US 8232766

Summary — US Patent 8,232,766 B2

Important caveat on scope of search: I was able to pull the full authoritative text of the patent itself and to identify the PTAB district-court matters associated with it. However, I could not confirm any Federal Circuit docket in 2026 for this specific patent (see "Litigation status" below). My web searches for "(8232766) 2026 Federal Circuit" returned no matching docket; the 2026 CAFC items that surfaced were unrelated cases (e.g., Contour IP Holding LLC v. GoPro, Inc., Fed. Cir. No. 2026‑2012). I am flagging that as an unresolved gap rather than asserting the absence of an appeal.

---

Bibliographic data (from the patent text / Google Patents record)

Source: https://patents.google.com/patent/US8232766/en

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."

Note a drafting tension worth flagging: the abstract and much of the specification describe the adapter/source side, but every granted independent claim is written from the mobile‑device side (i.e., the device that detects the signal and decides how much current it may draw). This reflects the layered continuation lineage — the family includes adapter‑focused parents (US 6,936,936; 7,239,111; 7,453,233; 7,737,657; 7,834,586; 7,986,127) and device‑focused children.

Continuation chain (as recited in the patent)

13/175,509 ← continuation of 12/905,934 (now US 7,986,127, "Communication device with a USB port for charging") ← 12/714,204 (US 7,834,586) ← 12/268,297 (US 7,737,657) ← 11/749,680 (US 7,453,233) ← 11/175,885 (US 7,239,111) ← 10/087,629 (US 6,936,936), claiming priority from provisional 60/273,021 (2001‑03‑01) and 60/330,486 (2001‑10‑23). Co‑filed sibling: 13/175,487 (US 8,169,187); child: 13/536,767 (US 8,624,550).

---

Plain-language overview of the independent claims

Claim 1 — Mobile device with a USB communication path.
A mobile device has a USB communication path and a charging subsystem. The charging subsystem is "enabled" to draw current unrestricted by at least one predetermined USB Specification limit. The trigger for that enablement is an "abnormal USB data condition" detected on the USB communication path — i.e., the device notices something non‑standard on the data lines and, on that basis alone, is permitted to exceed the normal USB current cap. (Dependent claims narrow this: the limit is a current limit (2), the enablement occurs without USB enumeration (3), the path has D+/D− (4), the abnormal condition is an abnormal condition on both D+ and D− (5), a logic high on each of D+ and D− (6), a 500 mA limit (7), and "greater than 2 V" logic highs (8).)

Claim 9 — Mobile device, additionally requiring VBUS to be externally powered.
Same as claim 1, but adds a USB VBUS line, and the unrestricted‑power enablement is responsive to two conditions: (a) the VBUS line being externally powered, and (b) an abnormal USB data condition on the communication path. In other words, this claim requires the device to see both "someone is supplying power on VBUS" and "the data lines look abnormal" before lifting the USB limit. (Dependents mirror claim 1's narrowing: current limit (10), no enumeration (11), D+/D− (12), abnormal condition on both (13), logic high on each (14), 500 mA (15), > 2 V (16).)

Claim 17 — Method of charging.
A method for a mobile device having a charging subsystem and a USB communication path. Two branches: (i) if an identification signal is detected on the path, draw current in excess of at least one USB‑Specification‑defined limit; (ii) if that identification signal is not detected, draw current in accordance with the USB Specification. This is the "recognize‑and‑exceed vs. fall back to spec" behavior described in the FIG. 3 flow (steps 220–260). (Dependents: limit is a USB current limit (18), the identification signal includes an abnormal signal on the path (19), path has D+/D− (20), abnormal signal is logic highs on both D+ and D− (21), 500 mA limit (22), logic highs > 2 V (23).)

Claim 24 — Mobile device with specific numeric thresholds, no enumeration.
A mobile device with a USB communication path that includes D+ and D− lines, and a charging subsystem enabled to draw current in excess of 500 mA. The enablement is responsive to signals in excess of 2 V detected at each of D+ and D−, and it occurs without USB enumeration. This is the most numerically specific independent claim — it essentially hard‑codes the ">2 V on both D+ and D− ⇒ draw >500 mA, skip enumeration" logic that the specification describes as the preferred identification scheme.

Common technical thread: all four independent claims turn on the device drawing power outside the ordinary USB limits when it senses a non‑standard ("abnormal") data‑line signature — and, in claims 1/3/11/24, doing so without completing USB enumeration.

---

Litigation / PTAB status for this patent (from search results)

The Google Patents record and IPR databases list the following proceedings naming 8,232,766:

• IPR2018‑00214 — ZTE (USA) Inc. et al. v. Fischer et al., filed Jan. 12, 2018; institution denied (decision Sept. 5, 2018). https://ipverse.greyb.com/ptab-web/cases/case-details/IPR2018-00214
• IPR2018‑00215 — filed Jan. 12, 2018; listed "Not Instituted – Merits."
• IPR2018‑00472 — [Huawei Device Co., Ltd.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/Huawei%20Device%20Co.%2C%20Ltd.) v. Fundamental Innovation Systems International LLC, filed Jan. 11, 2018.
• IPR2018‑00508 — LG Electronics, Inc., filed Jan. 17, 2018.
• IPR2021‑00598 — TCT Mobile (US), Inc. et al. v. Fundamental Innovation Systems International LLC et al., filed Feb. 26, 2021 (respondent application 13/175,509, art unit 2800); Institution Decision: Deny, Aug. 30, 2021; petitioner refund request Sept. 24, 2021. https://ipverse.greyb.com/ptab-web/cases/case-details/IPR2021-00598
• District court matters listed on the patent page include E.D. Tex. 2:20‑cv‑00117; a Patexia listing identifies that docket as Fundamental Innovation Systems International, LLC v. Coolpad Group Limited et al., filed Apr. 23, 2020. Also listed: 3:17‑cv‑01827 (N.D. Tex.), 1:20‑cv‑00552 and 1:20‑cv‑00551 (D. Del.), 2:19‑cv‑00048, 2:17‑cv‑00145, 2:16‑cv‑01424, 2:17‑cv‑00124, 2:16‑cv‑01425 (E.D. Tex.), 3:19‑cv‑00638 and 3:19‑cv‑03144 (N.D. Cal.), 1:20‑cv‑21721 (S.D. Fla.).
• The '766 patent was one of five asserted by FISI against Apple (along with 6,936,936; 7,239,111; 7,834,586; and 8,624,550), per the E.D. Tex. complaint and contemporaneous reporting.

Caveats on secondary reporting: One Chinese-language news item states that "PTAB 否决了涉案的其他专利" (the PTAB "rejected" the other asserted patents). That characterization is imprecise — what the records show for '766 is institution denied, not a final written decision cancelling claims. Institution denial leaves the patent's claims intact.

On the CAFC 2026 question: I found no confirmed Federal Circuit 2026 docket tied to 8,232,766 or to Fundamental Innovation Systems in the searches I ran. I cannot rule out a pending appeal (e.g., arising from the Apple N.D. Cal. / E.D. Tex. matters or the 2020 Coolpad cases), but I have no authoritative docket citation for it. Treat any claim of a 2026 CAFC appeal as unverified.

Bottom line

US 8,232,766 is a Research In Motion/BlackBerry continuation (now owned by Fundamental Innovation Systems International LLC) covering the now‑ubiquitous behavior of a mobile device detecting a non‑standard USB data signature and charging outside normal USB current limits without enumeration. Its four independent claims (1, 9, 17, 24) are all device‑side "detect abnormal USB condition ⇒ draw more current" claims, with claim 24 pinning the values at >2 V on D+ and D− and >500 mA. It survived five IPR petitions (all institution‑denied) and was asserted in the FISI campaigns against Apple and others; it expired for fee‑related reasons with an anticipated expiration of 2022‑03‑01.

I'll research litigation involving US Patent 8,232,766. Let me run several searches.

Let me gather more details on the district court cases, outcomes, and the Anker litigation.

Litigation Involving U.S. Patent No. 8,232,766

Scope note. I researched this using patent-litigation sources (Unified Patents litigation portal links surfaced on the Google Patents page for the '766 patent, Docket Alarm, CourtListener, PTAB/IPR dockets, and law-firm/Law360/IAM reporting). I was able to confirm the existence and case identity of a set of suits in which the '766 patent was asserted, but I hit a hard limit on further searching before I could independently verify the final disposition of every individual docket. I flag uncertainty explicitly below rather than guess.

Ownership context (relevant to who is the plaintiff). The '766 patent issued to Research In Motion Ltd., was renamed to BlackBerry Limited, and was assigned to Fundamental Innovation Systems International LLC ("FISI") (supported by Centerbridge Partners), which is the asserting plaintiff in all matters below. The patent is part of a large continuation family (see my earlier sections), and FISI typically asserted the '766 patent alongside siblings such as U.S. Pat. Nos. 6,936,936; 7,239,111; 7,834,586; 8,624,550; and 7,893,655.

---

1. District Court Litigation Asserting the '766 Patent

Related Coolpad/Texas filings appearing in Google Patents' litigation links for this family include E.D. Tex. 2:20-cv-00119 and 2:17-cv-00124; I could not confirm these against the '766 patent specifically before the search limit, so I list them as "possible/related, unverified."

Reported aggregate disposition. A Korean IP trade article (ipdaily.co.kr, Mar. 11, 2025) stated that FISI brought roughly 20 suits between 2016 and 2021 and that, except for the Anker Innovations case, all were voluntarily dismissed or settled. Treat that as secondary-source reporting, not a docket-by-docket verification.

---

2. PTAB Proceedings (adversarial, not district-court "litigation," but directly on the '766 patent)

All were filed by device makers as petitioners against FISI, and every petition was denied institution:

Sources: FISI's Updated Mandatory Notice in IPR2018-00215 (Docket Alarm); IPR2018-00214 and IPR2021-00598 case pages (GreyB/IPVerse); Docket Alarm search results for patent:8232766.

Claim-construction note. The Samsung and LG/Huawei cases produced Markman orders on the shared '936-family specification that were cited in the IPRs (e.g., the LG/Huawei construction order, Apr. 2, 2018, covering the '586 and '766 patents).

---

3. Important Caution — A Case Often Miscited to the '766 Patent

The best-known FISI trial win — the Delaware jury verdict of ~$13.6–14 million against Anker Innovations Co. (March 7, 2025) — did not involve the '766 patent. The patents asserted against Anker were U.S. Pat. Nos. 7,239,111; 8,624,550; 7,453,233; and 6,936,936 (per Law360 and IAM reporting and the Korean trade press). Do not attribute that verdict to the '766 patent. A separate Florida Southern District case linked on the Google Patents page (1:20-cv-21721) is also part of the broader family activity but I could not verify '766 was asserted in it.

---

4. Summary

• The '766 patent was asserted in at least eight district-court infringement actions (LG, Huawei, Samsung, ZTE, Apple, Coolpad, Lenovo, TCT Mobile), all brought by Fundamental Innovation Systems International LLC.
• Confirmed outcomes: Samsung — settled; LG/Huawei — stayed/settled; Apple — reported settled; secondary sources report the remainder (except Anker) were dismissed or settled.
• Five IPR petitions (ZTE/Samsung ×2, Huawei, LG, TCT Mobile) were all denied institution, leaving the '766 claims intact at the PTAB.
• No district-court judgment of infringement, invalidity, or unenforceability against the '766 patent itself was confirmed in my search.

Confidence caveats: Defendant lists, case numbers, and filing dates are grounded in the sources cited. Exact filing dates for the Coolpad, Lenovo, and TCT Mobile suits, and the final dispositions of the ZTE, Coolpad, Lenovo, and TCT Mobile suits, were not independently verified before I reached my research limit — they should be confirmed against PACER/Docket Navigator before being relied on.

I'll reconcile the structured ODP block against the litigation data embedded in the patent record and verify with live searches.

The searches confirm several proceedings. Let me pull details on the remaining IPRs.

PTAB Proceedings on US 8,232,766

⚠️ Source-conflict flag (read first)

The structured "PTAB proceedings on file" block in my prompt states the ODP API "returns no AIA trial proceedings for this patent." That block is stale or wrong. The Google Patents record for US8232766B2 that was supplied as authoritative text contains its own PTAB litigation metadata listing five AIA trial proceedings (IPR2018-00214, IPR2018-00215, IPR2018-00472, IPR2018-00508, IPR2021-00598), each labeled "Not Instituted - Merits," and live web search independently corroborates them. I am therefore reporting the five real proceedings rather than the empty block, and flagging the discrepancy per your instruction to surface older/unindexed proceedings.

---

Proceedings overview

Five Inter Partes Reviews have been filed against US 8,232,766; all five were either denied institution on the merits or dismissed pre-institution (no trial was ever instituted, so no Final Written Decision exists and no claim has ever been canceled at the PTAB). The bottom line for a defendant: the patent has never been invalidated and carries a 5-for-5 record of surviving institution-stage challenges — but because no IPR ever reached an FWD, no § 315(e) estoppel attaches to any petitioner, so the IPR door is still open to you (you will just need materially better art than ZTE/Samsung/TCT brought).

---

IPR2018-00214 — ZTE (USA) Inc. (with Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. & [Samsung Electronics America, Inc.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/Samsung%20Electronics%20America%2C%20Inc.)) v. Fundamental Innovation Systems International LLC

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2018-01-12
• Status: Institution Denied (ODP label: "Not Instituted - Merits")
• Judge panel: Lynne E. Pettigrew, Jon B. Tornquist, Arthur M. Peslak (per Patexia record; Pettigrew listed as author of the decision)
• Petition grounds: Challenged all claims 1–24. Statutory basis and specific art are stated in the petition ('214), but I could not verify the ground-by-ground art list in the public snippets — treat the § 102/§ 103 specifics as unconfirmed rather than assume them.
• Institution decision: Denied. Patent Owner filed its Preliminary Response on 2018-04-30; the Board denied institution rather than institute trial. The denial was on the merits, i.e., Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one claim.
• Final Written Decision: None — trial was never instituted. No claim was canceled or sustained on the merits.
• Settlement / termination: Samsung settled with Patent Owner on 2018-07-06 and moved for dismissal; the Board granted Samsung's dismissal and dismissed Samsung's petition on 2018-07-18, leaving ZTE as the sole remaining petitioner. The settlement agreement was filed "Only to Board" as business-confidential under 37 C.F.R. § 42.74 and kept separate from the patent's file — terms are confidential.
• Appeal: None. Denials of institution are unreviewable under 35 U.S.C. § 314(d)/Cuozzo; no FWD existed to appeal.
• Defensive value: The Board found ZTE's/Samsung's art insufficient to even open trial. That is a data point about their art, not a merits adjudication of '766 — it does not insulate the claims from a better-constructed petition.

---

IPR2018-00215 — ZTE (USA) Inc. (with Samsung) v. Fundamental Innovation Systems International LLC

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2018-01-12
• Status: Institution Denied (ODP label: "Not Instituted - Merits")
• Judge panel: Jo-Anne M. Kokoski, Lynne E. Pettigrew, Paul J. Korniczky (Patexia); Docket Alarm's caption for the related dismissal order lists the expanded panel Bryan F. Moore, Lynne E. Pettigrew, Jo-Anne M. Kokoski, Jon B. Tornquist, Paul J. Korniczky, and Arthur M. Peslak.
• Petition grounds: Filed in parallel with '214 against the '766 patent; Patent Owner's Preliminary Response in this case included the Declaration of Robert Baranowski (Ex. 2009). Specific art/§ basis unconfirmed in the retrieved snippets.
• Institution decision: Denied after POPR (Patent Owner's POPR filed 2018-04-30; Board's institution decision was due 2018-07-30). No trial instituted.
• Final Written Decision: None.
• Settlement / termination: Same Samsung settlement (2018-07-06) → Board dismissed Samsung from IPR2018-00215 on 2018-07-18 (along with '214, '274, and '276), with the settlement agreement held business-confidential. ZTE remained a petitioner and its petition was denied institution on the merits — no FWD, no claim canceled.
• Appeal: None (institution denial is non-appealable).
• Defensive value: Same as '214 — a second bite from the same petitioners was rejected at the threshold. Combined with '214, ZTE/Samsung consumed two shots at '766 and got zero institution.

---

IPR2021-00598 — TCT Mobile (US), Inc. et al. v. Fundamental Innovation Systems International LLC

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2021-02-26
• Status: Institution Denied (ODP label: "Not Instituted - Merits")
• Judge panel: Not verified in the retrieved record — do not assume a panel composition.
• Petition grounds: "Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent 8,232,766" filed 2021-02-26; patent owner's application number 13/175,509, Tech Center 2800. Specific challenged claims and art unconfirmed.
• Institution decision: Denied, decision date 2021-08-30 (Board paper "Institution Decision: Deny"). A Petitioner "Notice" paper appears on 2021-09-24. This denial falls in the post-Fintiv era (co-pending district court litigation), so discretionary denial under § 314(a) is a real possibility — but I did not retrieve the panel's stated reasoning and therefore do not attribute the denial to Fintiv as fact.
• Final Written Decision: None.
• Settlement / termination: No settlement identified; proceeding terminated on the denial.
• Appeal: None (institution denial non-appealable).
• Defensive value: The most recent challenge — a Tier-1 handset maker (TCT/Alcatel) — was refused a trial. Practically, this is the strongest single signal that getting '766 into an IPR trial is difficult; a defendant should expect an institution-stage fight and a possible Fintiv discretionary-denial argument if litigation is already pending.

---

IPR2018-00472 — Petitioner not verified v. Fundamental Innovation Systems International LLC

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2018 (exact date not verified — petition number sequence places it in the first quarter of 2018)
• Status: Institution Denied (ODP label: "Not Instituted - Merits") — this is the verbatim status carried in the patent's own PTAB metadata.
• Judge panel: Not verified.
• Petition grounds: Not verified — I was unable to retrieve the petition or decision text within my search budget.
• Institution decision: Denied (merits). Date and reasoning not retrieved.
• Final Written Decision: None.
• Settlement / termination: Not identified.
• Appeal: None identified.
• Defensive value: Confirms a fourth unsuccessful attempt to reach trial on '766. I am explicitly not naming a petitioner here because I could not confirm one — Docket Alarm/Patexia identify these 2018 filings by number only in the snippets I retrieved, and I will not guess between the known 2018 '766 challengers (ZTE/Samsung and Huawei).

---

IPR2018-00508 — Petitioner not verified v. Fundamental Innovation Systems International LLC

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2018 (exact date not verified)
• Status: Institution Denied (ODP label: "Not Instituted - Merits")
• Judge panel: Not verified.
• Petition grounds: Not verified.
• Institution decision: Denied (merits). Date and reasoning not retrieved.
• Final Written Decision: None.
• Settlement / termination: Not identified.
• Appeal: None identified.
• Defensive value: Fifth unsuccessful attempt; same caveats as '472.

Verification gap: For '472, '508, and '598, the challenged-claim lists, exact art, and panel names are not in the sources I could reach. These are public at PTAB E2E / PTAB Decisions and should be pulled directly before relying on them in a brief.

---

Strategic summary

Claim status. No claim of US 8,232,766 has been canceled by the PTAB, because no IPR was ever instituted — there is no Final Written Decision to point to. The claims are therefore all SUSTAINED-BY-DEFAULT / UNTESTED in the AIA-trial sense. For assertion-mapping purposes, claims 1–24 all remain live on the PTAB record. (Separately, the district courts have construed key terms — e.g., "USB" and "USB controller" — in the E.D. Tex. Samsung and LG cases, and the Delaware court in Fundamental Innovation Sys. Int'l v. Lenovo granted Fundamental summary judgment that the 2011 Motorola cross-license does not cover Lenovo's own accused products, while MML's own products were licensed through 2020-05-30. Those are district-court issues, not PTAB outcomes, and do not cancel any claim.)

Estoppel landscape. This is the strategically important point. § 315(e)(2) estoppel requires an IPR that "results in a final written decision." Here, five petitions produced zero FWDs (all denials or a pre-institution dismissal), so no petitioner — not ZTE, not Samsung, not TCT, and not whoever filed '472/'508 — is estopped from raising any ground in district court or in a future IPR. Samsung in particular obtained a dismissal pre-institution, which under Board practice (e.g., Samsung v. …, IPR2015-01270, Paper 11) avoids estoppel altogether. For a defendant being asserted today, the full universe of prior art is available; you inherit no adverse estoppel from the earlier petitioners. The only practical constraints are (a) § 315(b)'s one-year bar running from service of your complaint, (b) § 325(d) discretion to reject art already before the Office, and (c) the Board's demonstrated reluctance to institute on this patent.

Pattern signals. The challengers are defendants, not a defensive aggregator: the patent's own litigation metadata shows ZTE and Samsung jointly filed six IPRs across Fundamental's Fischer-family patents (the '111, '214/'215, '274, '276 set, per the 2018-07-12 telephonic-hearing transcript), with Huawei Device filing separately (e.g., IPR2018-00485). The family has been asserted against Samsung, ZTE, LG, Huawei, Lenovo/Motorola, and TCT in E.D. Tex., N.D. Tex., D. Del., N.D. Cal., and S.D. Fla. No PTAB FWD and no resulting Federal Circuit appeal appear in the record — the "survival" of '766 is a survival of institution-stage discretionary and merits screening, not a merits vindication. Note also the patent expired (fee-related) effective 2022-03-01 (20 years from the 2001-03-01 priority), which caps prospective damages and may reduce challengers' appetite for a new IPR.

---

Recommended next steps

1. Do not rely on the ODP "no PTAB activity" block. It is contradicted by the patent's own embedded litigation metadata and by public records. Pull the actual papers from PTAB E2E (https://ptab.uspto.gov) and PTAB Decisions for IPR2018-00214, IPR2018-00215, IPR2018-00472, IPR2018-00508, and IPR2021-00598 to lock down panels, grounds, and denial reasoning. Corroborating public records: Docket Alarm (https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2018-00215/ZTE_%28USA%29_Inc._v._Fundamental_Innovation_Systems_International_LLC/), GreyB ipVerse (https://ipverse.greyb.com/ptab-web/cases/case-details/IPR2021-00598), and the 2018-07-18 dismissal order (https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2018-00276/Inter_Partes_Review_of_U.S._Pat._7239111/docs/07-18-2018-Board/Order-12-...pdf).

2. If you are a defendant: you cannot point to a canceled claim — none exists. Your IPR path is open but uphill: five prior petitions failed at institution. Before filing, (i) confirm whether the Board relied on § 314(a)/Fintiv in IPR2021-00598 — if so, factor the discretionary-denial risk into a co-pending-litigation strategy (consider stipulating to a litigation schedule / not asserting the same art in court, per the Fintiv / Sotera line); and (ii) differentiate from the ZTE/Samsung/TCT art so you don't get § 325(d)'d as "substantially the same prior art."

3. If you are the patent owner (or licensing against these claims): the 5-for-5 institution record is a genuine negotiating asset, but no FWD backs it, so claims 1–24 carry zero PTAB-vetted validity. Expect challengers to argue the earlier denials reflect weak art rather than strong claims. Note the 2022-03-01 expiration when setting damages/licensing positions.

4. Nothing to appeal. There is no FWD, so there is no live Federal Circuit appeal tied to '766 (institution denials are unreviewable under § 314(d)/Cuozzo). If you later need CAFC precedent tied to this family, check CourtListener by party name Fundamental Innovation Systems International rather than by patent number.

Caveat: I have not fabricated any proceeding number, petitioner, panel, or disposition. Where the record was unreachable ('472, '508, and the ground-level details of '598), I have said so explicitly rather than filling the gap.

I'll research this patent's assignment record and litigation/assertion history.

Ownership Reconstruction — US 8,232,766 B2 ("Multifunctional charger system and method")

Data-access caveat up front. The authoritative assignment records live in USPTO Patent Assignment Search (Assignment Center / assignment.uspto.gov). My research tools return web-search results only; I could not open the reel/frame images directly. Dates, conveyance types, assignors, and assignees below are corroborated across Google Patents legal events, RPX, IAM, and a District of Delaware opinion. Reel/frame numbers and the attorney "correspondent of record" were NOT retrievable through the sources available to me and are flagged accordingly rather than guessed. Two reel/frame hits that surfaced in search (5434/0364; 5702/0386; 5714/0161) belong to an unrelated trademark assignment in a TTAB opposition file and are not part of this chain — I am expressly excluding them.

---

Inventors

• All five assignors named in the recorded inventor→company assignment (recorded 2011-07-05, assignee Research In Motion Limited; assignors FISCHER, HABICHER, LUONG, MALTON, RADUT — per Google Patents legal events).
• This is a continuation application (filed 2011-07-01, US 13/175,509) claiming priority to 2001-03-01. The inventive work dates to the 2001–2002 RIM era, so employer at first filing was RIM.
• Unusual-pattern check: not determinable. No inventor-departure data is available in the sources I can reach. I found no evidence of inventor exodus preceding a fire-sale; that claim should not be made.

---

Original assignee

Research In Motion Limited (RIM) — later BlackBerry Limited (the RIM→BlackBerry name change recorded 2013-11-03; BlackBerry Limited is the successor-in-interest named in the Delaware opinion).

• Primary line of business: RIM was the dominant wireless handheld/smartphone maker (BlackBerry devices) in the 2000s; it is now a publicly traded enterprise software and cybersecurity company (NYSE: BB). Status: operating. Not bankrupt, not dissolved.
• Did it ship a product embodying the claims? Yes — the patent's entire premise is charging a BlackBerry-class mobile device over a USB port without enumeration, using an identification subsystem in the adapter. RIM shipped USB wall/car adapters and handsets practicing this scheme. This satisfies the "operating company with a real product" half of the origin story.
• Note: the patent's own specification (col. referencing US Prov. 60/273,021) describes the charger implementation that RIM commercialized.

---

Assignment timeline

Format note: the Assignment Center reel/frame and correspondent fields are shown as [not retrieved] where I could not verify them. Do not treat these as blank records — they exist; they simply were not machine-readable in my session.

• 2011-07-05 (recorded) — Reel [not retrieved]

  • Conveyance: Assignment (inventor → company)
  • Assignor: Daniel M. Fischer; Michael F. Habicher; Quang A. Luong; Jonathan T. Malton; Dan G. Radut
  • Assignee: Research In Motion Limited
  • Correspondent: [not retrieved]
  • Context: Routine inventor assignment perfecting RIM's title in the 2011 continuation.

• 2013-11-03 (recorded) — Reel [not retrieved]

  • Conveyance: Change of Name
  • Assignor: Research In Motion Limited
  • Assignee: BlackBerry Limited
  • Correspondent: [not retrieved]
  • Context: Internal corporate rename only — no change in beneficial ownership.

• 2015-12-17 (recorded) — Reel [not retrieved]

  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: BlackBerry Limited
  • Assignee: Fundamental Innovation Systems International LLC (FISI)
  • Correspondent: [not retrieved]
  • Context: Transfer to asserter. Part of a multi-million-dollar BlackBerry→Centerbridge Partners transaction (executed Nov 2015), reported as ~200 patent assets plus foreign counterparts; FISI formed in Delaware in 2015.

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

  • Conveyance: Assignment (second recording, same assignor/assignee pair)
  • Assignor: BlackBerry Limited
  • Assignee: Fundamental Innovation Systems International LLC
  • Correspondent: [not retrieved]
  • Context: Looks like a second tranche or corrective/confirmatory recording roughly 12 months after the first; consistent with a large multi-asset portfolio being recorded across more than one cover sheet.

• Family-level, not separately recorded against the '766 asset: intra-family continuation filings (US 13/175,487 on 2011-07-01; US 13/536,767 on 2012-06-28) and the parent chain (10/087,629 → 11/175,885 → 11/749,680 → 12/268,297 → 12/714,204 → 12/905,934 → 13/175,509). These are prosecution-family events, not ownership transfers.

• No defensive-aggregator assignment. In Oct/Nov 2019 FISI signed an RPX license giving RPX members coverage on the USB-charging patents (IAM, 2019-11-08). That is a license, not an assignment — FISI remained the owner. Therefore the chain does NOT terminate at a defensive aggregator.

Verification links: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ · https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html (search "8232766").

---

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 8232766
    2001 : Priority date for the family
    2002 : Original application filed
    2011 : Continuation filed as 13/175509
         : Inventors assign to Research In Motion
    2012 : Issued as US 8232766
    2013 : RIM renamed BlackBerry Limited
    2015 : BlackBerry assigns to FISI
    2016 : Second FISI assignment recorded
         : FISI litigation campaign begins
    2019 : RPX license covers members

---

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — PRESENT.
BlackBerry Limited assigned the asset to Fundamental Innovation Systems International LLC, a Delaware LLC formed in 2015 (RPX, 2021-03-05), which holds no products. FISI is described by RPX as "an NPE with active campaigns" and as "Backed by the private equity firm Centerbridge Partners… asserting former BlackBerry patents." Texas public records tie FISI to "governing persons" Kapu Kumar, Paul Seaman, Paul Riley, and Eugene Davis (RPX, 2021-03-05). This is concrete: single-purpose LLC, no commerce, PE-funded, licensing-only. Recorded at 2015-12-17 (plus the 2016-12-01 follow-on).

2. Known asserter in the chain — PRESENT.
The current assignee (per Google Patents) is Fundamental Innovation Systems International LLC, independently tagged as an NPE / high-frequency plaintiff by RPX and IAM: "has filed roughly 20 suits since late 2016" against Apple, Huawei, Samsung, LG, Lenovo, ZTE, TCL, Coolpad, Anker/Fantasia, Cyber Power, and others (RPX, 2021-03-05). It is not on the legacy lists you named (Acacia/Marathon/IV/Wi-LAN/etc.), but RPX and IAM both classify it as an NPE — that is the operative evidence. Strong signal.

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — UNCLEAR (data gap).
I could not retrieve the correspondent of record for any of the four reel/frame entries. This is the single most valuable field for your purpose and I am not going to invent a name. Action item: pull the four cover sheets in Assignment Center; a single recurring recording attorney across the 2011, 2013, 2015, and 2016 entries (or one attorney also recorded on the sibling assets 6,936,936 / 7,239,111 / 7,834,586 / 8,624,550 / 8,169,187) is the tell to look for. One related data point that is litigation counsel, not assignment correspondent: FISI's PTAB power of attorney in IPR2021-00410 appoints H. Annita Zhong as lead and is signed by Paul Riley for FISI (dated 2021-01-21). Do not conflate that with the assignment correspondent.

4. Cascading transfers — PRESENT (weak-to-moderate).
Two assignments to FISI within ~12 months (2015-12-17 and 2016-12-01), following the 2013 name-change recording, inside a ~200-asset portfolio sale. There is no evidence yet of multiple different chained LLCs (FISI is the same named assignee on both), so this is a two-step cascade rather than a classic multi-shell daisy chain. Additional separateness appears in the corporate layer — Fundamental Innovation Systems International Holdings LLC is named as FISI's parent and a co-real-party-in-interest in PTAB proceedings — but I did not find a recorded assignment of this patent to the Holdings entity.

5. Pre-litigation transfer — NOT PRESENT.
The transfer executed Nov 2015 (recorded 2015-12-17); FISI's first suits in this campaign were filed December 2016 (RPX, 2018-03-25 / 2019-02-09). That is roughly 12–13 months between transfer and first assertion — outside your 6-month window. The chain was not arranged on the courthouse steps.

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — NOT PRESENT.
BlackBerry was not in bankruptcy. This was a strategic monetization of non-core patents while BlackBerry remained a going concern (and later re-armed by retaining licenses in the separate 2022 Catapult IP Innovations deal, per press coverage). No Chapter 7/11 estate sale appears anywhere in this chain.

7. Privateering — UNCLEAR.
BlackBerry transferred to a Centerbridge-backed NPE that then sued a broad swath of BlackBerry's former handset competitors. That looks like privateering in shape. But my sources describe a straight multi-million-dollar sale (cash to BlackBerry), and I found no evidence BlackBerry retained a recovery share or directed the campaign. Without a revenue-share or control link, this is closer to a plain NPE divestiture than classic privateering. Mark unclear pending the actual purchase agreement.

8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — NOT PRESENT (as an endpoint).
FISI's 2019 RPX license gave RPX members coverage on the USB-charging patents, but ownership stayed with FISI; the campaign continued (e.g., March 2021 suits against Fantasia/Anker and Cyber Power). So the patent has been partially neutralized for RPX members but the chain does not terminate at a defensive aggregator. Inverse-signal test fails.

---

Verdict

NPE — high confidence.

Two strong signals are met. First, the asset moved from an operating, product-shipping assignee (Research In Motion / BlackBerry Limited) to a 2015-vintage Delaware LLC with no products, recorded 2015-12-17 and again 2016-12-01, funded by Centerbridge Partners (RPX 2021-03-05; Delaware opinion, 20-551). Second, the acquirer, Fundamental Innovation Systems International LLC, is independently identified by RPX and IAM as an NPE that has filed ~20 suits since late 2016 asserting these former-BlackBerry charging patents against Apple, Huawei, Samsung, LG, and others — the '766 patent itself being asserted in FISI v. LG Electronics, No. 2:16-cv-01425 (E.D. Tex.) and challenged in IPR2021-00598, IPR2018-00214, IPR2018-00508, IPR2018-00472, and IPR2018-00215 (all not instituted on the merits). The absence of a pre-litigation-window transfer (12–13 month gap) and the absence of any defensive-aggregator endpoint are noted but do not offset the first two signals.

Confidence limit: the verdict rests on the 2015/2016 assignments and the RPX/IAM characterization of FISI. Before filing anything, retrieve the four cover sheets at https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ to confirm reel/frame, execution dates, and the correspondent of record — signal #3 is the one gap I could not close, and it is often the strongest link in a chain like this.

I'll research this systematically. Let me start by searching for the patent itself and its cited references.

Let me get the complete list of references cited on the face of US8232766 and the IPR prior-art ground.

Let me pull the complete front-page reference list and the reexamination/IPR prior-art details.

Prior-Art Analysis — U.S. Patent No. 8,232,766 B2 ("Multifunctional Charger System and Method")

1. Number Verification (literal interpretation)

I confirmed the identifier 8232766 exactly as given. No digit substitution or auto-correction was applied.

Note on priority (relevant to what counts as prior art): The patent carries a nominal 2001-03-01 priority date, but the record shows the "abnormal USB data condition / logic-high >2 V / SE1" subject matter first appears in provisional 60/330,486 (2001-10-23), not in 60/273,021 (2001-03-01). In the ex parte reexamination, the requester argued the challenged claims are entitled at earliest to 2001-10-23, and the patent owner itself asserted an October 23, 2001 priority date in litigation. That effective date is the correct cut-off against which the § 102/§ 103 references below must be measured.

2. The Claims (basis for the anticipation mapping)

• Claim 1 — Mobile device: USB communication path + charging subsystem enabled to draw current unrestricted by at least one predetermined USB Specification limit, enablement responsive to an abnormal USB data condition detected at said path.
• Claims 2–8 — Dependents: current limit (2); without enumeration (3); D+/D− (4); abnormal line condition (5); logic high on each of D+/D− (6); 500 mA (7); >2 V (8).
• Claim 9 — Mobile device with USB path and VBUS line; unrestricted power draw responsive to VBUS externally powered and abnormal USB data condition.
• Claims 10–16 — Parallel dependents.
• Claim 17 — Method: upon detection of an identification signal, draw current in excess of a USB-defined limit; if not detected, draw in accordance with the USB Specification.
• Claims 18–23 — Dependents.
• Claim 24 — Mobile device: charging subsystem enabled to draw >500 mA, responsive to signals >2 V on each of D+ and D−, without enumeration.

3. References Cited on the Face of the Patent

The front-page "U.S. Patent References" list (as mirrored on FreePatentsOnline; the source listing was truncated in retrieval, so treat it as likely incomplete):

Important classification caveat: Three of these — US 7,986,127, US 7,834,586, and US 7,737,657 (all Fischer et al.) — are members of the same patent family / chain of continuations as the '766 patent. They share the same specification and priority chain and are therefore not prior art under § 102(a)/(b)/(e); they were cited for continuity/double-patenting reasons. (The '766 file history shows a non-final double-patenting rejection of all four then-pending claims, resolved by amendment.)

4. Prior Art Relied On in the Contested Proceedings (the substantive art)

Because the '766 patent is heavily litigated (FISI v. Samsung, LG, Huawei, ZTE; multiple IPRs — IPR2018-00214/-00215/-00472/-00508, IPR2021-00598, all Not Instituted – Merits — plus ex parte reexaminations 90/014885, 90/014886, 90/014887), the most probative prior art is the art actually asserted against it:

5. § 102 Anticipation Assessment (per reference / per claim)

A reference anticipates under § 102 only if it discloses every element of a claim in a single reference. On the record I retrieved, the invalidity theories actually run against the '766 patent were § 103 obviousness theories (Morita + POSITA knowledge; Matsumoto + Yang), not clean single-reference § 102 anticipations. I did not locate a reference that anticipates an independent claim as a sole reference with high confidence. The closest candidates, and the claims they touch, are:

Claim 1 / claim 9 (independent device claims):

• Morita is the closest art: it discloses a mobile device with a USB path and a charger that can supply power, and it discloses the SE1 abnormal data-line state. But the asserted theory was obviousness — that a POSITA would use SE1 as an identification signal so the phone draws current unrestricted. Morita alone was not shown to disclose "enabled to draw current unrestricted by a predetermined USB Specification limit responsive to an abnormal USB data condition." No confirmed § 102 anticipation.
• Takahashi, US 7,159,132 ("USB device that provides power that is different from power prescribed in the USB standard") is the most conceptually on-point single reference (it expressly departs from the USB standard power prescription), but it is directed to a power-providing device, and I cannot confirm on the retrieved record that it discloses a mobile device's charging subsystem being enabled in response to an abnormal data condition. Treat as a § 103 reference, not a § 102 anticipation, absent the full text.
• Veselic, US 7,170,259 / US 2007/0108938 disclose a "universal serial bus charger for a mobile device," but the disclosure centers on providing/negotiating charge current and does not, on the retrieved record, disclose the abnormal-data-condition-responsive enablement. § 103 candidate, not § 102.

Claim 17 (method claim):

• Veselic (US 7,170,259) and Purdy (US 7,884,570 / US 2009/0128091) disclose USB charging methods with detection of the attached source type; potential § 102 candidates only if a single reference discloses both prongs of claim 17 (draw in excess of the USB limit when the identification signal is detected; draw per the USB Specification when it is not). The retrieved excerpts do not establish that, so I flag it as unconfirmed.

Claim 24 (the >500 mA / >2 V on both D+/D− / no enumeration claim):

• Yang's adapter (two pull-up resistors → default high/high, i.e., SE1) + Matsumoto was asserted to render this family of limitations obvious. Yang alone arguably discloses the >2 V-on-both-lines identification structure, but not the mobile-device-side "draw >500 mA without enumeration" — so the combination theory was § 103, not § 102. No confirmed § 102 anticipation.

Dependent claims 2–8 and 10–16 (current limit / 500 mA / D+ & D− / logic-high / >2 V):

• These track the SE1 limitations. Martensson (US 5,923,146) supplies the ">500 mA fast charging" teaching; Shiga/Casebolt/Kerai/Zyskowski supply SE1 as a known identifying state. Together these support § 103 for the dependents; none is a standalone § 102 reference for the full claim.

US 7,698,490 (Terrell II, "Passive USB power configuration switching"), US 2010/0060233 (Kung, "Charger with USB detection"), US 2010/0052620 (Wong, "Battery charger IC including built-in USB detection"), US 7,631,111 (Monks), US 7,629,767 (Kang), and US 7,340,627 (Harvey) are each substantively relevant to USB source detection / exceeding standard charge current. On the retrieved material I cannot confirm any of them discloses all elements of any independent claim as a single reference; they are best classified as § 103 references.

6. Bottom Line

1. Identified patent: US 8,232,766 B2 (literal number confirmed), app. 13/175,509, priority chain to 2001-03-01 / 2001-10-23, now expired.
2. Face-of-patent references are dominated by same-family Fischer references (not prior art) and by USB-charging detection/current references (Veselic, Takahashi, Purdy, Monks, Kung, Wong, Terrell II, Kang, Harvey, Bayne, Lindholm).
3. The most probative prior art is litigated art: Morita (JP 2000-165513, 2000-06-16) as the primary reference, and Matsumoto in view of Yang —
   both asserted under § 103, not § 102.
4. § 102 conclusion: On the retrieved record, I did not confirm that any single cited reference anticipates a specific claim of the '766 patent. The invalidity theories actually advanced (and not instituted) were § 103 obviousness theories. The nearest single-reference candidates — Takahashi US 7,159,132 and Veselic US 7,170,259 — should be treated as § 103 references absent full-text verification of the "abnormal-data-condition-responsive enablement" limitation.

7. Confidence & Limitations

• High confidence: patent identity/dates/claims, family relationships, the existence and non-institution of the listed IPRs/reexams, and that Morita and Matsumoto+Yang were the principal asserted references (these are documented in PTAB/reexam papers).
• Medium confidence: the exact composition of the front-page reference table — my source listing was truncated ("US 2005/0269883 — Universal …"), so the list above is not certified complete. I did not directly retrieve the USPTO PatentCenter/Patent Full-Text "References Cited" table; confirm it directly against the official document before filing anything.
• Low confidence / explicitly unknown: a definitive per-claim § 102 anticipation mapping. I could not retrieve full texts of Takahashi, Veselic, Purdy, etc., so I will not assert that any one of them anticipates a specific claim as a sole reference.

Key sources consulted:

• Google Patents, US8232766B2 — https://patents.google.com/patent/US8232766B2/en
• FreePatentsOnline, 8232766 — https://www.freepatentsonline.com/8232766.html
• IPR2021-00598 Petition (challenging claims 1–24) — https://cmosedu.com/jbaker/expert_witness/2021/IPR2021_00598.pdf
• Ex Parte Reexamination 90/014885 (priority & Matsumoto/Yang analysis) — https://cmosedu.com/jbaker/expert_witness/2021/Ex_Parte_Reexamination_90_014885.pdf
• Ex Parte Reexamination 90/014886/90/014887 (Morita discussion) — cmosedu.com/jbaker/expert_witness/2021/
• PTAB decisions/rehearing papers, IPR2021-00597/-00598/-00599 — ptacts.uspto.gov and bannerwitcoff.com

If you want, I can next (a) attempt to retrieve the complete, official front-page reference table from USPTO PatentCenter, and (b) pull the full text of the two closest single-reference candidates (Takahashi US 7,159,132 and Veselic US 7,170,259) to firm up or eliminate a § 102 theory.

I'll ground this analysis in the actual prior-art record for the '766 patent (its IPR petitions and cited references) rather than working from memory.

Good — I now have the actual invalidity record. Let me pin down the specific references and the grounds asserted in the petitions.

Obviousness Analysis — US 8,232,766 B2 (35 U.S.C. § 103)

Analyst's note on the prior-art record. The Google Patents text supplied for this patent does not contain an examiner's "References Cited" / "Prior Art" list. The export jumps from the front page to litigation links and then to the forward citation tables ("Cited By (7)" and "Families Citing this family (153)") — none of which is § 102/§ 103 prior art. The prior-art set below is therefore taken from the parties' invalidity contentions of record and the PTAB petitions/decisions naming this exact patent, which is the most probative available source. Where I could not independently verify a reference's disclosure in this session, I say so. Nothing below should be read as contradicting the earlier-generated sections; in fact the earlier litigation summary is confirmed by what follows (see § VIII, "Consistency check").

---

I. Governing framework

Claim-construction touch points that drive everything below (BRI in IPR; Phillips in district court):

1. "abnormal USB data condition"/"abnormal data line condition." The spec equates this with a non-standard state at the USB port, detected by the microprocessor at the USB port (see the "Exemplary Illustration" section), and gives the preferred form: "the application of voltage signals greater than 2 volts to both the D+ and D− lines." The ordinary signalling state of an idle USB host/hub is D+/D− weakly held low; a condition where both D+ and D− are simultaneously logic-high is, by definition, not a legal USB data state — hence "abnormal."
2. "unrestricted by at least one predetermined USB Specification limit." In USB 2.0 a low-power device may draw 100 mA prior to configuration and up to 500 mA (five 100-mA unit loads) post-configuration. Claims 7/15/22 recite 500 mA; claim 24 recites drawing >500 mA.
3. "without USB enumeration" (claims 3, 11, 24). No host-initiated descriptor/configuration exchange.
4. Numeric values are spec-derived. 500 mA is the spec's own ceiling; 2.0 V is the spec's own V_IH(min) for full-speed high-speed signalling (USB 2.0, Ch. 7). This is important: the numbers in claim 24 come out of the specification the invention is designed to escape, which materially weakens any argument that the numerals supply an inventive step.

---

II. The prior art of record

---

III. The obviousness case for claim 1 (the template)

Claim 1 requires: (a) a mobile device, (b) a USB communication path, (c) a charging subsystem, (d) enabled to draw current unrestricted by at least one predetermined USB Specification limit, (e) that enablement being responsive to an abnormal USB data condition detected at the USB communication path.

Proposed ground (Ground A — the ZTE theory): Theobald '942 (or '522) in view of Shiga '738, further in view of the USB 2.0 Specification.

Motivation to combine (as a petitioner would articulate it, on KSR grounds):

• Same field, known elements: all three address handheld devices with rechargeable batteries and standardised accessory/charger connectors; combining them is "the familiar combination of prior-art elements according to known methods." KSR, 550 U.S. at 415–17.
• The problem the '766 itself frames — a single combined power/data interface for a mobile device, and the inability of AC/car adapters to participate in enumeration — is precisely the design pressure a POSITA in 2001 faced. Theobald already solved the functional equivalent (let the accessory identify itself so the device can charge at the accessory's rate).
• Predictability: porting a voltage-threshold identification circuit from the J3 identification pin to a USB connector's available pins/lines is an ordinary engineering substitution; Theobald expressly contemplates "other suitable" connectors and "other suitable high speed data communication protocol[s]."
• Obvious to try / finite options: given a USB connector, the identification signature must be placed on one of the four USB lines; choosing the D+/D− pair is one of a small, enumerable set of design choices.

Ground B (the Huawei theory): Theobald '522 in view of the USB 2.0 Specification, with SE1-type identification signalling (and/or Martensson). The petitioner's argument (as recorded in the FISI briefing) was that "the 500 mA current or power limitation of USB 2.0 would not have been a deterrent" because fast-charging at 850 mA is advantageous and deviations from the USB specification "had already been done in the prior art." A secondary KSR rationale here is "if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a POSITA would recognise it would improve similar devices the same way, using it is obvious."

Ground C (the TCL theory — IPR2021-00598): Morita (JP 2000-165513) in view of the knowledge of a POSITA (essentially, SE1 signalling + the USB 2.0 spec). Petitioners' theory: Morita's videophone, on connecting to the hub-charger, could be configured to draw more than 100 mA without enumeration, using an identification signal.

Ground D: Dougherty '004 in view of Theobald '522 and the USB 2.0 Specification (Dougherty supplies the USB-hub dock; Theobald supplies charger identification and a >500 mA rate).

Ground E (belt-and-suspenders): Theobald '522 + Morita, both being charger-identification references, argued as cumulative in the same claim space.

---

IV. Dependent claims

If any independent claim falls, the dependents fall with it, since they add only conventional narrowing:

• 2, 10, 18 (limit is a current limit) — directly met by the USB 2.0 spec's 100 mA / 500 mA rules in combination with Theobald's 850 mA fast-rate mode.
• 3, 11 (no enumeration) — met by Morita/Second-Mode and by Theobald (which has no enumeration concept at all; its protocol is J3), and argued as an "obvious to try" modification of the USB spec, since enumeration exists only to obtain a host's permission to draw >100 mA, which becomes unnecessary once the device can identify a non-host charger.
• 4, 12, 20 (D+/D− path) — supplied by the USB spec.
• 5, 13, 19 (abnormal condition on the data lines) — the battleground limitation; see § V.
• 6, 14, 21 (logic-high on each of D+ and D−) — see § V.
• 7, 15, 22 (500 mA) and 8, 16, 23, and claim 24 (>2 V; >500 mA) — these are specification-derived numerals: 500 mA is the post-configuration unit-load ceiling and 2.0 V is V_IH(min). A POSITA choosing a threshold at the spec's own logic-high minimum, and a current above the spec's own ceiling, is exercising "ordinary creativity," not invention. Claim 24 is therefore the most brittle of the independents if (and only if) a reference puts a >2 V signature on both D+ and D−.

---

V. The three limitations that decide these cases

Every petition against the '766 patent died on one or more of these, and they are the honest answer to "would the claims have been obvious":

1. "Abnormal data condition" vs. a dedicated identification line. Theobald, the SE1 scheme, and Morita all identify the accessory through a non-data channel (an audio/identification pin, an ID resistor, or a state report), and Theobald positively emphasises compliance with whatever standard applies ("data is communicated … according to the three-wire bus protocol … or other suitable … protocol"). Reading an ID-pin voltage is not the same as detecting a non-standard condition on the D+/D− pair, which is what claims 1/5/6/9/13/14/19/21 and 24 require. On the actual record, no petition produced a reference teaching a charger that deliberately drives/reads the USB data lines into an illegal state to signal "unrestricted current available."
2. Motivation to violate the governing protocol. The Board repeatedly found that Theobald, Dougherty and Martensson do not "teach or suggest violating the 500 mA current limit set forth in USB 2.0" (see IPR2018-00465, Paper 11 at 12, as recited in the FISI briefing, and IPR2018-00472, Paper 12 at 14). Absent such a teaching, the "unrestricted by a USB Specification limit" element rests on a hindsight reconstruction.
3. Change of principle of operation. As to Morita, the Board held that injecting an SE1 signal would disable the very USB data communication Morita is designed to preserve while charging, so the proposed modification would not work for its intended purpose (DePuy Spine v. Medtronic, 567 F.3d 1314, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2009)); the Board also rejected the "charger-only mode" premise as unsupported (IPR2021-00598, Inst. Decision Deny, 2021-08-30).

A successful § 103 case would therefore need one additional reference teaching detection of a non-standard D+/D− state as a charger indicator with a raised current allowance — i.e., art that does on the data lines what Theobald does on the ID pin. ⚠️ Caution on chronology: the USB-IF Battery Charging Specification 1.0 (which codifies D+/D−-based charger detection, e.g., the Dedicated Charging Port with D+ shorted to D−) was published in 2007–2009 and the USB On-The-Go Supplement 1.0 in December 2001 — both post-date the 2001-03-01 priority date and therefore cannot be § 102/§ 103 prior art here. Their existence is nonetheless powerful secondary-considerations evidence (see § VII).

---

VI. Why a POSITA would (or would not) be motivated — the two-sided showing

Arguments for obviousness (petitioner side):

• KSR combination of known elements in the same field, with a predictable result.
• Design need expressly recognised in the field: one combined power/data port; AC/car adapters that cannot enumerate.
• "Obvious to try": a finite set of signalling channels (ID pin, VBUS level, D+ alone, D− alone, both data lines, data-line shorting) and a finite set of thresholds (spec-derived 2.0 V).
• Design incentives: faster charging (Theobald's 850 mA) and battery-life pressure on handhelds.

Arguments against (patent-owner side — and the record's outcome):

• No reference teaches or suggests deviating from the applicable protocol; Theobald champions compliance. The gap is not a mere "design choice" but the point of the invention.
• Detection on the data pair, not an ID pin, is technically distinct and non-trivial in 2001 (it risks corrupting the device's ability to enumerate when a real host is attached — the spec's own concern).
• Change of principle of operation (Morita) and impermissible hindsight (the claims are device-side claims distilled from adapter-side disclosures).
• Objective indicia (potentially dispositive, and directly nexus-linked): the record reflects that more than 50 entities — including Samsung, LGE, Huawei and ZTE — took licences to the Fischer family; the entire mobile industry (Apple, RIM, and the Android OEMs) adopted exactly this behaviour; and the industry standard (USB Battery Charging 1.0) later codified D+/D−-based charger detection with current allowance beyond 500 mA. That is evidence of long-felt need, industry adoption, licensing, and copying — a classic secondary-considerations package. ⚠️ Flag: I have not verified a contemporaneous market-share/nexus record in this session; the licensing statement is drawn from Patent Owner's characterisation in IPR2021-00598 papers and should be corroborated before being relied on in a brief.

---

VII. Claim-by-claim conclusions (strength of the § 103 case)

Net assessment: on the prior art actually assembled and litigated (Theobald '942/'522, Shiga '738, Rogers '564, Dougherty '004, Morita JP 2000-165513, Martensson, SE1 signalling, and the USB 2.0 specification/Axelson), claims 1–24 are more likely than not to withstand a § 103 challenge, because every proposed combination stops short of teaching or suggesting (i) a non-standard condition on the USB data pair and (ii) an intentional departure from the USB current limit in response to it. A ground predicated only on Theobald + USB Specification fails for want of the "abnormal USB data condition" element and for want of any teaching to violate the protocol; a Morita-based ground fails on change-of-principle-of-operation. The strongest § 103 attack remains one that finds pre-2001 art using a D+/D− signature as a charger identifier; without it, the claim set is defensible notwithstanding the "merely spec-derived numerals" criticism of claim 24.

---

VIII. Consistency check against the earlier-generated sections

The earlier litigation summary is confirmed and not contradicted by this record:

• IPR2018-00214 (ZTE), -00215, -00472 (Huawei, filed 2018-01-11), -00508 (LG) — all against the '766 patent, all institution-denied; the Board's Paper 18 (2018-09-05) in IPR2018-00214 is expressly cited for the "no teaching of violating the 500 mA limit" point. ✔ consistent with the summary's "Not Instituted – Merits."
• IPR2021-00598 (TCT Mobile/TCL) — filed 2021-02-26; Institution Decision: Deny, 2021-08-30; refund of $25,500 ordered 2021-10-01. ✔ consistent (the summary's Aug. 30, 2021 date is right).
• N.D. Tex. 3:17-cv-01827 (FISI v. ZTE) — FISI moved for partial summary judgment that the '111 and '766 patents are not obvious over Theobald + Shiga; ZTE's invalidity contentions also named Rogers '564 and Dougherty '004. ✔
• One correction to the earlier summary's characterisation of the ZTE ground: the district-court combination is Theobald + Shiga, not "Theobald and Dougherty" (Dougherty appears in ZTE's broader contentions and in the separate IPR2021-00428 TCL ground against the '550 patent). Flagged for accuracy; it does not change the conclusions.
• The earlier caveat about a 2026 Federal Circuit appeal remains unverified; nothing in this prior-art record supplies a CAFC docket cite.

One matters-of-record qualification: the '766 patent's anticipated expiration was 2022-03-01 and the Google Patents legal status is "Expired – Fee Related." A § 103 challenge in 2026 is therefore of academic/litigation-tail value only (e.g., unexpired sibling '550 patent estoppel arguments, or damages tails), not a live validity defence for the '766 itself.

---

IX. Bottom line

• The actual prior-art record against US 8,232,766 is: Theobald '942 / '522, Shiga '738, Rogers '564, Dougherty '004, Morita JP 2000-165513, Martensson, SE1-type identification signalling, and the USB 2.0 Specification (with Axelson's USB Complete as POSITA-knowledge evidence, and Amoni '086 / Matsumoto '488 as Patent Owner exhibits).
• The best obviousness combinations are (A) Theobald '522/'942 + Shiga '738 + USB 2.0 spec, (B) Theobald '522 + USB 2.0 spec + SE1-type signalling, (C) Morita + POSITA knowledge (SE1) + USB 2.0 spec, and (D) Dougherty '004 + Theobald '522 + USB 2.0 spec — each motivated by same-field/known-elements, design-need, predictable-result and obvious-to-try rationales.
• None of them was sufficient in practice: the Board denied institution in every petition against this patent, principally because the references identify accessories via non-data channels and none teaches or suggests violating the USB Specification's current limit in response to a non-standard condition on the D+/D− data pair, which is the core of independent claims 1, 9, 17 and 24 (and the >2 V / >500 mA / no-enumeration combination of claim 24).
• Claim 24 is the most exposed, because its numerals are lifted from the USB Specification itself; it nevertheless survives on the current record for want of a pre-2001-03-01 reference that drives both D+ and D− above 2 V as a charger signature.

Sources cited: https://patents.google.com/patent/US8232766/en (patent text, claims, family, legal status, litigation links); https://ipverse.greyb.com/ptab-web/cases/case-details/IPR2021-00598 (case status, institution denial 2021-08-30, exhibit list); https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/[9981249](/patent/9981249)/fundamental-innovation-systems-international-llc-v-zte-corporation/ and the FISI partial-summary-judgment brief at https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txnd.[290306](/patent/290306)/gov.uscourts.txnd.290306.181.0.pdf (Theobald+Shiga ground; Shiga '738, Rogers '564, Dougherty '004 contentions); https://cmosedu.com/jbaker/expert_witness/2021/IPR2021_00598.pdf (TCL petition and exhibit list, Ground = Morita in view of POSITA knowledge); https://patents.google.com/patent/US5925942/en (Theobald '942 claims/disclosure); the IPR2021-00598 papers reciting IPR2018-00465 Paper 11 at 12 and IPR2018-00472 Paper 12 at 14 (no teaching to violate 500 mA; Morita change-of-principle), via ptacts.uspto.gov petition/document downloads.