US 7791319

I'll verify the specifics for US 7,791,319 with targeted searches.

Let me check for any 2026 appellate activity.

US 7,791,319 B2 — Verification Summary

Source grounding: Full text at https://patents.google.com/patent/US7791319/en; PTAB petition record at ptacts.uspto.gov; PTAB/litigation trackers (ipverse.greyb.com, patexia, docketalarm); Fundamental Innovation Sys. Int'l v. Samsung, No. 2:17-cv-145-JRG-RSP (E.D. Tex.).

Bibliographic data (verified against the patent front page)

Note on identifiers: the record uses both "Research in Motion Ltd" and "RESEARCH IN MOTION LIMITED" in assignment entries; the 2014-10-14 reassignment to BlackBerry Limited is recorded as a change of name, and the Google record also lists a 2015-08-17 BlackBerry change-of-name entry. I am reporting these as listed rather than reconciling them.

Abstract (as granted, verbatim)

A battery charging circuit comprising: a semiconductor switch having an output connected to a rechargeable battery; a battery charge controller for receiving power from an external source, and supplying output power to a portable device and the input of the semiconductor switch, the current output of the battery charge controller being controllable; and a voltage sensing circuit for measuring the voltage drop across the battery charge controller; and responding to the voltage drop by modulating the semiconductor switch to reduce the quantity of current supplied to the rechargeable battery when the voltage drop is too great; whereby the total power dissipated by the battery charge controller is controlled, the portable device receiving the power it needs to operate and the rechargeable battery receiving any additional available power.

Plain-language overview of each independent claim

Claim 1 — battery charging circuit (USB).
Four elements: (a) a semiconductor switch whose output connects to the rechargeable battery and which can isolate the battery from the portable device; (b) a battery charge controller that takes power from an external USB port and feeds the portable device — where the portable device has at least one function unrelated to the charge controller — and the battery, with battery current routed through the switch; (c) the controller limits output so device + battery cannot exceed a predetermined maximum current available from the USB port; and (d) a voltage sensing circuit measures the voltage drop across the charge controller and, in response, modulates the switch so the portable device gets the power it needs to operate and the battery gets whatever is left over.

Claim 14 — battery charging circuit with USB current tiers.
Substantially claim 1, but the predetermined maximum is specified as about 100 mA for a low-power USB port and about 500 mA for a high-power USB port, with the controller configurable to those levels according to the USB port's current limits.

Claim 19 — battery charging circuit with USB or non-USB source.
Substantially claim 1, but the controller may receive power from either a USB port or a non-USB source, and may set the predetermined maximum current to one of a plurality of limits depending on whether the source is a low-power USB port, a high-power USB port, or a non-USB source.

Claim 20 — means-plus-function system claim.
A system for charging a battery of a portable device (the device having a function unrelated to charging) from USB port power, comprising: means for receiving USB power; means for supplying that power to battery and device with the supplied power limited to a predetermined maximum current available from the USB port; and means for both isolating the battery from the portable device and controlling battery current so the device gets a predetermined amount and the battery gets the remainder.

Cross-reference: dependent claim 12 recites "a semiconductor switch coupled between the battery charge controller and the rechargeable battery," duplicating the switch element of claim 1 — a point potentially relevant to any claim-differentiation analysis.

Litigation / post-grant posture (verified)

• E.D. Tex. Fundamental Innovation Systems Int'l LLC v. Samsung Elecs. Co., No. 2:17-cv-00145 (Judge Gilstrap), with a lengthy claim-construction order covering the '319 family ("battery charge controller," "voltage drop across the battery charge controller," "a remainder of power available…", "reference voltage," interfacing-claim terms for the '936 family, etc.).
• Other suits naming the '319 patent: FISI v. LG Electronics (2:16-cv-01425), FISI v. Huawei (2:16-cv-00042), FISI v. ZTE — all E.D./W.D. Tex.
• PTAB: IPR2018-00621 (Samsung, filed 2018-02-12; terminated 2018-07-16 — settlement); IPR2018-00676 and IPR2018-00677 (LG, filed 2018-02-22; terminated — settlement). Petition materials confirm the '319 patent was also involved in an IPR2018-00678 challenge to related US 7,999,514. All three '319 proceedings appear to have ended without a final written decision.

Continuation family (relevant to term and to any live disputes)

Division/continuation filings off the same 2003-02-21 priority claim: US 12/696,655 → US 7,847,520; US 12/860,591 → US 7,906,940; US 13/028,361 → US 7,999,514; US 13/175,541 → US 8,541,983 (Expired – Fee Related). Foreign counterparts include EP 1 595 324 B2, JP 4197189 B2, KR 101052582 B1, CN 1751426 B, and WO 2004/075371 A1.

Uncertainties (stated explicitly)

1. No authoritative 2026 CAFC docket entry naming 7,791,319 surfaced in my searches. I found no Federal Circuit appeal, briefing, or opinion that identifies US 7,791,319 by number in 2026. My searches returned only (a) an unrelated Fed. Cir. § 101 decision, US Patent No. 7,679,637 LLC v. Google LLC, 2026 WL 174922 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 22, 2026), and (b) a Law360 headline (June 3, 2026) reporting that a Texas judge refused to certify an appeal in a $78.5M Samsung verdict where another court found "one of the patents" invalid. The Law360 result did not identify the patent number, and I could not confirm it concerns the '319 patent. I am therefore not asserting any 2026 appellate activity for '319.
2. The patent's adjusted expiration was 2024-12-09, which limits the prospect of new infringement exposure but does not by itself preclude appellate or collateral proceedings.
3. "Assignee" is reported as listed in the Google Patents front-page data; I did not independently verify the assignment chain against USPTO Assignment records.

I'll research litigation involving US patent 7791319 across the sources you named and others.

Let me dig deeper into the specific cases and PTAB proceedings.

Let me check the remaining cases, ITC matters, and outcomes.

Litigation Involving U.S. Patent No. 7,791,319

Patent identified (literal): U.S. Patent No. 7,791,319 B2 — "Circuit and method of operation for an electrical power supply," inventors Dusan Veselic and Martin G. A. Guthrie, application 10/372,180, filed 2003-02-21, granted 2010-09-07, original assignee Research In Motion Ltd., currently Fundamental Innovation Systems International LLC. Status: Expired – Lifetime (adjusted expiration 2024-12-09).

Note on scope/confidence: The '319 patent issued to RIM/BlackBerry and was later asserted by the NPE Fundamental Innovation Systems International LLC ("FISI") as part of a multi-patent "USB charging" portfolio campaign (originally at least seven to twelve BlackBerry charging patents). Some cases below are confirmed to have asserted the '319 patent specifically; others are related actions in the same campaign where my sources list the patent as part of the asserted family but I could not independently confirm '319 was pleaded in that particular suit. I flag each. I was also cut off by a tool-step limit before completing ITC/CourtListener/PACER verification, so I note where further verification is needed.

A. District court cases — '319 expressly identified as asserted

Sources:

• Samsung claim construction order (Dkt. 140, Jan 31, 2018) construing "'319 Patent Family" terms: https://www.ded.uscourts.gov/... (docket entry) and https://case-law.vlex.com/vid/fundamental-innovation-sys-int-892504920 ; docket: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/texas/txedce/2:2017cv00145/[174389](/patent/174389) ; RPX: https://litigation.rpxcorp.com/litigation/txedce-174389-fundamental-innovation-systems-international-v-samsung-electronics
• LG IPR petition § 42.8(b)(2) notice listing both suits as the '319 litigation: https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/[1507635](/patent/1507635)/download-documents?artifactId=cF3sb6RJJdvr1EkLIIDqon7NvS5fVHqw80o4xlSS-4YSLz5NPuuLuRs ; LG docket: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/texas/txedce/2:2016cv01425/[173156/146](https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/search/patent/reelFrameDetail?reelFrame=173156-0146)/

B. PTAB proceedings (not litigation, but adversarial and part of the same '319 dispute)

Sources: Google Patents "Family has litigation" entries for US7791319 (IPR2018-00677, -00676, -00621); https://ipverse.greyb.com/ptab-web/cases/case-details/IPR2018-00677 ; https://ipverse.greyb.com/ptab-web/cases/case-details/IPR2018-00676 ; FISI's 37 C.F.R. § 42.8 notice confirming Samsung filed IPR2018-00621 and LG filed IPR2018-00676 against the '319 patent: https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/1507635/download-documents (artifact cited above).

Caveat on IPR2018-00677: the source lists the respondent as "Veselic et al" rather than FISI; I am reporting it literally as found, not correcting it.

C. Related campaign cases — '319 not independently confirmed as pleaded

These were filed by FISI against the same defendants/portfolio, and the '319 patent is part of the FISI arsenal, but my sources do not confirm '319 was specifically asserted in each:

• FISI v. [Huawei Investment & Holding Co., Ltd.](/litigations/by-defendant/Huawei%20Investment%20%26%20Holding%20Co.%2C%20Ltd.) et al., E.D. Tex. No. 2:16-cv-01424, filed Dec 16, 2016 — consolidated with the LG action and stayed pending settlement. (https://dockets.justia.com/docket/texas/txedce/2:2016cv01424/[173154](/patent/173154))
• FISI v. ZTE Corp. et al., N.D. Tex. No. 3:17-cv-01827, filed Jul 12, 2017; and E.D. Tex. No. 2:17-cv-00124, filed Feb 13, 2017. (https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/[6332255](/patent/6332255)/) Reported as settled via license.
• Apple Inc. v. FISI (declaratory judgment), N.D. Cal. No. 3:19-cv-00638, filed Feb 5, 2019; and FISI v. Apple, Inc., E.D. Tex. No. 2:19-cv-00048 (filed Feb 11, 2019) and No. 3:19-cv-03144 (filed Jun 6, 2019). (https://litigation.rpxcorp.com/news/9859-...)
• FISI v. Lenovo (United States), Inc. et al., D. Del. No. 20-551, filed Apr 23, 2020 — seven FISI patents at issue; early summary-judgment motions on license scope; trial set Oct 17, 2022. (https://www.ded.uscourts.gov/opinion/fundamental-innovation-systems-international-llc-v-lenovo-united-states-inc-et-al-0 ; http://g.casetext.com/case/fundamental-innovation-sys-intl-v-lenovo-united-states-inc-1)
• FISI v. TCL and Belkin (D. Del.) and FISI v. Coolpad, OnePlus, Aokia Technology, Jasco Products (E.D. Tex.), all filed April 23, 2020. (https://en.eeworld.com/news/xfdz/eic495660.html)

D. What I could NOT confirm

1. No ITC § 337 investigation for the '319 patent was confirmed by my searches. One 2020 industry note predicted FISI might file a 337 complaint, but I found no evidence it did for '319. (https://en.eeworld.com/news/xfdz/eic495660.html)
2. No CAFC appeal tied specifically to the '319 patent was found. The Federal Circuit activity I surfaced concerned other patents (e.g., the 2025 Samsung/Netlist '087 dispute) and is unrelated to 7,791,319.
3. Whether '319 was pleaded in the Huawei, ZTE, Apple, Lenovo, TCL, Belkin, Coolpad, OnePlus, Aokia, or Jasco complaints — the sources show these are same-campaign suits, but only the Samsung (2:17-cv-00145) and LG (2:16-cv-01425) actions are affirmatively documented as asserting the '319 patent.

E. Summary answer

Litigation involving U.S. Patent No. 7,791,319 is known and documented:

• Two confirmed district court suits (Samsung, E.D. Tex. 2:17-cv-00145, filed Feb 21, 2017; LG Electronics, E.D. Tex. 2:16-cv-01425, filed Dec 16, 2016) — both resolved by settlement/license.
• Three PTAB IPRs against the '319 patent (IPR2018-00621 by Samsung; IPR2018-00676 and IPR2018-00677 by LG) — all terminated as settled in 2018.
• No confirmed ITC investigation and no confirmed CAFC appeal specific to the '319 patent.

Verification status: I recommend confirming the Huawei/ZTE/Apple/Lenovo/TCL pleadings and any ITC complaint directly via PACER/CourtListener and the ITC EDIS before relying on the "related cases" list, since my tool-step limit prevented completing that check.

If you need, I can next attempt to pull the specific Lenovo (20-551) and 2020 E.D. Tex./D. Del. complaints to confirm whether '319 appeared among the asserted patents.

I'll research the PTAB proceedings on this patent before drafting.

Good — the structured block points to three PTAB cases. Let me dig into the claim-level and procedural details.

Now let me verify panel details, confirm no later IPRs, and check the parallel district court track.

PTAB / AIA Trial Analysis — US 7,791,319 ("Circuit and method of operation for an electrical power supply")

Source-conflict flag (read first). The structured "PTAB proceedings on file" block says the USPTO ODP API returns no AIA trial proceedings for this patent. That is not the end of the story: the authoritative patent text supplied to me (Google Patents family-litigation data on the same page) lists three PTAB cases, and I independently confirmed all three via PTAB docket records and P-TACTS filings. The most likely explanation is that ODP's ingest does not carry these terminated, pre-institution, 2018-vintage cases (none of them produced a Board decision on the merits, so there is no "decision" record to index). I therefore report three proceedings below, and I flag every field where the public record is thin rather than filling gaps.

Second flag (important): Google Patents attributes the PTAB case entries to "Unified Patents PTAB Data." That is a data-licensing attribution, not a petitioner. Unified Patents did not file any IPR against the '319 patent. The real petitioners were Samsung and LG.

Proceedings overview

There are three AIA trial proceedings on US 7,791,319 — IPR2018-00621 (Samsung), IPR2018-00676 (LG) and IPR2018-00677 (LG) — and all three were settled and dismissed before institution: zero institution decisions, zero Final Written Decisions, zero claims canceled, zero claims sustained, zero Board merits rulings and zero Federal Circuit appeals.

Bottom line for a defendant: this patent is completely untested at the PTAB, not "hardened" and not "narrowed." The "survived two IPRs" narrative that a plaintiff may push is factually wrong — FISI did not win anything; it bought peace with licenses before the Board ever reached the merits. Equally, a defendant today gets no free invalidating judgment to lean on: there is no FWD to cite, no canceled claim to point at, and no § 315(e)(2) estoppel was ever triggered against Samsung or LG (estoppel requires a final written decision). All 20 claims are live and legally intact.

IPR2018-00676 — LG Electronics, Inc. et al. v. Fundamental Innovation Systems International LLC

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2018-02-22
• Status: Terminated — settled (docket status "Terminated-Settled"; Board disposition: dismissed pursuant to settlement, 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(a), 2018-10-16). Plain English: the parties settled six days before the Board's institution deadline; the Board dismissed instead of terminating because § 317(a) governs only instituted IPRs.
• Judge panel: Public docket metadata (Patexia) lists APJ Bryan F. Moore; the full three-judge panel for this case is not reliably established in the sources I could reach, and I will not invent it. (For the companion Samsung batch, the panel is confirmed: Guest, Moore, Tornquist, Harlow, Ogden, Korniczky — see IPR2018-00621 below.)
• Petitioner / real parties: LG Electronics, Inc.; LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc.; LG Electronics MobileComm U.S.A. Inc.; LG Electronics Mobile Research U.S.A. LLC; and LG Electronics Alabama, Inc. (collectively "LG"). Lead petitioner counsel: David L. McCombs; Patent Owner counsel: Hong Zhong.
• Petition grounds: Obviousness (§ 103) over Gilbert and Takimoto in view of a battery-charge-controller datasheet — the NCP1800 — with, per Patent Owner's own characterization, a fourth reference, Sherman, applied to claims 13–17 and 19.
  • Claims challenged: 1–5 and 9–20 (i.e., all claims except 6, 7 and 8). Robbins Kaplan's PTAB study lists "1-5 and 9-20"; the Patent Owner's Preliminary Response frames it as "Claims 1-5, 9-19, And 20."
  • ⚠️ I could not verify the exact statutory subsection breakdown or the full exhibit list from a primary source; treat the art identification as reliable but the ground-by-ground mapping as provisional.
• Institution decision: None issued. Patent Owner's Preliminary Response was filed 2018-07-18; the Board's institution decision was due 2018-10-18. The case settled first. FISI's POPR pressed four independent defenses: (i) the NCP1800 datasheet was not a § 102(b) printed publication; (ii) claim-construction fights over "voltage drop across the battery charge controller," the means-plus-function terms in claim 20, and "the rechargeable battery receives a remainder of the power available from the battery charge controller"; (iii) § 315(b)/RPI defect — Petitioners omitted a real party in interest; and (iv) § 325(d) discretionary denial given the near-identical companion petition.
• Final Written Decision: None. No claim was canceled, confirmed or even construed by the Board.
• Settlement / termination: 2018-10-16 (Paper 9, Termination Decision Document — Dismissing the Petition Pursuant to Settlement). FISI executed the written settlement agreement on 2018-10-13; LG signed shortly after. Per the Joint Motion to Dismiss (filed 2018-10-15), "Patent Owner has granted a license to Petitioner covering the patent at issue," and the agreement required dismissal/termination of the pending proceedings. The agreement itself is designated business confidential under 37 C.F.R. § 42.74(c) — the royalty/scope terms are not public. The settlement also resolved the parallel E.D. Tex. case Fundamental Innovation Systems Int'l LLC v. LG Electronics, Inc., No. 2:16-cv-01425-JRG-RSP.
  • Filing: https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/[1507615](/patent/1507615)/download-documents?artifactId=7nZbxPSuXGUc0CR5togZuO1X_zKKfu-LdtXIUuZQ5xeSBg-qqWMf0zc
• Appeal: None. With no institution and no FWD, there is nothing appealable.
• Defensive value: LG extracted a license and dismissal with zero claim-level adjudication — so this proceeding gives a current defendant no invalidity record and no estoppel leverage. Its only value is strategic intelligence: the art LG assembled (Gilbert, Takimoto, NCP1800, Sherman) is a ready-made roadmap for a fresh petition, and FISI's POPR shows exactly which claim-construction positions it will defend.

IPR2018-00677 — LG Electronics, Inc. v. Fundamental Innovation Systems International LLC

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2018-02-22
• Status: Terminated — settled (docket: "Terminated-Settled"; dismissed 2018-10-16, together with −00676 and the concurrently filed −00678). Gloss: a deliberate parallel/second petition to −00676, settled on the same day.
• Judge panel: Public metadata lists APJ Bryan F. Moore; full panel not reliably established (same caveat as −00676).
• Petitioner / real parties: LG Electronics, Inc. (Petitioner counsel: David L. McCombs; Patent Owner counsel: Hong Zhong). Some docket feeds render the respondent as "Veselic et al" (the named inventors) — that is a docket-field artifact; the Patent Owner is Fundamental Innovation Systems International LLC.
• Petition grounds: Obviousness (§ 103) over the same Gilbert + Takimoto framework, but substituting the bq24020 datasheet for the NCP1800 datasheet used in −00676. Per FISI's POPR in this case: "Petitioners have filed a substantially identical petition for IPR of the '319 Patent, substituting the bq24020 datasheet with the NCP1800 datasheet. See IPR2018-00676… The only difference is that Petitioners cited a fourth reference, Sherman, for claims 13-17 and 19 in IPR2018-00676, while relying solely on the bq24020 datasheet in IPR2018-00677."
  • Claims challenged: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 (Patexia docket field, verbatim) — again claims 6–8 were never challenged.
  • Filing: https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/[1507635](/patent/1507635)/download-documents?artifactId=CphilOhl26ejtEy47sbMYkk6G7wWxGZYgtEUBZLQRjAPygGHA3CUGuU
• Institution decision: None. FISI's POPR argued, among other things, that § 325(d) denial was proper: the two LG petitions are "substantially the same," "the reasons for why bq24020 should be combined with Gilbert, or why Gilbert should be combined with Takimoto, are substantially identical," and both datasheets describe charge controllers already referenced in the '319 patent's own embodiments.
• Final Written Decision: None.
• Settlement / termination: 2018-10-16, by the same joint-motion/settlement package as −00676 (same confidential license to LG). The LG joint motion expressly states the parties "are also concurrently filing joint motions to dismiss co-pending IPR2018-00677 and -00678."
• Appeal: None.
• Defensive value: Same as −00676 — no adjudicated invalidity, no estoppel. Worth noting for a defendant: the duplicative-petition dynamic (two near-identical petitions swapping one datasheet) is precisely the fact pattern the Board punishes under § 325(d). A new petitioner should consolidate into one tightly-scoped petition rather than mimicking LG's two-petition structure.

IPR2018-00621 — Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. v. Fundamental Innovation Systems International LLC

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2018-02-12
• Status: Terminated — settled. Board disposition (verbatim caption): "DECISION Dismissing Petitions Pursuant to Settlement, 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(a)", entered 2018-07-16; docket title: "Dismissed Before Institution."
• Judge panel (confirmed, verbatim from the decision): Rae Lynn P. Guest, Bryan F. Moore, Jon B. Tornquist, Jacqueline T. Harlow, Christopher L. Ogden, and Paul J. Korniczky. (Six APJs because the decision covered Samsung's six co-filed petitions — IPR2018-00605, −00606, −00607, −00620, −00621 and −00622 — of which −00621 is the one on the '319 patent.)
• Petitioner / real parties: Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc.
• Petition grounds: Not itemized in the sources I could reach. ⚠️ I am not able to state which claims Samsung challenged or on what art. I will not guess.
• Institution decision: None — "These proceedings are still in their preliminary stage and no trial has yet been instituted."
• Final Written Decision: None.
• Settlement / termination: Joint Motion to Terminate filed 2018-07-12. The parties represented they had "settled all of their disputes" regarding US 6,936,936 B2, US 7,791,319 B2, US 7,999,514 B2 and US 8,541,983 B2. The Board denied the § 317(a) motion (that section reaches only instituted IPRs) but dismissed the petitions and granted confidentiality of the settlement agreement (Ex. 2003 here; Ex. 2015/2007 in the companion cases) under § 42.74(c). Terms are confidential. The related E.D. Tex. litigation (Fundamental Innovation Sys. Int'l LLC v. Samsung Elecs. Co., No. 2:17-cv-00145-JRG-RSP) was dismissed with prejudice.
  • Decision: https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2018-00621/Inter_Partes_Review_of_U.S._Pat._7791319/docs/07-16-2018-Board/Dismissed_Before_Institution-10-Termination_Decision_Document.pdf
• Appeal: None.
• Defensive value: Samsung settled before the Board even ruled on institution — the earliest possible exit. It leaves no record, but it is confirmation that both major handset OEMs chose licensing over adjudication against this patent family, which tells you FISI prices settlements to clear portfolios rather than to win claim-level rulings.

Strategic summary

Claim status: everything is UNTESTED. No claim of US 7,791,319 has ever been canceled, confirmed, or construed by the PTAB. Not one of the three petitions was instituted; the Board never issued a single claim-level merits ruling. Claim 1 is alive. Claims 2–20 are alive. The only asymmetry is that claims 6, 7 and 8 — the "low-power critical components / high-power non-critical components" carve-out (memory and microprocessor fed from the charge controller; backlight and vibrator fed from the battery) — were never challenged by either LG petition, so there is not even a rejected prior-art theory on the record for them. (Samsung's challenged-claim set is unknown to me.) The patent is also expired — the Google Patents record shows "Expired - Lifetime, expires 2024-12-09," with an adjusted expiration — so any assertion now reaches only past damages within the § 286 six-year lookback (i.e., from 2020-09-30 forward as of today).

Estoppel: there is none. Section 315(e)(2) estoppel is triggered only by a final written decision, and there are none. Samsung and LG are therefore not estopped from re-litigating these grounds in district court or at the Office. What blocks them is contract, not estoppel: each took a confidential license covering the '319 patent (LG's license is confirmed in the public joint motion; Samsung's settlement agreement is confidential but resolved the '319 patent as part of a four-patent global deal). A new defendant faces no estoppel shadow from these proceedings — every ground is nominally still available. The practical constraint is § 325(d): the Board has express discretion to deny a petition presenting art or arguments "previously presented to the Office," and the LG petitioner's own POPR in −00677 argued exactly that the −00676/−00677 petitions were duplicative. A new petitioner who recycles Gilbert + Takimoto + the NCP1800/bq24020 datasheets should expect a § 325(d) fight — and note that FISI argued the NCP1800 datasheet was not even a printed publication, an issue the Board never resolved. Also watch § 315(b): the one-year clock runs from service of your complaint, so this window is per-defendant.

Pattern signals. (i) No repeat petitioner, no aggregator. Google Patents' "Unified Patents PTAB Data" tag is a data-license attribution; Unified did not file. No defensive aggregator has ever taken a shot at this patent. (ii) FISI litigates, then licenses. The same Patent Owner settled three concurrent IPRs (plus a dozen-odd companion petitions and at least two E.D. Tex. cases, 2:16-cv-01425 and 2:17-cv-00145) inside a 2018 window, on confidential terms, dismissing the district court cases with prejudice. That is a monetizer's playbook: assert broadly, take portfolio licenses, avoid merits rulings that would create estoppel or invalidating precedent. (iii) No appellate activity — nothing to appeal. (iv) Current assignee is Fundamental Innovation Systems International LLC, a patent-monetization entity that acquired the portfolio from BlackBerry, and it holds multiple siblings (US 7,834,586; 7,999,514; 8,541,983; 7,847,520; 7,906,940; 7,239,111; 6,936,936; 7,701,173), so expect the '319 patent to appear alongside family members in any future campaign.

Recommended next steps

1. Do not cite these proceedings as invalidity evidence. There is no FWD to quote and no canceled claim to link. Any statement that "the PTAB invalidated" or "upheld" any claim of the '319 patent is wrong — say plainly that all three petitions were dismissed pre-institution on settlement. The public settlement agreements are confidential (§ 42.74(c)); the Board's only substantive orders are the two dismissal decisions:
   • IPR2018-00621 dismissal (2018-07-16): https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2018-00621/Inter_Partes_Review_of_U.S._Pat._7791319/docs/07-16-2018-Board/Dismissed_Before_Institution-10-Termination_Decision_Document.pdf
   • IPR2018-00676 joint motion to dismiss (2018-10-15) and dismissal: https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/1507615/download-documents?artifactId=7nZbxPSuXGUc0CR5togZuO1X_zKKfu-LdtXIUuZQ5xeSBg-qqWMf0zc
   • FISI's POPRs (the only claim-level advocacy of record) are in the same P-TACTS dockets: −00676 and −00677.
2. No PTAB milestones are pending. There is no live trial, so no institution deadline, no oral hearing and no one-year FWD date to track. The absence of activity since 2018 is itself the signal: this portfolio is enforced through settlement licenses, not through defended trials.
3. If you are a defendant, budget for a self-built record. Commission your own invalidity search and expect to differentiate from Gilbert/Takimoto/NCP1800/bq24020 to survive § 325(d). Because the patent is expired, the Board will construe claims under Phillips rather than the BRI standard — and the E.D. Tex. claim construction in Fundamental Innovation Sys. Int'l LLC v. Samsung Elecs. Co., No. 2:17-cv-00145-JRG-RSP (construing "battery charge controller," "voltage drop across [a/the] battery charge controller," "power," "a remainder of the power available from the battery charge controller," "reference voltage signal," and the § 112 ¶ 6 means terms in claim 20) is the most useful existing roadmap for both invalidity and non-infringement positions.
4. Check the license chain before doing anything expensive. Both Samsung and LG hold licenses covering the '319 patent, and the settlements covered multiple family members. If you are a customer or contract manufacturer of either, or are downstream of a licensed product, run the exhaustion/license analysis first — it may resolve the dispute more cheaply than any PTAB filing.
5. Set a monitoring alert on FISI and the family. Given the 2018 pattern (mass-filed petitions met with mass settlements), the more likely future event is a new district court or ITC campaign on a sibling patent, not a new IPR on the '319 patent. Re-check the ODP/P-TACTS dockets on the whole family periodically; if a 2026-vintage IPR appears, the § 315(b) and § 325(d) analysis above changes immediately.

I'll verify the assignment record and correspondent details before writing. Let me run targeted searches.

Good leads. Let me pin down the actual reel/frame entries for this patent and the BlackBerry→FISI record.

Strong lead — a 37 CFR 3.73(c) statement gives the FISI chain reels. Let me confirm which reels apply specifically to the '319 patent.

Methodology note up front: I could not open USPTO Assignment Center interactively in this session, and the Google Patents page for '319 lists legal events but does not print reel/frame. So below, reel/frame numbers appear only where a source actually quoted them — those come from PTAB file-history exhibits for sibling patents in the same BlackBerry→FISI portfolio. Where the '319 record itself was not retrieved, I say so rather than infer a number.

Inventors

Employer is determinable from the executed assignment to RIM recorded 2003-04-22 (Google Patents legal events, assignors "GUTHRIE, MARTIN G.A., VESELIC, DUSAN") and corroborated by Veselic's Oakville, Ontario residence in the 37 CFR 3.73(c) statement filed in sibling US 7,701,173.

Pattern check — the classic "inventors bail, then fire-sale" tell is NOT present. Veselic remained a prolific RIM/BlackBerry inventor for years after 2003 (he is first-named inventor of US 7,701,173, filed 2005, and appears on other assets in this same portfolio). There is no evidence of inventor departure, and the gap between filing (2003) and the sale to FISI (2015) is ~12 years — the disposal was a corporate portfolio decision, not founder/inventor-driven.

Original assignee

Research In Motion Limited — named on the issued patent (Original Assignee field).

• Product embodying the claims: Yes. The specification itself uses the "portable Blackberry™ handheld device" as the exemplary load, and the claimed USB-cradle charging/power-sharing architecture was implemented in RIM's cradles and charging accessories.
• Primary line of business: wireless handheld devices (BlackBerry), plus enterprise software and network services.
• Current status: operating, under a different name. RIM changed its legal name to BlackBerry Limited (recorded on this patent 2014-10-14 and again 2015-08-17). BlackBerry exited handset hardware in 2016 (brand licensed to TCL) and is now a software/IoT-security company. Not dissolved, not in bankruptcy — relevant because it rules out the bankruptcy fire-sale signal (see §6 below).

Assignment timeline

Caveat repeated: the three reels quoted below are from a 37 CFR 3.73(c) statement in the file history of US 7,701,173, which was transferred in the same BlackBerry→FISI transaction. They are flagged as likely shared, not confirmed for '319.

1. 2003-02-21 (filed) / recorded 2003-04-22 — Reel not retrieved for '319 (RIM filings of this vintage sit in the 014xxx–017xxx range; the sibling '173 inventor assignment is at 017368/0535 and an earlier portfolio asset at 013155/0301)

   • Conveyance: Assignment ("ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST" per Google Patents)
   • Assignor: Martin G. A. Guthrie; Dusan Veselic
   • Assignee: Research In Motion Limited
   • Correspondent: not retrieved
   • Context: ordinary employee invention assignment, taken ~2 months after filing.

2. 2014-10-14 / recorded 2014-10-14 — Reel not retrieved

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

3. 2015-08-17 / recorded 2015-08-17 — Reel not retrieved

   • Conveyance: Change of Name
   • Assignor: Research In Motion Limited
   • Assignee: BlackBerry Limited
   • Correspondent: not retrieved
   • Context: a second, apparently confirmatory change-of-name recordation for the same renaming. I report it as recorded rather than reconciling it — duplicate name-change entries are a known artifact and are not evidence of a second transfer.

4. 2015-12-17 / recorded 2015-12-17 — Reel not retrieved for '319; the portfolio-level record for sibling '173 is Reel 037324 / Frame 0978 (likely shared)

   • Conveyance: Assignment
   • Assignor: BlackBerry Limited
   • Assignee: Fundamental Innovation Systems International LLC
   • Correspondent: not retrieved for '319. On the sibling '173 record, the 37 CFR 3.73(c) ownership statement evidencing this same BlackBerry→FISI transfer was signed Richard J. Botos, Reg. No. 32,016, on 2016-08-29. If that signer recurs on the '319 recording, it is a repeat-correspondent signal — not confirmed.
   • Context: transfer-to-asserter. ~200 assets (over 55 US, plus foreign counterparts) sold by BlackBerry to a PE-backed licensing LLC formed in Delaware in 2015.

5. 2016-12-01 / recorded 2016-12-01 — Reel not retrieved

   • Conveyance: Assignment
   • Assignor: BlackBerry Limited
   • Assignee: Fundamental Innovation Systems International LLC
   • Correspondent: not retrieved
   • Context: second/confirmatory assignment of the same interest, recorded ~12 months after the first. The 2016-08-29 signature date on the sibling '173 statement lines up neatly with this late-2016 confirmatory window.

Negative check: the 2023 BlackBerry→Malikie Innovations Limited wave (reels 064104/0103 and 064269/0001, visible on other BlackBerry assets) does not appear on the '319 record — consistent with the '319 having left BlackBerry in 2015.

Assignment Center does have records here (five events), so the analysis continues.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 7791319
    2003 : Filed by Research In Motion
         : Inventors assign to RIM
    2010 : Patent issued
    2014 : Name change to BlackBerry Limited
    2015 : BlackBerry assigns to FISI LLC
         : FISI formed in Delaware
    2016 : Second BlackBerry to FISI record
         : FISI campaign suits begin

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — PRESENT.
The '319 moved from an operating company (BlackBerry Limited) to a licensing-only LLC, Fundamental Innovation Systems International LLC, per the assignments recorded 2015-12-17 and 2016-12-01. Concrete pairing required by your rules is satisfied: FISI was "formed in Delaware in 2015" (RPX), ships no products, has a Fundamental Innovation Systems International Holdings LLC parent and a "Fundamental Finance LLC" affiliate (FISI's own corporate-interest disclosure, N.D. Cal. 3:19-cv-00638, filed 2019-02-05), and exists only to assert. Name suffix + no commerce + Delaware single-purpose LLC = the tell, not the name alone.

2. Known asserter in the chain — PRESENT.
FISI does not appear on the legacy rosters you enumerated (Acacia, Marathon, IV, Wi-LAN, Mosaid/Conversant, Round Rock, MPHJ, Spangenberg entities, etc.), so this is a direct-evidence finding rather than a list match: RPX's litigation desk documents FISI as an NPE with ~20 suits since late 2016 against Apple, Samsung, LG, Huawei, ZTE, Lenovo, TCL, Hyundai, Toyota, GM and others. Its own monetization agents are NPE-side operators — TnT IP LLC (Craig Thompson, Ozer Teitelbaum), replaced in 2018 by the JASPAR team (Kapu Kumar, Paul Seaman, Paul Riley).

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — UNCLEAR.
Only one correspondent-class name is recoverable from this portfolio: Richard J. Botos, Reg. No. 32,016, signer of the 3.73(c) statement for sibling '173 on 2016-08-29. That is a statement signer, not necessarily the recording correspondent, and I could not retrieve the correspondent of record for any of the five '319 recordings. A single appearance is not a finding, so I am not asserting this signal. Separately, Fish & Richardson P.C. is correspondent on an unrelated RIM assignment (reel 055766/0461, US app 17/215,745) — different patent, different chain, not evidence here.

4. Cascading transfers — NOT PRESENT (with a caveat).
The '319 chain is a single operating-company-to-LLC hop, not a daisy-chain of LLCs inside 24 months: RIM (2003) → BlackBerry (name change 2014/2015) → FISI (2015/2016). Caveat: the record contains duplicated entries (two change-of-name events; two BlackBerry→FISI assignments), which reads as conforming re-recording rather than successive sales. No further FISI-family transfer of the '319 (e.g., to the Holdings or Finance affiliate) was surfaced; I do not assert one.

5. Pre-litigation transfer — PRESENT (probable).
The first BlackBerry→FISI recording, 2015-12-17, predates FISI's first campaign filings in E.D. Tex. (low-sequence 2016 dockets such as FISI v. Huawei, 2:16-cv-00042) by weeks to a few months. I mark this "probable" rather than certain because I could not pin, in this session, the exact first filing that named the '319; the window is nonetheless compatible with the 6-month test.

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — NOT PRESENT.
BlackBerry never sought bankruptcy protection. The 2015 disposition was a negotiated, multi-million-dollar monetization sale to a PE-backed acquirer (Centerbridge Partners, ~$1.15B AUM), details surfaced in Ocean Tomo v. Friedman litigation. Nothing in the record suggests a distressed sale process.

7. Privateering — PRESENT.
This is the cleanest match. An operating company (BlackBerry) conveyed the portfolio to a third-party NPE that then asserted it against Apple, Samsung, LG, Huawei, ZTE, Lenovo, TCL and later GM/Toyota/Hyundai and their suppliers — largely BlackBerry's own former competitors. Two concrete corroborators: (a) the acquisition was funded by an outside PE firm (Centerbridge), not by BlackBerry; and (b) in the Apple DJ action, FISI's own certificate of interested entities lists BlackBerry Limited as an "Other Affiliate" of FISI Holdings — indicating BlackBerry retained a continuing economic interest in the asserting vehicle.

8. Defensive aggregator — NOT PRESENT.
The chain terminates at an asserting LLC, not at RPX, AST, LOT Network, Unified Patents, or OIN. No record of the '319 entering defensive aggregation.

Verdict

NPE — high confidence.

The recorded assignments of 2015-12-17 and 2016-12-01 move US 7,791,319 from BlackBerry Limited to Fundamental Innovation Systems International LLC, a Delaware licensing vehicle formed in 2015 with no products, a Holdings parent, a "Fundamental Finance" affiliate, Centerbridge PE backing, and ~20 infringement suits since late 2016. That is three strong signals — shell-entity transfer, documented high-frequency asserter, and privateering — with privateering independently corroborated by FISI's own disclosure of BlackBerry Limited as an "other affiliate" in Apple v. FISI (N.D. Cal. 3:19-cv-00638). Verify by patent number 7791319 at https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (also indexed at https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html). Note the limitation: the patent expired 2024-12-09, so this NPE characterization is historical, and the reel/frame numbers for the '319 recordings themselves remain unverified — the reels cited above (036356/0472, 037324/0978) belong to the sibling '173 and should be confirmed against the '319 record before being relied on.

I'll run targeted searches against USPTO and patent-database sources for the cited prior art of US 7,791,319.

Good — a PTAB petition for the '319 patent surfaced a reference list. Let me dig into the cited references and the patent's own front-page "References Cited" list.

The IPR exhibit lists gave me the petitioners' art. Now I need the patent's own front-page "References Cited" (examiner-cited) list. Let me target USPTO/Justia/FPO listings.

Scope note before the findings (read this first)

Two things I could not do, and I am flagging them rather than papering over them:

1. The patent's own front-page "References Cited" list did not come back in any of my retrievals. The authoritative full text in my working set (https://patents.google.com/patent/US7791319/en) contains a "Cited By" table (38 entries — these are later documents citing the '319 patent, not prior art) and a "Families Citing this family" table, but it does not contain the examiner-cited / applicant-cited "References Cited" block. My searches for that block returned other patents' search reports instead. So I cannot give you the literal face-of-patent citation list for US 7,791,319 from verified sources, and I will not reconstruct it from memory.

2. The best-grounded substitute is the PTAB petition record. The inter partes review petitions filed against the '319 patent contain complete petitioner exhibit lists = the art actually asserted against the '319 claims. That is what I report below, with the URLs.

Where I state a reference number or title, it is as printed in the retrieved petition documents — I have not independently verified issue dates, assignees, or abstracts for each, and I say so per item.

1. Prior art asserted against the '319 claims — PTAB petitions

1a. LG petition (exhibits prefixed LGE-), two variants in the record

Source, exhibit list and grounds: https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/[1507615](/patent/1507615)/download-documents?artifactId=BtUxlsPLrSHedWsBxEMVR8MrSDo7Q7LLmBLucg7NEm4Ht_liulyRjo
Variant exhibit list: https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/[1507635](/patent/1507635)/download-documents?artifactId=Q_X60tb3R8yIwxN1483YwGdEatfSrrfH8AyPQHy53mC2zi4e-Dr08Fo

Grounds stated in the petition (claims challenged → combination):

• Challenge 1 — claims 1–5, 9–12, 20 unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Gilbert in view of Takimoto and NCP1800.
• Challenge 2 — claims 13–17, 19 under § 103(a) over Gilbert + Takimoto + NCP1800 + Sherman.
• Challenge 3 — claim 18 under § 103(a) over Gilbert + Takimoto + NCP1800 + Sherman + Bell.

1b. Second petition set (exhibits prefixed Ex. 100x)

Source: https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/[1505416](/patent/1505416)/download-documents?artifactId=-SwHPeYU7i0_Oq3w89hrgi3gME_qU0VNGPGPLw-KZTC6bey_Dmu78ZE

Grounds stated: claims 1–5, 9–12, 20 obvious under § 103(a) over Shum in view of Seragnoli and USB 2.0; claims 13–17, 19 over Shum + Baranowski + USB 2.0.

2. Direct answer on § 102 anticipation

No reference in the retrieved records is asserted as a standalone § 102 anticipation of any claim of US 7,791,319. Every ground I found is a § 103(a) obviousness combination. That is itself the key finding: both petitioners apparently concluded that no single item — including Shum, Gilbert, or the '319 patent's own NCP1800/bq24020 datasheets — discloses all four elements of independent claim 1 (isolating switch; USB-sourced charge controller feeding device + battery; the predetermined USB current cap; and voltage-drop-responsive switch modulation giving the device its power and the battery the remainder).

My own analyst assessment of § 102 potential (clearly labeled as my inference, not as the petitions' position):

3. Contradictions and gaps I want to flag explicitly

1. Cross-check against the previously generated section. That section states IPR2018-00621 (Samsung), -00676 and -00677 (LG) all terminated by settlement with no final written decision, and that IPR2018-00678 challenged related US 7,999,514. My findings are consistent with that (no final written decisions surfaced; the documents I found are petitions, not decisions). However, I could not map the petition document IDs I retrieved (ptacts petitions 1507615, 1507635, 1505416) to specific IPR case numbers, so I cannot tell you which retrieved exhibit list belongs to IPR2018-00621 vs -00676 vs -00677. Treat the exhibit-to-case mapping as unverified.

2. Internal discrepancy between the two LG exhibit lists — reported, not reconciled. LGE-1007 is NCP1800 (Nov. 2001) in one list and the bqTINY-II / bq24020-series datasheet in the other; LGE-1015 is Siliconix MOSPOWER Applications, 1984 in one and "Reserved" in the other; LGE-1008 is Sherman in one and "Reserved" in the other. Per the operating rules I report these literally rather than harmonizing them. The likely explanation is two different petitions/petitioners using the same LGE- prefix, but I do not assert that.

3. References listed but not retrievable. My search results named Naim (6,694,200), Stephenson (6,241,351), and Bork (6,633,932) only as exhibit titles. I did not retrieve their issue dates, assignees, or disclosures, and I therefore make no § 102 or § 103 assertion about them. The same applies to Hart, Mohan, Siliconix, and the USB 2.0 Specification beyond what the petitions quote.

4. Patent numbers were transcribed by OCR from the petition PDFs. Digits such as 6,357,011 / 6,337,563 / 6,507,172 / 5,723,970 / 6,694,200 / 6,241,351 / 6,633,932 are reproduced exactly as returned. I have not verified them against USPTO records, and per your instruction I have not auto-corrected any identifier.

5. What I still recommend retrieving, if you want the literal "References Cited" list for the '319 patent: the face-of-patent PDF (patentimages) for US 7,791,319 B2, or the "References Cited" tab on USPTO PatentCenter for application 10/372,180. Neither was reachable through the searches available to me in this session.

Bottom line: the prior art actually marshalled against US 7,791,319 is a mix of US patents (Gilbert, Takimoto, Sherman, Bell, Naim, Stephenson, Bork, Shum, Seragnoli, Baranowski), the employer-standard USB 2.0 specification, two commercial charge-controller datasheets (ON Semi NCP1800; TI bqTINY-II/bq24020 — the very parts named in the '319 specification), and three power-electronics texts (Hart 1997, Mohan 1995, Siliconix 1984). All challenges were § 103 obviousness; no § 102 anticipation was asserted against any claim.

I'll first check what prior-art citations are actually of record for this patent, since the task says to use the "Prior Art" section — and the page text I was given does not include the standard "Citations / References Cited" table (it only shows forward citations). Let me verify that directly.

The prior-art citations table wasn't in the page text I was given, and those searches returned unrelated documents. Let me pull the actual cited references and the IPR grounds, which are the most probative prior-art record for this patent.

I found the IPR docket trail but not the actual grounds. Let me pull the IPR petition content and the patent's own cited references.

Data-provenance note (important, per your instruction to "use the Prior Art section of this page")

The page text supplied to me does not contain a "Prior Art" / "(56) References Cited" section. What the fetched Google Patents page actually contains under prior-art-relevant headings is:

• "Cited By (38)" — forward citations (later documents citing '319), e.g., Apple accessory/power patents, Samsung/Silicon Labs USB charger patents, Duracell power-bank patents.
• "Families Citing this family (103)" — forward family citations (RIM/BlackBerry GB 2401259, GB 2402271; Apple US 7,634,605; Dell US 7,378,819; Summit Microelectronics US 7,830,591; etc.).
• The patent's own admitted prior art in the Background and FIGS. 2–3 discussion (parallel-connected device + controller; device and battery both fed by the controller; the enumerated five problems with FIG. 3).

There is no examiner-cited prior-art table in the material I was given. Rather than fabricate one, I reconstructed the prior art of record from (a) the FreePatentsOnline record for US 7,791,319 (which mirrors the patent's "References Cited" list) and (b) the actual IPR petitions filed against this patent. If your workflow expected a different "Prior Art section," please re-supply it — the analysis below is built on the sources I could verify, and I flag every inference.

Also flagging a consistency point with the earlier sections: the prior summaries correctly identify the three PTAB proceedings as terminated on settlement with no final written decision. That matters here — there is no PTAB validity determination on the merits to lean on; everything below is my own § 103 analysis, not a Board holding.

Obviousness Analysis — US 7,791,319 B2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103

1. Governing framework and date

• Pre-AIA § 103 applies. Effective filing date is 2003-02-21 (no AIA transition; application 10/372,180 filed 2003-02-21). All prior art must therefore qualify under pre-AIA §§ 102(a)/(b)/(e).
• Graham factors: scope/content of prior art; differences from the claims; level of ordinary skill; objective indicia.
• KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007): a TSM is not required; any articulated rationale suffices — known technique to improve a similar device in the same way, simple substitution of a known element, finite number of predictable solutions, design incentives/market forces.
• POSITA: consistent with how the parties framed this patent's field, a bachelor's degree in electrical engineering (or equivalent) plus roughly two years of experience in battery-charging/power-management circuits for portable electronics. The '319 patent is not a software or DSP invention; it is a discrete analog power circuit, so this is a modest skill level.

2. The prior art of record and of the IPR record

(A) References of record on the '319 patent (recovered from the FPO reference list for US 7,791,319):

(B) References actually asserted in the IPR petitions against the '319 patent (LG, IPR2018-00676/-00677):

Uncertainty I will not paper over: the petition record gives me the exhibit labels and names (Gilbert, Takimoto, Bell, NCP1800, bq24020), not the U.S. patent numbers for Gilbert, Takimoto, and Bell. I could not verify their patent numbers before my search budget ran out. Treat the names as literal and the numbers as unverified.

(C) Admitted prior art in the '319 specification itself — this is the most damaging category:

1. The "standard battery charge controller" is the architectural starting point ("a battery charging circuit built around a standard battery charge controller 20").
2. Standard controllers "are provided with some sort of maximum current control… simply set via an external resistor R1" — admits the controllable current output element.
3. FIG. 6 is built on the NCP1800 datasheet ("Off-the-shelf"), and FIG. 7 is built on the bq24020; the spec expressly directs the reader to the NCP1800 manufacturer's application notes for setting R2/R3/R4 and driving transistor Q2.
4. The op-amp voltage-sensing circuit (op amp + divider R5/R6 + C1 vs. a reference) is described as conventional; FIG. 2 (device and controller paralleled on VBUS) is "known in the art."

The consequence: the "battery charge controller," "controllable current output," "external driving semiconductor," "op-amp sensing circuit," and "programmable current limit" elements are all admitted prior art. The only genuinely contestable elements are (i) the residual/remainder power-allocation behavior and (ii) the isolation function of the series switch.

3. Element mapping and the primary combinations

Combination A — the LG first-petition combination (best attack on claims 1–20 generally)

Gilbert + Takimoto + NCP1800 datasheet

Motivation to combine (articulable, KSR-compliant):

• Same field, same problem, same solution direction. All three operate on the identical design problem the '319 Background admits exists: charging a portable's battery while running the portable from a capacity-limited bus.
• Known technique to improve a similar device in the same way. Limiting charge current as a function of a measured quantity (power dissipation / available surplus) was a recognized analog design technique — Aoki '801 does exactly this by reference to allowable dissipation, and Gilbert does it by reference to "excess power" after the primary function is satisfied. Adding Takimoto's reference-comparison/modulation loop is routine feedback design.
• Simple substitution of a known element. Swapping Gilbert's or Takimoto's generic charging path for a standard Li-ion controller (NCP1800, or bq24020 for the two-source claims) achieves a predictable result; the patentee itself used these exact parts as "off-the-shelf" building blocks and admitted their application notes suffice for sizing.
• Finite, predictable solutions. The USB tiers (≈100 mA low-power, ≈500 mA high-power) were dictated by the USB specification and the patent itself concedes the USB 4.40–5.25 V / 100 mA and 4.75–5.25 V / 500 mA figures as the standard.
• Design incentives / market forces. The Background itself supplies the motivation: USB ports are ubiquitous, avoid a heavy transformer or expensive switcher, and let one cable carry power and data.

Combination B — the LG second-petition combination (aimed at claims 14, 15, 19)

Gilbert + Takimoto + bq24020 datasheet (+ Bell for claim 18)

The bq24020 is a dual-input (USB/AC) controller with externally programmable current limits. It maps directly onto:

• claim 14's "about 100 mA for a low-power USB port and about 500 mA for a high-power USB port," and
• claim 19's three-tier selection "low-power USB port, a high-power USB port or a non-USB source."

Motivation: a dual-input controller is the natural part choice once the designer wants the same cradle circuit to accept both a USB bus and an AC/car adapter — a substitution of one known controller for another to obtain a predictable result, with the additional advantage the reference itself teaches (AC input overrides USB input).

Combination C — combination built purely from the references of record (independent of the IPRs)

Matsuda '649 + Leppo '478 + Aoki '801 + Faulk '254, optionally + Kates '552

• Matsuda '649 — USB cable charging of an external apparatus's battery (USB source + battery).
• Leppo '478 — "Power distribution in a portable device": system load and battery sharing a limited source, i.e., the priority/remainder concept.
• Aoki '801 — charging current set by allowable dissipation: the single closest teaching of the "control the power dissipated by the charge controller" objective, and a direct motivation for the voltage-drop-sensing throttle.
• Faulk '254 — constant-voltage/maximum-power charge-control architecture: supplies the CC/CV charge-control element.
• Kates '552 — universal/external charging apparatus: supplies the non-USB/AC-adapter alternatives of claims 15/17/18.

Motivation: each reference is in the identical art of battery charging and portable power, addresses the same objective (charge a battery from a constrained source without over-dissipating the pass element), and the combination is a mere aggregation of known elements with no change in their respective principles of operation.

Combination D — claims 6/7/8 (power the critical low-power parts from the controller; high-power parts from the battery)

Leppo '478 + Carkner '759 (+ Gilbert's "lower-power-demand mode" concept). Both references are expressly directed to distributing/shedding power among loads in a portable device. The '319 specification itself says this is trivial ("easily done by connecting only the processor and memory… to Q2"), which undercuts any non-obviousness argument for these dependent claims — an inventor's own characterization of a variation as routine is strong evidence of obviousness.

4. Claim-by-claim conclusion

5. Where obviousness is weakest — and how the Patent Owner attacked it

The PTAB papers I retrieved (the FISI responses) show precisely where the petitioner's case was brittle, and the same weaknesses would recur in a district-court § 103 case:

1. "The rechargeable battery receives a remainder of the power available from the battery charge controller" (all claims). The Patent Owner argued Gilbert only charges "at a rate proportionate to… the amount of excess power," and that "proportionate" ≠ "the remainder." The E.D. Tex. construction as reported in that record is narrow: the battery receives "the remaining power available from the battery charge controller." If a court adopts that reading, the petitioner must show an actual power-priority/remainder behavior, not merely "some excess power used for charging." Leppo '478 or a true load-priority charge controller is needed to close this — Gilbert alone does not.
2. Who powers the portable device. The Patent Owner's core argument: the claims require the battery charge controller to power both the device and the battery (as FIG. 6 of '319), whereas Gilbert's excess-power architecture routes bus power to the primary function through Gilbert's own voltage regulator 46, with only a portion passing under the controller's control. That is a genuine structural difference and the most plausible non-obviousness hook.
3. "Isolating the rechargeable battery from the portable device" (claims 1, 14, 19, 20). None of the named references was shown to boot the device with a dead/absent battery by isolating the battery — the '319's stated advantage ("the portable device 18 will still see a voltage that is high enough for proper operation," with a 1–4 ms controller enable time). That is the strongest single non-obvious feature, though it flows naturally from placing the switch in series with the battery.
4. § 112(f) risk on claim 20. The Patent Owner also attacked the petitioner for failing to align its asserted structure with the district court's mapping of claim 1's "voltage sensing circuit" to FIG. 6. The same gap − identity between the disclosed op-amp structure and the prior art − is worth pre-empting.

6. Objective indicia (Graham factor 4)

• No verified evidence of secondary considerations for the '319 specifically (no confirmed commercial-success, long-felt-need, or failure-of-others record; the patentee's licensing campaign is a licensing, not a commercial-success, indicium and cuts weakly).
• Widespread independent industry adoption of USB battery charging with load-priority current throttling (the forward-citation list shows dozens of later Apple/Samsung/TI/Summit/Duracell implementations) can be argued either way: the patentee will call it evidence of the invention's merit, while an accused infringer will call it evidence that the solution was the predictable industry path once USB supplies became standard. On balance, given Matsuda '649 and Kates '552 predate the filing, the "long-felt need" story is weak.
• Note the practical posture: the '319 patent expired 2024-12-09 and each family member is expired or expired-fee-related, so any § 103 analysis now matters mainly for past damages in already-filed or contemplated actions and for licensing/valuation — the windows for new prospective infringement are closed.

7. Bottom line

A prima facie case of obviousness can be made out for essentially all 20 claims, strongest in these combinations:

1. Gilbert + Takimoto + NCP1800 datasheet (claims 1–13, 15–17, 20) — mirrors the LG first petition.
2. Gilbert + Takimoto + bq24020 datasheet (+ Bell) (claims 14, 18, 19) — mirrors the LG second petition.
3. Matsuda '649 + Aoki '801 + Leppo '478 + Faulk '254 (+ Kates '552) — an independent combination from the '319 patent's own references of record, which supplies the two limitations Gilbert lacks (dissipation-based current throttling and true load/battery power sharing).

The linchpin is the "remainder of the power available from the battery charge controller" limitation and the related requirement that the charge controller itself power both the portable device and the battery. Those are the elements to attack with a reference that explicitly teaches load-priority power sharing through the charging element (Leppo-type), not merely "charge from excess." Absent that, a court applying the reported E.D. Tex. construction could find claims 1, 14, 19, and 20 non-obvious even while the dependent claims fall.

Caveats: (i) this is an analytical opinion, not a legal opinion; invalidity in litigation requires clear and convincing evidence; (ii) the three IPRs were settled without any final written decision, so no Board finding exists on any of these grounds — I am not aware of any adjudicated validity ruling on the '319; (iii) I could not verify the U.S. patent numbers for Gilbert, Takimoto, or Bell, or confirm the LGE-1007 exhibit identity in each petition, before my search budget was exhausted; and (iv) the page you asked me to use does not contain an examiner-cited "(56) References Cited" block — if you have that section, supplying it would let me ground the claim-by-claim mapping on the actual art of record rather than the reconstructed list.