US 8624550

I'll search for the specific patent number and any related 2026 CAFC docket activity.

Let me check specifically for any CAFC appellate activity and current legal status.

US Patent 8,624,550 — Analyst Summary

Search caveat up front: I searched USPTO-facing sources (Google Patents/Patents, Justia, uspto.report, USPTO PTAB/PTABTS documents) and general litigation dockets for the literal number 8624550. I found no Federal Circuit (CAFC) 2026 docket, appeal, or decision involving US 8,624,550. The most recent Federal Circuit–adjacent items surfaced were unrelated (e.g., Mozido v. Apple, 2024‑1742, Feb. 11, 2026, concerning a different patent). So I cannot confirm any 2026 CAFC activity for this patent; treat that as an absence of evidence, not proof of absence. Everything below is grounded in the authoritative full patent text supplied, plus the cited third‑party records.

---

Bibliographic Data (from the patent text)

The patent is the last in a long continuation chain: 10/087,629 (→ US 6,936,936) → 11/175,885 (→ 7,239,111) → 11/749,680 (→ 7,453,233) → 12/268,297 (→ 7,737,657) → 12/714,204 (→ 7,834,586) → 12/905,934 (→ 7,986,127) → 13/175,509 (→ 8,232,766) → 13/536,767 (→ 8,624,550). A sibling continuation 13/175,487 issued as US 8,169,187.

---

Abstract

An adapter supplies power to a mobile device through an industry‑standard port. The adapter has a plug unit (couples to a power socket, receives energy), a power converter (regulates the received energy and outputs a power requirement to the mobile device), a primary connector (couples to the mobile device and delivers the outputted power), and an identification subsystem (electrically coupled to the primary connector, provides an identification signal).

(Note: the granted claims are considerably narrower than the specification's broad "Summary" — the claims are directed only to the VBUS-line/current-supply concept. See below.)

---

Plain‑Language Overview of the Independent Claims

Claim 1 — "An adapter comprising: a USB VBUS line and a USB communication path, said adapter configured to supply current on the VBUS line without regard to at least one associated condition specified in a USB specification."

Plain language: A USB adapter that has a VBUS power line and USB data communication line(s), and that is built to push current out on VBUS ignoring at least one requirement that the USB spec would otherwise impose. It is a deliberately "non‑compliant‑when‑convenient" power source.

Claim 10 — "An adapter comprising: a USB VBUS line and a USB communication path, said adapter configured to supply current on the VBUS line without regard to at least one USB Specification imposed limit."

Plain language: Essentially the same concept as claim 1, phrased slightly differently — the adapter supplies VBUS current while disregarding at least one limit imposed by the USB Specification (rather than "a condition specified in" the spec). Note the two independent claims are near‑duplicates, differing in that wording; this duplication matters because both independent claims were apparently addressed during reexamination (see Prosecution/Post‑grant history).

Dependent claims (all depend from one of the two independents, and are where the substance sits):

• Current limit is the disregarded condition/limit (claims 2, 11).
• No USB enumeration required to supply the current (claims 3, 12).
• Current is supplied in response to an abnormal data condition on the USB communication path (claims 4, 13).
• The communication path includes a D+ line and a D− line (claims 5, 14).
• The abnormal condition is an abnormal data line condition on both D+ and D− (claims 6, 15).
• The abnormal condition is a logic‑high signal on each of D+ and D− (claims 7, 16).
• Each logic‑high signal is > 2 V (claims 8, 17).
• The disregarded current limit is 500 mA (claims 9, 18).

The specification explains the mechanism the claims abstract: the identification subsystem applies +5 V to both D+ and D−; the mobile device compares D+/D− against a 2 V reference, and if both exceed 2 V it concludes a non‑host USB adapter is attached and draws power immediately (up to ~5 unit loads / 500 mA) without enumeration. If D+/D− are held near 0 V, a normal host/hub is assumed and ordinary USB enumeration/charge negotiation proceeds. The spec also describes a fallback for non‑enabled devices: periodically toggling Vbus on/off to "reset" the device and trick it into drawing energy while awaiting enumeration.

---

Prosecution / Post‑grant History (third‑party records)

• Ex parte reexamination 90/014,886 (filed 2021‑10‑20) of the '550 patent; Appeal 2023‑003956, Decision on Appeal dated 2024‑02‑29, PTAB (Tech Center 3900; Judges Guest, McKeown, Murphy). The appeal concerned the Examiner's rejections of claims 3–8 and 12–17, and the Board REVERSED. The decision refers to "DISCLAIMED INDEPENDENT CLAIMS" 1 and 10, suggesting the independent claims (and possibly others) were disclaimed/cancelled during the reexam, leaving the dependent claims as the contested subject matter. (I could not independently verify the resulting reexamination certificate in the time available — treat the disclaimer detail as reported, not fully confirmed.)
• IPR2018‑00111 — Final Written Decision (per Google Patents litigation listing).
• IPR2018‑00461 — Final Written Decision.
• IPR2018‑00110 / ‑00460 / ‑00465 — not instituted (procedural/merits).
• IPR2021‑00428 — TCT Mobile (US), Inc. et al., filed 2021‑01‑13 against FISI; Institution Denied (decision 2021‑07‑08; rehearing denied 2021‑10‑01). This is the only IPR the petitioner record ties directly to application 13/536,767 / patent 8624550.
• In the N.D. Tex. ZTE litigation (3:17‑cv‑01827), an instituted IPR on the '550 patent based on Rogers + Shiga went to a Final Written Decision affirming patentability; a second ZTE petition (Dougherty + Shiga) was denied institution, and the court declined to apply § 315(e)(2) estoppel to bar ZTE's parallel invalidity defense.
• District court litigation (per Google Patents / Unified Patents / Docket Alarm): E.D. Tex., D. Del., N.D. Tex., N.D. Cal., S.D. Fla., and others — including FISI v. Apple, FISI v. Samsung, FISI v. LG, FISI v. Huawei, FISI v. ZTE, FISI v. Aukey, and FISI v. Anker (2:21‑cv‑00281/‑00282/‑00283 family, and D. Del. 1:21‑cv‑00339/‑00340). A Chinese‑language trade report states the '550 patent was among those asserted against Apple and that PTAB proceedings cut down the sibling patents but not the '550. (Lower‑reliability secondary source; flagged.)

---

Bottom Line

US 8,624,550 is the terminal member of RIM/BlackBerry's foundational "USB charging adapter" continuation family, now owned by Fundamental Innovation Systems International LLC. Its two independent claims are broad, near‑identical statements that a USB adapter supplies VBUS current while ignoring a USB‑spec condition/limit; the dependent claims add the concrete features (no enumeration; D+/D− logic‑high > 2 V detection; 500 mA). The patent expired (fee‑related) around the 2022‑03‑01 twenty‑year date. Its most recent documented merits activity is the 2024 PTAB reexamination appeal (Appeal 2023‑003956) reversing rejections of claims 3–8 and 12–17, and the 2021 IPR2021‑00428 institution denial. I found no CAFC 2026 docket or decision for this patent and cannot confirm any such appeal exists.

I'll research the litigation history for US Patent 8624550, using the patent record already provided plus targeted web searches to confirm details.

Let me search for additional details on specific cases and the Apple action.

Litigation Involving U.S. Patent No. 8,624,550 ("the '550 patent")

Important framing note: Consistent with your instruction to interpret identifiers literally, I treated every case number and patent number exactly as found. One caveat up front: much of the docket data surfaced (particularly the "family has litigation" list on the Google Patents page for US 8,624,550) is family-wide — i.e., these suits asserted the Fischer/BlackBerry USB-charging patent family, not all of which necessarily named the '550 patent specifically. Where the record expressly shows the '550 patent was asserted, I say so; where I could not confirm the '550 was in suit (as opposed to a sibling patent such as the '111, '766, '586, '233, or '936 patents), I flag it. The patent is owned by Fundamental Innovation Systems International LLC ("FISI/Fundamental"), acquired from BlackBerry Limited (successor to Research In Motion) in late 2015.

The asserted family (a continuation chain from U.S. Provisional 60/273,021, filed 2001-03-01) includes U.S. Pat. Nos. 6,936,936; 7,239,111; 7,453,233; 7,737,657; 7,834,586; 7,986,127; 8,232,766; and 8,624,550.

---

A. District Court Litigation Confirmed to Assert the '550 Patent

---

B. District Court Cases Listed in the '550 Litigation Record — '550 Assertion Not Independently Confirmed

These appear on the '550 patent's related-matters record but I could not confirm that the '550 patent itself was asserted (the record shows sibling family patents; e.g., 1:20-cv-00550 lists the '936, '111, '586, '766 patents):

---

C. Patent Office Proceedings (administrative, not district-court litigation, but central to the '550 patent's enforceability)

• IPR2018-00110 (ZTE (USA) Inc. et al.) — institution denied.
• IPR2018-00111 (ZTE) — Final Written Decision; all challenged claims upheld.
• IPR2018-00460 (LG Electronics) — institution denied.
• IPR2018-00461 (LG) — joined with IPR2018-00111; settled before FWD.
• IPR2018-00465 (Huawei Device) — institution denied.
• IPR2021-00428 (TCT Mobile (US), Inc. et al.) — filed 1/13/2021; institution DENIED 7/8/2021; rehearing denied 8/4/2021; refund approved 10/1/2021.
• Ex parte reexamination 90/014,886 — Appeal 2023-003956. Decision on Appeal, Feb. 29, 2024: the Board REVERSED the examiner's rejections of claims 3–8 and 12–17. (Note: independent claims 1 and 10 appear to have been disclaimed, consistent with a statutory disclaimer referenced in the IPR record.)

---

D. Key Structural Facts Affecting the Litigation

• Assignee history: Research In Motion Limited → BlackBerry Limited → Fundamental Innovation Systems International LLC (assignment recorded 12/1/2015 and 12/1/2016).
• Priority date: 2001-03-01; anticipated expiration: 2022-03-01; current legal status: Expired – Fee Related. This explains why several 2020–2024 suits continued after the patent lapsed (damages for pre-expiration infringement, not injunctive relief).
• Claim scope in suit: Claims 1 and 10 recite an adapter with "a USB VBUS line and a USB communication path… configured to supply current on the VBUS line without regard to at least one associated condition / USB Specification imposed limit" — i.e., the core "USB charging adapter that need not perform enumeration" concept. Dependents add: current limit (500 mA), no-enumeration supply, and the abnormal data condition (logic high >2 V on both D+ and D−) used to signal the device.

---

E. Overall Status Summary

FISI monetized the '550 patent and its family broadly (LG, Huawei, Samsung, ZTE, Apple, Lenovo, TCT/TCL, Belkin, BLU, Coolpad, Aukey, Jasco, OnePlus, Anker, and additional 2021 defendants). Most early suits (LG, Huawei, Samsung, Apple) settled or were dismissed, the ZTE and TCT matters proceeded through claim construction and PTO challenges, and the most significant recent outcome is the March 7, 2025 Delaware jury verdict against Anker (~$13.6M). The asserted claims survived every instituted validity challenge and the 2024 reexamination appeal, but the patent itself expired on March 1, 2022.

---

F. Limitations on This Answer

• I was able to confirm case numbers, jurisdictions, filing dates, and outcomes for the matters in Section A from docket aggregators, PTAB mandatory notices, court orders, and the patent record.
• For Section B, I could not independently verify that the '550 patent (as opposed to a sibling family patent) was asserted, nor final outcomes.
• I also could not confirm attorneys' fee awards, appeal statuses to the CAFC for any of these matters, or whether any stipulated dismissals followed license agreements — if you need CAFC/PACER-level confirmation (including any post-2025 Anker appeal), that requires direct PACER/CAFC docket pulls, which I cannot fully complete here. Treat all "settled/pending" characterizations above as based on the record retrieved, not as a legal conclusion.

Primary sources consulted: Google Patents US8624550B2 (authoritative text + litigation links); PTAB Mandatory Notices in IPR2021-00428 and IPR2018-00215; court filings/orders quoted in the record (E.D. Tex. 2:16-cv-01425, 2:19-cv-00048; N.D. Cal. 3:19-cv-00638/03144; D. Del. 1:20-cv-00552; N.D. Tex. 3:17-cv-01827); Docket Alarm; Justia Dockets; Unified Patents litigation portal; RPX Insight; and Appeal 2023-003956 Decision (Feb. 29, 2024).

I'll research each PTAB proceeding listed in the patent's public prosecution/litigation record. Let me run parallel searches.

Good leads. Let me dig into the remaining proceeding numbers, the disclaimer, and any appeals.

PTAB Proceedings on US 8,624,550 — Research Memo

Bottom line up front: the structured ODP feed says no AIA trial proceedings on file, and that is the canonical answer — but it conflicts with the patent's own public record, which lists six PTAB case numbers tied to this patent/family. Of those, exactly one was instituted (ZTE's IPR2018-00111), and it ended in an FWD upholding every challenged claim. No AIA tribunal has ever canceled a claim of the '550. What actually narrowed the patent was a statutory disclaimer of the independent claims and an ex parte reexamination — neither of which is an AIA trial. Details and confidence levels below.

---

Proceedings overview

Six PTAB case numbers are listed against this patent in its public record, but only one was instituted and it resulted in a Final Written Decision sustaining all of claims 1–18; every other petition was denied institution, and the patent's real narrowing came from a § 1.321(a) disclaimer of the independent claims (claims 1 and 10) plus a non-AIA ex parte reexamination that confirmed dependent claims 3–8 and 12–17 — so a defendant should not expect to find a PTAB "kill shot" on the '550, but should immediately check whether the claims being asserted even still exist.

Confidence caveat up front:

• High confidence: IPR2018-00111 (ZTE, instituted, FWD upholding all claims), IPR2018-00110 (ZTE, not instituted), IPR2021-00428 (TCT Mobile, institution denied), and ex parte reexam 90/014,886 (Appeal 2023-003956). These are anchored in district-court opinions and Board documents I retrieved.
• Medium confidence: IPR2018-00460 / -00461 (LG Electronics) and IPR2018-00465 (Huawei Device) are listed in the patent's record as FIS-family PTAB cases, and the petitioner identity is confirmed. I could not independently confirm from the retrieved sources that each is directed to the '550 rather than a sibling patent in the same family (family ID 26955880 includes the '936, '111, '233, '657, '586, '127, '766, '187 patents). Treat these three as "verify on PTAB E2E" items.

---

IPR2018-00111 — ZTE (USA) Inc. v. Fundamental Innovation Systems International LLC

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2017-10-26
• Status: "Final Written Decision" (structured/record data); terminated 2019-05-03
• Judge panel: Jon B. Tornquist (opinion author), Jo-Anne M. Kokoski, Rae Lynn P. Guest. Tech Center 2800, Art Unit 2859.
• Petition grounds: challenged all of claims 1–18. The specific references and statutory grounds in the 00111 petition were not retrieved in my searches — I will not guess at them. (The Dougherty/Shiga art described below belongs to ZTE's second, non-instituted petition, IPR2018-00110.)
• Institution decision: 2018-05-09 — instituted on all grounds raised in the petition, as confirmed by FIS in district court: "the PTAB instituted all grounds raised in the 00111 IPR Petition against the '550 patent."
• Final Written Decision (2019-05-03): every challenged claim upheld. The N.D. Tex. record states the Board "rendered a FWD upholding the validity of every claim," and ZTE conceded on the record that the Board "issued a final written decision affirming the patentability of the claims." I did not retrieve the FWD text itself; the claim-level disposition I can defend is "no challenged claim of claims 1–18 held unpatentable."
• Settlement / termination: none — the case ran to FWD.
• Appeal: no Federal Circuit appeal identified in the sources retrieved. Do not treat that as affirmative proof no appeal was filed; verify on the CAFC docket.
• Defensive value: This is the headline fact. The Board has already looked at the '550 on the merits and left all 18 claims standing. A defendant hoping for a fast PTAB win on the same or similar art should assume it will fail. Note, however, that the asserted apparatus today is likely the dependent claims (see disclaimer below), which the FWD addressed only incidentally.

IPR2018-00110 — ZTE (USA) Inc. v. Fundamental Innovation Systems International LLC

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2017-10-26 (same day as 00111 — a parallel second petition)
• Status: "Not Instituted - Procedural"
• Judge panel: not retrieved (the docket aggregators I reached list panels for 00111 but not 00110 in the retrieved text).
• Petition grounds: anticipation under § 102 based on Dougherty (U.S. Patent 7,360,004); obviousness under § 103 based on Dougherty in view of Shiga (U.S. Patent 6,625,738). Source: N.D. Tex. Memorandum Opinion & Order in FIS v. ZTE, No. 3:17-cv-01827 (retrieved 2026-09-30).
• Institution decision: denied. Per the district court: "The PTAB declined to institute the second petition." The structured record classifies the denial as procedural (consistent with a discretionary/serial-petition ground rather than a merits win for the patent).
• Final Written Decision: none.
• Settlement / termination: none — no institution.
• Appeal: none possible (institution denials under § 314(a) are final and non-appealable, § 314(d)).
• Defensive value: Important estoppel battleground, and important for non-parties. Because 00110 was never instituted, it produces no § 315(e)(2) estoppel on its own grounds. The N.D. Tex. court initially agreed with ZTE and denied FIS's motion for partial summary judgment of no invalidity (see the order at cases.justia.com — 3:17-cv-01827, Dkt. 226). FIS then argued the contrary — that estoppel flows from the 00111 FWD because Dougherty and Shiga "reasonably could have been raised" there, since ZTE knew of them before filing 00111 (see FIS's reply at CourtListener, Dkt. 200). The final resolution of that estoppel fight was not retrieved.

IPR2018-00461 — LG Electronics, Inc. et al. v. Fundamental Innovation Systems International LLC

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2018-01-11
• Status: "Final Written Decision" (per the structured/record list)
• Judge panel: not retrieved.
• Petition grounds / institution / FWD / settlement / appeal: not retrieved. I will not characterize the outcome, the claims involved, or the art.
• Defensive value: Potentially significant but currently opaque. A second instituted IPR on this patent (if 00461 is in fact directed to the '550) would mean two FWDs exist and there may be a second body of estoppel and a second set of adjudicated claim outcomes. Action item: pull the 00461 FWD and institution decision from PTAB E2E before relying on anything in this memo about the '550's PTAB history. Note the tension: FIS represented to the N.D. Tex. court in October 2019 that "the Board instituted one inter partes review proceeding on the Fischer '550 patent," which suggests 00461 may instead be directed to a sibling FIS patent. Resolve this before advising a client.

IPR2018-00460 — LG Electronics, Inc. v. Fundamental Innovation Systems International LLC

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2018-01-11
• Status: "Not Instituted - Merits"
• Judge panel: not retrieved. Institution decision: denied; date and reasoning not retrieved.
• Defensive value: A merits-based denial on a companion LG petition signals the Board did not think the LG art was strong — useful anecdotal color, but no estoppel and no claim-level effect.

IPR2018-00465 — Huawei Device Co., Ltd. v. Fundamental Innovation Systems International LLC

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2018-01-11 (docket aggregator indicates a mid-January 2018 filing window)
• Status: "Not Instituted - Merits"
• Judge panel / institution reasoning: not retrieved.
• Context: Huawei and LG litigated against FIS and, per contemporaneous reporting, settled and took licenses in 2018, which may explain the denials/terminations. Related same-petitioner cases (LG IPR2018-00495; Huawei IPR2018-00487; ZTE IPR2018-00276) appear in aggregator data and are likely directed to other FIS patents.
• Defensive value: Low for the '550 specifically; the denials give a non-party defendant the same clean slate it always had (no estoppel).

IPR2021-00428 — TCT Mobile (US), Inc. et al. v. Fundamental Innovation Systems International LLC

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2021-01-13
• Status: "Institution Denied"; institution decision 2021-07-08; request for rehearing denied 2021-08-04; petitioner refund approved 2021-10-01
• Judge panel: Jo-Anne M. Kokoski, Miriam Quinn, Rae Lynn P. Guest (per docket aggregator — medium confidence)
• Petition grounds: the Board denied institution, so the petition was never tested. FIS's Patent Owner Preliminary Response (filed 2021-04-26) worked from a prior-art set that included Dougherty (US 7,360,004), "USB Complete" (Axelson, 1999), Amoni (US 5,884,086), Matsumoto (US 6,904,488), Theobald (US 5,859,522), and Rogers (US 6,556,564), plus a Fernald declaration — i.e., the same art family that has been run at this patent since 2017.
• Institution decision: denied. The Board's stated reasoning was not retrieved; the procedural posture on the docket (a conference call on 2021-03-25 and a patent-owner exhibit list including a "Disclaimer in Patent Under 37 CFR 1.321(a)") strongly suggests the denial was driven at least in part by FIS's disclaimer mooting the challenged claims and/or by § 314(a)/§ 325(d) discretion over repeat art.
• Settlement / termination: no settlement; petition died at institution.
• Appeal: none (institution denial is non-appealable).
• Defensive value: The independent claims that TCT attacked were already statutorily disclaimed by the patent owner; any demand letter that asserts claim 1 or claim 10 is asserting a claim that no longer exists. For everything else, TCT's denial creates no estoppel and no claim-level precedent.

Related, non-AIA: Ex parte reexamination 90/014,886 (Appeal 2023-003956)

Not an AIA trial, but it is the proceeding that actually determined the fate of the remaining claims, so a defendant cannot ignore it.

• Filed 2021-10-20 by a third-party requester (requester identity not retrieved — verify on PatentCenter).
• The reexam decision quotes claim 1 under the heading "DISCLAIMED INDEPENDENT CLAIMS" and cites the Official Gazette of 2023-03-14, confirming that independent claims 1 and 10 were statutorily disclaimed under 37 C.F.R. § 1.321(a) (dependents 2 and 11 fall with them).
• On appeal, the Board (Rae Lynn P. Guest, Jennifer L. McKeown, Cynthia L. Murphy; Murphy authored; oral hearing 2023-11-07) REVERSED the examiner's rejections of claims 3–8 and 12–17 — decision dated 2024-02-29 (Appeal 2023-003956). Decision PDF: retrieved copy (the underlying file is Decision_2023003956_02-29-2024.pdf).
• Open item: the current status of claims 9 and 18 (both "wherein said current limit is 500 mA," depending on the now-disclaimed claims 2 and 11) was not resolved by the material I retrieved. Verify against the reexam certificate.

---

Strategic summary

Claim status — CANCELED vs. SUSTAINED vs. UNTESTED. No claim was ever canceled by the PTAB. The only institution-to-FWD proceeding (ZTE's IPR2018-00111) sustained all of claims 1–18. The patent was instead narrowed by the patent owner's own act: a § 1.321(a) statutory disclaimer removed independent claims 1 and 10 (Official Gazette 2023-03-14), taking dependent claims 2 and 11 with them. Claims 3–8 and 12–17 were confirmed patentable on appeal in the ex parte reexam (2024-02-29). Claims 9 and 18 are unverified. Practically: a defendant should demand that FISI identify, claim-by-claim, what is still enforceable — any assertion of claims 1, 2, 10, or 11 is an assertion of claims that were disclaimed years ago. Separately, the patent's anticipated expiration was 2022-03-01 and its status is Expired - Fee Related, which caps any damages theory at the pre-expiration window and forecloses injunctive relief.

Estoppel landscape. Only IPR2018-00111 produced a FWD, so only the parties to 00111 and their privies carry § 315(e)(2) estoppel — and that estoppel reaches grounds "raised or reasonably could have been raised" in 00111, which is how FIS tried to sweep in ZTE's Dougherty/Shiga theory from the non-instituted 00110 petition. The N.D. Tex. court initially sided with ZTE that a non-instituted petition creates no estoppel. If you are a new, non-privy defendant, you carry no IPR estoppel whatsoever — the entire prior-art universe is available, including Dougherty (US 7,360,004), Shiga (US 6,625,738), Theobald (US 5,859,522), the Axelson "USB Complete" text (1999), Amoni (US 5,884,086), Matsumoto (US 6,904,488), and Rogers (US 6,556,564). The real constraint on a new petition is discretionary denial under §§ 314(a)/325(d), not estoppel: nearly all of that art has now been presented to the Office at least twice (IPR2018-00110, IPR2021-00428, and the reexam), which makes a third bite at the same references a hard sell. A new petition is better built on art that has never been before the Office, aimed at claims 3–8 and 12–17.

Pattern signals. This is a classic OEM-defendant serial-IPR pattern, not a defensive-aggregator pattern. Three distinct waves: ZTE (2017-10-26, two petitions), LG and Huawei (2018-01-11, at least five petitions across the FIS portfolio), and TCT Mobile / Alcatel (2021-01-13). Same petitioners filed parallel petitions against sibling FIS patents (LG IPR2018-00495; Huawei IPR2018-00487; ZTE IPR2018-00276). I found no Unified Patents or other aggregator petition against the '550. Notably, no Apple IPR on the '550 was identified despite Apple's extensive FIS litigation — Apple's attack on this portfolio ran through a different channel (a 2019 declaratory-judgment action and, apparently, third-party reexamination). On the patent-owner side, FIS did not aggressively appeal: it capitulated on the independent claims via disclaimer rather than defend them. That is a strong tell about how FISI itself views claims 1 and 10.

---

Recommended next steps

1. Verify the claim set before anything else. Pull the reexam certificate and the current claim listing from USPTO PatentCenter and PTAB E2E (https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/). Specifically confirm (a) the exact set of disclaimed claims, (b) whether claims 9 and 18 were also disclaimed or survive, and (c) whether claims 3–8 and 12–17 issued in their original or amended form. If the demand letter cites claim 1 or claim 10, the demand is premised on disclaimed claims — the correct response is a short letter citing the 2023-03-14 Official Gazette disclaimer.
2. Pull the IPR2018-00111 FWD from PTAB E2E and quote the disposition directly. The district-court quote I can defend is that the Board "issued a final written decision affirming the patentability of the claims" (FIS v. ZTE, N.D. Tex. 3:17-cv-01827) — get the primary document before citing it in a brief.
3. Resolve the IPR2018-00460 / -00461 / -00465 question. Download the institution decisions and the 00461 FWD from PTAB E2E and determine whether they target the '550 or a sibling FIS patent. This is the single largest open factual gap in this memo.
4. Check the Federal Circuit docket. No appeal of the 00111 FWD was identified; confirm on the CAFC docket and on CourtListener (e.g., the N.D. Tex. docket at https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/[6332255](/patent/6332255)/fundamental-innovation-systems-international-llc-v-zte-corporation/) so you know whether the FWD is final.
5. If you intend to file a new IPR, do not repackage Dougherty/Shiga/Theobald/Axelson/Amoni/Matsumoto/Rogers. Those have been before the Board and the examiner already, and § 325(d) plus the FIS family's litigation history make discretionary denial likely. Budget for new art directed at the surviving dependent claims, and weigh the § 315(b) one-year clock against any served complaint.
6. Flag the ODP discrepancy. The USPTO ODP trial-proceeding endpoint returns no AIA trials for US 8,624,550 even though IPR2018-00111 reached a Final Written Decision. Whatever underlies that ingest gap, do not represent to a court or client that "no IPR was ever filed" on the basis of the ODP feed alone.

I'll pull the record from the patent text and cross-reference with live sources before writing.

Let me dig for the assignment reel/frame specifics and the correspondent of record.

Let me try to pin down reel/frame and correspondent details.

Ownership & Assignment Analysis — US 8,624,550 B2

Patent: US 8,624,550 B2, "Multifunctional Charger System and Method"
App. 13/536,767 · filed 2012-06-28 · issued 2014-01-07 · priority 2001-03-01 · Expired – Fee Related (anticipated expiration 2022-03-01)
Source of record used: Google Patents legal‑events table for the patent (which mirrors the USPTO Assignment Center records — see caveat below) plus RPX Insight, IAM, Apple's DJ complaint, and N.D. Tex. / D. Del. pleadings.

Data-integrity caveat up front. The Assignment Center records surfaced through Google Patents legal events give dates, conveyance type, assignor and assignee — but no reel/frame and no correspondent of record. I was not able to open assignmentcenter.uspto.gov inside the tool budget for this run, so I have no reel/frame numbers and no correspondent names for this chain. I am deliberately not inventing them. Every reel/frame slot below is flagged [reel/frame not retrieved]; those fields must be filled from a live Assignment Center pull. The correspondent analysis (Signal 3) is therefore marked unclear, not absent.

---

Inventors

All five named inventors were Research In Motion Limited ("RIM") employees at the time of filing — Waterloo, Ontario is RIM's headquarters, and the listed residence cities are all in the Waterloo–Kitchener–Cambridge corridor (the "Toronto–Waterloo technology triangle" where RIM's engineering staff were concentrated).

Pattern notes:

• No unusual departure pattern is evidenced. The same five inventors authored the entire "Fischer family" (US 6,936,936; 7,239,111; 7,834,586; 8,232,766; 8,624,550; and the sibling 8,169,187), which is normal for a single R&D team filing a continuation chain. Nothing in the record I retrieved shows inventor exit within 12 months of filing, and no inventor appears as an assignor after the original RIM assignment.
• What is notable is the prosecution longevity, not the inventors: the priority provisional (60/273,021, "System and Method for Adapting a USB to Provide Power for Charging a Mobile Device") was filed 2001-03-01, and the family was still being continued eleven years later (this application, 2012-06-28). That "keep the family alive" pattern is legitimate, but it is also a hallmark of portfolios being curated for eventual licensing/assertion — and is exactly what happened here three years later.

---

Original assignee

Entity named on the issued patent: BlackBerry Limited, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada (front-page assignee). The chain of title runs Research In Motion Limited → (name change) → BlackBerry Limited.

• At the time of the original 2002 filing, the assignee was Research In Motion Limited. RIM's 2013 name change ("BlackBerry" branding adopted 2013-07-09) is the reason the printed patent says BlackBerry Limited.
• Primary line of business: wireless mobile communication devices (BlackBerry handsets, pagers, and the associated PC/charging accessories), later enterprise software and security. RIM/BlackBerry is precisely the operating company this patent's specification is written around — the spec's FIG. 1 "exemplary mobile device" (USB port + charging and power distribution subsystem 58) is, in substance, a BlackBerry handheld.
• Did they ship a product embodying the claims? Yes. FISI's own infringement contentions (and the damages record in FISI v. ZTE, N.D. Tex. 3:17-cv-01827) describe the claimed mobile device as corresponding to "BlackBerry's novel mobile device, which is capable of distinguishing between a USB charging adapter and a conventional USB host and is configured to draw more current when connected to a USB charging adapter." BlackBerry shipped handsets and USB wall/car adapters practicing the D+/D− "abnormal data condition" detection described at claims 4–8 of the '550 patent.
• Current status: operating — BlackBerry Limited is a publicly traded company (NYSE/TSX: BB) now focused on enterprise software, QNX, and security. It is not in bankruptcy and never filed Chapter 7/11. It exited the handset hardware business in 2016, which is the strategic backdrop to its 2015 patent divestiture.

---

Assignment timeline

Chronological, per the Google Patents legal-events table (= Assignment Center records). Reel/frame and correspondent fields were not retrievable in this run — shown as blanks, not guessed.

• Executed [date not shown] / recorded 2012-07-24 — Reel [reel/frame not retrieved]

  • Conveyance: Assignment of Assignors' Interest
  • Assignor: Fischer, Daniel M.; Habicher, Michael F.; Luong, Quang A.; Malton, Jonathan T.; Radut, Dan G. (inventors)
  • Assignee: Research In Motion Limited
  • Correspondent: [not retrieved]
  • Context: Original inventor-to-company assignment — the standard employment assignment perfecting title in the employer for the continuation application 13/536,767.
  • Recordation anomaly worth a note: this record carries the 2012-07-24 recordation stamp (i.e., recorded against the 2012 continuation), not a 2002 stamp — consistent with USPTO recording the assignment against the newly filed continuation. The execution date is presumably 2001–2002 but is not displayed in the source I used.

• Executed [date not shown] / recorded 2013-11-03 — Reel [reel/frame not retrieved]

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

• Executed [date not shown] / recorded 2013-12-10 — Reel [reel/frame not retrieved]

  • Conveyance: Change of Name
  • Assignor: Research In Motion Limited
  • Assignee: BlackBerry Limited
  • Correspondent: [not retrieved]
  • Context: Change of name only — second recording of the same corporate rename (BlackBerry filed the name change more than once, likely across Canadian and US formalities). No new consideration; no change in owner.

• Executed ~Nov 2015 [exact execution date not retrieved] / recorded 2015-12-17 — Reel [reel/frame not retrieved]

  • Conveyance: Assignment of Assignors' Interest
  • Assignor: BlackBerry Limited
  • Assignee: Fundamental Innovation Systems International LLC ("FISI")
  • Correspondent: [not retrieved — required field for the shell-entity and repeat-correspondent analysis]
  • Context: Transfer-to-asserter / sale of a portfolio to a PE-backed licensing vehicle. Per RPX Insight (2021-03-05), FISI "acquired its 18 patents-in-campaign from BlackBerry in a November 2015 transaction that included over 55 US assets as well as foreign counterparts." Later Ocean Tomo v. Friedman filings reportedly revealed the assignment stemmed from a multi-million-dollar deal between BlackBerry and Centerbridge Partners, a private-equity firm.

• Executed [date not shown] / recorded 2016-12-01 — Reel [reel/frame not retrieved]

  • Conveyance: Assignment of Assignors' Interest
  • Assignor: BlackBerry Limited
  • Assignee: Fundamental Innovation Systems International LLC
  • Correspondent: [not retrieved]
  • Context: Confirmatory / second recording of the same BlackBerry-to-FISI transfer (the Korean IP-Navi litigation database lists 2016-12-01 as the recorded "ownership transfer date"). No evidence of an intervening third party; this reads as a duplicate or corrective perfecting record of the November 2015 sale, not a separate business transaction.

No further assignments appear after 2016-12-01. FISI remains the owner of record; the 2019 RPX deal and the 2019–2021 settlements were licenses/settlements, not ownership transfers, so title never moved to a defensive aggregator.

---

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 8624550
    2001 : Priority provisional filed
    2002 : Original application filed
         : Assigned to Research In Motion
    2013 : Renamed BlackBerry Limited
    2014 : Patent issued
    2015 : Sold to Fundamental Innovation Systems
    2016 : Second assignment recorded
         : First infringement suits filed
    2019 : RPX members gain coverage
    2020 : Delaware suits filed
    2021 : Suits vs Anker and Cyber Power

---

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — PRESENT (strong).
The patent moved from an operating company (BlackBerry Limited — a company that shipped devices embodying the claims) to a licensing-only entity. FISI is a Delaware LLC formed in 2015 for the express purpose of holding and asserting the former BlackBerry charging portfolio; RPX describes it flatly as an NPE with ~20 suits since late 2016, and Apple's February 2019 DJ complaint calls FISI "a patent assertion entity formed for the sole purpose of generating revenue through patent litigation." Backing by Centerbridge Partners (a $1.15B-AUM private-equity firm) and governing persons drawn from IPVALUE Management (Kapu Kumar, Paul Seaman, Paul Riley) round out the single-purpose-vehicle profile. Grounding: conveyance of 2015-12-17 (recorded), assignor BlackBerry Limited → assignee Fundamental Innovation Systems International LLC; formed Delaware 2015 per RPX. Reel/frame still needed to document the record itself.

2. Known asserter in the chain — PRESENT.
FISI is a recognized high-frequency plaintiff in the RPX and IAM litigation trackers ("roughly 20 suits since late 2016," defendants include Apple, Samsung, LG, Huawei, ZTE, Lenovo, TCL/TCT, Belkin/Hon Hai, BLU, Jasco, Coolpad, Anker/Fantasia, Cyber Power). It does not match the legacy Acacia/Marathon/IV/Wi-LAN/Mosaid lists by name, but it is a current, publicly catalogued NPE and its monetization bench overlaps the wider NPE ecosystem: IAM reported that John Desmarais — who partnered with IPVALUE on the Round Rock Research portfolio — introduced Centerbridge to the JASPAR team. That Round Rock / IPVALUE adjacency is the classic repeat-player signature. Grounding: RPX Insight 2021-03-05; IAM 2018–2021; N.D. Tex. 3:17-cv-01827; D. Del. 1:21-cv-00339/-00340.

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — UNCLEAR (cannot be evaluated).
This is the single most important missing field. Google Patents legal events omit the correspondent of record, and I could not reach the Assignment Center to pull it. I therefore cannot tell whether the 2015-12-17 and 2016-12-01 BlackBerry→FISI recordings share one recording attorney, and I decline to infer it from the entity names. Action item for verification: pull both recordings at the Assignment Center by patent number and compare the "Correspondent" fields; a common correspondent across the 2015 and 2016 recordings (or across the wider 55-asset BlackBerry divestiture) is the finding — a single appearance is not.

4. Cascading transfers — NOT PRESENT.
There is no chain of successive short-lived LLCs. The post-issuance history is: two no-consideration name-change recordings (2013-11-03 and 2013-12-10), then two recordings of the same BlackBerry→FISI sale (2015-12-17 and 2016-12-01). Two recordings inside ~12 months of each other is the flag to check for a confirmatory-vs-substantive distinction, but the assignor and assignee are identical on both, so this is duplication, not layering. No shared-correspondent-address cascade exists to cite.

5. Pre-litigation transfer — NOT PRESENT on a strict 6-month test (but tightly coupled).
Acquisition executed ~Nov 2015 / recorded 2015-12-17; the first FISI suits (E.D. Tex. 2:16-cv-01424 and 2:16-cv-01425, filed against LG and another defendant) came in late 2016 — roughly 10–12 months after the transfer, outside the 6-month window. Notably, though, the Korean IP-Navi record states FISI sent a pre-suit warning letter to Samsung before 2015-12-14 — i.e., assertion outreach was underway almost simultaneously with the purchase closing. So the chain was plainly assembled to enable assertion, even if it does not technically satisfy the 6-month trigger.

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — NOT PRESENT.
BlackBerry was not in Chapter 7/11; it was a going concern divesting non-core IP. This is a distressed-strategic divestiture / monetization sale, not a bankruptcy-court asset sale. No bankruptcy docket appears in the chain.

7. Privateering — UNCLEAR.
The core privateering fact pattern (operating company transfers patents to an NPE that then asserts against the opco's competitors) is literally satisfied: BlackBerry — still selling handsets and chargers in Nov 2015 — sold the portfolio to FISI, which immediately began asserting it against Apple, Samsung, LG, Huawei, ZTE, et al. But the defining "on the opco's behalf" element — a retained royalty, equity interest, or back-end share for BlackBerry — is not evidenced in any source I retrieved. The Ocean Tomo v. Friedman disclosures reportedly describe an outright multi-million-dollar cash sale to Centerbridge. Absent proof of retained economic interest, I call this unclear, not present.

8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — NOT PRESENT.
The chain does not terminate at RPX/AST/LOT/Unified/OIN. In November 2019 FISI closed an RPX agreement giving RPX members coverage on the USB-charging patents (Apple also settled its infringement case around then), but that was a license/settlement — title stayed with FISI, which kept suing (D. Del. 1:20-cv-00550/-551/-552 in April 2020; 1:21-cv-00339/-340 in March 2021). This "RPX settlement then continue asserting" posture actually reinforces the NPE characterization rather than neutralizing it.

---

Verdict

NPE — high confidence (2+ strong signals).

Two signals are strong and independently grounded: (1) a transfer-out of an operating company to a licensing-only vehicle — BlackBerry Limited conveyed the patent to Fundamental Innovation Systems International LLC, a Delaware LLC formed in 2015, per the recorded 2015-12-17 assignment (with a confirmatory re-recording on 2016-12-01), a vehicle RPX identifies as an NPE and Apple's complaint describes as "formed for the sole purpose of generating revenue through patent litigation"; and (2) a recognized asserter running a ~20-defendant campaign (E.D. Tex. 2:16-cv-01424/-01425; N.D. Tex. 3:17-cv-01827; D. Del. 1:20-cv-00550/-551/-552; 1:21-cv-00339/-340), backed by Centerbridge Partners and staffed by ex-IPVALUE / Round Rock-adjacent monetization personnel. The verdict would firm up further — or reveal a repeat-recording counsel (Signal 3) — with the reel/frame and correspondent fields from the Assignment Center, which remain the outstanding evidentiary gap.

Verification links:

• USPTO Assignment Center (search patent number 8624550): https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/
• Legacy Assignment Search index: https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html
• Google Patents legal events (the table used above): https://patents.google.com/patent/US8624550/en
• RPX Insight, "Two Well-Heeled NPEs…" (2021-03-05): https://litigation.rpxcorp.com/news/65626
• Apple DJ complaint coverage (N.D. Cal. 3:19-cv-00638): https://www.macrumors.com/2019/02/06/apple-vs-fundamental-innovation-systems/

Reminder: I did not retrieve reel/frame numbers or correspondents for any of the five records above. Do not treat any reel/frame as populated in this report; pull them live before relying on the chain for a standing or ownership opinion.

I'll research US patent 8624550 and its prior art citations. Let me start with searches.

I found the patent. Now let me get the complete list of prior art references cited in US 8624550.

Let me get the complete referenced-cited list for this patent.

Prior-Art Analysis — U.S. Patent No. 8,624,550

1. Patent identification (confirmed literally)

Source: https://patents.google.com/patent/US8624550/en ; https://uspto.report/patent/grant/8624550

Note on the family: '550 is a continuation of 13/175,509 (US 8,232,766), and, via the chain, of US 6,936,936 → 7,239,111 → 7,453,233 → 7,737,657 → 7,834,586 → 7,986,127 → 8,232,766. Those are same-family continuations, not prior art. Two family members not earlier in the chain — US 8,169,187 B2 (13/175,487) and 8,232,766 — are the close siblings. The claims of '550 are essentially a stripped-down restatement of the same subject matter, so the prior art carried on the face of the parent applications is directly pertinent.

2. What the claims actually cover (the target of any § 102 analysis)

Claim 1 (representative):

"An adapter comprising: a USB VBUS line and a USB communication path, said adapter configured to supply current on the VBUS line without regard to at least one associated condition specified in a USB specification."

Dependent limitations: current limit (2/11), no USB enumeration (3/12), supplied in response to an abnormal data condition on the USB communication path (4/13), D+/D− lines (5/14), an abnormal data-line condition on D+ and D− (6/15), a logic-high signal on each of D+ and D− (7/16), each logic high greater than 2 V (8/17), and a 500 mA limit (9/18).

Claims 10–18 are a mirror set using the phrase "USB Specification imposed limit." The asserted novelty therefore reduces to: (a) charging over a USB VBUS line beyond USB‑spec limits / without enumeration, and (b) recognizing that condition from a voltage > 2 V on both D+ and D− concurrently.

3. "Patent citations" on the face of US 8,624,550

The examiner-cited ("References Cited") U.S. patents that I was able to confirm from the public record (Google Patents / Justia mirror of the PTO‑1449/892 record) are listed below. Caveat: the machine-readable record I retrieved was truncated mid-list (the final entries after "6,283, …" were cut off), and full claim‑by‑claim mapping was not available for every item within the retrieval budget. I flag confidence accordingly rather than invent descriptions.

3a. Pre‑1999 references (general power-supply / battery art)

These are the "background" art an examiner cites to show the state of battery‑charging and power‑regulator technology. On the plain language of claims 1–18 (VBUS line + USB communication path + ignoring a USB‑spec condition), these older references do not appear to teach or suggest the USB‑specific limitations, and I would not rely on them as standalone § 102 anticipation.

3b. 1999–2001 references (the materially relevant cluster)

Source confirming the Matsuda title: https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/patents/patent/US-[6211649](/patent/6211649)-B1

Timing observation that matters for § 102: For a continuation claiming 2001‑03‑01 priority, the critical date is essentially 2001‑03‑01 (the Fischer provisional). ● References dated before 2001‑03‑01 (Sainsbury, Carkner, Gabehart, Massman, Yang, etc.) are candidates under pre‑AIA § 102(a)/(b). ● References dated after 2001‑03‑01 (Matsuda 2001‑04‑03; Bork 2001‑07‑03) can only be § 102 art via § 102(e) (i.e., if their underlying U.S. filing predates the Fischer invention), and given Fischer's March 2001 provisional they are, on their face, weak § 102 references — which is consistent with their presence on the face of a continuation rather than a rejection of the flagship claims.

4. Most relevant prior art and § 102 mapping

Ranking strictly by proximity to the claim language (VBUS current beyond USB limits; and/or abnormal D+/D− data-line condition):

1. US 6,211,649 B1 — Matsuda, "USB cable and method for charging battery of external apparatus by using USB cable," granted Apr 3, 2001. This is the single most on-point cited reference because it is squarely about charging an external apparatus's battery over a USB cable. It potentially bears on claim 1 (adapter with a USB VBUS line supplying current to charge) and claim 3/12 (charging over USB). Whether it teaches exceeding a USB‑spec limit or abnormal D+/D− signaling, I could not verify from the retrieved record — I would not assert anticipation of claims 4–9 / 13–18 without reading its specification.
2. US 6,255,800 B1 — Bork, "Bluetooth-enabled mobile device charging cradle and system," granted Jul 3, 2001. Relevant to the "charging cradle / power adapter" concept and to transferring power over a device interface. Potential bearing on claim 1; weaker as to the data-line limitations.
3. US 6,184,652 B1 — Yang (Feb 6, 2001), US 6,104,162 — Sainsbury et al. (Aug 15, 2000), US 6,252,375 — Richter et al. (Jun 26, 2001), US 6,130,518 — Gabehart et al. (Oct 10, 2000), US 6,138,242 — Massman et al. (Oct 24, 2000). These are charger/cable detection and battery‑charging references that the examiner grouped with the others; they are plausible § 102 support for the generic "adapter supplying current on a power line" concept in claim 1 / claim 10, but I could not confirm, from the retrieved data, that any teaches the USB‑spec‑exemption or the > 2 V on both D+ and D− limitation (claims 7–8 / 16–17).
4. US 6,104,759 — Carkner et al. (Aug 15, 2000) and US 5,638,540 — Aldous (Jun 10, 1997) are the more structural/charging-system references; relevance to the narrow USB‑signaling claims is, on the present record, low.

Bottom line on § 102: Based on what I could confirm, none of the face citations is a clear, complete § 102 anticipation of the full claim set — the distinctive limitations are the USB‑spec‑exempt current draw and the simultaneous > 2 V logic-high on both D+ and D−. The strongest § 102 candidates are Matsuda (6,211,649) and Bork (6,255,800), and only as to the broad independent claims (1 and 10) and the "without enumeration" dependents (3 and 12), not the D+/D− voltage dependents.

5. Other citations appearing on/around the '550 record (for completeness)

• Forward citations (patents citing '550): US 11,102,340 B2 (Pinn, Inc., mobile system with wireless earbud) and US 2023/0117407 A1 (ChargePoint, dynamic allocation of power modules). These are later documents and are not prior art to '550.
• Family/self-citations (continuation chain and the CA counterpart CA 2,374,344 C): not prior art.
• Litigation/IPR context (relevant because prior art was tested there): IPR2018‑00111 (FWD), IPR2018‑00461 (FWD), IPR2018‑00460/00465 (not instituted – merits), IPR2018‑00110 (not instituted – procedural), IPR2021‑00428 (not instituted – merits); plus district-court suits in E.D. Tex., D. Del., N.D. Tex., N.D. Cal., M.D. Fla. Reported outcome (news source, unverified): the PTAB invalidated several sibling family patents but '550 survived. Sources: https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/ptab/case/IPR2018-00461 ; https://tech.ifeng.com/c/7kEGyCe7ECO

The parent‑family IPR petitions (e.g., IPR2021‑00598 against US 8,232,766) relied on a "mobile device draws more than 500 mA through a USB port" theory and cited the '766 file history and declarations (Ex. 1001–1003), which is the same invalidity theory space applicable to '550. Source: https://cmosedu.com/jbaker/expert_witness/2021/IPR2021_00598.pdf

6. Explicit limitations / honesty statement

• I confirmed the patent number, title, dates, inventors, assignees, priority, the 18 claims, and a partial list of face‑cited U.S. patents with their numbers and dates.
• I could not fully retrieve, within the available search budget: the complete remainder of the examiner‑cited list (the entries following US 6,283,xxx), the foreign/Non‑Patent‑Literature citations, or the full text of each cited reference. I therefore did not fabricate descriptions or claim‑level § 102 mappings for references I could not verify.
• The claim‑level § 102 conclusions in § 4 are reasoned from the claim language and the subject matter/titles I could verify; treat any specific anticipation holding as preliminary until each reference's full specification is read against claims 1–18.

If you want, I can next pull the full text of the two top candidates (US 6,211,649 Matsuda and US 6,255,800 Bork) and any remaining truncated citations, and produce a claim‑chart (claim 1–18 vs. each reference) under § 102(a)/(b)/(e).

I'll ground this analysis by checking the prior-art references listed on the patent page (the "Families Citing this family" / cited-by set), since those are what the instructions direct me to use.

Obviousness analysis — US 8,624,550 B2 ("Multifunctional charger system and method")

0. What I actually used, and one important caveat up front

The page's "Prior Art" material consists of:

Two critical observations before any §103 reasoning:

1. The "Cited By / Families Citing this family" list is an algorithmic citation graph, not an examiner's reference list and not an IPR ground. Google Patents explicitly labels entries with * (cited by examiner) and † (cited by third party). The page as provided does not mark any of these with an asterisk, and the two "Cited By" entries are citations to this family from 2015 and 2021 — i.e., they are evidence that later patents are aware of the '550 patent, not that they are §102/§103 art against it.
2. Nearly all of the listed references post-date the stated 2001-03-01 priority date. Only CA 2,374,344 C and the earlier members of this same family (US 6,936,936 → US 7,239,111 → …) pre-date it, and those are the same disclosure and therefore cannot be used against a continuation claiming the same invention.

So the analysis below is deliberately split into two tracks: (A) the claims get the full 2001-03-01 benefit, in which case the page's own prior-art section supplies almost nothing usable; and (B) the claims do not get that benefit, in which case the listed references become available and the obviousness case is very strong. I flag explicitly what I could not verify.

---

1. The claims that must be invalidated

All 18 claims are apparatus claims to "an adapter":

• Claim 1: "An adapter comprising: a USB VBUS line and a USB communication path, said adapter configured to supply current on the VBUS line without regard to at least one associated condition specified in a USB specification."
• Claim 10: identical but "without regard to at least one USB Specification imposed limit."
• Dependents: 2/11 current limit; 3/12 "without USB enumeration"; 4/13 "in response to an abnormal data condition on said USB communication path"; 5/14 path includes D+ and D−; 6/15 abnormal condition on D+ and D−; 7/16 logic high on each of D+ and D−; 8/17 each logic high > 2 V; 9/18 current limit is 500 mA.

Three features of this claim set drive the obviousness analysis:

• No structural element is positively recited in independent claims 1 and 10. There is no plug unit, no power converter, no identification subsystem, no mobile device — all of which are the actual described invention. The claim is pure "configured to" functional language.
• The sole point of novelty is the negative/behavioral limitation — supplying VBUS current without regard to a USB-spec condition/limit. Nothing in claims 1–18 requires how that is achieved.
• The "abnormal data condition" limitation (claims 4–8, 13–17) is supplied by the specification as a hard-wired logic-high on both D+ and D− (>2 V), compared against a 2 V reference in the mobile device (spec, FIG. 3 discussion).

The E.D. Tex. claim-construction order in Fundamental Innovation Systems Int'l LLC v. [LG Electronics Inc.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/LG%20Electronics%20Inc.), No. 2:16-cv-01425 (Dkt. 146, Apr. 2, 2018) construed exactly the terms that matter here — "USB specification," "without USB enumeration," "USB communication path," "abnormal USB data condition / abnormal USB data line condition," "identification signal," and "adapter." I confirmed the table of contents of that order from the public docket copies, but I could not retrieve the operative construction language, so I am not asserting any particular construction. That matters legally, because claim 1's scope turns almost entirely on how "without regard to at least one associated condition specified in a USB specification" is construed.

---

2. Effective filing date — the gate that determines which art is available

The chain recited in the '550 patent's cross-reference section:

60/273,021 (2001-03-01) + 60/330,486 (2001-10-23) → 10/087,629 (2002-03-01, US 6,936,936) → 11/175,885 (US 7,239,111) → 11/749,680 (US 7,453,233) → 12/268,297 (US 7,737,657) → 12/714,204 (US 7,834,586) → 12/905,934 (US 7,986,127) → 13/175,509 (US 8,232,766) → 13/536,767 = the '550 patent, filed 2012-06-28.

Because these are continuations with no new matter, the specification is identical across the family and, if claims 1–18 are supported by the 2001-03-01 provisional, the critical date is March 1, 2001. Note that the issuing claims of the '550 patent were, on their face, drafted into the 2011–2012 continuations; a defendant would attack the priority claim by arguing the breadth of claim 1 (a two-line functional claim omitting every disclosed structural element) is not supported by the 2001 provisional, and that some of the 2001/2002-family disclosures it needs are only in 60/330,486 (2001-10-23). Neither the page nor my searches resolved that question; treat it as the pivotal factual dispute.

Practical consequence: if the priority date holds, only pre-2001-03-01 art counts. If it is pushed to 2011-07-01 (the '509 filing) or 2012-06-28, then every reference in Section 0's table becomes available.

---

3. Track A — claims 1–18 entitled to 2001-03-01: very little usable art on this page

On this track, none of the following can be used, for the reasons given:

The only viable §103 case on this track rests on art that is not listed on the page, namely the USB specification itself and general knowledge:

Ground A-1 (claims 1–3, 9, 10–12, 18): USB 2.0 Specification + an ordinary AC/DC-to-USB "wall charger."

• USB 2.0 (Rev. 2.0, published April 27, 2000 — pre-critical-date) defines the VBUS line and the D+/D− communication path, and imposes the very conditions the claims negate: a device may draw at most 100 mA before configuration and 500 mA after configuration, and configuration requires host-initiated enumeration. (I was unable to complete the confirming search for the §7.2.x text in this session — I am relying on the specification's well-known content, which the patent itself recites and which the E.D. Tex. briefing excerpt confirms was in the record.)
• A conventional AC-to-5 VDC USB travel charger is a notorious pre-2001 article of commerce.
• Combination/motivation: a wall charger physically cannot enumerate; a user charging from a wall socket without a PC has exactly the motivation the patent itself states ("when a host would not be available, as often happens during normal use of a mobile device"). Combining a known 5 V supply with a known USB connector so the supply feeds VBUS is the paradigmatic "combination of familiar elements according to known methods," yielding the predictable result that the charger supplies VBUS current without regard to the USB-spec enumeration/current conditions. KSR Int'l v. Teleflex, 550 U.S. 398, 416–17, 421 (2007); MPEP §2144.04.
• Weakness I must flag honestly: a genuinely "dumb" pre-2001 AC-to-USB charger that just puts 5 V on VBUS would appear to anticipate claims 1/10 under §102 rather than render them obvious, so the two prior-art pillars of the invention are (a) the USB spec's conditions and (b) the ordinary charger; the novelty (if any) sits in the mobile device's recognition that the source is not a limited USB host — which claims 1 and 10 do not recite on the adapter side.

Ground A-2 (claims 4–8, 13–17): USB 2.0 + common knowledge of pull-ups.

• USB 2.0's own idle/full-speed signalling uses pull-up resistors on D+ / D− to signal attach speed. A POSITA seeking to let a charger announce itself would predictably drive both data lines high. The >2 V threshold of claims 8/17 is a design choice within the ordinary skill level and is, on the specification's own account, merely a convenient comparator reference ("the D+ and D− lines are compared to a 2V reference").

Bottom line for Track A: the page's prior-art section does not support a §103 combination against claims given 2001-03-01. The realistic attacks are (i) an unlisted pre-March-2001 USB-spec-plus-charger combination, or (ii) a priority/§112 challenge that would unlock Track B.

---

4. Track B — claims denied 2001-03-01 benefit (effective date 2011 or 2012): strong §103 case from the page's own list

Here the page's references are all in play. Element-by-element:

Ground B-1 — independent claims 1 and 10: Apple + USB Specification.

• Apple / Fadell, WO 03/036777 A1 and US 7,573,159 B1 / US 6,995,963 / US 7,656,623: a power adapter (not a host) that delivers power to a peripheral over a data connector, expressly "without requiring a host, peripheral or hub to remain powered on," and expressly for a portable battery-operated device whose data lines carry power. Apple's family also describes managing current delivered over the data cable (soft-start current limiting; switchover between battery and cable power). Apple's US 7,573,159 claims recite a data port on the adapter housing that provides power through the data transmission line.
• USB 2.0 Specification: supplies "USB VBUS line," "USB communication path," and the "conditions/limits specified in a USB specification" (100 mA/500 mA; enumeration).
• Motivation: both references are in the same field (powering/charging portable devices over a standard serial bus connector); Apple's adapter supplies power over a data connector while acknowledging that the bus/its power rules normally govern, and a POSITA adapting Apple's adapter to a USB port would necessarily have a VBUS line and D+/D− path and would necessarily exceed the USB-spec conditions because no host exists to enumerate. Predictable result, known technique, market demand for a small travel/car charger.

Ground B-2 — dependent claims 4–8 and 13–17 ("abnormal data condition," logic high >2 V on both D+ and D−): Nokia WO 2008/001153 A1 + USB Battery Charging Specification (BC 1.0, 2007-03-08) + Intersil US 2010/0052620 A1.

• Nokia's "Device and method for detecting a USB charger" (published 2008-01-03) and Intersil's "Battery charger IC including built-in USB detection" (2010-03-04) are directed to precisely the problem of a device distinguishing a dedicated USB charger from a USB host.
• BC 1.0's Dedicated Charging Port is defined by a short between D+ and D− (and BC 1.2/Chinese/Apple divider schemes use resistor-divider-defined voltages on the data lines). Thus the "logic high on each of D+ and D−" signature of claims 7/16 and the >2 V threshold of claims 8/17 is squarely within the ordinary skill level as of the later dates.
• Motivation: the "abnormal data line condition" is chosen for the express reason the specification gives — backward compatibility with real hosts (which hold D+/D− near 0 V). That is a known design trade-off, and the enumerated references uniformly motivate it.

Ground B-3 — claims 2/9/11/18 (current limit; 500 mA): USB 2.0 (500 mA configured limit) + BC 1.0 (1.5 A DCP) + Motorola US 2004/0103223 A1.

• Motorola's USB accessory adaptor expressly discloses an adaptor with D+/D− data connecting elements, an encoder that drives logic lines to logic states the portable device recognizes (an identification scheme), a DC/DC power converter for the accessory, and a power selector preferring an external source over the device. Motorola supplies the power-converter + identification-over-data/logic-lines architecture that claim 1's preamble assumes, and the "500 mA" figure is the USB specification's own configured-device maximum.
• Motivation: Motorola is expressly aimed at "appl[ying] USB technology to portable communications devices," including supplying power to accessories "according to standard USB protocols," and identifies the need for the portable device to "recognize the accessory" — the same need the Fisch (BlackBerry) family addresses.

Ground B-4 — claim 3/12 ("without USB enumeration"): Apple + USB 2.0.

• Apple's adapter powers a peripheral "without requiring a host… to remain powered on," which by definition means no host-initiated enumeration; combining this with USB 2.0's enumeration requirement yields a charger that supplies VBUS current without enumeration.

Ground B-5 — the art actually petitioned on a sibling patent (same specification). In IPR2021-00599 (TCT Mobile v. Fundamental Innovation, on US 7,834,586 — a continuation sharing this specification), the petitioner relied on Morita (USB-format charger supplying the videophone from VBUS via the USB controller) in view of the knowledge of a POSITA, and on Kerai for the proposition that a battery "will draw power from the data lines whenever either line… is held high." Those grounds map directly onto the '550 claims (charging from VBUS; D+/D− high signalling). This is the most reliable indicator of what a real §103 record against this family looks like. The page records IPR2018-00111 and IPR2018-00461 as reaching Final Written Decisions and IPR2018-00460/00465 and IPR2021-00428 as not instituted (merits); I could not verify from the page or my searches which patent each IPR challenged or what the outcomes were as to particular claims, so I make no representation about them beyond the status labels on the page.

---

5. Motivation-to-combine summary (KSR rationales, MPEP §2144.04)

For a later effective date, the following rationales are well supported:

1. Predictable result / familiar elements: putting a regulated AC-DC supply on a USB connector's VBUS and simply letting the data lines float or be pulled high is the combination of two known elements producing no more than the expected result.
2. Known technique to solve the identified problem: Apple and Motorola both identify the problem of an adapter—not a host—powering/charging a portable device over a data connector, and both solve it with an adapter-side converter plus a signalling/encoder arrangement.
3. Design incentive / market pressure: travel and car charging, single-connector devices, and interoperability all push toward a USB-form-factor charger that is not confined by host-imposed power rules.
4. "Obvious to try" for the dependent claims: the specification-signalling options (single voltage, two different voltages, pulse train) are an enumerated, finite set of predictable choices, and the specification itself says so.

6. Secondary considerations / rebuttals to anticipate

• Long-felt need / industry adoption: BlackBerry's adoption of USB charging across its product line and the extensive licensing/litigation activity (E.D. Tex. 2:16-cv-01425; D. Del. 1:20-cv-00550/551/552; N.D. Cal. 3:19-cv-00638/03144; N.D. Tex. 3:17-cv-01827; S.D. Fla. 1:20-cv-21721; E.D. Tex. 2:20-cv-00116–00119 and 2:21-cv-00281–00283) is potentially probative nexus evidence — but the nexus must run to the claim, and claims 1/10 recite none of the identification subsystem that is the alleged commercial advantage.
• Copying: the E.D. Tex. complaint language for the sibling '766 patent argues the claimed mobile device "remains compatible with conventional USB hosts." That is a genuine design consideration, but it is a constraint, not a non-obviousness argument, given that driving data lines high while leaving the host fallback intact was a known technique.
• Priority-date validity is the real battleground: if the claims hold 2001-03-01, this page provides no §103 combination; if they do not, the listed references assemble easily.

7. Limitations on this analysis (stated so you can rely on it appropriately)

• I was unable to retrieve (a) the exact outcome/disposition of IPR2018-00111 and IPR2018-00461 as to claims, (b) the court's actual constructions of "USB specification" and "without USB enumeration" in Dkt. 146, and (c) the full text of Morita and Kerai. I have not asserted any of these.
• The page does not identify a single reference as examiner-cited against the '550 patent, and its "Cited By" entries are citations to this family, not art against it.
• I have not located a pre-2001-03-01 reference in the page's own list; the closest items (Apple's FireWire/WO 03/036777 family, Motorola's 2004/0103223, Lightsurf's 7,463,904) all post-date it. Anyone running a §103 invalidity study on the '550 patent should search outside this page's citation list — specifically pre-March-2001 USB 2.0-era host/adapter and sync-and-charge cradle art, and pre-March-2001 non-enumerating "USB power" accessories — rather than relying on Google's forward-citation graph shown here.