US 7834586

I'll search for authoritative information on US 7,834,586, including current USPTO status and any 2026 CAFC activity.

Let me check the PTAB proceeding and any recent litigation activity involving this patent.

Let me check for any appeal of the PTAB decision and confirm the current USPTO status.

US 7,834,586 B2 — Multifunctional Charger System and Method

Search scope note: I searched for the literal identifier 7834586 / 7,834,586 (Google Patents, Justia, PTAB/PTAB-related dockets, and Federal Circuit opinion/order sources). I found no 2026 CAFC docket, briefing, or opinion specifically tied to US 7,834,586. Per the operating rules, I am reporting that as a null result rather than inferring activity. (Note: a separate, unrelated patent — U.S. 8,042,586, "Self-Inflating Tire Assembly," Goodyear — appears in a CAFC-related district court document; it is a different patent number and is not the subject here.)

1. Bibliographic Data (from the authoritative full text / Google Patents)

Continuity chain (as recited in the patent's own Cross-Reference section):
This patent is a continuation of 12/268,297 (now US 7,737,657), which is a continuation of 11/749,680 (now US 7,453,233), which is a continuation of 11/175,885 (now US 7,239,111), which is a continuation of 10/087,629 (now US 6,936,936), which claims priority from provisional 60/273,021 (Mar. 1, 2001) and provisional 60/330,486 (Oct. 23, 2001). Child applications of the '586 include US 7,986,127, US 8,169,187, US 8,232,766 and US 8,624,550.

2. Abstract (verbatim)

"An adapter for providing a source of power to a mobile device through an industry standard port is provided. In accordance with one aspect of the invention, the adapter comprises a plug unit, a power converter, a primary connector, and an identification subsystem. The plug unit is operative to couple the adapter to a power socket and operative to receive energy from the power socket. The power converter is electrically coupled to the plug unit and is operable to regulate the received energy from the power socket and to output a power requirement to the mobile device. The primary connector is electrically coupled to the power converter and is operative to couple to the mobile device and to deliver the outputted power requirement to the mobile device. The identification subsystem is electrically coupled to the primary connector and is operative to provide an identification signal."

3. Plain-Language Overview of Each Independent Claim

An important structural observation: the abstract and specification are written around the adapter/charger, but the granted claims are directed to the mobile device and methods inside it (plus an odd dependent claim referencing an "identification subsystem" that claim 1 does not recite).

Claim 1 — Mobile device (apparatus), detection-only

A mobile device usable in a wireless telecommunications network that has:

• a USB interface able to receive a USB cable;
• a charging subsystem wired to the USB V-bus power line;
• the charging subsystem can connect to a battery and is configured to charge it using power from V-bus; and
• the device is configured to detect an identification signal on the D+ and D− data lines of the USB interface, where that signal is different than USB enumeration.

In short: a phone that watches its USB data lines for a non-enumeration "handshake" and can charge from V-bus.

Claim 5 — Mobile device (apparatus), signal processing / "before enumeration"

A mobile device with the same USB interface, V-bus connection to a charging subsystem, and battery charging, plus:

• D+ and D− lines configured to receive signals; and
• a microprocessor and memory used to process those signals such that, before USB enumeration, an identification signal received on D+/D− indicating a charging connection is available is recognized by the device.

In short: the software/hardware "recognize the charger before enumeration" version.

Claim 8 — Method of charging (detection-based)

A method of charging a battery in such a mobile device, comprising:

1. providing a USB interface that accepts a USB cable, and receiving power on the V-bus line;
2. operably connecting that V-bus power to a charging subsystem;
3. having a battery operably connected to the charging subsystem;
4. providing power to the battery via the charging subsystem; and
5. detecting an identification signal on D+ and D−, the signal being different than USB enumeration.

Claim 11 — Method of charging (multi-mode + recognition)

Same setup as claim 8, but:

• power is provided to the battery in one of a plurality of charge modes; and
• a microprocessor and memory process signals on the USB data lines so that an identification signal on D+/D− indicating a charging connection is available is recognized by the device.

Dependent claims (all 13 reads)

• 2, 6, 9, 12: the identification signal comprises a voltage level applied to at least one data line.
• 3, 7, 10, 13: the identification signal results from using a resistance between the D+ and D− data lines.
• 4 (depends from claim 1): recites an "identification subsystem" comprising a hard-wired connection of a voltage level to one or more data lines. Note: claim 1 does not itself recite an identification subsystem, so claim 4's antecedent basis ("the identification subsystem") is facially anomalous in the granted text — I flag this as an observation about the claim language as printed, not a correction.

Illustrative embodiment (from the spec, Fig. 3): D+ and D− are compared to a ~2 V reference; if both exceed 2 V (e.g., the adapter applies a +5 V logic high to both lines), the device concludes a non-host USB adapter is attached and charges without enumeration, e.g., 5 unit loads = 500 mA. If both lines are not above 2 V, the device treats it as a host/hub and performs enumeration.

4. Post-Grant Proceedings (PTAB)

• IPR2018-00485 (Huawei Device Co., Ltd. v. Fundamental Innovation Systems International LLC) — Institution Denied (institution decision 9/4/2018). plainsite docket
• IPR2018-00493 (LG Electronics entities v. FISI) — Not Instituted (merits).
• IPR2018-00274 (petitioner listed on Google Patents) — Not Instituted (merits).
• IPR2021-00599 (TCT Mobile (US), Inc. et al. v. Fundamental Innovation Systems International LLC) — instituted Aug. 27, 2021; Final Written Decision Aug. 23, 2022 holding that petitioner established by a preponderance that all challenged claims (1, 2, 8, 9) are unpatentable over Morita (JP 2000-165513A) and the knowledge of a skilled artisan under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Board applied the district court's construction of "identification signal" = "signal that identifies a power source type." FWD PDF · case data

So as of the last PTAB action found, the two independent apparatus/method claim pairs litigated (1/8 and dependents 2/9) were held unpatentable; claims 5–7 and 11–13 were not part of that instituted challenge.

5. Litigation footprint (from the Google Patents family page and PTAB records)

Asserted by Fundamental Innovation Systems International LLC in, among others: E.D. Tex. 2:16-cv-01424 and 2:16-cv-01425; E.D. Tex. 2:17-cv-00124 and 2:17-cv-00145; N.D. Tex. 3:17-cv-01827; E.D. Tex. 2:19-cv-00048; N.D. Cal. 3:19-cv-00638 and 3:19-cv-03144; E.D. Tex. 2:20-cv-00117 and 2:20-cv-00119; D. Del. 1:20-cv-00551 (Lenovo) and 1:20-cv-00552 (TCT Mobile); S.D. Fla. 1:20-cv-21721. Note the "Expired – Fee Related" status and the 2022-03-01 anticipated expiration, which is relevant to any current remedy exposure.

6. Uncertainties / limits of this report

• No 2026 CAFC docket for '586 was found. Absence of a hit in the sources I reached is not proof that no appeal or 2026 filing exists; a PACER/CM-ECF or CAFC docket query would be needed to be definitive.
• I did not independently verify the current maintenance-fee/reinstatement record at USPTO Patent Center or Assignment Center; the "Expired – Fee Related" and 2022-03-01 dates come from the Google Patents record supplied.
• There is a March 2025 Delaware jury verdict reported against Anker Innovations in favor of Fundamental Innovation Systems over USB charger patents ($13.6M). I cannot confirm from the results I retrieved that US 7,834,586 was one of the asserted patents, so I do not attribute it here.
• Assignee: the "current assignee" shown is Fundamental Innovation Systems International LLC; original assignee was Research in Motion Ltd. (later BlackBerry Limited). As always, chain-of-title should be confirmed against USPTO assignment records.

I'll search for litigation involving US patent 7834586 specifically.

The generic searches weren't productive. Let me search more specifically, including the litigation data referenced on the patent page itself.

Litigation Involving U.S. Patent No. 7,834,586 (US7834586B2)

Quick note on scope/method: I interpreted the identifier literally as U.S. Patent No. 7,834,586 B2 ("Multifunctional charger system and method," assigned to Research in Motion → BlackBerry → Fundamental Innovation Systems International LLC ("FISI"), priority 2001‑03‑01, granted 2010‑11‑16, expired 2022‑03‑01; status "Expired – Fee Related"). Search noise for the bare string "7834586" (a Czech company registry ID for "Refork Distribution s.r.o." and a Brazilian registration) was disregarded. Primary grounding is the litigation record on the Google Patents page for US7834586 (patents.google.com/patent/US7834586/en) plus PTAB and district-court documents located via search. The '586 patent was litigated heavily as part of FISI's USB-charging campaign, almost always alongside sibling patents in the same family.

A. District Court Cases — '586 Patent Confirmed Asserted

The IPR2021‑00599 Final Written Decision itself states the '586 patent "is asserted in Fundamental Innovation Systems International LLC v. Coolpad Group Limited, et al., No. 2:20-cv-00117 (E.D. Tex.); … v. Lenovo (United States) Inc., et al., No. 1:20-cv-00551 (D. Del.); and … v. TCT Mobile (US) Inc., et al., No. 1:20-cv-00552 (D. Del.)." (FWD, §A)

B. Additional Cases Listed on the US7834586 Google Patents Litigation Record

These appear on the patent's own litigation list but I could not confirm the parties or that the '586 patent (as opposed to a sibling) was asserted. Treat as leads, not verified:

• E.D. Tex. — 2:20-cv-00119
• E.D. Tex. — 2:19-cv-00048
• E.D. Tex. — 2:17-cv-00124
• E.D. Tex. — 2:16-cv-01424
• N.D. Cal. — 3:19-cv-00638 (likely a declaratory-judgment action by a manufacturer; Apple reportedly filed first against FISI — MacRumors — but I could not tie that specifically to the '586)
• N.D. Cal. — 3:19-cv-03144
• S.D. Fla. — 1:20-cv-21721

Google also flags a "First worldwide family litigation filed" entry (Darts‑ip family ID 26955880), indicating litigation in other jurisdictions across the patent family (Darts-ip record).

C. PTAB (IPR) Proceedings on the '586 Patent

Note re: IPR2018-00274/00485/00493: FISI's updated mandatory notice in a related '766 proceeding states that "2018‑00274, 2018‑00485 and 2018‑00493 have been filed against the '586 patent, and the Board has denied institution for all three" (Docket Alarm). Separately, the IPR2021‑00599 FWD references "'586 … IPR2018-00276, IPR2018-00495, and IPR2018-00487." I have not reconciled this numbering discrepancy and, per your instruction, have not auto‑corrected either set.

Caveats / Limitations on Confidence

• I could not retrieve a confirmed final disposition (judgment, settlement, license, or dismissal) for the Samsung (2:17‑cv‑145), LG/Huawei (2:16‑cv‑1425), ZTE (3:17‑cv‑1827), Coolpad (2:20‑cv‑117), or TCT Mobile (1:20‑cv‑552) district-court cases. FISI litigation of this family was extensive and many of these resolved via settlement/license, but I did not find that in the sources reviewed, so I am not asserting it.
• Whether the N.D. Cal., S.D. Fla., and the three unverified E.D. Tex. case numbers involve the '586 patent specifically (versus the '936/'111/'766/'550/'127/'187 siblings) is unconfirmed.
• The IPR2021‑00599 FWD found all challenged '586 claims unpatentable; I did not locate a Federal Circuit appeal outcome and cannot say whether that holding became final.
• All case numbers, dates, and party names above are reproduced as found; none have been normalized or corrected.

If you want, I can next try to run down the specific dockets for 2:20‑cv‑00119, 2:19‑cv‑00048, 2:17‑cv‑00124, 2:16‑cv‑01424, 3:19‑cv‑00638, 3:19‑cv‑03144 and 1:20‑cv‑21721, and check PACER/CAFC for dispositions.

I'll research the PTAB proceedings listed on the patent page, since the structured ODP block shows no AIA trials but the patent record itself lists several IPR numbers.

Let me get the specific outcomes — the IPR2021-00599 Final Written Decision and the three 2018 institution denials.

PTAB / AIA Trial Landscape — US 7,834,586 ("Multifunctional charger system and method")

Source note / discrepancy flagged. The structured "PTAB proceedings on file" block states the ODP API returns no AIA trial proceedings for this patent. That is contradicted by the patent record itself: the Google Patents litigation field (sourced from Unified Patents PTAB Data) lists four PTAB cases against the '586 patent — IPR2018-00274, IPR2018-00485, IPR2018-00493, and IPR2021-00599. I treated the four numbered proceedings as real (each is independently corroborated by court/PTAB dockets and petition/decision PDFs), and I flag the ODP gap rather than treating it as authoritative. Note also that "Unified Patents" appears here only as the data vendor for the Google Patents litigation block — Unified is not the petitioner in any of these four cases, and I found no Unified Patents filing against the '586 patent. Do not attribute these IPRs to a defensive aggregator.

Proceedings overview

There are four AIA trial proceedings on file against US 7,834,586: one reached a Final Written Decision and invalidated every claim it challenged (claims 1, 2, 8, 9); three were denied institution on the merits (2018 wave, filed by LG, Huawei, and ZTE/Samsung). Breakdown: 0 active · 1 claims-invalidated · 0 claims-sustained · 0 settled · 3 institution-denied. Bottom line for a defendant: the core independent claims 1 and 8 are canceled (device claim and method claim), taking dependent claims 2 and 9 with them — any demand letter built on claim 1 or claim 8 is built on a dead claim. But claims 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 10, 11 and 12, 13 were never tested at the PTAB, independent claims 5 and 11 remain live, and the patent expired 2022-03-01, so the practical exposure is historical damages only.

IPR2021-00599 — TCT Mobile (US), Inc.; TCT Mobile (US) Holdings, Inc.; Huizhou TCL Mobile Communication Co. Ltd.; and TCL Communication, Inc. v. Fundamental Innovation Systems International LLC

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2021-02-26 (accorded filing date; petition challenging claims 1–2 and 8–9 under 35 U.S.C. § 312 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.104)
• Status: Final Written Decision — all challenged claims held unpatentable. Gloss: claims 1, 2, 8 and 9 canceled.
• Judge panel: Administrative Patent Judges Arthur M. Peslak (author of the Final Written Decision), Jon B. Tornquist, and Bryan F. Moore. ⚠️ One aggregator database also lists Jo-Anne Kokoski on this case; I could not confirm whether that reflects an expanded panel or a substitute. Treat the three-judge listing (Peslak/Tornquist/Moore) as the operative panel.
• Petition grounds: Single ground — claims 1, 2, 8 and 9 unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Morita in view of the knowledge of a skilled artisan. (Because the '586 application was filed 2010-02-26, pre-AIA § 103(a) applies.) Petitioner's exhibit set also included the USB 1.1 (1998) and USB 2.0 (2000) specifications, Kerai (US 6,531,845), Shiga (US 6,625,738), Zyskowski (US 2003/0135766), Casebolt (US 6,625,790), and the Cypress enCoRe datasheet — but the instituted ground that carried the day was Morita-based.
• Institution decision: Instituted 2021-08-27. Trial was instituted on the Morita-based § 103 ground and ran to a full 12-month trial.
• Final Written Decision: 2022-08-23 — "For the reasons discussed below, we determine Petitioner establishes by a preponderance of the evidence that all of the challenged claims are unpatentable. We also dismiss Petitioner's Motion to Exclude as moot." The FWD identifies claims 1 and 8 as the independent claims and holds each of claims 1, 2, 8 and 9 unpatentable. (Decision PDF: https://bannerwitcoff.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/IPR2021-00599.pdf)
• Settlement / termination: None. The case was decided on the merits; termination date 2022-08-23 corresponds to the FWD. (Parties were also adverse in D. Del. 1:20-cv-00552, FISI v. TCT Mobile; no settlement was announced in the proceeding, which ran to judgment.)
• Appeal: ⚠️ Not confirmed. I could not verify from the sources reviewed whether FISI appealed the FWD to the Federal Circuit. Because cancellation of claims 1, 2, 8, 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 318(b) is not formalized until the appeal window lapses or any appeal terminates, verify the CAFC docket / CourtListener before relying on the cancellation. This is the single most important item to nail down.
• Defensive value: Highest-value event on this patent. Independent claim 1 (device) and independent claim 8 (method) — the two cleanest infringement hooks — were held unpatentable, and dependents 2 and 9 fell with them. Infringement contentions or a demand letter founded on claim 1 or 8 are now attacking a canceled claim.

IPR2018-00493 — LG Electronics, Inc. et al. v. Fundamental Innovation Systems International LLC

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2018-01-15
• Status: Not Instituted – Merits (Institution Denied)
• Judge panel: Arthur M. Peslak, Lynne E. Pettigrew, Bryan F. Moore, Jon B. Tornquist, Christopher L. Ogden (panel per Patexia; the 2018-06-21 conference call transcript lists Peslak, Pettigrew, Tornquist and Ogden).
• Petition grounds: Challenged claims 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13. (Grounds detail is in the petition record; the case terminated at the institution stage, so no FWD claim-level holding exists.)
• Institution decision: Denied 2018-08-30 on the merits. Procedural color: the Board held a 2018-06-21 teleconference on LG's request to file a five-page reply to Patent Owner's Preliminary Response; the request was heard and the cases were ultimately not instituted on the merits.
• Final Written Decision: None (no trial).
• Settlement / termination: Case closed at the institution stage, 2018-08-30.
• Appeal: None — no appealable FWD.
• Defensive value: Low as precedent, but useful as estoppel-clear space. Because no FWD issued, no § 315(e)(2) estoppel attaches to LG. If you are a defendant today, LG's 2018 art set on claims 8–13 has not been "used up" by anyone and is not foreclosed to you.

IPR2018-00485 — Huawei Device Co., Ltd. et al. v. Fundamental Innovation Systems International LLC

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2018-01-12 (accorded filing date; Tech Center 2800, Group Art Unit 2858)
• Status: Not Instituted – Merits (Institution Denied)
• Judge panel: ⚠️ Not confirmed in the sources reviewed.
• Petition grounds: Not confirmed at claim level in the sources reviewed (Huawei's petition targeted the '586 patent, filed in parallel with the LG and ZTE/Samsung petitions).
• Institution decision: Denied 2018-09-04 on the merits.
• Final Written Decision: None.
• Settlement / termination: Case closed at institution stage (institution denied).
• Appeal: None — no appealable FWD.
• Defensive value: Low as precedent. Confirms the 2018 art wave against the '586 patent failed across the board. No estoppel arises.

IPR2018-00274 — ZTE (USA) Inc., [Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/Samsung%20Electronics%20Co.%2C%20Ltd.), and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. v. Fundamental Innovation Systems International LLC

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2018-01-24
• Status: Not Instituted – Merits (Institution Denied)
• Judge panel: ⚠️ Not confirmed in the sources reviewed.
• Petition grounds: Two grounds, both § 103:
  • Ground 1 — claims 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 obvious over Theobald (US 5,925,942) in view of Shiga (US 6,625,738).
  • Ground 2 — claims 10 and 13 obvious over Kanamori (Japanese application).
  • Petition also relied on the '021 and '486 provisionals, the '586 file history, and a TIA/EIA-644 discussion. (Petition PDF: https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2018-00274/)
• Institution decision: Denied on the merits (the Google Patents record lists this as "Not Instituted – Merits"; the specific decision date was not confirmed in the sources reviewed).
• Final Written Decision: None.
• Settlement / termination: Case closed at institution stage.
• Appeal: None — no appealable FWD.
• Defensive value: Low as precedent, structurally useful. ZTE/Samsung's Theobald+Shiga and Kanamori theories are public, fully briefed, and not estopped — you may reuse them.

Strategic summary

Claim status after IPR2021-00599. The Final Written Decision of 2022-08-23 held claims 1, 2, 8 and 9 unpatentable under § 103(a) over Morita. That removes both of the earliest independent claims (1 = device, 8 = method) and their dependent claims 2 and 9. What remains — and was never tested at the PTAB — is:

• Sustained-but-untested: claims 3, 4, 6, 7, 10, 12, 13 (dependents of the canceled independent claims — note that cancellation of a parent claim does not by itself invalidate dependents, and these were not challenged) and independent claims 5 and 11 (which recite pre-enumeration recognition of an identification signal using a microprocessor and memory) with dependents 6, 7 and 12, 13.
• Canceled (subject to any unverified Federal Circuit appeal): claims 1, 2, 8, 9.
• The 2018 petitions show what has been argued before: claims 8–13 (LG, ZTE/Samsung) and claims 1–2, 8–9 (TCT). Claims 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 11, 12, 13 were never the subject of an instituted trial.

Estoppel landscape. Section 315(e)(2) estoppel requires a final written decision. Only IPR2021-00599 produced one, so estoppel is narrow: TCT Mobile and its real parties-in-interest/privies are barred from asserting, in district court, any ground on claims 1, 2, 8, 9 that they raised or reasonably could have raised — in practice, the entire Morita-based obviousness theory and any § 102/§ 103 art they had in hand. LG, Huawei, and ZTE/Samsung obtained institution denials, not FWDs, so no estoppel attaches to them under § 315(e)(2), and their 2018 art (Theobald, Shiga, Kanamori, and the petition exhibits) is free for the next defendant to use. For a defendant today, the most attractive unexploited ground is a § 103 attack on independent claims 5 and 11 and their dependents using the 2018 references — a claim set no petitioner has ever gotten instituted against.

Pattern signals. (1) Every major smartphone OEM lined up: FISI (a 2015 BlackBerry spin-out monetization vehicle) litigated the '586 patent and its siblings against Huawei (E.D. Tex. 2:16-cv-01424), LG (2:16-cv-01425), ZTE (2:17-cv-00124; N.D. Tex. 3:17-cv-01827), Samsung (2:17-cv-00145), Apple (E.D. Tex. 2:19-cv-00048 and N.D. Cal. 3:19-cv-03144; plus Apple's N.D. Cal. declaratory-judgment action 3:19-cv-00638), Lenovo (D. Del. 1:20-cv-00551), TCT Mobile (D. Del. 1:20-cv-00552), OnePlus (E.D. Tex. 2:20-cv-00119), BLU Products (S.D. Fla. 1:20-cv-21721), and E.D. Tex. 2:20-cv-00117. (2) The 2018 IPR wave failed: all three 2018 petitions were denied institution, and contemporaneous reporting indicates FISI signed license agreements with Huawei, LG and Samsung in 2018. (3) The 2021 wave succeeded: TCT Mobile's filings — IPR2021-00597 (US 8,169,187), IPR2021-00598 (US 8,232,766) and IPR2021-00599 (the '586 patent) — were prosecuted by Orrick for petitioner and Irell & Manella for FISI, and the '599 case ended with all challenged '586 claims unpatentable. (4) No defensive aggregator: despite the Google Patents block's "Unified Patents" attribution, that is the data source, not a petitioner; Unified did not file here.

Practical overlay. Per the patent record, the '586 patent reached its anticipated expiration on 2022-03-01 (20 years from the 2002-03-01 filing of the root application US 10/087,629) and is marked Expired – Fee Related. That caps the damages window under § 286 to the six years preceding filing (i.e., back to roughly 2016-03-01 at the earliest, and in practice to suit-filing dates), independent of the IPR outcome.

Recommended next steps

1. Get the IPR2021-00599 FWD in hand and quote the disposition. It is short and dispositive on its face: "we determine Petitioner establishes by a preponderance of the evidence that all of the challenged claims are unpatentable." Read it at https://bannerwitcoff.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/IPR2021-00599.pdf and pull the official copy from PTAB E2E (https://ptacts.uspto.gov/) under Case No. IPR2021-00599. Confirm on the face of the record which of claims 1, 2, 8, 9 the Board held unpatentable before putting it in a brief.
2. Verify the appeal status — this is the gating question. Check the Federal Circuit docket and CourtListener for a FISI appeal of the 2022-08-23 FWD. If no appeal was filed, the § 318(b) certificate cancelling claims 1, 2, 8, 9 issued and the cancellation is final; if FISI appealed, cancellation awaits disposition. Do not represent the claims as canceled until you have confirmed which is true.
3. Do not over-claim the win. The FWD did not address claims 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 10, 11, 12, 13 — the Board had no reason to, and they were never challenged in an instituted trial. Assert independent claims 5 and 11 as the real remaining exposure, and note the dependents riding on the canceled independent claims.
4. No live PTAB proceedings to track. There is no pending AIA trial on the '586 patent as of 2026-09-21, so there is no institution-deadline / oral-hearing / FWD-due-date calendar to monitor. If a new petition were filed, the clock would be: institution decision within 6 months of the accorded filing date, FWD within 12 months of institution (35 U.S.C. § 314(b), § 316(a)(11)).
5. Exploit the estoppel gap. Because LG (IPR2018-00493), Huawei (IPR2018-00485) and ZTE/Samsung (IPR2018-00274) were denied institution, none of them is estopped. Retrieve their petitions and exhibits from the public docket archives (e.g., https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2018-00274/ and https://www.plainsite.org/dockets/42ks7efym/uspto-patent-trial-and-appeal-board/huawei-device-co-ltd-et-al-v-fundamental-innovation-systems-international-llc-et-al/) and build a § 103 theory aimed at claims 5 and 11 — the untested independent claims — using Theobald, Shiga, Kanamori and the USB 1.1/2.0 specifications.
6. Caveats on facts I could not verify: the IPR2021-00599 judicial panel composition (one database adds APJ Kokoski), the institution-denial dates and panels for IPR2018-00274 and IPR2018-00485, the claim-level grounds of IPR2018-00485, and the Federal Circuit appeal status. I flagged each rather than filling them in — confirm them against PTAB E2E and the CAFC docket before relying on them.

I'll verify the ownership chain and litigation record against live sources before writing up.

Now let me try to pin down the recorded assignment reel/frame and correspondent details.

Found a 37 CFR 3.73(c) chain-of-title statement. Let me pull the reel/frame specifics for this patent family and the FISI corporate structure.

Ownership Reconstruction — US 7,834,586 B2 ("Multifunctional Charger System and Method")

Source note / confidence statement (read first)

The chain below is reconstructed from three sources, and I flag which is which:

1. Google Patents "Legal Events" for US 7,834,586 (https://patents.google.com/patent/US7834586/en#legalEvents) — gives dates, conveyance types, and parties, but exposes no reel/frame and no correspondent.
2. A 37 CFR 3.73(c) "Statement Under 37 CFR 3.73(c)" filed in the file history of sibling patent US 7,701,173 (same BlackBerry→FISI bulk portfolio recording, same original assignee). This does give reel/frame: RIM→BlackBerry at Reel 036356/0472, and BlackBerry→"…International LLC" at Reel 037324/0978. I reproduce these as sibling-derived, i.e. highly likely (same bulk instrument covering 55+ US assets) but not independently confirmed against the '586 patent's own assignment abstract.
3. RPX / IAM / Unified Patents / court and PTAB records for litigation and assignee-identity context.

I was not able to open the Assignment Center abstract page for 7834586 itself in this session (retrieval limit). So: no reel/frame or correspondent below is invented; where I do not have the recorded value, I say so. Verify at https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (search patent number 7834586).

Inventors

• All five are named as assignors on the inventors→Research In Motion Limited assignment shown in Google Patents Legal Events (event dated 2013-11-03). The substantive non-provisional (Ser. No. 10/087,629) was filed 2002-03-01 claiming priority to 2001-03-01.
• Unusual-pattern check: the classic "all inventors leave within 12 months" tell is not present. These are career RIM engineers/researchers, and there is no evidence any of them departed around filing. The unusual feature of this record is the opposite: a ~13-year hold by the original assignee (2002→2015) followed by a bulk portfolio divestiture, not inventor attrition.
• Caveat: the Google feed shows the assignment event date (2013-11-03) but not the execution date of the inventor assignment; a 2013 event date for a 2001/2002 filing indicates a late or re-recorded instrument (likely a confirmatory/clean-up recording alongside the same-day change-of-name). Treat the 2013-11-03 date as a recordation date, not a signing date.

Original assignee

Research In Motion Limited (Waterloo, Ontario, Canada) — issuer of record; renamed BlackBerry Limited in 2013 (recorded as a "Change of Name" conveyance).

• Did they ship a product embodying the claims? Yes. The specification is written around RIM's own hardware: the interchangeable plug-adapter USB travel charger (plug unit 106, plug adapters 114N/114B/114D/114), the Vbus/Gnd charging path, and the "abnormal data-line" identification handshake (D+/D− >2 V) implemented in BlackBerry handsets and chargers. The patent family is, in the words of FISI's own litigation position, "USB charging patents."
• Primary line of business (at relevant times): wireless handheld communication devices, software and network services.
• Current status: operating, publicly traded (NYSE: BB). BlackBerry exited the handset hardware business in 2016 (brand licensed to TCL) and is now an enterprise software/secure-communications/IoT company. No Chapter 7/11 bankruptcy filing at any relevant time — the 2015 patent sale was a negotiated portfolio monetization, not a bankruptcy sale. RIM/BlackBerry's own 2015 asset sale is corroborated by RPX and by press reporting of a ~$50M payment from Centerbridge Partners for ~200 assets.

Assignment timeline

Reel/frame availability: entries marked [sibling-derived] come from the 3.73(c) chain-of-title statement in US 7,701,173's file history. Entries marked [not recovered] are the values I could not pull from the Assignment Center in this session. Google Patents reproduces two BlackBerry→FISI recordings (2015-12-17 and 2016-12-01) for the '586.

• 2013-11-03 (recorded; execution date not shown) / recorded 2013-11-03 — Reel [not recovered] (original inventor instrument)

  • Conveyance: Assignment (Assignment of Assignors' Interest)
  • Assignor: Fischer, Daniel M.; Radut, Dan G.; Habicher, Michael F.; Luong, Quang A.; Malton, Jonathan T.
  • Assignee: Research In Motion Limited
  • Correspondent: Not exposed by Google Patents Legal Events and not recovered. Pattern note (different property, not this one): RIM/BlackBerry self-recorded its assignments using an in-house formalities correspondent — "Research In Motion Limited – Krista, 2200 University Avenue E., Waterloo, Ontario, patentformaldocs@blackberry.com", as seen on the cover sheet at Reel 044853/0419 (recorded 2018-02-07) for an unrelated RIM case. Same-correspondent recurrence not established for this chain.
  • Context: Original inventor-to-employer vesting (late/confirmatory recording).

• 2013-11-03 (recorded) / recorded 2013-11-03 — Reel 036356/0472 [sibling-derived]

  • Conveyance: Change of Name
  • Assignor: Research In Motion Limited
  • Assignee: BlackBerry Limited
  • Correspondent: Not recovered.
  • Context: Internal reorg / corporate rename only — no change of beneficial ownership.

• 2015-12-17 (recorded) / recorded 2015-12-17 — Reel 037324/0978 [sibling-derived] — bulk portfolio instrument

  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: BlackBerry Limited
  • Assignee: Fundamental Innovation Systems International LLC (Delaware LLC formed Oct 2015; Texas registration Nov 2016; HQ Flower Mound, TX; parent Fundamental Innovation Systems International Holdings LLC)
  • Correspondent: Not recovered — this is the highest-value missing field in the whole chain (see Signal 3). The recording is FISI-side/transactional, not BlackBerry's in-house formalities desk.
  • Context: Transfer-to-asserter / portfolio monetization. ~55+ US assets plus AU/EU/Asia counterparts, PE-funded (Centerbridge Partners), reported ~$50M. Part of a ~200-asset package.

• 2016-12-01 (recorded) / recorded 2016-12-01 — Reel [not recovered]

  • Conveyance: Assignment (second recorded instrument, same assignor/assignee pair)
  • Assignor: BlackBerry Limited
  • Assignee: Fundamental Innovation Systems International LLC
  • Correspondent: Not recovered.
  • Context: Second-tranche / confirmatory or corrective recording closing out the 2015 transaction. Timing is the finding: recorded 15 days before FISI's first infringement complaints (2016-12-16, E.D. Tex. 2:16-cv-01424 and 2:16-cv-01425).

• No further recorded assignment of US 7,834,586. The chain terminates at Fundamental Innovation Systems International LLC, which remains the owner of record per Google Patents' "Current Assignee." Subsequent events are licenses and settlements, not assignments: the RPX portfolio license (Nov 2019) covering the USB charging patents for RPX members, the Apple settlement (2019), and the Samsung/LG/Huawei/ZTE settlements.

Assertion record for THIS patent (proving the owner is an active asserter, not a holder):

• N.D. Tex. 3:17-cv-01827 (ZTE) — '586 asserted (confirmed in the court's summary-judgment opinion).
• E.D. Tex. 2:20-cv-00117 (Coolpad); D. Del. 1:20-cv-00551 (Lenovo — complaint lists US 7,834,586); D. Del. 1:20-cv-00552 (TCT Mobile).
• PTAB IPR2021-00599 (TCT Mobile) reached a Final Written Decision; IPR2018-00274 / -00485 / -00493 were not instituted.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 7834586
    2001 : Priority application filed
    2002 : Nonprovisional filed by Research In Motion
    2010 : Continuation filed Feb 26
         : Patent issues Nov 16
    2013 : RIM renamed BlackBerry Limited
    2015 : Portfolio sold to Fundamental Innovation
    2016 : Second assignment recording Dec 1
         : First FISI suits filed Dec 16
    2019 : RPX license covers the portfolio
    2022 : Patent term expires Mar 1
    2025 : Anker verdict 13.6M dollars

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — PRESENT.
BlackBerry Limited (operating company) → Fundamental Innovation Systems International LLC, a purpose-formed Delaware LLC (Oct 2015) with no products in commerce, whose only business is licensing and litigating the acquired portfolio. Recording at Reel 037324/0978 [sibling-derived], recorded 2015-12-17; corroborated by Google Patents Legal Events for the '586 (2015-12-17 and 2016-12-01) and by RPX/Chinese-press descriptions of FISI's Delaware formation and Texas registration. The "no products" prong is evidenced affirmatively, not by naming: FISI's public presence is a licensing website and a licensee list (38+ licensees), and its 2016–2025 output is ~20 lawsuits in which the patents themselves are the only asset asserted.

2. Known asserter in the chain — PRESENT.
FISI is a documented high-frequency NPE in RPX's litigation coverage — "an NPE with active campaigns in the US and Europe," roughly 20 suits since late 2016 — hitting Apple, Samsung, LG, Huawei, ZTE, Lenovo, TCL/TCT, Coolpad, BLU, Belkin/Hon Hai, Anker/Fantasia, Cyber Power, Jasco, and (2021) GM, Toyota, Hyundai, Denso and Aptiv. It is also a recurring Unified Patents / PTAB target (IPR2018-00274/00485/00493 not instituted; IPR2021-00599 final written decision). It is not on the "classic" lists (Acacia, Marathon, IV, Wi-LAN, Mosaid/Conversant, Vringo) — its NPE status rests on RPX's directory and its own docket, which is sufficient.

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — UNCLEAR / NOT VERIFIED.
This is the one signal I cannot call, and I will not paper over it: the Assignment Center correspondent fields were not retrievable in this session, so I have no attorney name or firm of record for either the Reel 037324/0978 BlackBerry→FISI recording or the 2016-12-01 recording. What I do have: (a) the operating-company-side recordings used an in-house RIM/BlackBerry formalities correspondent (BlackBerry/RIM, 2200 University Ave. E., Waterloo; patentformaldocs@blackberry.com) on a different RIM property at Reel 044853/0419 — a single appearance is not a finding; (b) a 3.73(c) statement in the sibling-patent PTAB record was signed /Bryan C. Diner/, which appears to be a RIM-era prosecution statement, not FISI's recording correspondent. Recommended next step: pull the correspondent for Reel 037324/0978 and for the 2016-12-01 reel, then cross-check that name against the recordings on the sibling patents (US 7,239,111; 8,232,766; 8,624,550; 6,936,936). A single repeat recording attorney across that block would convert this to a strong finding.

4. Cascading transfers — PARTIALLY PRESENT (weak form).
There is no chain of successive shells for this patent (BlackBerry → FISI, full stop). There is, however, a two-step recording pattern within ~12 months (2015-12-17 and 2016-12-01, same assignor/assignee pair) consistent with a staged closing. Separately, the same monetization team behind FISI (Kumar/Seaman/Riley per IAM, Capital/Desmarais network) ran genuinely cascading transfers on other portfolios — Osram assets moved Key Patent Innovations Limited → Pictiva Display International Limited, and HPE assets moved Ocean Tomo → Valtrus Innovations Limited. That is context, not a finding about the '586 chain.

5. Pre-litigation transfer — PRESENT.
The 2016-12-01 recording falls 15 days before FISI's first infringement complaints (2016-12-16; E.D. Tex. 2:16-cv-01424/01425). The primary 2015-12-17 recording is ~12 months before the first suits, which falls outside a strict 6-month window, but the second recording is squarely inside it. Combined with the infringement notices FISI sent to targets in December 2015, the record shows a chain tidied up immediately before assertion.

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — NOT PRESENT.
No Chapter 7/11 proceeding by RIM/BlackBerry at any point. The 2015 transaction was a negotiated sale to a PE-backed buyer, and it was later litigated between Ocean Tomo LLC and former executive Michael Friedman over the deal's brokerage — the opposite of a court-supervised §363 sale.

7. Privateering — PRESENT.
BlackBerry sold the portfolio for cash and took no counter-assertion exposure (it had already decided to exit handsets), while the buyer asserted the same patents against BlackBerry's competitors and former customers — Samsung, LG, Huawei, ZTE, Lenovo, TCL, Apple, and later automotive OEMs. The economics and the target list are the classic privateering signature.

8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — NOT PRESENT as a terminal event.
In November 2019 FISI signed an RPX license giving RPX members coverage on the USB charging patents; Apple settled around the same time. Critically, this is a license, not an assignment: FISI retained ownership and kept asserting — 2020 Delaware/E.D. Tex. complaints (Coolpad, Lenovo, TCT Mobile, Belkin, BLU, Jasco), 2021 automotive complaints (GM, Toyota, Hyundai, Denso, Aptiv), and a $13.6M Anker jury verdict in March 2025. The chain does not terminate at a defensive aggregator.

Verdict

NPE — high confidence.

Two or more strong signals are independently documented: (i) shell-entity transfer — an operating company (BlackBerry Limited) conveyed this patent to Fundamental Innovation Systems International LLC, a purpose-formed Delaware LLC with no products, recorded 2015-12-17 at Reel 037324/0978 [sibling-derived]; (ii) known asserter — RPX tracks FISI as an NPE with ~20 suits and the '586 was asserted in N.D. Tex. 3:17-cv-01827, D. Del. 1:20-cv-00551/00552 and E.D. Tex. 2:20-cv-00117, drawing PTAB petitions up to a Final Written Decision in IPR2021-00599; and (iii) pre-litigation recording — a second BlackBerry→FISI assignment recorded 2016-12-01, fifteen days before the first complaints on 2016-12-16. Privateering against the seller's competitors and customers, with a mid-campaign RPX license that did not transfer title, completes the picture.

Residual uncertainty (stated plainly): the reel/frame values above are copied from a sibling patent's 3.73(c) statement, and no correspondent was recovered for the FISI-side recordings — Signal 3 remains unproven. Confirm both at the USPTO Assignment Center before relying on them in any filing.

Verify: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (search patent number 7834586) — and the Google Patents legal-events feed for the '586 at https://patents.google.com/patent/US7834586/en#legalEvents.

I'll research the USPTO record and prior-art citations for US 7,834,586. Let me run several targeted searches.

Let me dig into the specific prior-art citations listed on the face of the patent and the IPR grounds.

Let me find the actual "References Cited" list on the patent front page and the key IPR references.

I hit my search-step budget while chasing the verbatim front-page citation list, so let me give you what I did verify, clearly separated from what I could not.

Prior Art Analysis — US 7,834,586 B2 ("Multifunctional charger system and method")

A. Scope / method note (important limitation)

• I searched for the literal identifier 7834586 (Google Patents mirror of the USPTO record, Justia, PTAB/docket sources, and IPR petition/decision PDFs hosted on ptacts.uspto.gov, docketalarm, and cmosedu.com). I did not substitute any similar number.
• I could not retrieve the complete verbatim "References Cited" block printed on the front page of US 7,834,586 within my search budget. Google Patents' extract supplied to me contains the forward citations ("Cited By" / "Families Citing this family") but not the backward citation list, and my targeted queries for that list returned other patents' citation tables instead.
• Per the operating rules, I am therefore not going to reconstruct the front-page list from memory. Instead I report (i) the citation inheritance that follows from the '586's own continuity record, and (ii) the references that the PTAB and litigation record actually identify as the closest prior art to this patent. Where I did not independently confirm a citation date or title, I say so.

B. Why the '586's cited art is largely inherited

The '586's own Cross-Reference section establishes it is a continuation with no new disclosure:

10/087,629 (US 6,936,936, filed 2002-03-01) ← 11/175,885 (US 7,239,111) ← 11/749,680 (US 7,453,233) ← 12/268,297 (US 7,737,657) ← 12/714,204 (the '586, filed 2010-02-26); priority to provisionals 60/273,021 (2001-03-01) and 60/330,486 (2001-10-23).

Because the '586 issued from a straight continuation, the Office's "References Cited" on its face is, in the normal course, the same or substantially the same art considered during the '936/'111/'233/'657 prosecutions, unless the examiner added something new. So the operative prior-art universe for the '586 is the art of record in the 10/087,629 (US 6,936,936) family, which is the same universe the PTAB later drew on.

C. The prior art actually treated as most relevant to the '586

Critically, every post-grant challenge I found against the '586 was an obviousness (§ 103) challenge, not a § 102 anticipation challenge. That is a substantive point, not a formalism — I address it in Section D.

What I could not confirm: the exact titles, issue dates, and patent numbers for Theobald ('942), Shiga ('738), Dougherty, and Matsumoto were taken from IPR petition/declaration text (e.g., the Fernald declaration in IPR2018-00274 identifying "U.S. 5,925,942 (Theobald, Exhibit 1005) and U.S. Patent No. 6,625,738 (Shiga, Exhibit 1006)"). I am reporting the identities as the record uses them; I did not re-verify each bibliographic field at the source. I also saw an exhibit in IPR2018-00274 labeled "File history of US Patent No. 6,366,128," but the OCR of that exhibit showed semiconductor-memory content (VLSI ROM driver circuits), so I treat that identification as unreliable and do not rely on it.

D. The § 102 question — an important caveat

You asked which claim(s) each reference potentially anticipates under 35 U.S.C. § 102. Based on the record I found, the honest answer is:

None of these references was asserted as a standalone § 102 anticipation reference against the '586. Each was used in a § 103 obviousness combination (Theobald + Shiga; Dougherty + Shiga; Morita + knowledge of a skilled artisan).

This is fully consistent with a proper reading of the '586's granted claims: independent claims 1, 5, 8, and 11 each require the combination of (a) a USB interface, (b) a charging subsystem on the V-bus line, and (c) detection/recognition of an identification signal on D+/D− that is "different than USB enumeration." Each individual reference teaches only part of that combination:

• Theobald ('942) supplies an adapter/power-source teaching but (on the record) not a D+/D− identification scheme different from enumeration → not a § 102 hit on claims 8–13 alone.
• Shiga ('738) supplies the SE1 D+/D− line state but for an unrelated purpose (error/illegal state), and it is directed to a different problem → not a § 102 hit alone, and the Board repeatedly found the combination with it hindsight-driven and inoperable.
• Dougherty supplies a charging USB docking station but requires enumeration; replacing enumeration with SE1 would defeat its purpose. The Board denied institution in both IPR2018-00485 and IPR2018-00493 on exactly this reasoning.
• Morita (JP 2000-165513 A) is the only reference that succeeded, and it succeeded only in combination with the knowledge of a skilled artisan and only under § 103(a) — against claims 1, 2, 8, and 9 (FWD 2022-08-23). Even there, the disposal was obviousness, not anticipation.

So if your analytic frame is § 102 anticipation, the correct negative finding is: on the record available, no cited/asserted reference anticipates any claim of the '586 standing alone.

Where § 102 could be argued, and against which claims

If one were to press a § 102 theory, the only defensible candidates on this record would be:

• Morita (JP 2000-165513 A, pub. 2000-06-16) against claims 1 and 8 (and dependents 2 and 9), since the Board already accepted that Morita + routine knowledge renders them unpatentable — the gap between "Morita + knowledge" and pure § 102 is narrow for the broadest independent claims. Eligibility as prior art: foreign printed publication predating the 2001-03-01 / 2001-10-23 priority dates → § 102(a)/(b) printed publication (the precise subsection turns on the contested effective priority date and the applicant's invention date).
• USB 2.0 Specification (2000) is § 102(b)-eligible only as to the background facts (enumeration, current limits, SE1 definition) — it teaches away from the claimed "intentional non-enumeration identification signal," so it cannot anticipate.

E. Bottom line

1. I could not obtain the verbatim front-page "References Cited" list for US 7,834,586 within my search budget; I flag that rather than fabricate it.
2. The '586 is a straight continuation, so its cited art is the inherited 10/087,629 (US 6,936,936) family art — no new subject matter was added.
3. The references the record actually treats as closest prior art are: US 5,925,942 (Theobald), US 6,625,738 (Shiga), Dougherty, JP 2000-165513 A (Morita), Matsumoto, Rogers, and the USB 2.0 Specification.
4. All were asserted under § 103, not § 102. The only claims ever held unpatentable (IPR2021-00599 FWD, 2022-08-23) were claims 1, 2, 8, 9, over Morita + knowledge of a skilled artisan. Claims 5–7 and 11–13 were never reached by an instituted challenge. Every Shiga-based combination was refused institution.
5. Flags against the earlier sections: (a) I can now name the IPR2018-00274 petitioner — ZTE (USA) Inc. and Samsung, with Samsung dismissed by joint motion on 2018-07-18 after a settlement (settlement agreement kept confidential); the earlier section had this petitioner as unlisted. (b) I saw no contradiction with the earlier sections' IPR2018-00485/-00493 (Huawei / LG, denied) or IPR2021-00599 findings.

If you want the exhaustive, claim-by-claim front-page citation list, the reliable next step is a direct USPTO Patent Center / Patent Public Search pull of the '586's "References Cited" section (or the paper file of 10/087,629), which I could not complete here.

Obviousness Analysis — US 7,834,586 B2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103

Builds on: the claim-by-claim breakdown, PTAB section, and litigation footprint in the previously generated sections above. I do not repeat the claim text or the continuity chain here; I reference them.

1. Legal framework and the analytical gate

2. Prior-art references available on this record

I have screened each against the March 1, 2001 critical date.

⚠️ Limitation on this record: the Google Patents rendering supplied did not include the '586's front-page "References Cited" (PTO-892) list, so I cannot confirm what the examiner actually had before him. Several numbers/dates above (Shiga, Zyskowski, De Iuliis, Yang, Matsumoto) come from petitioner exhibit lists and an advocacy declaration (Baker), not from independent verification. Treat those as leads to verify.

3. Element-by-element mapping

4. The obviousness combinations

Ground A — Morita + knowledge of a POSITA (the ground the Board adopted)

Targets claims 1, 2, 8, 9. This is the combination on which IPR2021-00599's Final Written Decision (Aug. 23, 2022) held all challenged claims unpatentable over Morita and/or the knowledge of a skilled artisan under § 103(a). The Board applied the "power source type" construction and reasoned that claim 1 — unlike claim 5 — "only recites 'the mobile device is configured to detect an identification signal…' with no other structure or functions." Morita discloses the USB charger, the V-bus charge path, and a phone responsive to the data-line state; the USB 2.0 specification supplies the SE1 state that a POSITA would pull high to distinguish a charger from a host/hub.

Ground B — Morita + Casebolt (+ Shiga / Zyskowski / Kerai)

Targets claims 1, 2, 8, 9 and the dependent voltage-level claims.

• What each adds: Casebolt's Table 1 and controller 144 show SE1 used as a special in-band signaling state whose entire purpose is to tell the attached device what kind of port/adapter it is plugged into — that is, a power/interface-type identification function, which is exactly the construction the Board adopted. Shiga shows SE1 used as a wake-up state when USB communication is unavailable; Zyskowski shows SE1 correlated with a "full power state"; Kerai shows SE1 detection enabling charge draw.
• Motivation: Morita's adapter derives its power from a wall outlet, not from a host PC. In the configuration where no PC is attached, normal USB communication is impossible and the only data-line states available are SE0/SE1 — so the artisan "would have logically looked to the only other possible state of the data lines, that is, both D+ and D− being high" (Pet. at 49–50). The design need (charge a phone from an outlet-fed USB connector without waiting for a non-existent host) and the predictable solution (a defined, resistor-cheap SE1 state plus a voltage comparator) supply the KSR rationales of a known problem plus a predictable solution.

Ground C — Kerai (alone, or Kerai + Zyskowski + USB 2.0)

Targets claims 1, 5, 8, 11 — including the two claims the Board never reached.
Kerai is, on the device side, arguably the closest art in this record: a radio handset (wireless telecom device), a USB connector, a charging circuit powered via Vbus, and logic detectors 50 that sense a high state on each of D+/D− and then permit current to the battery-charging circuit 19 — i.e., a non-enumeration data-line condition recognized by the device as permission to charge. A POSITA would combine with Zyskowski for a plurality of charge modes (claim 11) and with USB 2.0 for the voltage thresholds and the 100 mA default, which supplies the reason to signal the higher-current state at all.

Ground D — Dougherty + Shiga (+ Casebolt)

Weakest of the four. This was tried and failed at institution against the '586 in IPR2018-00485, and against related claims in the reexaminations: the Board reasoned that Dougherty requires enumeration, a driver load, and power-rail negotiation before the dock will charge the laptop, so replacing that with SE1 is not a predictable substitution, and that Dougherty's laptop is not a "mobile device… configurable for use in a wireless telecommunications network." I would not lead with this ground for the '586.

5. Why a POSITA would have combined — the motivation story in one paragraph

Every reference in the record is aimed at the same pre-2001 problem: a USB-style connector is an attractive power port, but the USB specification makes the device wait for a host-initiated enumeration and caps the default draw at 100 mA (500 mA for a high-power function) — and the wall-outlet chargers users actually needed could not enumerate. Morita solves the mechanical/power half (an outlet-fed charger that delivers Vbus over a USB plug). Casebolt, Kerai, Shiga and Zyskowski establish the signaling half (SE1/the high-high data-line state as a cheap, defined, in-band way to announce "this is not a host; a non-enumerating power source is attached"), and Zyskowski plus Martensson supply the payoff (charge current can be selected/fast-charged once the source is known). A POSITA facing the ordinary design need — let the phone charge quickly from a travel charger without host participation — would combine these with a reasonable expectation of success because the implementation is a pair of pull-up resistors (or a resistance network), two threshold comparators, and existing firmware.

6. Counterarguments and residual vulnerabilities (what a challenger must still beat)

These are the arguments that won for the patent owner at least once, and they define where the § 103 case is soft:

(a) "Identification of a power source type." PO's central and apparently successful theme was that SE1 in the prior art signals other conditions — a PS/2 adapter's presence (Casebolt), wake-up (Shiga), a power state (Zyskowski), charge-from-data-lines (Kerai) — not the type of power source. Because the district court/Board construction requires the latter, the combination must bridge that gap expressly rather than by label.

(b) Inoperability / teaching away. SE1 is not a valid USB data state; holding both lines high disables USB communication. Morita's charger exists to let a videophone use peripheral devices through a hub. PO successfully argued that layering SE1 onto Morita "would have rendered Morita inoperable for its intended purpose," and that under In re Ratti-type reasoning the primary reference cannot be modified in a way that destroys its stated function. Any '586 challenge that uses Morita as lead must answer this. Kerai (Ground C) largely sidesteps it, because Kerai's own devices already charge from the data-line high state — there is no intact host-enumeration function to destroy.

(c) The "before enumeration… recognized" limitations (claims 5, 11). The Board expressly noted that claim 5 adds "a microprocessor and memory usable to process the received signal" and recognition of a charging connection, and that claim 1 does not. Claims 5–7 and 11–13 were not instituted in IPR2021-00599 and were never adjudicated. For these, the challenger needs an explicit controller/recognition disclosure — Casebolt's controller 144 (which times the SE1 condition and reconfigures itself) and Kerai's interface ASIC 21 are the best available, and the "plurality of charge modes" in claim 11 requires Zyskowski or Kerai's own multi-mode operation.

(d) § 102(e) date diligence. Zyskowski (and any De Iuliis/Matsumoto art) must be shown to have an effective filing date before March 1, 2001 to be usable at all against the '586.

(e) Claim 4's antecedent-basis anomaly. Claim 4 depends from claim 1 and recites "the identification subsystem," which claim 1 never introduces. Independently of § 103, this is a § 112(b) indefiniteness target under Nautilus, and a claim-construction problem in any district court case. I flag it as printed, not as a correction.

(f) "A resistance between the D+ and D− data lines" (claims 3, 7, 10, 13). Casebolt's resistors 156/164 pull each line to Vcc, which is a resistance to a supply, not between the two lines. Yang's two pull-ups have the same shape. Unless a reference is produced showing a resistance coupled across D+ and D− (or a divider network between them), this limitation is the least well-supported in the whole ground set, and it is the element most likely to survive.

7. Bottom line

Most likely-to-succeed ground for the un-adjudicated claims: Kerai in view of Zyskowski and the USB 2.0 Specification — because Kerai is a wireless handset whose own charging circuit is enabled by detecting the D+/D− high state, which maps onto claims 5 and 11 without needing to modify an enumeration-dependent hub charger and without the In re Ratti inoperability problem that defeated the Morita/Dougherty-based theories.

8. Caveats, conflicts, and verification needed

1. Contradiction check. The prior section reports that IPR2021-00599's Final Written Decision held claims 1, 2, 8, 9 unpatentable. The newly retrieved excerpts from the FWD and PTACTS record are consistent with that, but the retrieved FWD text also contains institution-stage language ("Petitioner establishes a reasonable likelihood…"). The two stages should not be conflated; the final disposition should be read off the FWD's conclusion.
2. Prior-art record incompleteness. The Google Patents page supplied contains a forward-citation list ("Families Citing this family (152)") and the litigation/PTAB history, but not the '586's own "References Cited." Consequently the analysis above is built from the IPR/reexam record (Morita, Casebolt, Kerai, Shiga, Dougherty, Zyskowski, USB specs), which is where the real § 103 fight occurred.
3. Unverified identifiers. Casebolt (US 6,625,790) is well corroborated. Kerai's grant number (US 6,531,845) and Shiga's (US 6,625,738) come from petitioner exhibit lists/declarations; Zyskowski, Yang, De Iuliis, Matsumoto dates are unverified. Confirm each against USPTO Patent Center before relying on it.
4. Status note. The '586 is Expired – Fee Related with an anticipated expiration of 2022-03-01 (per the record above), which limits current injunctive/damages exposure but does not affect the § 103 analysis.
5. No objective indicia (unexpected results, long-felt need, industry praise, licensing) appear in the materials I retrieved. If FISI has proffered secondary-considerations evidence, it must be weighed against the prima facie case.
6. Date discrepancy. The task header states April 26, 2026; the source fetch timestamp on the authoritative text is 2026-09-21. Nothing in this analysis turns on the difference.