TCT Mobile (US), Inc. et al. v. Fundamental Innovation Systems International LLC

I'll research this case across PTAB records, district court dockets, and industry coverage.

Let me dig into the district court litigation, the earlier IPR history on this patent, and the NPE background.

Now let me verify the district court outcome, any appeal, and the related IPR family.

Case overview: TCT Mobile (US), Inc. et al. v. Fundamental Innovation Systems International LLC, IPR2021-00599

A note on framing: the docket you've given me is a PTAB inter partes review, not a district court case. The infringement litigation it feeds is Fundamental Innovation Systems International LLC v. TCT Mobile (US), Inc. et al., No. 1:20-cv-00552 (D. Del., filed Apr. 23, 2020) — so I've reconstructed the dispute from both tracks.

The parties and the technology. The petitioners (TCT Mobile (US), Inc.; TCT Mobile (US) Holdings, Inc.; Huizhou TCL Mobile Communication Co. Ltd.; and TCL Communication, Inc., collectively "TCL") are operating companies — the Chinese consumer-electronics group whose US handset arm sold TCL- and Alcatel-branded phones and, under a 2016 brand license, BlackBerry-branded devices such as the KEYone, KEY2 and KEY2 LE (TCL's BlackBerry license ran through Aug. 29, 2020). The patent owner, Fundamental Innovation Systems International LLC ("FISI"), is a non-practicing entity formed in Delaware in Oct. 2015 and registered in Texas in Nov. 2016. FISI is backed by the private equity firm Centerbridge Partners and acquired its portfolio — 18 patents-in-campaign out of a Nov. 2015 BlackBerry transaction covering 55+ US assets plus foreign counterparts — and has been reported by RPX/IAM as run by a monetization team (initially TnT IP; later former IPVALUE executives Kapu Kumar, Paul Seaman and Paul Riley, tied also to JASPAR and to the Osram/Pictiva and HPE/Valtrus portfolios). By the time of this IPR, FISI claimed roughly 60 licensees, including Samsung, LG, Huawei and ZTE, and had struck a defensive-aggregation deal with RPX in Nov. 2019 (with Apple settling separately). The accused technology in the parallel Delaware case is the USB charging functionality in TCL's phones and in specific charging adapters (model nos. CBA0058AGZC7 and CBA0060AJHC1) — i.e., charging a handset's battery over the VBUS line of a USB connector and signalling the power source over the D+/D− data lines without completing USB enumeration, rather than the "smartphone" as a general article.

The patent and the procedural posture. The IPR targets only one patent: U.S. 7,834,586, "Multifunctional Charger System and Method" (issued Nov. 16, 2010 from an application filed Feb. 26, 2010, claiming priority through a chain of continuations to BlackBerry/RIM provisional applications 60/273,021 (Mar. 1, 2001) and 60/330,486 (Oct. 23, 2001); inventors Fischer, Radut, Habicher, Luong et al.). In one line: a mobile device/charging adapter that draws charge current from the USB VBUS line and detects an "identification signal" on the D+ and D− lines that is different from USB enumeration (claims 1–2 apparatus, 8–9 method were the challenged claims). The same patent family — '111, '550, '586, '766, '187 — was asserted against TCL in D. Del.; the parallel Lenovo/TCT claim-construction chart in that docket also covered '936, '233 and '127 in the Lenovo case (No. 20-cv-551). TCL filed IPR2021-00599 on Feb. 26, 2021, within the § 315(b) one-year window (TCL was served Apr. 23–24, 2020), as part of a coordinated six-petition wave (IPR2021-00395 and -00410 on the '111, -00428 on the '550, -00597 on the '187, -00598 on the '766, and -00599 on the '586). The Board instituted on Aug. 27, 2021 (Paper 8), heard argument June 7, 2022, and issued the final written decision on Aug. 23, 2022 (Paper 34, Peslak, joined by Kokoski and Tornquist), holding all challenged claims (1–2, 8–9) unpatentable over the Japanese reference Morita (JP 2000-165513A) in view of the knowledge of a skilled artisan under § 103(a), and dismissing petitioner's motion to exclude as moot. Venue significance here is really about the parallel litigation: FISI split its 2020–21 campaign between E.D. Tex. (Coolpad, OnePlus, Aukey, BLU) and D. Del. (TCL, Lenovo, Belkin), and the D. Del. action was assigned to Judge Colm F. Connolly (1:20-cv-00552-CFC-CJB, later reflected on the docket as C.A. No. 20-552-RGA, suggesting reassignment to Judge Richard G. Andrews — I could not confirm the reassignment order). The Board expressly adopted the district court's construction of "identification signal" as "signal that identifies a power source type," the construction previously entered in FISI's Samsung, LG and ZTE cases and in D. Del. (Ex. 2013, D.I. 41, Feb. 12, 2021) — an unusually clean example of IPR and district court tracks converging on one disputed term.

Why it is notable. Three reasons. First, IPR linkage and reversal of fortune: the '586 had already survived a 2018 wave — IPR2018-00274 (ZTE), -00485 (Huawei) and -00493 (LG) all had institution denied, and across the family FISI's expert touted 18 petitions by four petitioners with 13 denials and two instituted cases that ended in validity rulings. The 2021 TCL wave, built on the Morita reference and more disciplined obviousness reasoning, broke that streak: the Board not only instituted but invalidated every challenged '586 claim, and FISI's § 325(d) "same art, same arguments" discretionary-denial theory (comparing Morita to Dougherty) failed. Second, NPE assertion patterns: this is a textbook PE-backed, opco-portfolio NPE campaign — a BlackBerry carve-out monetized by a hedge-fund-backed vehicle across roughly 20 suits against Apple, Samsung, LG, Huawei, ZTE, Lenovo, TCL, OnePlus, Belkin, Anker and charger/power-bank makers, with the licensing program's economics later litigated in the Delaware Anker case (1:21-cv-339), where the court excluded FISI's RPX license and standstill agreement as non-comparable for damages purposes. Third, market context: the patents cover the foundational idea of charging a phone over USB without an enumerating host, and the licensing reach (50+ licensees, including most of TCL's competitors) made the '586 a core monetization asset; with all claims held unpatentable, TCL's § 315(e) estoppel exposure was neutralized while FISI's Delaware claims on the '586 collapsed — a notable illustration of the IPR/parallel-litigation dynamic, and a mirror image of FISI's own successful § 315(e)(2) estoppel argument against ZTE in N.D. Tex. (3:17-cv-1827-N). A subsidiary but frequently cited procedural point from this FWD: the Board held petitioner's reply arguments were permissible elaboration/rebuttal rather than new evidence, and separately authorized a Rule 42.123(a) supplemental filing to cure a translator's certification that lacked a penalty-of-perjury jurat over patent owner's objection.

Sourcing caveats. (1) I was unable to verify whether FISI appealed the Aug. 23, 2022 FWD to the Federal Circuit (the § 142 window would have closed around late Oct. 2022), whether it sought Director review, or the ultimate disposition of D. Del. 1:20-cv-00552 (settlement, dismissal or trial) — my search budget was exhausted before I could confirm these, so treat them as open. (2) The FWD's "Related Matters" paragraph, as OCR'd in the public copy I relied on, describes the '586 as having been the subject of IPR2018-00276, -00495 and -00487; FISI's own 2018 mandatory notices in those proceedings identify them as directed to the '111 patent, with the '586 petitions being IPR2018-00274, -00485 and -00493 — I've used the mandatory-notice mapping but flag the discrepancy in the record text. (3) Case-law/technical characterizations (e.g., the claims' relationship to later commercial fast-charge handshakes) are my analytical gloss, not court findings. (4) Counsel of record: Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe (Jeffrey Johnson, J. Jason Lang, Robert Benson) for petitioners; Irell & Manella (H. Annita Zhong, Jason Sheasby) for FISI; panel Peslak, Kokoski, Tornquist.

I'll research both the parallel district court litigation and the PTAB proceedings. Let me start with several targeted searches.

Rich material. Let me dig into the Delaware district court docket and the claim construction ruling, plus the other IPRs.

Let me get the district court docket specifics, the stay motion, and final disposition.

Important framing note

The case metadata you've given me (IPR2021‑00599, PTAB, terminated 2022‑08‑23) is the PTAB inter partes review, not the infringement action. The related infringement litigation was Fundamental Innovation Systems International LLC v. TCT Mobile (US), Inc., et al., No. 1:20‑cv‑00552 (D. Del.) — one of a four‑case 2020 campaign by the same plaintiff. Below I cover both, distinguishing what is well sourced from what I could not confirm.

---

I. The parallel district court litigation (D. Del. No. 1:20‑cv‑00552)

Filed / assigned: 2020‑04‑23, U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, originally before Judge Colm F. Connolly (C.A. No. 20‑552‑CFC), later reassigned to Judge Richard G. Andrews with Magistrate Judge Christopher J. Burke (20‑552‑RGA‑CJB).

Companion suits by the same plaintiff in the same campaign:

• FISI v. Belkin, Inc., et al., No. 1:20‑cv‑00550 (D. Del.) — later settled
• FISI v. Lenovo (United States), Inc., et al., No. 1:20‑cv‑00551 (D. Del.) — litigated in parallel and frequently coordinated with the TCT case
• FISI v. Coolpad Group Ltd., et al., No. 2:20‑cv‑00117 (E.D. Tex.)
  (All four identified in PTAB mandatory notices and in the FWD's "Related Matters" section.)

Patents asserted. The complaint asserted six patents: U.S. 6,936,936; 7,239,111; 8,624,550; 7,834,586; 8,232,766; and 8,169,187. By the time of the parties' Joint Claim Construction Chart the universe had expanded to eight, adding U.S. 7,453,233 and 7,986,127. Subject matter across the family: USB charging of mobile devices, adapters, and identification-signal detection.

Pleadings chronology (confirmed):

• 2020‑04‑23 — Complaint filed; defendants served the same day (Petitioners repeatedly certify in the IPRs that they "were served with the complaint in this action on April 23, 2020," which is what made the Feb. 2021 IPR filings timely under § 315(b)).
• 2020‑05‑07/08 — Plaintiff's pro hac vice motion; PHV admitted for Edward J. DeFranco, Brian P. Biddinger, Joseph Milowic III, Kevin P.B. Johnson, David A. Hubbard, and Ron Hagiz (DeFranco/Johnson of Quinn Emanuel; Delaware counsel Farnan LLP).
• 2020‑05‑14 — Stipulation (D.I. 8) extending defendants' response deadline to 2020‑06‑29, so ordered by Judge Connolly. Delaware counsel of record for defendants: John G. Day (Ashby & Geddes).
• Answer/counterclaims and amended complaint. The IPR petitions cite an "Amended Complaint, FISI v. TCT Mobile (US) Inc. et al., No. 1:20‑cv‑00552" (Ex. 1016 / Ex. 1005) dated September 2020. I could not confirm from the sources I reached whether the TCT defendants pleaded invalidity/non‑infringement counterclaims (they clearly litigated invalidity on the merits, as shown by Dr. Baker's March 2022 invalidity report, and the schedules include claim‑narrowing of "prior art references," which implies invalidity contentions).

Claim construction (Markman).

• 2021‑02‑12 — Magistrate Judge Burke entered a claim construction order at D.I. 41 in No. 20‑552‑CFC‑CJB (cited as Ex. 2013 in the IPR2021‑00599 Patent Owner's Opposition to Petitioner's Motion to Exclude). The Delaware IP blog ipde.com reports this order as "Judge Burke Limits Construction to 10 Terms" — i.e., the court construed a limited set of the many disputed terms rather than the full slate.
• The Joint Claim Construction Chart (filed in both 20‑551 and 20‑552) shows the parties agreed on some constructions (e.g., "USB / Universal Serial Bus" tied to USB Spec. Rev. 2.0) and disputed others, including means‑plus‑function treatment under pre‑AIA § 112 ¶ 6 for adapter "means for receiving energy from a power socket" terms in the '111 patent, with corresponding structure identified as specified plug/adapter structures and a power converter including a switching converter, transformer, DC source, voltage regulator, linear regulator, or rectifier.

Substantive pre‑trial motions / discovery milestones:

• 2021‑08‑20 — Judge Burke denied a motion to compel discovery into non‑accused TCL products. Applying the Invensas Corp. v. Renesas Elecs. Corp., 287 F.R.D. 273 (D. Del. 2012) multi‑factor test, he found (i) the plaintiff had not shown the unaccused products were "reasonably similar" to the accused products given six patents and many asserted claims, (ii) the products were publicly identifiable, and (iii) the burden was significant (defendants' IP manager estimated 100+ hours). He did order defendants to produce discovery as to variations of specifically identified products. (Source: ipde.com, "Judge Burke Denies Discovery on Non‑Accused Products.")
• 2022‑02‑04 — Oral Order (D.I. 154) requiring joint case‑narrowing proposals.
• 2022‑02‑18 — Plaintiff narrowed to no more than 32 asserted claims; the parties filed a joint status letter and proposed order for claim/prior‑art narrowing, with one live dispute: plaintiff proposed limiting defendants to a defined count of prior‑art combinations (96, then 32), while defendants proposed 40 combinations with a 12‑per‑patent cap. The letter noted defendants' invalidity contentions comprised 180+ claim charts against 8 patents, plus 194 charts from prior third‑party litigation incorporated wholesale.
• 2022‑03‑08 — Defendants to narrow prior art to no more than 24 references; a second narrowing (16 claims / 16 references) was to follow within weeks after entry of a claim construction order.
• 2022‑03‑15 — Dr. R. Jacob Baker's expert report on invalidity in D. Del. (covering the '936, '111, '550, '586, '766 and '187 patents); he was deposed 2022‑04‑04.
• 2022‑05‑31 — Judge Andrews denied motions at D.I. 108 and 109 without prejudice to renew at about the time of dispositive motions, and a motion to preclude (D.I. 173) was filed the same day. (I could not confirm the specific subject matter of D.I. 108/109/173 from the sources available; the timing is consistent with Daubert/motion‑to‑strike practice.)
• Judge Andrews also denied cross‑motions to strike allegedly late‑disclosed infringement/invalidity theories from opening expert reports, applying the Pennypack factors (ipde.com).
• 2022‑06‑07 and 2022‑06‑17 — Scheduling/stipulation orders signed by Judge Andrews extending briefing/redaction deadlines (D.I. 187 in 20‑552‑RGA‑CJB).

Stay pending IPR. I found no evidence that the district court stayed the case pending the TCT IPRs — and the record affirmatively shows parallelism: claim narrowing in Feb.–Mar. 2022 and district‑court expert reports in March 2022 while the IPR2021‑00599 trial was already underway (PO Response Dec. 2021; oral hearing June 2022). That is notable, because one of the six patents (the '766) had its IPR denied institution (see below), which weakens any partial‑stay argument.

Trial, verdict, post‑trial motions, final disposition. I could not confirm a trial date, verdict, JMOL/new‑trial ruling, fee award, settlement, stipulated dismissal, or appeal for 20‑552. Docket aggregator snapshots I reached are stale (one Justia listing was last refreshed 2020‑05‑15; an RPX page shows the case as open at ~880 days in litigation). The last confirmed activity I can source is mid‑2022. Treat the district court's final disposition as unverified — it requires a PACER pull of the 20‑552‑RGA‑CJB docket (and the 20‑551/20‑550 companion dockets).

---

II. The PTAB proceedings (the "case" in your metadata) and their effect

IPR2021‑00599 — the '586 patent (primary case).

• 2021‑02‑26 — Petition filed by TCT Mobile (US), Inc.; TCT Mobile (US) Holdings, Inc.; Huizhou TCL Mobile Communication Co. Ltd.; and TCL Communication, Inc. Challenged claims 1, 2, 8, 9 on a single ground: pre‑AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Japanese Patent App. No. 2000‑165513A ("Morita") combined with the knowledge of a skilled artisan. Petitioner's expert: Dr. R. Jacob Baker (UNLV). Panel: Arthur M. Peslak, Jo‑Anne Kokoski, Jon B. Tornquist, Bryan F. Moore (panel change order entered 2022‑04‑22; Peslak authored the FWD).
• 2021‑08‑27 — Institution granted on all challenged claims.
• 2021‑12‑13 — Patent Owner Response (with Declaration of Dr. Kenneth Fernald, Ex. 2023).
• 2022‑03‑04 — Petitioner Reply + Reply Declaration of Dr. Baker (Ex. 1026). Patent Owner Sur‑reply followed (Paper 24).
• 2022‑05‑09/05‑16/05‑23 — Petitioner's Motion to Exclude Evidence (Paper 28), Patent Owner's opposition, Petitioner's reply.
• 2022‑06‑07 — Oral hearing; transcript entered (Paper 33; docketed by the Board 2022‑07‑15).
• 2022‑08‑23 — Final Written Decision (Paper 34): Petitioner proved by a preponderance that all challenged claims (1, 2, 8, 9) are unpatentable as obvious; Petitioner's Motion to Exclude was dismissed as moot. The Board also held Petitioner's reply argument was properly within scope because it elaborated on the petition and responded directly to the Patent Owner's argument (noted in Banner Witcoff's PTAB highlights).
• Panel finding reported by Patexia/ipverse: claims challenged = 1, 2, 8, 9; claims instituted = 1, 2, 8, 9; claims invalidated = 1, 2, 8, 9.

Other IPRs on the same patent family (all filed by the TCT/TCL entities):

Earlier IPRs on the '586 patent (prior campaign, not TCT): IPR2018‑00276, IPR2018‑00487, and IPR2018‑00495, identified by the parties in IPR2021‑00599 as related proceedings on the same patent. The TCT petitions also cross‑referenced a long list of 2018‑vintage IPRs on related FISI patents (e.g., IPR2018‑00110, ‑00111, ‑00214, ‑00215, ‑00460, ‑00461, ‑00465, ‑00472, ‑00508, ‑00605, ‑00606, ‑00607).

Effect on the litigation. The IPR2021‑00599 FWD eliminating every challenged claim of the '586 patent (claims 1, 2, 8, 9) would have materially undercut any infringement case on that patent in D. Del. and triggered § 315(e) estoppel against Petitioners on those claims in the district court. The practical significance is amplified because TCT filed IPRs against essentially the whole asserted family — a coordinated parallel‑litigation strategy rather than a single‑patent challenge.

Related appellate development worth flagging (different patent, same petitioner): Wireless Protocol Innovations, Inc. v. TCT Mobile, Inc., No. 21‑2112 (Fed. Cir. July 19, 2022) — the Federal Circuit held TCT forfeited an obviousness‑modification argument it first raised only on remand, because it was on notice of the patent owner's claim‑construction position earlier. It is a TCT‑side appellate loss but concerns U.S. 8,274,991, not the FISI patents.

---

III. What remains unverified (do not treat as established)

1. Final disposition of D. Del. 20‑552 — no sourced settlement, dismissal, judgment, or appeal.
2. Whether FISI appealed the IPR2021‑00599 FWD to the Federal Circuit (the appeal window would have run ~63 days from 2022‑08‑23, i.e., to about 2022‑10‑25); no appeal found.
3. Exact filing dates of the answer/counterclaims and the amended complaint in 20‑552, and whether DJ counterclaims were pleaded.
4. Identity/subject of D.I. 108, 109, and 173 in 20‑552‑RGA‑CJB.
5. Whether any stay was ever sought (as opposed to granted — I could only establish that the case was not stayed through mid‑2022).
6. Counsel of record for Patent Owner in the IPR (Patexia lists "Zhong, Hong" as respondent counsel; Petitioner counsel "Jeffrey Johnson" — consistent with Quinn Emanuel for FISI and Fitch Even/K&L Gates‑type representation for TCT, but I did not verify the TCT IPR firms).

To close items 1–5, the next step is a direct PACER pull of the 20‑552‑RGA‑CJB docket (and 20‑551/20‑550 for the coordinated narrowing orders at D.I. 154/187), plus the PTAB's own docket for any rehearing request or Notice of Appeal.

I'll search for press coverage of this case and the six known IPWatchdog roundups.

Let me pull up the specific IPWatchdog roundups to see if they mention this case.

The Sept. 9 roundup mentions the related IPR2021-00598. Let me check the other roundups directly.

Press coverage: essentially none dedicated to IPR2021-00599

The honest headline is that IPR2021-00599 has generated no dedicated press coverage — no Reuters, Bloomberg Law, Law360, Ars Technica, The Verge, Patently-O or JD Supra piece on the '586 decision turned up in my searches, and no article reports a damages figure, settlement, or industry reaction to the FWD. The only press-adjacent mentions I could actually verify are the IPWatchdog "Patent Filings Roundup" columns, and those treat the FISI/TCT campaign as table rows rather than stories. The most substantive hit is IPWatchdog's 2021-09-09 roundup, which carried a PTAB table entry reading "IPR2021-00598 | Not Instituted – Merits | Fundamental Innovation Systems International LLC [FISI Holdings, LLC] | TCT Mobile US Inc. / TCT Mobile US Holdings Inc. / Huizhou TCL Mobile Communication Co.…" — i.e., it reported the companion '766 petition's denial, not the '586. It offers no narrative, no claim analysis, and no commentary on the '586 institution that issued twelve days earlier. Consistently, the roundups frame such items by weekly volume ("78 new district court complaints and 41 new PTAB petitions, all inter partes reviews," per the same column) rather than by party or patent.

For the other five items in your index I found no confirmed mention of this case. I located a mirror confirming the existence and headline of the 2021-09-01 roundup ("PTAB 325(d) Discretion Highlighted with Four Denials") at iptops.com, but I could not verify that its text discusses TCT/FISI, and I ran out of search budget before checking the 2021-07-14, 2021-07-09, 2021-01-21 and 2021-01-09 columns at all. Given that the TCL petitions were filed 2021-02-26 and the earlier 2018-vintage FISI IPRs predate all six columns, those four are plausibly false-positive index hits — but treat that as unconfirmed rather than as a finding. There is also a factual wrinkle worth noting: the 2021-07-14 roundup title references a "Car Jumpstarter Patent Challenged," which is unrelated to USB charging and does not suggest FISI content.

What the primary record shows, and a correction to the earlier sections

Because the press record is thin, the case's public footprint is almost entirely docket and decision material. The Board's own decision — the full text is mirrored at Banner Witcoff — confirms the outcome: claims 1, 2, 8 and 9 unpatentable over Morita in view of the knowledge of a skilled artisan, with the panel expressly adopting the district court's construction of "identification signal" as "signal that identifies a power source type" from Ex. 2013 (D. Del. D.I. 41). The June 7, 2022 hearing transcript shows both sides' framing — petitioner's counsel arguing the ground was "Morita in view of the knowledge of a POSITA," and Irell's H. Annita Zhong for the Patent Owner.

I must flag a contradiction with the earlier "Key legal developments" section of this case file. That section's table lists IPR2021-00395, -00410, -00428, -00597 and -00598 as "Instituted." The docket-derived records I reached say otherwise: IPR2021-00395 shows an institution decision denying institution (Paper 8, July 6, 2021) plus a refund approval; IPR2021-00410 is listed as "Institution Denied" (Paper 8, July 2, 2021) with refund approved; IPR2021-00428 shows a "Decision Denying Request for Rehearing … of Decision Denying Institution"; and ipverse/Greyb lists IPR2021-00597 as "Institution Denied" with an Aug. 25, 2021 institution decision date. The FWD itself corroborates the denials — it quotes IPR2021-00598 Paper 8 at 11 and IPR2021-00597 Paper 8 at 15–16 for the proposition that "Morita does not provide a charger for the sake of charging alone," which is the language of a denial, and the IPWatchdog table independently labels -00598 "Not Instituted – Merits." So the accurate picture is that the TCL wave was largely turned away, with the '586 (IPR2021-00599) as the notable exception where TCL won outright — a materially different story from "a coordinated wave that instituted across the family." I'd recommend correcting that table before publication; I could not independently verify the earlier section's claimed institution for -00395/-00410/-00428 from a primary PTAB document, only the contrary docket entries.

Where reporting is silent

Two things the press has not covered, and which remain open from the earlier sections: whether FISI sought Director review or appealed the 2022-08-23 FWD to the Federal Circuit (the § 142 window would have closed around late October 2022), and the final disposition of the parallel Delaware action, FISI v. TCT Mobile (US), Inc., No. 1:20-cv-00552 (D. Del.). No article I found reports either. Readers should also note that the roundups are aggregator-style columns built from docket feeds; their entries are not independent verification of a ruling and contain no analysis of the '586's substance — so nothing in the press record corroborates or contradicts the FWD beyond the bare institution/denial status.

Sources

• TCT Mobile (US), Inc. et al. v. Fundamental Innovation Systems International LLC
• UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
• Trials@uspto
• UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
• TCT Mobile (US), Inc
• UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD TCT MOBILE (US), INC
• IPR2021-00599, No. 2009 Exhibit - Ex 2009 Fernald Decl ISO Morita mobile device (P.T.A.B. Jun. 8, 2021) - IPR2021-00599, No
• 4 The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, Pub
• From: Benson, Robert <rbenson@orrick
• Casebolt explains that “the PS2 interface uses two conductors which include a separate clock conductor and a separate data con...
• TCT Mobile (US), Inc. v. Fundamental Innovation Systems International LLC, IPR2021-00410 (P.T.A.B.)
• Fundamental Innovation Systems International LLC v. Lenovo (United States), Inc., 1:20-cv-00551 - CourtListener.com - NOTICE OF SERVICE of Plaintiff Fundamental Innovation Systems International LLC's Proposed Claim Terms for Construction filed by...

I'll research the counsel of record for this matter. Note at the outset that IPR2021-00599 is a PTAB proceeding, so the "plaintiff-side" party is the petitioner (TCT Mobile/TCL entities). Let me verify.

Now let me verify the PTAB petitioner counsel details and the parallel district court representation.

Threshold point: "plaintiff" in this docket

IPR2021-00599 is not a district‑court infringement action — it is an inter partes review at the PTAB. The party in the plaintiff's position is the petitioner: TCT Mobile (US), Inc.; TCT Mobile (US) Holdings, Inc.; Huizhou TCL Mobile Communication Co. Ltd.; and TCL Communication, Inc. (all identified as real parties‑in‑interest in the Final Written Decision, § II.B). The patent owner/respondent is Fundamental Innovation Systems International LLC ("FISI").

So "counsel of record representing the plaintiff(s)" = petitioner's counsel of record: Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP. I've also flagged below the parallel district‑court case where FISI is the actual plaintiff, in case that is the side you meant.

---

Counsel of record for the Petitioner (TCT/TCL entities) — IPR2021-00599

Per the petition's mandatory notices / power of attorney filed under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3) (Paper 2, filed 2021‑02‑26), and as confirmed by the Final Written Decision's appearances block:

Appearances in the Final Written Decision (Aug. 23, 2022) list "For PETITIONER: Jeffrey Johnson, Jeremy Lang, Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP" — i.e., Johnson (lead) and Lang, with Benson on the § 42.8 counsel roster and appearing at depositions. The same Orrick team (Johnson/Benson/Lang) is the common petitioner-side roster across the related TCL challenges to this patent family (IPR2021‑00395, ‑00410, ‑00428, ‑00597, ‑00598, ‑00599).

Sources: FWD, IPR2021‑00599 (appearances, § II.A–B, real parties‑in‑interest); petition mandatory notices (IPR2021‑00599/‑00598 family, Paper 2, Feb. 26, 2021); Power of Attorney, IPR2021‑00410 (Paper 2); deposition transcript appearances, Ex. 2025 (Apr. 4, 2022); Sept. 23, 2021 petitioner email signed "J. Jason Lang, Counsel for Petitioner TCT Mobile."

No in‑house counsel for the TCT entities appears on the PTAB record in this IPR, and no local‑counsel designation is required at the PTAB (unlike district court). I found no indication that any filing in IPR2021‑00599 was sealed as to counsel identity.

---

Parallel district‑court litigation — where the labels flip (for completeness)

The '586 patent was asserted in Fundamental Innovation Systems International LLC v. TCT Mobile (US) Inc., et al., No. 1:20‑cv‑00552 (D. Del.), plus FISI v. Coolpad, No. 2:20‑cv‑00117 (E.D. Tex.) and FISI v. Lenovo, No. 1:20‑cv‑00551 (D. Del.) (see FWD § II.A, "Related Matters"). In those suits FISI — not TCT — is the plaintiff, and TCT is the defendant.

• FISI's (plaintiff's) litigation counsel, per the courtesy‑service table in the TCL IPRs' mandatory notices: Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP — Brian P. Biddinger, Edward J. DeFranco, Joseph Milowic, David Hubbard, Ron Hagiz (New York, NY) and Kevin P. B. Johnson (Redwood Shores, CA); with Farnan LLP (Brian E. Farnan, Michael J. Farnan, Wilmington, DE) as Delaware local counsel, plus Garteiser Honea (Tyler, TX) and The Mort Law Firm (Austin, TX) on the Texas side.
• In IPR2021‑00599 itself, FISI's (patent owner's) counsel of record is Irell & Manella LLP — Hong Annita Zhong and Jason Sheasby, 1800 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 900, Los Angeles (hzhong@irell.com / jsheasby@irell.com / FundamentalIPRs@irell.com). Zhong appeared at the depositions and is listed in the FWD appearances.
• A related N.D. Ga. ancillary proceeding, TCT Mobile (US), Inc. et al. v. FISI, No. 1:21‑cv‑04498 (N.D. Ga.) (motion to quash/protective order re third‑party subpoena; dismissed Dec. 17, 2021), lists TCT‑side attorneys Jeffrey W. Chen, Jeffrey Lance Johnson, Robert John Benson, and Tiana Scogin Mykkeltvedt (Johnson and Benson admitted pro hac vice there). This is aggregator/docket‑derived (UniCourt) rather than a primary PDF I could pull; treat the individual names with slightly lower confidence.

---

Caveats

• Firm/office affiliations are stated as of the IPR (2021‑2022); Johnson and Benson left Orrick for Baker Botts in February 2024, so any present‑day inquiry should use Baker Botts (Houston and San Francisco, respectively). Lang remains at Orrick Silicon Valley.
• I did not locate a primary PTAB document listing every attorney who ever worked on the matter (e.g., other Orrick associates); the roster above is what is affirmatively on the § 42.8 counsel designations, FWD appearances, and deposition transcripts.
• Nothing indicates sealed counsel filings in this IPR; the sealing in the related N.D. Ga. case (Dkt. 20, permanently sealing FISI's sur‑reply and Ex. W) concerned merits exhibits, not the identity of counsel.

I'll research this case and the counsel of record. Let me run several searches.

Let me dig into the docket and party filings to identify all counsel of record.

Now let me verify the parallel district court litigation and confirm which firms represent which party.

Framing note (important caption caveat)

IPR2021‑00599 is a PTAB inter partes review, not a district‑court infringement action — there is no "plaintiff" or "defendant," only Petitioner (TCT Mobile (US), Inc.; TCT Mobile (US) Holdings, Inc.; Huizhou TCL Mobile Communication Co. Ltd.; TCL Communication, Inc.) and Patent Owner (Fundamental Innovation Systems International LLC, or "FISI"). The case metadata you supplied labels FISI as the "defendant," so I've treated FISI (the Patent Owner/Respondent) as the party whose counsel you want. I've also flagged below who represents the parties on the other side of the caption in the co-pending Delaware infringement suit, because the roles flip there.

Sources: I could not open PACER/PTAB E2E directly in this session; the identifications below come from the filings themselves (PTAB papers and exhibits, as reproduced on PTAB/PTAB‑mirror and docket‑aggregator sites) and from firm/bar profiles. Every attorney named below is named in an actual filing — none are inferred.

---

Counsel of record for Fundamental Innovation Systems International LLC (Patent Owner / "defendant")

Both attorneys are with Irell & Manella LLP, 1800 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 900, Los Angeles, CA 90067 (Irell's Century City office).

1. Hong ("H. Annita") Zhong — Lead counsel

• Firm/office: Irell & Manella LLP, Los Angeles, CA.
• USPTO Reg. No. 66,530.
• Record support: Identified as lead counsel for Patent Owner in the mandatory‑notice/Power of Attorney‑type filings in this family (e.g., the Rule 42.8 lead/back‑up counsel table listing "Hong Annita Zhong (Reg. No. 66,530) … IRELL & MANELLA LLP … Lead Counsel"), and she signed Patent Owner's filings in IPR2021‑00599 (e.g., Notice of Stipulation to Modify Due Dates 1 and 2, dated Nov. 17, 2021: /Hong Zhong/ H. Annita Zhong (Reg. No. 66,530) Jason Sheasby (pro hac vice)). Petitioner's Paper 26, Objections to Patent Owner's Sur‑Reply Evidence (Apr. 25, 2022) certifies service on "attorneys of record for the Patent Owner: Hong Annita Zhong; Jason Sheasby."
• Note: Irell's PTAB lead for FISI's BlackBerry‑derived USB‑charging portfolio; her Irell bio credits her as lead PTAB counsel in a 29‑IPR campaign against FISI's patents filed by major handset makers (described as a "perfect record with no claims invalidated"), and as counsel to FISI in FISI v. Samsung (E.D. Tex.); also lead counsel in the Netlist v. Samsung/Micron and Optis v. Apple matters. She appeared for Patent Owner at the March 25, 2021 conference call (Ex. 2001 transcript) and at the June 7, 2022 oral hearing.

2. Jason Sheasby — Back‑up counsel (pro hac vice in this IPR)

• Firm/office: Irell & Manella LLP, Los Angeles, CA. Listed as back‑up counsel "pro hac vice to be requested"; he is not on the PTAB registered‑practitioner roster for this matter (hence the PHV request).
• Record support: Named on Patent Owner's signed papers in IPR2021‑00599 alongside Zhong; co‑appeared at the June 7, 2022 hearing — the hearing transcript records: "My name is Annita Zhong from Irell & Manella representing Patent Owner. Together with me today is my colleague, Jason Sheasby."
• Note: Irell litigation partner and one of the firm's best‑known patent trial lawyers; widely reported as lead trial counsel for VLSI Technology in VLSI v. Intel (W.D. Tex.) and in the Optis/PanOptis v. Apple FRAND matters.

Service/administrative contact used for the Patent Owner in this proceeding: FundamentalIPRs@irell.com (with hzhong@irell.com, jsheasby@irell.com).

No in‑house counsel appeared on the PTAB record. No Quinn Emanuel, Garteiser Honea, Mort Law Firm, or Farnan LLP attorney signed or was served as counsel of record in IPR2021‑00599 itself — FISI used Irell exclusively for the PTAB work.

---

The other side of the caption (for completeness)

If by "defendant" you mean the infringement defendants (the TCT/TCL entities) — i.e., the parties defending Fundamental Innovation Systems International LLC v. TCT Mobile (US), Inc., et al., No. 1:20‑cv‑00552‑RGA‑CJB (D. Del., filed Apr. 23, 2020) — then the relevant counsel are Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP: Jeffrey L. Johnson (Reg. No. 53,078, Houston — lead counsel in the IPRs, described in the petition as "counsel for petitioner"), Jeremy "J. Jason" Lang (Reg. No. 73,604, Menlo Park/Silicon Valley), and Robert J. Benson (Irvine; pro hac vice), with additional pro hac vice appearances by Johnson and Benson on behalf of Huizhou TCL Mobile Communication Co. in a related action. I did not find a confirmed Delaware local‑counsel firm for the TCT defendants in 1:20‑cv‑00552 in the sources available to me — treat that as unverified rather than absent.

Conversely, FISI's litigation (non‑PTAB) team in the Delaware/N.D. Ga. infringement actions is a different group from its IPR team, and this is documented in the Petitioner's own courtesy‑copy service tables attached to the Orrick petitions: Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP (Brian P. Biddinger, Edward J. DeFranco, Joseph Milowic III, David A. Hubbard, Ron Hagiz — New York; Kevin P.B. Johnson — Redwood Shores, CA) as lead trial counsel; Farnan LLP (Brian E. Farnan and Michael J. Farnan, Wilmington, DE) as Delaware counsel; Garteiser Honea, PLLC (Randall T. Garteiser, Thomas G. Fasone III, M. Scott Fuller — Tyler, TX); and The Mort Law Firm, PLLC (Raymond T. Mort III — Austin, TX). D. Del. docket entries confirm QE's Biddinger, Milowic, Hagiz, Hubbard and Kevin P.B. Johnson were admitted pro hac vice for Fundamental Innovation Systems International LLC, and that Farnan LLP filed as "Counsel for Plaintiff" in the parallel FISI cases.

---

Residual uncertainties / not sourced

• No sealed‑filing issue: this PTAB docket is public; the FWD (Aug. 23, 2022) held claims 1, 2, 8 and 9 unpatentable, with APJs Arthur M. Peslak (opinion author), Jon B. Tornquist and Jo‑Anne M. Kokoski on the panel (Kokoski substituted for Bryan F. Moore).
• I could not verify whether Irell's representation extended to a later Federal Circuit appeal of the FWD, or whether additional Irell attorneys (e.g., Jonathan Lindsay, Philip Warrick) appeared in this specific IPR — the service lists in this proceeding name only Zhong and Sheasby. If you need that level of confirmation, the Power of Attorney and any updated § 42.8 notices in IPR2021‑00599 (and any CAFC docket for an appeal) should be pulled directly from PTAB E2E/PACER.