US 8330422

I'll verify current status and any 2026 litigation activity before summarizing, since the provided record is a snapshot.

Let me check for any current litigation or PTAB proceedings involving this patent and its family.

US Patent 8,330,422 B2 — "Charger System and Method"

Bibliographic Summary

Prosecution chain (family): This patent is the fifth in a continuation line: US 10/834,887 (now US 7,479,762, "Charging Status Indicator Control System and Method") → US 11/749,676 (US 7,573,242) → US 12/496,042 (US 7,812,565) → US 12/892,709 (US 8,193,776) → this patent. A later continuation, US 13/670,143 (US 2013/0063081 A1), went abandoned.

Abstract (as granted)

"Systems and methods of providing power through a Universal Serial Bus connector are provided. A charging system comprises an interface configured to receive power, a power converter coupled to the power source interface, the power converter configured to use the received power to generate power output, and a charging controller configured to control an amount of power provided at the USB connector on the power lines derived from the power output, and configured to generate an identification signal on the USB connector's two data lines, the identification signal usable to indicate the charger is not subject to standard USB power limitations, the identification signal provided through the use of a resistance between the D+ and D− data lines."

Independent Claims — Plain Language

Claim 1 — the charger apparatus.
A charger that pushes power out through a USB interface, built from two main parts: (a) a power converter that takes power in from a power source and produces a power output, and (b) a charging controller that (i) sets/controls how much power the charger outputs, and (ii) sends an "identification signal" over the USB data lines. The point of that signal is to tell the connected device that this power output is above the standard USB power limits — i.e., this is not an ordinary USB host, so the device need not abide by the normal USB current ceiling. Notably, claim 1 itself does not require resistors or a particular signaling mechanism; those appear only in the dependent claims.

Claim 6 — the method.
A method of supplying charge current through a USB connector that has a D+ and a D− data line, comprising four steps: receive power at an input interface; convert that power into a power output; deliver that output to the USB connector; and communicate an identification signal over the D+ and D− lines indicating that the delivered power output exceeds standard USB power limits.

Claim 11 — the method with power-line sensing.
Another method through a USB connector (D+/D− lines), comprising: receive power from an external source; convert it to a power output; control the amount of power delivered to the USB connector (derived from that output); enable an identification signal on the D+ and D− lines; and deliver output power to the USB connector based on at least one of voltage and current draw detectable from the USB connector's power lines, where that output power is not limited by standard USB power limits. The distinguishing feature relative to claim 6 is the combination of the out-of-spec identification signaling with power delivery governed by sensed voltage/current on the Vbus/GND power lines.

Dependent claims (for context)

• Claims 2–4 / 7–9 / 12–14: the identification signal is based on a resistance between D+ and D−; the lines are pulled into a "high" state; the pull-up is done with at least one resistor.
• Claim 5: adds at least one USB connector coupled to the charging controller.
• Claim 10: a plurality of USB connectors, each able to provide the identification signal.

Literal-text note

As transcribed in the record, claim 7 reads "The method of claim 7 wherein…" rather than depending on claim 6. Per the instruction to interpret identifiers literally, I flag this as it appears; it may be a transcription artifact rather than a true self-dependency, but I cannot verify the original printed claim set with certainty from this record.

Specification context distinguishing this family member

The patent's description is largely the "charging status indicator control" disclosure inherited from the 2003 priority application (remote control of the charger's LED by the connected device). The claim set of US 8,330,422, however, was rewritten around a different inventive aspect described in the spec: the "identification signal" supplied to the device so it knows it is attached to a power source "not subject to the normal power limits imposed by the USB specification," implemented passively via the resistor network on the USB interface (7.5 kΩ and 15 kΩ pull-ups on D− with a pull-down on D+, such that "both D− and D+ being high" is interpreted as the identification signal). The spec also notes the device can then draw power "without waiting for the normal USB processes of enumeration or charge negotiation."

Status and Enforcement — What I Could and Could Not Confirm

What the record shows:

• Google Patents lists this patent as "Expired – Fee Related," with an anticipated expiration date of 2024-04-30 (20 years from the 2003-04-30 priority date).
• Family litigation flags: E.D. Tex. 2:20-cv-00116 (Fundamental Innovation Systems International LLC v. Aukey Technology Co., Ltd., filed 2020-04-23); D. Del. 1:20-cv-00550; N.D. Cal. 3:19-cv-00638. In the Texas case the asserted patents were 6,936,936; 7,239,111; 8,330,422; and 8,624,550.

What my searches did NOT establish (stated explicitly, per your instruction not to fabricate):

• I found no CAFC docket in 2026 involving US 8,330,422. My searches returned only unrelated Federal Circuit matters (e.g., a 2026-1068 order in Viken Detection Corp. v. Videray Technologies, and unrelated PTAB/double-patenting briefing). Given the patent's 2024-04-30 expiration, an active 2026 appeal on this patent is unlikely, but I cannot positively rule one out.
• Search results do reference later FIS activity, including a jury verdict reported around April 2025 in a Delaware action against Anker Innovations ($14 million), with FIS said to have acquired ~200 BlackBerry charging patents and asserted four of them. I could not confirm which four patents those were, and specifically could not confirm that 8,330,422 was among them — treat any such linkage as unverified.
• PTAB activity I saw for the family included IPR2021-00395 (TCT Mobile v. FIS — institution denied, July 2021), plus older IPRs (IPR2018-00276 ZTE/Samsung; IPR2018-00487 Huawei; IPR2018-00495 LG). I could not confirm that any of these IPRs named 8,330,422 itself versus sibling patents such as 7,239,111 or 6,936,936.

Confidence: High on bibliographic data, claim text, and abstract (taken directly from the provided authoritative full text). Moderate on the litigation mapping and low-to-none on any 2026 appellate activity, which I could not verify.

I'll research litigation involving US patent 8330422. Let me search multiple sources.

Let me dig deeper into the specific cases identified.

Let me verify which additional cases asserted this specific patent and check IPR activity.

Litigation Involving U.S. Patent No. 8,330,422 ("Charger system and method")

Summary: U.S. 8,330,422 ('422) is a former BlackBerry/Research In Motion patent (now owned by Fundamental Innovation Systems International LLC). It was asserted as part of FISI's USB-charging patent campaign, a multi-defendant enforcement effort that ran roughly 2016–2022. I found two district-court actions in which the '422 patent was specifically named in the pleadings/patent lists, plus one related declaratory-judgment action that is associated with the patent family. No IPR (inter partes review) specifically targeting the '422 patent surfaced in my search. The patent reached its anticipated expiration on April 30, 2024, and its current legal status on Google Patents is "Expired – Fee Related."

Confirmed cases naming the '422 patent

1. Fundamental Innovation Systems International, LLC v. Aukey Technology Co., Ltd.

• Plaintiff: Fundamental Innovation Systems International, LLC
• Defendant: Aukey Technology Co., Ltd.
• Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division (Judge Rodney Gilstrap)
• Case No.: 2:20-cv-00116
• Filed: April 23, 2020
• Cause of action: 35 U.S.C. § 271 (patent infringement); jury demanded
• Patents asserted: U.S. 6,936,936; 7,239,111; 8,330,422; 8,624,550
• Outcome / status: Docket flags show the case as CLOSED. Reported outcomes for this FISI campaign indicate the non-Anker defendants resolved their cases via voluntary dismissal or settlement.
• Source: Docket Alarm case entry: https://www.docketalarm.com/search/?q=patent:(7239111)#1

2. Fundamental Innovation Systems International LLC v. Belkin Inc. et al.

• Plaintiff: Fundamental Innovation Systems International LLC
• Defendants: Belkin Inc. and Belkin International, Inc.
• Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware (Judge Colm F. Connolly)
• Case No.: 1:20-cv-00550
• Filed: April 23, 2020 (served on Belkin April 24, 2020)
• Cause of action: 35 U.S.C. § 271 (willful patent infringement); jury demanded
• Patents asserted: U.S. 7,239,111; 8,624,550; 7,453,233; 6,936,936; 8,330,422
• Outcome / status: Settled. The PTAB mandatory notice in related IPR2021-00395 (TCT Mobile) lists this case as "(settled)." The '422 patent is expressly named in the AO 120 form filed for this action.
• Sources: AO 120 form (patent list including US 8,330,422 B2) at https://www.docketalarm.com/patentapps/US/11-749,680/...docs/1-1-US-117496801KP1.pdf ; docket at https://dockets.justia.com/docket/delaware/dedce/1:2020cv00550/72000 ; settlement reference at https://cmosedu.com/jbaker/expert_witness/2021/IPR2021_00395.pdf

Related case (family-level; '422 not specifically verified)

3. Apple Inc. v. Fundamental Innovation Systems International LLC et al.

• Plaintiff: Apple Inc.
• Defendants: Fundamental Innovation Systems International LLC and Fundamental Innovation Systems International Holdings LLC
• Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (Judge William Alsup)
• Case No.: 3:19-cv-00638
• Filed: February 5, 2019
• Type: Declaratory judgment of non-infringement brought by Apple against FISI, covering about 12 BlackBerry-originated USB-charging patents across adapters, mobile devices, and wearables.
• Outcome / status: Reported to have settled (one industry report states Apple sought a non-infringement declaration and the matter was settled).
• Caveat: Google Patents lists this case under the '422 "family has litigation" heading, but that listing is family-level, not patent-specific. I was not able to confirm from the sources retrieved that the '422 patent itself was among the 12 patents asserted in Apple's DJ complaint. Treat this entry as related-but-unconfirmed for the '422 patent specifically.
• Sources: RPX news https://litigation.rpxcorp.com/news/9859-apple-files-dj-against-[npe](/resources/what-is-a-patent-troll)-asserting-former-blackberry-patents-in-usb-charging-campaign ; docket https://dockets.justia.com/docket/california/candce/3:2019cv00638/[337993](/patent/337993)

Important context and limitations

• Same campaign, other patents: FISI also sued Huawei, LG Electronics, Samsung, ZTE, Coolpad, Lenovo, and TCT Mobile (TCL) during 2016–2020, and those cases generated the IPRs (e.g., IPR2018-series, IPR2021-00395/00598). However, in the sources I retrieved, those actions were asserted on the Fischer-family patents ('111, '766, '586, '550, '233, '936) — I did not find confirmation that the '422 patent was named in the Huawei, LG, Samsung, ZTE, Coolpad, Lenovo, or TCT Mobile complaints. Do not assume the '422 was part of those suits without checking the individual complaints.
• No '422-specific IPR found: The PTAB proceedings I located target U.S. 8,232,766; 7,834,586; 7,239,111; and 8,624,550 — not the '422. I did not find an IPR petition directed specifically at the '422 patent. This is a negative finding based on the searches performed, not a guarantee.
• Not re-examined: I did not review a full PACER run for the Aukey and Belkin dockets to confirm the precise closing documents (e.g., stipulated dismissal vs. settlement agreement), so the "settled/dismissed" characterization for Aukey rests on secondary reporting rather than the docket entry itself.

Because the patent expired on April 30, 2024, no new infringement litigation naming the '422 patent is expected.

Recommended verification if you need courtroom-grade certainty: pull the full dockets for 2:20-cv-00116 (E.D. Tex.) and 1:20-cv-00550 (D. Del.) on PACER, and confirm the '422 patent's presence/absence in the Apple DJ complaint (N.D. Cal. 3:19-cv-00638) and in the Huawei/LG/Samsung/ZTE/Coolpad/Lenovo/TCT complaints before relying on those for the '422 patent specifically.

I'll verify the structured block's "no PTAB activity" conclusion against live sources before writing the report.

Let me run targeted searches on the specific patent number and on the FISI litigation campaigns.

The FISI IPR campaigns surfaced so far target sibling patents. Let me pin down which patents each proceeding actually challenged and check for anything naming the '422.

PTAB / AIA Trial Report — U.S. Patent No. 8,330,422

Patent: Charger system and method — US 8,330,422 B2
Applic/App. No.: 13/466,794, filed 2012-05-08; granted 2012-12-11
Priority: 2003-04-30 (GB 0309942.1)
Assignee: Fundamental Innovation Systems International LLC (orig. Research In Motion Ltd.; interim BlackBerry Limited)
Claim count: 14 (independent claims 1, 6, 11)
Legal status: Expired – Fee Related; anticipated expiration 2024-04-30

Proceedings overview

Total AIA trial proceedings on US 8,330,422: 0. The structured PTAB block supplied in this prompt states that the USPTO Open Data Portal returns no AIA trial proceedings for this patent as of the most recent ingest, and my independent web searching found nothing contradicting that — no IPR, PGR, or CBM naming the '422, its application number 13/466,794, or its publication US 2012/0217924 A1. My searches did surface a substantial FISI/BlackBerry PTAB campaign from 2018 and 2019–2021, but every proceeding I could resolve was directed at a sibling patent in the same charging family, not at the '422.

The bottom-line defensive posture is therefore unusual and, for a defendant, mostly favorable: the '422 has never been the subject of an AIA trial, so there is no petitioner-side § 315(e)(2) estoppel encumbering it, and there is no PTAB invalidation of any claim to cite. But the absence is not a validation signal — the patent is expired, and its siblings, not it, absorbed the PTAB fire. A defendant's leverage here comes from expiration and from the family-wide validity fight, not from any '422-specific FWD.

No proceedings to enumerate

There is no proceeding number, petitioner, panel, institution decision, FWD, settlement, or appeal to report for this patent. In the interest of accuracy, I am not listing any proceeding number as belonging to the '422, because I could not verify a single one.

For completeness, here is the adjacent FISI/BlackBerry family PTAB activity I did find, with an explicit warning that none of it is grounded to the '422:

• IPR2018-00676 — directed at U.S. Patent No. 7,791,319 (per LG's own related-proceedings list in an IPR petition; https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/[1507635](/patent/1507635)/download-documents?artifactId=Q_X60tb3R8yIwxN1483YwGdEatfSrrfH8AyPQHy53mC2zi4e-Dr08Fo).
• IPR2018-00678 — directed at U.S. Patent No. 7,999,514 (same source).
• IPR2018-00426 — directed at U.S. Patent No. 7,701,173 ("Charging and Power Supply for Mobile Devices," Veselic; docketalarm.com PTAB docket).
• IPR2018-00110 / IPR2018-00111 — ZTE (USA) Inc. et al. v. Fundamental Innovation Systems International LLC, cited in an expert declaration as challenging U.S. Patent No. 8,624,550 (https://cmosedu.com/jbaker/expert_witness/2021/IPR2021_00428.pdf).
• IPR2018-00276 (ZTE), IPR2018-00487 (Huawei), IPR2018-00495 and IPR2018-00508 (LG), IPR2018-00620 (Samsung) — PTAB dockets in the FISI campaign; IPR2018-00508 is recorded as Institution Denied with a panel of Peslak, Pettigrew, Moore, Tornquist, Ogden (https://services.patexia.com/lawsuits/LG-Electronics-Inc-v-Fundamental-Innovation-Systems-International-LLC-id-[110892](/patent/110892)). I could not confirm the patent number challenged in each, and I do not assert any of them named the '422.
• IPR2021-00395 (TCT Mobile (US), Inc.) — panel of Peslak, Kokoski, Quinn; a Docket Alarm entry includes a document styled "Institution Decision – Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review" (https://www.docketalarm.com). Patent number unconfirmed on my search; not established as the '422.

I reached the limit of my search budget before I could resolve the patent-number mapping for IPR2018-00276, -00487, -00495, -00508, -00620, and IPR2021-00395. I flag these as unverified with respect to the '422 and expressly decline to attribute them to it.

Litigation touching the '422 (context only — not AIA trials)

The '422 appears in the FISI assertion campaign, per the patent page and Docket Alarm:

FISI's portfolio was the subject of an RPX defensive-aggregator agreement announced 2019-11-08 covering its USB charging patents, with Apple separately settling its infringement case (https://www.iam-media.com/regions/canada?page=14). Note: RPX is the aggregator here — not Unified Patents. I found no Unified Patents IPR against the '422; the Unified petition my searching surfaced (IPR2022-01125, institution denied) concerned an unrelated patent (8,965,932).

Strategic summary

Claim status: all 14 claims are UNTESTED at the PTAB — nothing canceled, nothing sustained. There is no FWD to quote, no certificate canceling claims 1–14, and no Board holding of patentability. Any statement that claims of the '422 "survived an IPR" or "were invalidated" would be fabrication. The only narrowing that has occurred on this patent is ordinary prosecution-history narrowing, plus the family's shared dependency on the 2003 GB priority filing.

Estoppel landscape is clean — for better and worse. Because no IPR was ever instituted on the '422, § 315(e)(2) estoppel does not attach to this patent for anyone. A defendant is free to raise any § 102/§ 103 ground, on any reference, in district court, without the "raised or reasonably could have raised" shackle. Two practical caveats cut the other way: (1) If a defendant or its privy was a petitioner against a sibling patent (e.g., the '550 or the '319), that estoppel binds them as to that sibling only — it does not transfer to the '422, but the art they used is now on the public record and is fair game here; (2) § 315(b) is likely a dead letter for the original FISI defendants, since service in the 2020 cases closed the one-year IPR window in 2021.

Pattern signals. FISI did not attack the '422 itself at the PTAB; it absorbed challenges on the higher-value members of the same family (the '550, '319, '514, '173, '936). The patent's expiration on 2024-04-30 is the dominant fact: with no live term, there is no injunction and no forward-looking royalty, only past damages and the § 286 six-year lookback from the date of complaint.

Recommended next steps

1. Lead with expiration, not validity. Asserted date of expiration is 2024-04-30 (20 years from the 2004-04-30 filing of parent 10/834,887). Confirm the maintenance-fee/expiration status on USPTO PatentCenter before taking any position, then frame the exposure as backward-looking only.
2. Do not represent that any claim has been canceled. No FWD exists for this patent. If opposing counsel or a demand letter implies PTAB validation of the '422, the correct response is that the '422 has never been before the Board — which is neutral, not exculpatory.
3. Mine the sibling FWDs for admitted art and claim-construction positions. The Board's constructions and any disclaimers in the '550 / '319 / '514 / '173 proceedings are highly probative extrinsic evidence for construing the '422's parallel limitations ("identification signal," "power output exceeds standard USB power limits," resistance between D+/D−). Pull those decisions from USPTO PTAB E2E (https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/) and any CAFC appeals via CourtListener (https://www.courtlistener.com/?q=%22Fundamental+Innovation%22) — but verify the patent number on each before citing it against the '422.
4. Preserve prior-art rights now. Because there is no estoppel on the '422, a defendant retains the full ground set. Serve interrogatories/third-party subpoenas early on the FISI-RPX license and on the 2010/2011 RIM–Motorola Mobility cross-licenses, which the D. Del. court construed against FISI in FISI v. Lenovo (D. Del., summary judgment for FISI on the licensing defense) — that issue is likely to recur and is worth evaluating on the '422's specific products.
5. Verify the one open question I could not close. If any defendant has independent knowledge that IPR2018-00276, -00487, -00495, -00508, -00620, or IPR2021-00395 named 13/466,794 / 8,330,422, that would change this report materially. My searches could not confirm it, and the structured ODP data says otherwise; treat the ODP result as controlling absent a primary-source document (petition cover page or Board paper) showing the '422.

Verification note (constraint compliance): I did not invent, infer, or extrapolate any proceeding number for this patent. The three litigation dockets are taken from the patent page and Docket Alarm; the sibling IPRs are attributed only where a primary or near-primary source named the patent number, and are expressly marked as not established for the '422. Where I could not verify, I have said so.

I'll research the assignment chain and NPE signals for US 8330422. Let me run several searches in parallel.

Let me dig for reel/frame details and correspondents.

US 8,330,422 — Ownership & Assignment Reconstruction

Data-access note (read first): The USPTO Assignment Center (assignmentcenter.uspto.gov) and the legacy assignment.uspto.gov search were not directly queryable in this session, so I could not pull the reel/frame numbers or correspondent-of-record entries specific to US 8,330,422. What I can state with confidence comes from (a) the Google Patents legal-events record for this patent, and (b) a sister portfolio patent whose 37 CFR 3.73(c) chain-of-title statement reproduces the same RIM → BlackBerry → FISI recording series. I flag every place a value is analogized rather than directly verified.

Inventors

• The GB priority application (GB 0309942.1, filed 2003‑04‑30) and the 2004 US parent (Ser. No. 10/834,887) were both filed by/assigned to Research In Motion Limited, and the inventors assign to RIM on the continuation (assignors listed as "BAYNE, RYAN M., GREEN, STEVE, SKARINE, ALEXEI" in the Google Patents event dated 2012‑05‑25). Employer inference for all three is therefore strong.
• Unusual-pattern check: Not determinable / no evidence. I found no record of any of the three inventors departing RIM‑BlackBerry within 12 months of filing, and no evidence their departure triggered the 2015 portfolio sale. I am not making that finding — the sale was a corporate asset-monetization decision by BlackBerry, not traceable to inventor attrition in any source I could reach.

Original assignee

• Research In Motion Limited (RIM) — Waterloo, Ontario, Canada. Named on the issued patent (Google Patents lists original assignee: Research in Motion Ltd).
• Line of business: Designer/manufacturer of the BlackBerry wireless handheld line, its chargers, and (later) enterprise software. RIM shipped products embodying the claims — the patent covers a USB charger that signals "not subject to standard USB power limits" via the D+/D− lines, exactly the scheme used in RIM's USB wall/travel chargers and the BlackBerry devices they charged.
• Status: RIM is no longer a separate entity — it changed its corporate name to BlackBerry Limited (the USPTO "Change of Name" record for this family is dated 2015‑08‑17 per Google Patents; note this is the USPTO recording date, distinct from the corporate rebrand). BlackBerry Limited remains an operating company (cybersecurity/software). There was no bankruptcy.

Assignment timeline

Google Patents legal events for US 8,330,422 (authoritative for dates; reel/frame not exposed there):

1. Recorded 2012‑05‑25 (execution date not shown) — Reel not retrieved

   • Conveyance: Assignment of Assignors' Interest
   • Assignor: Ryan M. Bayne; Steve Green; Alexei Skarine
   • Assignee: Research In Motion Limited
   • Correspondent: not retrieved (Assignment Center not queryable this session) — cannot run the repeat-player test on this link
   • Context: routine inventor-to-employer assignment for the 2012 continuation (Ser. No. 13/466,794).

2. Recorded 2015‑08‑17 — Reel not retrieved for the '422; the identical RIM→BlackBerry change of name is recorded at Reel 036356 / Frame 0472 on sister patent US 7,701,173 (source: IPR2018‑00426, Exhibit 1003, 37 CFR 3.73(c) statement).

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

3. Recorded 2015‑12‑17 — Reel not retrieved for the '422; the BlackBerry→FISI assignment on sister patent US 7,701,173 is recorded at Reel 037324 / Frame 0978 (same IPR2018‑00426 Exhibit 1003).

   • Conveyance: Assignment of Assignors' Interest
   • Assignor: BlackBerry Limited
   • Assignee: Fundamental Innovation Systems International LLC (FISI)
   • Correspondent: not retrieved
   • Context: fire-sale / monetization transfer — part of the ~55+ US‑asset (plus foreign counterparts) BlackBerry → Centerbridge‑Partners‑backed FISI transaction of November 2015. RPX reports the deal was a "multi‑million dollar" assignment between BlackBerry and Centerbridge Partners. RPX Insight, 2021‑03‑05

4. Recorded 2016‑12‑01 — Reel not retrieved

   • Conveyance: Assignment of Assignors' Interest
   • Assignor: BlackBerry Limited
   • Assignee: Fundamental Innovation Systems International LLC
   • Correspondent: not retrieved
   • Context: second recorded assignment from the same assignor to the same assignee. Nature not confirmed — could be a confirmatory/corrective record, or a separate tranche. Notably it is recorded immediately before FISI launched its litigation campaign in December 2016.

Note on the family: the '422 is the fifth link of a continuation chain — US 7,479,762 → US 7,573,242 → US 7,812,565 → US 8,193,776 → US 8,330,422 → (child US 2013/0063081, abandoned). All six family members carry the same 2003‑04‑30 priority, and the BlackBerry→FISI transfer applies across the family.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 8330422
    2003 : Priority filing by Research In Motion
    2004 : Parent application filed
    2012 : Continuation filed
         : Inventors assign to Research In Motion
    2015 : Name change to BlackBerry Limited
         : Sold to Fundamental Innovation
    2016 : Second FISI recording
         : FISI litigation campaign begins
    2019 : FISI California suit against Apple
    2020 : FISI Texas and Delaware suits
    2024 : Patent term expires

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — PRESENT. BlackBerry Limited (operating company) conveyed the portfolio to Fundamental Innovation Systems International LLC, a Delaware LLC formed October 2015 with no products, whose stated purpose is licensing the acquired charging patents (recorded 2015‑12‑17, and again 2016‑12‑01). RPX: FISI "Formed in Delaware in 2015 … has filed roughly 20 suits since late 2016." RPX

2. Known asserter in the chain — PRESENT. FISI is a recognized NPE campaign, tracked by RPX and referenced as an NPE by news coverage; it is the current assignee per the Google Patents legal events (2015‑12‑17 and 2016‑12‑01). It is private‑equity backed by Centerbridge Partners and its governing persons were identified in Texas records as Kapu Kumar, Paul Seaman, Paul Riley and Eugene Davis. Parent entity: Fundamental Innovation Systems International Holdings LLC. RPX · AppleInsider · Docket Alarm 2:20‑cv‑00116

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — UNCLEAR / NOT RETRIEVABLE. No correspondent-of-record fields could be pulled from the Assignment Center in this session, so the "same lawyer files every link" test cannot be run. This is a data gap, not a negative finding. Flagging for follow-up: pull the correspondent on Reel 036356/0472 and Reel 037324/0978 (and the corresponding frames for the '422) — those two entries are the ones most likely to expose a repeat player.

4. Cascading transfers — NOT PRESENT (as a chained-LLC pattern). The chain is a simple line, not a cascade: RIM → BlackBerry (name change) → FISI. The two FISI recordings (2015‑12‑17, 2016‑12‑01) are ~11.5 months apart but run from the same assignor to the same assignee, not through successive different LLCs, and I found no evidence of shared-control intermediary entities in the US chain.

5. Pre-litigation transfer — PRESENT (qualified). The second FISI recording is dated 2016‑12‑01, and RPX dates FISI's campaign launch to December 2016 — i.e., the standing record was finalized essentially contemporaneously with the first suits. (The original 2015‑12‑17 recording is ~12 months before the campaign, which alone would be outside the 6‑month window.) Treat this as "clean-standing-record before assertion," with the caveat that the two recordings share assignor/assignee so the second may simply be corrective. Source: RPX, FISI campaign background and the Google Patents legal events for the '422.

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — NOT PRESENT. BlackBerry/RIM did not file Chapter 7 or 11. The 2015 sale was distressed asset monetization, not a bankruptcy proceeding (cf. the Kodak/Nortel/Polaroid paradigm). No bankruptcy docket appears in the chain.

7. Privateering — UNCLEAR. The outcome resembles privateering (former RIM patents asserted against BlackBerry's device competitors — Apple, Samsung, LG, Huawei, ZTE, Lenovo, TCL, Belkin, and later Hyundai), but the reported structure is an outright sale to a Centerbridge‑backed NPE, not a coordinated assertion on BlackBerry's behalf with a back‑end to BlackBerry. I found no evidence of a BlackBerry revenue‑share or assertion mandate. Marked unclear rather than present to avoid inferring from resemblance alone.

8. Defensive aggregator — NOT PRESENT. The chain terminates at FISI, an asserting NPE — not RPX, AST, LOT Network, Unified Patents, or OIN. The patent has not been neutralized.

Verdict

NPE — high confidence.

The chain terminates at Fundamental Innovation Systems International LLC (Google Patents current assignee; recordings 2015‑12‑17 and 2016‑12‑01), a Delaware LLC formed October 2015, PE‑backed by Centerbridge Partners, with no products in commerce and roughly 20 infringement suits since late 2016 asserting former BlackBerry USB‑charging patents against Apple, Samsung, Lenovo, ZTE, TCL, Belkin and others. This satisfies two independent strong signals — shell‑entity transfer (BlackBerry → FISI, Reel 037324 series) and known asserter in the chain — with a qualified pre‑litigation standing record at 2016‑12‑01. The one signal I could not test is correspondent recurrence, because reel/frame and correspondent fields were not retrievable for this patent in this session.

Verify independently: USPTO Patent Assignment Center — https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (search patent number 8330422); legacy interface: https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html

I'll research this systematically. Let me start by verifying the patent on USPTO and gathering details on its cited references.

The patent is confirmed. Now let me research the key USB-related cited references that could bear on the claims.

Prior-Art Analysis — U.S. Patent No. 8,330,422 B2

1. Patent Identification (literal)

Claim 1 (independent): A charger for power over a USB interface comprising (a) a power converter receiving power from a power source and generating a power output; and (b) a charging controller controlling the amount of power output and communicating an identification signal via USB data lines, the signal indicating the power output exceeds standard USB power limits.

Claim 2–5 (dependents): signal based on a resistance between D+ and D−; signal based on data lines pulled into a high state; pulled high using at least one resistor; at least one USB connector coupled to the controller.

Claim 6 (independent method): receive power, convert, deliver to USB connector, communicate identification signal on D+/D− indicating power exceeds standard USB limits. Claims 7–10 track 2–5 plus "a plurality of USB connectors" (claim 10).

Claim 11 (independent method): receive power, convert, control power delivered to the USB connector, enable an identification signal on D+/D−, and deliver output power based on voltage/current draw detectable from the USB power lines, not limited by standard USB power limits. Claims 12–14 track the D+/D− high-state / resistance / resistor limitations.

Key inventive hook: a charger-side identification signal (resistive state on D+/D−) telling the device it may draw power beyond the USB specification limits.

2. Prior Art Cited on the Face of US 8,330,422 (per Google Patents, "Patent Citations (30)")

Below, each reference gives the full citation, dates, a brief description, and the claim(s) it potentially anticipates under 35 U.S.C. § 102. Anticipation requires a single reference to disclose every element of the claim; references that disclose only structural elements are flagged as partial.

A. References most relevant to the USB identification-signal claims (1–14)

B. Charging-status-indicator references (relevant to the "charging status indicator" disclosure, weaker against the USB-signal claims)

Foreign equivalents in the same family (not prior art): EP 1 620 931 B1; CA 2,523,970 C; CA 2,636,656 C; CA 2,790,181 C; WO 2004/098020 A1; AT 418173 T; DE 602 004 018 482 D1; ES 2319294 T3; HK 1072503 A1.

3. Bottom-Line Assessment

1. No single cited reference appears to fully anticipate independent claims 1, 6, or 11. Anticipation under § 102 requires one reference to disclose every element, including the charger-side identification signal on the D+/D− data lines indicating that the power output exceeds standard USB power limits (claims 1, 6, 11) and the resistance between D+ and D− / data lines pulled high limitations (claims 2–4, 7–9, 12–14).

2. The strongest § 102 candidates are partial, not complete:

   • US 2002/0038432 A1 / US 6,798,173 B2 (Hsu, Acer/BenQ) — closest on structure (USB interface + charging controller + power converter + indicator) and would be the best art for the apparatus elements of claims 1 and 5 and method claims 6 and 11. However, it charges within the USB-provided current limit and discloses no identification signal that the source "exceeds standard USB power limits."
   • WO 02/17460 A1 (Itechsolution) — discloses USB power conversion and delivery with a connector, but expressly limits output to the USB 500 mA ceiling, so it teaches away from the "exceeds standard USB power limits" signal.
   • US 6,946,817 B2 (Fischer et al., RIM) — discloses a USB interface + charging subsystem architecture, useful for claim 1/claim 5/claim 11 structure but silent on the resistive D+/D− identification signal.
   • US 2001/0003205 A1 (Gilbert) — addresses overcoming the bus-power limit, relevant to the "exceeds standard USB power limits" concept behind claims 1/11 but does not teach the D+/D− signaling mechanism.

3. Everything else (items 7–26, 28) is background/charging-status art, relevant to the specification's discussion of charging-status indicators but not to the novel identification-signal claims. Items 27, 29 (and the foreign family members) are the applicant's own family/priority documents and are not prior art.

4. Litigation/validity context (as searched): The '422 is in the same family as the RIM/Fischer USB-charging patents that have been the subject of PTAB IPR challenges (e.g., Huawei Device Co. v. Fundamental Innovation Systems International LLC) and multiple district-court suits (E.D. Tex. 2:20-cv-00116; D. Del. 1:20-cv-00550; N.D. Cal. 3:19-cv-00638). Related third-party challenges have focused on the "SE1 / both-data-lines-high" identification-signal concept, which is directly implicated by claims 2–4 and 8–9 of the '422.

Caveats

• I have worked from the authoritative full patent text (Google Patents, fetched 2026-09-30) and targeted web verification. Where the OCR of the front page and the structured citation list differ (e.g., the front page OCR renders one reference as "6,529,787 B1… Ho et al.," while the structured list gives US 6,329,787 B1, Sony Computer Entertainment), I have used the structured citation list and flagged the discrepancy rather than silently correcting it.
• Dates are taken literally from the citation lists (priority date and publication/grant date as listed). I did not independently confirm every date on USPTO/Espacenet.
• § 102 analysis here is a potential-anticipation screen, not a legal conclusion; several listed references could instead support § 103 obviousness combinations (the more likely validity posture here), which is beyond the scope of this request.

I'll analyze the obviousness of US 8,330,422 using the prior art cited on the patent page. Let me first verify the content of the most relevant references.

Let me verify the other key references, including the Acer/Benq USB charger art and the RIM power supply art.

Let me check two remaining cited references relevant to charger identification and USB charging.

Obviousness Analysis — U.S. Patent No. 8,330,422 B2 ("Charger System and Method")

Analyst note on method. This analysis uses the reference lists appearing on the patent's Google Patents page (Patent Citations, Family Cites Families, Non-Patent Citations). I have verified the disclosure of the most probative references against their full texts. Where I could not confirm a reference's content with high confidence, I say so. Numbers are taken literally as printed on the page.

1. Governing framework

• Priority date: 2003-04-30 (GB 0309942.1). U.S. Appl. No. 13/466,794 filed 2012-05-08 is a continuation; the claims are entitled to the 2003 date. This is pre-AIA law — 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(b)/102(e)/103 as they read before the AIA.
• Critical threshold: only references publicly available, or US applications/patents filed, before 2003-04-30, qualify as § 102 art. This matters enormously here (see § 3).
• Claim 1 is the key claim: (a) a charger providing power through a USB interface; (b) a power converter receiving source power and generating a power output; (c) a charging controller controlling the amount of power output and (d) communicating an identification signal via the USB data lines, the signal for indicating that the power output exceeds standard USB power limits.
• Claim 6 is the method analogue. Claim 11 adds the limitation that output power is delivered "based on at least one of voltage and current draw detectable from power lines of the USB connector," and "not being limited by standard USB power limits."
• Dependent claims 2–4, 7–9, 12–14 add: identification based on a resistance between D+ and D−; the data lines being pulled into a high state; using at least one resistor.
• Claim 10 adds a plurality of USB connectors, each able to provide the identification signal.

The parties are also litigating this family in E.D. Tex. (2:20-cv-00116), D. Del. (1:20-cv-00550) and N.D. Cal. (3:19-cv-00638), which is relevant context for damages/secondary-consideration arguments but not to the § 103 merits.

2. The single most important constructional point

The crux of every independent claim is (d): an identification signal on the USB data lines indicating that the source is not subject to USB power limits. Stripped to its functional core, claim 1 covers any signaling on D+/D− by a non-host charger that tells the sink "you may draw more than the USB-spec allowance." That is a broad functional recitation, and broad functional recitations are the easiest to meet with a prima facie combination under KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007).

3. Prior-art inventory and a critical date audit

References that ARE prior art (pre-2003-04-30), and matter most:

References that are NOT prior art to the 2003 claims (post-date the critical date, and are not § 102(e) art):
US 2003/0184263 A1; US 2005/0225292 A1; US 2004/0027779 A1; US 2004/0063464 A1; US 2004/0212347 A1; US 2005/0134224 A1; US 2005/0174094 A1; US 2005/0230472 A1; US 2007/0005707 A1; US 2008/0074077 A1; JP 2004-158264 A; GB 2 401 258 B.

References that are the patent's own family (same inventors/priority) and thus cannot be "by another":
GB 2 401 259 B (the priority document) and US 2007/0236184 A1 (US 11/749,676, a family member). These appear in the citations list but are not available as prior art against the 2003-04-30 claims.

Two footnotes: (i) US 2004/0164708 A1 and US 2004/0212347 A1 are usable only via § 102(e) as of their 2003-02-21 and 2003-04-28 filing dates respectively; (ii) US 6,946,817 is commonly owned with the patent, so common-inventorship/common-ownership under pre-AIA § 103(c) should be checked before it is relied on.

4. Element-by-element mapping of claim 1

5. Proposed § 103 combinations

Combination 1 (primary): Veselic '708 + Gilbert '205 + WO 02/17460

Rationale / motivation. All three address the same recognized problem — powering/charging a portable device from a USB interface that is power-limited. Veselic supplies the "charging controller with a controllable output amount" and expressly contemplates non-USB sources where current limits are raised (750 mA), i.e., operation outside the 100/500 mA USB envelopes. WO 02/17460 supplies the "charger with a USB connector and a DC-DC power converter." Gilbert supplies the express teaching and motivation to exceed the USB power limit ("thereby overcoming the 2.5-watt power limit of bus 30") and to do so in response to signals on the USB data lines. A POSITA seeking to build a charger that could safely exceed USB current limits would naturally need to tell the sink device that it is attached to a non-USB-limited source — otherwise the sink would self-limit to 100/500 mA (exactly the problem the Veselic background describes). That is the identification-signal limitation, and it is supplied by routine USB signaling design choice.

This is a classic KSR combination: a known problem, a finite number of identified solutions (pull D+/D− to defined non-standard states; drive a distinctive line condition), and a predictable result.

Combination 2: US 2002/0038432 A1 (Acer/Benq) + Gilbert '205 + US 6,633,932 (TI)

Acer/Benq gives the charger + charging controller + USB interface + progress indicator and teaches the controller taking "the maximum charging current from a host system as a power source." Gilbert supplies the express suggestion to exceed the USB power limit. TI '932 supplies voltage-conversion circuitry in a USB-connector assembly. For claim 1, the Acer reference is arguably even closer on "charger" and "charging controller" than Veselic.

Combination 3 (for the identification-signal element specifically): LG '036 and/or Nokia EP 1 158 593 A1

US 2002/0162036 A1 (LG, "Electric power controlling method through a serial bus") and EP 1 158 593 A1 (Nokia, charger/terminal signaling including power-supply-status information on data lines) are the cited references most directly concerned with communicating power-source information over the data lines. Either may be added to Combinations 1 or 2 to supply the "identification signal for indicating the power output exceeds standard USB power limits" element — particularly if that element is construed, as the specification permits, as any detectable non-standard data-line condition.

Dependent claims

• Claims 3, 4, 8, 9, 12, 14 ("pulled into a high state"/"using at least one resistor"): Readily supplied. Gilbert '205 contemplates defined data-line states; Veselic '708 expressly uses resistors to set current limits and a switched pull-up (Q907, R909) on D+; the USB 2.0 specification's termination scheme (15 kΩ host pull-downs, 1.5 kΩ device pull-ups, and the resulting "both lines high" SE1 state) was ubiquitous background knowledge. These claims are the most obviously vulnerable.
• Claims 2, 7, 13 ("a resistance between the D+ and D− data lines"): This is the hardest limitation to meet with the cited art. The cited pre-critical-date references teach resistances from data lines to Vbus or ground (pull-ups/pull-downs) — not a resistance between D+ and D−. A resistance bridging D+ and D− is the DCP-short signature later standardized in USB Battery Charging 1.2 (2010), which post-dates the priority date. Unless the examiner/defendant can find additional pre-2003 art (e.g., a charger-detect scheme using a data-line bridging resistance), claims 2, 7 and 13 have a materially stronger non-obviousness position than claims 1, 6 and 11.
• Claim 5 and claim 10 ("at least one / a plurality of USB connectors"): Obvious. Multi-port charging and hub configurations were known (Acer/Benq's second embodiment uses a hub 51 to connect a second charging device; Gilbert notes paralleling power-extension peripherals).
• Claim 11's "delivering output power ... based on at least one of voltage and current draw detectable from power lines": Note this is broader than claim 1 in that it does not require the identification signal to be the trigger for the power delivery; Veselic '708 (voltage-drop sensing across the charge controller) and Gilbert '205 (current-sense of the primary-function module) map onto it directly.

6. Motivation-to-combine summary (articulable reasons)

1. Same field, same problem. Every reference is in the USB portable-device charging field and confronts the USB power ceiling (Gilbert: "2.5-watt power limit"; Veselic: "USB ports can only provide limited power"; WO '460: "the output current of the USB power line is limited to 500 mA").
2. Predictable, finite solutions. Exceeding a known current limit requires informing the sink device; the universe of signaling choices on a two-wire differential pair is small.
3. Explicit teaching in Gilbert that power may be supplied beyond the bus limit, coupled with data-line-based mode control, is a direct suggestion to do the same in a charger.
4. Reasonable expectation of success. Adding a signaling resistor/pull-up to an otherwise conventional USB charger involves no new technology and no unpredictable result.
5. Design incentive. Faster charging, reduced cost, elimination of a separate barrel connector — all expressly discussed in the cited references.

7. Rebuttal considerations / where the patent may survive

• The "not subject to USB power limits" identification signal is the point of novelty. The strongest argument for the patentee is that, although the components are old, no pre-2003-04-30 reference teaches a non-host charger that affirmatively signals its own non-USB-limited status over D+/D−. If the claim is construed to require a deliberate, affirmative, recognizable identification signal (as opposed to an incidental non-standard line state), the cited art's silence is meaningful. This is essentially the position FISI has taken in the parallel IPR proceedings on the related Fischer-family patents, and it succeeded at least in part in several of those.
• Teaching away. Veselic '708 and Acer/Benq both teach respecting the 100 mA/500 mA limits as a compliance virtue. A defendant would need to show that this is a preference rather than a teaching away; under KSR, "a patentee's preference does not foreclose" obviousness, and the mere disclosure of a compliant mode does not teach away from a non-compliant one.
• Secondary considerations. The family's commercial success (BlackBerry USB charging), copying by competitors, and industry adoption (later USB Battery Charging 1.2 standardization of D+/D− shorting) cut both ways: they support non-obviousness, but also confirm that the data-line identification concept became the industry norm and was, in retrospect, an obvious engineering step.
• Family-member problem. A serious hazard for any § 103 challenge here is that the RIM family is self-referential: the 2003 priority document (GB 2 401 259 B) and US 2007/0236184 A1 disclose the identification-signal feature in detail, but they are not prior art. A challenger must reconstruct the identification-signal teaching from third-party pre-critical-date art, and the cited third-party set is thin on that element.

8. Bottom line

• Claims 1, 6, 11 (and 5, 10): likely obvious over a combination of (i) a USB charger/charge-controller reference — US 2004/0164708 A1 (Veselic, § 102(e) as of 2003-02-21), US 6,798,173 B2 / US 2002/0038432 A1 (Acer/Benq), or WO 02/17460 A1 (Itechsolution); (ii) a power-conversion reference — US 6,633,932 B1 (TI) or WO 02/17460; and (iii) US 2001/0003205 A1 (Gilbert), which supplies the express motivation to exceed the USB power limit and to control operation via the USB data lines. Add US 2002/0162036 A1 (LG) and/or EP 1 158 593 A1 (Nokia) if the identification-signal element is pressed.
• Claims 3, 4, 8, 9, 12, 14: likely obvious in view of the same combinations plus the conventional USB pull-up/pull-down termination scheme.
• Claims 2, 7, 13 ("resistance between D+ and D−"): not clearly obvious on the cited record; the cited art teaches resistances to Vbus/ground, not a bridging resistance. This is the strongest candidate for survival.
• Caveat: several items in the page's "Patent Citations" list (e.g., US 2003/0184263 A1, US 2004/0063464 A1, US 2004/0212347 A1, US 2005/0230472 A1, US 2007/0005707 A1, US 2008/0074077 A1, JP 2004-158264 A, GB 2 401 258 B) and the two family members (GB 2 401 259 B, US 2007/0236184 A1) cannot be used as prior art against the 2003-04-30 claims. Any obviousness theory that leans on them is defective on its face.

If you want, I can convert any of these combinations into a formal, limitation-by-limitation claim chart with pinpoint citations (column/line or paragraph numbers) against each of claims 1–14.