. Termination decisions issued in the '214/'215/'274/'276 group (joint order entered 2018-07-18, granting dismissal and confidentiality), and IPR2018-00605/00606 terminated 2018-07-16.
• 2018-07-16 — District court dismissal. RPX records the case as closed 2018-07-16. IAM reported on 2018-07-19: "a judge in the Eastern District of Texas officially dismissed the lawsuit between Samsung and Fundamental Innovation Systems International (FISI) after the pair settled their dispute." (IAM)
  • Conflicting but less credible: one aggregator lists a close date of 2019-07-02 (likely a data artifact — the settlement and dismissal date is corroborated by the PTAB filings and IAM).
• No appeal. Nothing was appealed; the dismissal ended the matter as to Samsung. The same IAM item noted that "management of former BlackBerry patents changes hands," consistent with a transfer/reorganization of the FISI portfolio around the settlement.
• Settlement financial terms are not public (the agreement was kept business-confidential under 37 C.F.R. § 42.74(c)).

---

7. Parallel PTAB proceedings and their effect

On the '586 patent (the focus patent):

Sources: IPR2018-00274 case page; IPR2018-00485 (Plainsite); IPR2021-00599 Final Written Decision.

On the other asserted patents (all Samsung-initiated, Jan–Feb 2018): Samsung was petitioner in at least nine IPRs against FISI's patents, including IPR2018-00111, -00214 and -00215 ('766), -00274 ('586), -00276 ('111), -00425 ('655), -00426 ('173), and -00605/-00606 ('936). The July 12, 2018 telephonic hearing transcript lists the six jointly-petitioned cases ('111, '214, '215, '274, '276, '425) before Judges Tornquist, Pettigrew, Moore, Peslak, Korniczky and Kokoski.

Strategic effect on the litigation: The IPR barrage was clearly the pressure point that produced the Samsung settlement. Samsung filed its petitions in January–February 2018, immediately after the claim construction order; institution decisions on the § 315(b) one-year clock (Samsung was served via the February 2017 complaint) fell due in mid-to-late 2018; Samsung instead bought its way out on 2018-07-06 and withdrew with prejudice from every petition by 2018-07-18. Council for both sides in the IPRs: Irell & Manella LLP (Annita H. Zhong, Mike Flemming) for FISI; Kirkland & Ellis LLP (Eugene Goryunov, et al.) for Samsung; McDermott Will & Emery (Charles M. McMahon, Hersh H. Mehta) for ZTE.

The long tail: The '586 patent survived the 2018 IPRs (institution denied each time), but was ultimately invalidated in IPR2021-00599 (TCT/TCL) in a 2022 Final Written Decision covering all challenged claims — meaning the claims FISI had asserted against Samsung in this case (claims 9 and 12 of the '586) were, years later, held unpatentable. FISI also continued asserting the same portfolio against Coolpad (2:20-cv-00117, E.D. Tex.), Lenovo (1:20-cv-00551, D. Del.) and TCT Mobile (1:20-cv-00552, D. Del.).

---

8. Sourcing gaps and caution flags

• Not verified: the docket numbers/dates of Samsung's answer and counterclaims; any motion to transfer, motion to stay, or summary judgment motion in this case; the Markman hearing date (only the 2018-01-31 order date is confirmed); which party prevailed on each individual '586 claim-construction term; and the terms of the settlement.
• Conflicting close dates: 2018-07-16 (RPX; consistent with the PTAB dismissals and IAM's 2018-07-19 report) vs. 2019-07-02 (one aggregator). I credit 2018-07-16.
• One inconsistency in the sources: the IPR2021-00599 Final Written Decision reportedly lists IPR2018-00276 among the '586 proceedings, but IPR2018-00276 is elsewhere consistently identified as an '111 patent proceeding. Treat that list ('276, '495, '487) with mild caution; IPR2018-00274 is the confirmed ZTE/Samsung '586 proceeding.
• Watch for name collisions: several search results returned in this research concerned unrelated matters (e.g., a Netlist/Samsung Fintiv dispute, and a Dynamics v. Samsung summary judgment). None of those are part of this case.
• Metadata vs. reality: the case metadata lists only U.S. 7,834,586 as "patents at issue"; the operative complaint asserted ten patents. The '586 is best understood as the flagship/second-wave patent of the '936 family rather than the sole patent in suit.

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

Let me search more specifically for news and trade press coverage.

Press coverage of Fundamental Innovation Systems Int'l v. Samsung (E.D. Tex. 2:17-cv-00145)

Bottom line: I searched the case caption, party names, the '586 patent number, and the "FISI USB charging campaign" framing across mainstream and trade outlets (Reuters, Bloomberg Law, Law360, Ars Technica, The Verge, IPWatchdog, Patently-O, EFF, JD Supra, IAM, RPX/Mondaq, and non-U.S. tech/legal press). I found no mainstream U.S. news coverage of this specific docket and no reported verdict, damages figure, or disclosed settlement amount. What exists is (a) one trade-press item on the settlement, and (b) broader NPE-campaign coverage in which the Samsung case is a supporting data point. Most search hits for "2:17-cv-00145" are docket aggregators (RPX Insight, Docket Alarm, Unified Patents, Patexia, Justia) and the court/PTAB filings themselves, not journalism.

IAM carried the closest thing to direct coverage of this case, in an item dated 2018-07-19 headlined "Despite Samsung settlement management of former BlackBerry patents changes hands." According to IAM's summary, a judge in the Eastern District of Texas "officially dismissed the lawsuit between Samsung and Fundamental Innovation Systems International (FISI) after the pair settled their dispute," and FISI had accused the tech giant of infringing a portfolio of former BlackBerry USB-charging patents. This aligns with the public docket: RPX Insight records the case as filed 2017-02-21, closed 2018-07-16, with 10 patents-in-suit, 54 accused products, and Judge Gilstrap presiding, and the PTAB's July 18, 2018 termination order confirms the parties jointly moved to dismiss and asked that the settlement agreement be kept confidential — which is why no settlement figure has been reported by any outlet. Note that the IAM link is a regional index page rather than a standalone article URL; I could not retrieve the full article text, so I am reporting only what its headline and teaser state.

The substantive trade coverage is of FISI's campaign as a whole. An RPX-authored piece syndicated on Mondaq (2018-04-04) frames FISI as an NPE that "began targeting mobile device manufacturers with a series of Texas lawsuits asserting USB charging patents acquired from BlackBerry in late 2015," and reports that the campaign was running in parallel in Germany — including a Mannheim action against Samsung (7 O 87/17) on EP 1 798 835 with a March 9, 2018 hearing, plus a Düsseldorf case on EP 1 595 324, and EPO oppositions to the '324 patent filed by Samsung, Cyberport, and notebooksbilliger.de. That same article supplies the only dollar figure I found anywhere in the coverage: it reports that FISI's acquisition of 158 patent assets (56 U.S.) from BlackBerry stemmed from a "multi-million dollar deal between Blackberry and Centerbridge Partners" — revealed through an unrelated suit against Ocean Tomo — not a figure tied to the Samsung settlement itself. Chinese-language tech/business press (e.g., EEWorld, 2020-04-28, and Sohu, 2020-05-21) describes the February 2017 ZTE and Samsung suits as having "和解" (settled) alongside signed patent license agreements, and states that FISI's licensee roster publicly listed roughly 38 companies including Samsung, Huawei, and LG — an industry-reaction/optics point that goes beyond the four corners of the Texas docket and relies on FISI's own marketing.

On tone and characterization, the coverage diverges from any neutral court record. The Brazilian outlet MacMagazine (2019-02-13) flatly labels FISI a "patent troll," reports that the asserted patents (including the '586 patent) were "vendidas pela BlackBerry em 2015," and states that Samsung "precisou licenciar a tecnologia no ano passado" — i.e., Samsung had to take a license the prior year — while noting Apple preemptively sued FISI for declaratory judgment in February 2019. That characterization of FISI as a troll and the "had to license" framing are press/analyst gloss not established by any published ruling. Several Chinese and Korean analyses go further, describing FISI's ITC-style pressure tactics as a prediction rather than a confirmed event — e.g., the EEWorld and Laoyaoba pieces speculate that FISI "very likely" would file a Section 337 ITC complaint to pressure targets into licensing, which is conjecture, not reporting on what occurred.

Caveats: I did not find Reuters, Bloomberg Law, Law360, Ars Technica, The Verge, IPWatchdog, or Patently-O articles on this specific case. The downstream PTAB and reexamination activity on the '586 patent (IPR2018-00274, later TCT/TCL IPRs, and an ex parte reexamination) is visible only in filings and aggregator dockets, so any statement that the '586 patent was invalidated or upheld would be unsupported by the press or by a final outcome in this case — consistent with the case summary's "later outcome not confirmed."

Sources

• UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
• Complaint analysis | 2:17-cv-00145 | Fundamental Innovation Systems Intl LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co Ltd | Ex Parte
• Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Fundamental Innovation Systems International LLC - Track Docket
• Fundamental Innovation Sys. Int'l LLC v. Samsung Elecs. Co., Case No. 2:17-cv-145-JRG-RSP - Fundamental Innovation Sys. Int'l LLC v. Samsung Elecs. Co., Case No. 2:17-cv-145-JRG-RSP
• Fundamental Innovation Sys. Int'l LLC v. Samsung Elecs. Co. - From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research
• IPR2018-00426 - Samsung Electronics Co Ltd v. Fundamental Innovation Systems International LLC - IPR2018-00426 - Samsung Electronics Co Ltd v. Fundamental Innovation Systems International LLCReport Error
• | 출원인 | Nec Tokin |
• 2:17-cv-00145 | Fundamental Innovation Systems Intl LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co Ltd | Ex Parte
• Fundamental Innovation Systems International LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al
• UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
• UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
• IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

I'll research the docket and counsel for FISI in this case.

Let me dig into the docket sheet and filings to confirm plaintiff-side appearances.

Let me pull the actual docket sheet and party/counsel listings.

Plaintiff's counsel — Fundamental Innovation Systems International LLC (FISI)

Bottom line: FISI's team in this case was led by Irell & Manella LLP (Los Angeles) as national/lead trial counsel, with Capshaw DeRieux LLP (Gladewater/Longview, TX) as local counsel. This is consistent with the counsel FISI used across the '936/'111/'586/'766/'550/'319/'983/'655 patent family in the parallel Samsung IPRs and in the companion E.D. Tex. LG case.

Lead counsel (Irell & Manella LLP, 1800 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 900, Los Angeles, CA 90067)

Local counsel (Capshaw DeRieux LLP, 114 E. Commerce Ave., Gladewater, TX 75647)

Sourcing caveats / things I could not verify

• I did not directly retrieve the PACER docket sheet or the Dkt. 1 complaint signature block for this case. The attorney names above are drawn from (a) PTAB filings in the parallel Samsung IPRs on the same patents (IPR2018-00274, -00426, -00485), where FISI designated its litigation counsel; (b) the Justia/RPX party-and-counsel listings for 2:17-cv-00145; and (c) the E.D. Tex. claim-construction order (Dkt. 140, 1/31/2018), which confirms FISI as plaintiff but does not list counsel.
• Ambiguity in the Justia listing. The Justia page for this docket shows "Represented By: Sidney Calvin Capshaw, III; Jason G. Sheasby; Melissa Richards Smith." I could not determine from the snippet which party each name is attached to. I would treat Melissa Richards Smith (Gillam & Smith LLP, Marshall/Tyler, TX) as defense-side local counsel for Samsung, not FISI — Samsung's IPR counsel in these proceedings was Kirkland & Ellis LLP (Gregory S. Arovas, Robert A. Appleby, Todd M. Friedman, Eugene Goryunov, Alan Rabinowitz), and Gillam & Smith is a frequent Samsung local-counsel pairing in E.D. Tex. I flag this because I could not confirm it against the docket itself; if FISI actually engaged Gillam & Smith in 2017, that would be an exception to the pattern above.
• No in-house counsel identified. I found no record of Samsung- or FISI-side in-house attorneys entering appearance; FISI is an NPE/patent-holding entity, so in-house litigation counsel is unlikely.
• Nothing appears to be sealed as to counsel identification — the limitation is my inability to pull the live docket entries (appearance notices, pro hac vice motions) directly rather than a sealing order.

Context for the note on later outcome

The case closed in 2018 (RPX lists 7/16/2018; one aggregator shows 7/2/2019), after the 1/31/2018 claim-construction order (Dkt. 140) — i.e., it appears to have resolved by settlement/dismissal rather than judgment, so no plaintiff trial-team roster from verdict documents exists. If you want the definitive appearance list, the target documents are the Dkt. 1 complaint signature block and the pro hac vice applications for the Irell attorneys (which I could not open here).

I'll research the docket and counsel for the Samsung defendants in this E.D. Tex. case.

Let me dig into the docket sheet and filings to identify Samsung's district court counsel.

Now let me locate the actual docket entries with counsel appearances for this specific case.

Counsel of Record — Samsung Defendants, FISI v. Samsung, No. 2:17-cv-00145-JRG-RSP (E.D. Tex.)

Bottom line: I can confirm the defense-side national/lead firm (Kirkland & Ellis LLP) with high confidence, and I can confirm Samsung's PTAB counsel in the parallel IPRs. I could not retrieve the district-court docket sheet's attorney/appearance list in full, so I cannot give you a verified, name-by-name counsel of record with bar numbers for the district case. Rather than guess, I'm flagging exactly what is sourced and what is not.

---

1. What is confirmed

Defendants: Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. (both represented jointly throughout; the claim construction order at Dkt. 140 refers to them collectively as "Defendants" / "Samsung").

Lead national counsel — Kirkland & Ellis LLP

Parallel PTAB counsel (same defendants, same patents) — Kirkland & Ellis LLP

• Samsung filed a series of IPRs against FISI's patents in this family: IPR2018-00215 ('766), IPR2018-00426 ('173), IPR2018-00606, among others. Petitioner's counsel: Kirkland & Ellis LLP.
• IPR2018-00426 was instituted (July 6, 2018) and then terminated as settled (July 13, 2018) by joint motion — consistent with the district case closing around the same time.

2. Local counsel (E.D. Tex.) — NOT CONFIRMED

E.D. Tex. practice requires local counsel, and Samsung's Marshall/Tyler-area local firms in this era included Gillam & Smith, LLP (Marshall/Tyler — Melissa R. Smith; Harry L. "Gil" Gillam, Jr.; Andrew T. Gorham), Findlay Craft, P.C. (Tyler — Eric H. Findlay), and Siebman, Burg, Phillips & Smith, LLP. However, I could not verify which (if any) of these appeared on behalf of Samsung in 2:17-cv-00145 specifically. Search results pairing "Gillam & Smith + Orrick + Findlay Craft" with Samsung come from later Samsung matters (e.g., a 2023 Headwater Research case and a 2025 PTAB petition), not from this 2017 case. I am not attributing them here.

3. Do not confuse with plaintiff's counsel

The names that dominate the FISI-side PTAB filings — Hong Annita Zhong, Michael Fleming, Jason Sheasby, and James Milkey of Irell & Manella LLP (Los Angeles) — are patent owner FISI's counsel, not Samsung's. Their IPR "Patent Owner Mandatory Notices" in IPR2018-00215/00426 are the source of many results, and they cite the 2:17-cv-00145 docket. Any AI-generated summary that lists them as defense counsel is wrong.

4. In-house counsel

I found no named Samsung in-house counsel of record for this matter. Samsung Electronics America's legal department would have supervised, but no appearance is documented in the materials I could retrieve.

---

5. Sourcing gaps — stated explicitly

• The PACER/RECAP docket sheet (attorney list and notices of appearance) for 2:17-cv-00145 was not retrievable in this research pass. The docket aggregators I reached (Justia Dockets, RPX Insight, Ex Parte) show the case caption, filing date (2/21/2017), judge (Gilstrap, referred to Mag. J. Payne), the 1/31/2018 claim construction order (Dkt. 140), and closure (RPX: closed 7/16/2018 — settled), but not a counsel roster.
• The key anchor document is Dkt. 140, the Claim Construction Memorandum and Order (Jan. 31, 2018), which addresses 10 asserted patents ('936, '111, '173, '319, '586, '655, '514, '766, '983, '550) — note the case metadata here lists only the '586. The signature block and certificate-of-service on Dkt. 140 and the surrounding briefing (Dkts. 81, 83, 85, 89, 102, 106, 121) would carry the full counsel list; I could not pull those docket entries.
• I have no evidence of sealed appearances or sealed filings bearing on counsel identity.
• Later outcome of the district case is not independently confirmed beyond secondary aggregators indicating a mid-2018 settlement/closure coinciding with the IPR terminations.

Recommended next step to close the gap: pull the E.D. Tex. docket sheet (Dkts. ~1–30) via PACER/RECAP for the notices of appearance and the Dkt. 140 signature block. That will yield the verified lead, local, and any pro hac vice counsel names — which I have deliberately not guessed.