US 7999514

I'll verify the patent details against live sources before summarizing.

Let me check for any 2026 CAFC activity and other docket records.

US 7,999,514 B2 — Verification & Summary

Sourcing note: I did not query USPTO PatentCenter/PAIR directly; findings below come from the Google Patents full-text record for US7999514B2, FreePatentsOnline, and PTAB/docket records retrieved by web search. Where I could not confirm something authoritatively, I say so.

Bibliographic data

Prosecution chain (important): This is a continuation of application 12/860,591 (filed 2010-08-20, now US 7,906,940), which is a continuation of application 10/372,180 (filed 2003-02-21, now US 7,791,319). A sibling continuation, 13/175,541, issued as US 8,541,983. Despite the 2011 filing date, all substantive priority traces to 21 Feb 2003.

Abstract (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 across the battery charge controller 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 the independent claims

There are three independent claims: 1 (apparatus), 18 (method), and 20 (means-plus-function circuit). This is the '514 claim set as issued, which is narrower in wording than the originally filed versions described in the specification (the spec's "Summary of the Invention" recites reducing current "when the voltage drop is too great," whereas the granted claims recite allocating a predetermined amount of power to the device and the remainder to the battery).

Claim 1 — Battery charging circuit.

• A switch whose output connects to a rechargeable battery and which is configurable to isolate the rechargeable battery from the portable device.
• A battery charge controller that receives power from an external source and supplies output power to the portable device.
• A voltage sensing circuit that responds to the voltage drop across the battery charge controller by modulating the switch to control current to the battery, so the portable device gets a predetermined amount of power to operate and the battery gets "a reminder of the power available" from the controller.
  • Literal-reading note (per the no-auto-correction rule): claim 1 as granted uses the word "reminder", which appears to be a typographical error for "remainder." The parallel independent claim 20 uses "a remainder of power available." I am flagging this rather than silently correcting it, since the discrepancy is in the printed claim text.
• Note the narrowest structural hook: the switch must be configurable to isolate the battery from the device (the specification explains this enables fast boot when the battery is deeply discharged).

Claim 18 — Method of charging a battery of a portable device via an external power supply.
Steps: (a) connect the charge controller input to the external supply; (b) connect the controller output in parallel to the portable device and to the input of a switch; (c) connect the switch output to the battery; (d) control the controller's current output; and (e) respond to the voltage drop across the controller by modulating the switch so the device receives a predetermined amount of power and the battery receives "a reminder of power available."

Claim 20 — Power supply circuit (means-plus-function).
Two means elements: (i) means for measuring the voltage drop across a charge controller that supplies a portable device and a switch input in parallel; and (ii) means for responding to that voltage drop by modulating the switch so the device gets a predetermined amount of power and the battery gets "a remainder of power available." Because this is drafted in means-plus-function form under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f), scope is limited to the corresponding structures disclosed (op-amp/comparator-based sensing; MOSFET/transistor switch) and equivalents.

Selected dependent claims worth noting

• 2: an external driving semiconductor carries supply current to the device and switch, so load current bypasses the charge controller (avoids dissipating heat in the controller).
• 3–5, 8–9: voltage sensing implemented with an operational amplifier; op-amp compares the controller output voltage to a reference, with a voltage divider for scaling and a capacitor to smooth/prevent oscillation.
• 6–7: external source is a computer data bus, specifically USB.
• 10–12: low-power critical components (memory, microprocessor) fed from the controller; high-power non-critical components (backlight, vibrator) fed from the battery side.
• 13–16: driving semiconductor is a transistor; maximum current set by an external resistance to ground, selectable via multiple resistor/switch sets; switch is a MOSFET.
• 17: the charge controller limits output so device plus battery cannot exceed the source's maximum available current.
• 19: comparing a controller voltage signal with a reference voltage.

Litigation / PTAB posture (verified)

• PTAB IPR2018-00678 — Petitioner LG Electronics, Inc. et al. (joined by LG Electronics U.S.A., LG Electronics MobileComm U.S.A., Mobile Research U.S.A. LLC, LG Electronics Alabama); Patent Owner Fundamental Innovation Systems International, LLC; filed 2018-02-22; dismissed pursuant to settlement on 2018-10-16 (Paper 10, Judges Moore, Tornquist, Harlow). The Board expressly treated the "7,791,319" reference in the joint motion as a typographical error and confirmed the subject patent is the '514 patent.
• PTAB IPR2018-00622 — also filed and terminated by settlement (per the Google Patents family-litigation record).
• District court: a case was filed in Texas Eastern District Court, 2:17-cv-00145 (per Unified Patents litigation data).
• CAFC 2026 dockets: I searched and found no Federal Circuit 2026 appeal involving patent 7,999,514. I cannot represent that this is exhaustive — I did not query the CAFC docket system directly — but nothing surfaced. Given the patent's anticipated expiration on 2023-02-21 and the 2018 settlement, current appellate activity is unlikely.

Caveats

• The "current assignee" field is Google's automated listing and is explicitly disclaimed by Google as possibly inaccurate; the record shows at least two 2015/2016 assignments of interest to Fundamental Innovation Systems International LLC from BlackBerry Limited.
• Dates such as the priority date and legal status are flagged in the source as assumptions, not legal conclusions.
• I did not verify the patent's current fee/expiration status in USPTO PatentCenter directly; the "Expired – Lifetime" status and 2023-02-21 expiration are as reported by the source record.

I'll research litigation involving US Patent 7999514. Let me run several targeted searches.

Let me dig deeper into the specific cases referencing 7999514.

Let me confirm IPR2018-00622 and the outcome of the Samsung case.

Litigation Involving U.S. Patent No. 7,999,514

Important scoping note: U.S. 7,999,514 ("the '514 patent," Circuit and method of operation for an electrical power supply, Veselic et al., RIM/BlackBerry → Fundamental Innovation Systems International LLC) is one member of a five-patent U.S. family (U.S. 7,791,319; 7,847,520; 7,906,940; 7,999,514; 8,541,983; all Priority date 2003‑02‑21). Much of the litigation in this campaign was brought on the family as a whole, so I distinguish below between (a) matters where the '514 patent specifically appears in the record I retrieved, and (b) broader family litigation where I could not confirm the '514 patent was individually asserted.

1. District court litigation where the '514 patent was specifically asserted

Fundamental Innovation Systems International LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc.

• Plaintiff: Fundamental Innovation Systems International LLC (FISI)
• Defendants: Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.; Samsung Electronics America, Inc.
• Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division (Judge Rodney Gilstrap; Magistrate Judge Roy S. Payne)
• Case No.: 2:17-cv-00145 (often cited as 2:17-cv-00145-JRG-RSP)
• Filed: February 21, 2017
• Patents asserted: U.S. 6,936,936; 7,239,111; 7,701,173; 7,791,319; 7,834,586; 7,893,655; 7,999,514; 8,232,766; 8,541,983; 8,624,550 — the court's opinion expressly lists "7,999,514 ('the '514 Patent')" among the patents-in-suit.
• Status/outcome: The '514 patent was among the patents the parties agreed to settle. In Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v. Fundamental Innovation Systems International LLC, the Board's July 16, 2018 decision dismissing the Samsung IPR petitions pursuant to settlement records that the parties "settled all of their disputes regarding U.S. Patent Nos. 6,936,936 B2, 8,541,983 B2, 7,791,319 B2, and 7,999,514 B2" (Joint Motion to Terminate filed July 12, 2018, in IPR2018-00605, -00606, -00607, -00620, -00621, -00622). The RPX docket for 2:17-cv-00145 is also tagged "DC CAFC," indicating appellate activity, but I could not confirm a specific Federal Circuit appeal number or disposition for the '514 patent from the sources retrieved.
• Representative source: the claim-construction/opinion record reproduced at Fundamental Innovation Sys. Int'l LLC v. Samsung Elecs. Co., Case No. 2:17-cv-145-JRG-RSP; docket at 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

Linked from the Google Patents family-litigation record for US 7,999,514: a U.S. case filed in the Eastern District of Texas, case 2:17-cv-00145 — i.e., the same Samsung action:
https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/Texas%20Eastern%20District%20Court/case/2%3A17-cv-00145

2. PTAB (IPR) proceedings tied to US 7,999,514

These are administrative trials rather than district court suits, but they are the adversarial proceedings that most directly name this patent. The Google Patents page for US 7,999,514 lists two PTAB matters under "Family has litigation."

• IPR2018-00678 — LG Electronics, Inc. v. Veselic et al. (Fundamental Innovation Systems International LLC)

  • Respondent patent: U.S. 7,999,514 (application 13/028,361; Tech Center 2800)
  • Filed: February 22, 2018
  • Status: Terminated – Settled (termination date October 16, 2018)
  • Petitioner counsel: David L. McCombs; Patent Owner counsel: Hong Zhong
  • Source: https://ipverse.greyb.com/ptab-web/cases/case-details/IPR2018-00678 and https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/ptab/case/IPR2018-00678

• IPR2018-00622 — Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. v. Fundamental Innovation Systems International LLC

  • Filed 2018 as part of the Samsung group (IPR2018-00605, -00606, -00607, -00620, -00621, -00622)
  • Status: Dismissed before institution by Board decision of July 16, 2018, following the parties' settlement; the settlement expressly covered U.S. 7,999,514 B2.
  • Source: Board's "Decision Dismissing Petitions Pursuant to Settlement" (available via Docket Alarm, IPR2018-00621 docket); https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/ptab/case/IPR2018-00622
  • Caveat: I retrieved the settlement text confirming that the group of Samsung petitions covered the '514 patent, but I could not independently verify from the sources retrieved that IPR2018-00622 in particular was the petition directed to the '514 patent (as opposed to another family member such as the '319 or '983 patent). Treat the specific patent-to-petition mapping for -00622 as unconfirmed.

• Google Patents also notes a "First worldwide family litigation filed" entry for Darts-IP family ID 32868490 (the family containing the '514 patent): https://patents.darts-ip.com/?family=32868490

3. Related family litigation where I could NOT confirm the '514 patent was asserted

FISI's multi-defendant campaign over the same Veselic/BlackBerry family (identified as related matters in the '111-patent IPR record) includes, among others: FISI v. Samsung (2:17-cv-00145, E.D. Tex.); FISI v. LG Electronics (2:16-cv-01425, E.D. Tex., filed 12/16/2016, closed 10/22/2018); FISI v. Huawei (2:16-cv-01424, E.D. Tex.); FISI v. ZTE (3:17-cv-01827); FISI v. Apple (3:19-cv-00048, N.D. Cal., settled; and 3:19-cv-03144, N.D. Cal.); FISI v. Coolpad (2:20-cv-00117, E.D. Tex.); FISI v. Lenovo (1:20-cv-00551, D. Del.); FISI v. TCT Mobile (1:20-cv-00552, D. Del.); FISI v. Belkin (1:20-cv-00550, D. Del., settled); FISI v. BLU Products (1:20-cv-21721, S.D. Fla., settled); FISI v. Aukey (2:20-cv-00116, E.D. Tex., settled); FISI v. Jasco (2:20-cv-00118, E.D. Tex.); FISI v. OnePlus (2:20-cv-00119, E.D. Tex.). These matters generally asserted the Fischer patents (7,239,111 / 7,834,586 / 8,232,766 / 8,624,550) and the Veselic '655 patent. Based on the sources I retrieved, the only district court case in which US 7,999,514 is expressly identified as a patent-in-suit is the Samsung action, 2:17-cv-00145.

Bottom line

• Confirmed district court case asserting US 7,999,514: Fundamental Innovation Systems International LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al., No. 2:17-cv-00145 (E.D. Tex.), filed Feb. 21, 2017 — resolved by settlement (Samsung's IPR petitions covering the '514 patent were dismissed July 16, 2018).
• Confirmed PTAB case naming US 7,999,514: LG Electronics, Inc. v. Veselic et al., IPR2018-00678, filed Feb. 22, 2018 — terminated/settled Oct. 16, 2018.
• Likely related but not fully verified: IPR2018-00622 (Samsung), dismissed pre-institution in the July 2018 settlement covering the '514 patent.
• I found no other litigation — no ITC Section 337 action, no further district court case, and no confirmed Federal Circuit appeal — in which US 7,999,514 is specifically identified as an asserted patent.

Methodological caveats: I was unable to load the Unified Patents case-list pages directly; the district-court and PTAB facts above are drawn from the Google Patents family-litigation record for US 7,999,514, the PTAB termination decision text, RPX Insight, Justia Dockets, and court opinions. Docket-based sources can lag, and the patent-specific mapping for IPR2018-00622 and any Federal Circuit appeal remain unverified — those points should be confirmed against PACER and the CAFC docket before being relied upon.

I'll verify the AIA-trial record against public sources, since the structured block and the Google Patents family record appear to conflict.

Let me pin down the Samsung proceeding and confirm whether either IPR ever reached institution.

One more check for completeness — any other AIA filings or appeal activity tied to the '514 patent.

AIA Trial Proceedings — US 7,999,514 B2

⚠️ Contradiction flag (must be resolved before relying on the structured block): The "PTAB proceedings on file" block in this prompt states the USPTO ODP API returns no AIA trial proceedings for this patent. That is inconsistent with the public record, which shows two AIA petitions filed against the '514 patent in early 2018. The likely explanation is that neither petition was ever instituted, so it may be excluded from an ingest that keys on trial-stage proceedings — but I cannot confirm the ODP's ingestion logic, and I did not query PTAB E2E directly. Per the operating rule that live results control, I treat the structured block as incomplete for this patent and report the two proceedings below.

Proceedings overview

Total: 2 AIA proceedings, both Inter Partes Review — 0 active, 0 with claims invalidated, 0 with claims sustained, 2 dismissed/terminated by pre-institution settlement, 0 institution denials on the merits; no claim of the '514 patent has ever been adjudicated by the Board, so the defensive posture is "totally untested at the PTAB — and the two petitioners who tried both bought their way out before institution."

The practical read for a defendant: nothing is cancelled, nothing is estopped, and no Board precedent binds anyone. Both Samsung and LG walked away via settlement before the Board ever ruled on institution, so the '514 patent emerges from 2018 with zero claim-level PTAB history — which cuts both ways: the patent owner cannot point to a survivability win, and a new defendant cannot point to a "claim 1 is dead" order. The entire prior-art attack is still available to be run from scratch.

IPR2018-00678 — LG Electronics, Inc. et al. v. Fundamental Innovation Systems International LLC

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2018-02-22
• Status: Terminated-Settled (third-party PTAB tracker); dismissed before institution by Board Order entered 2018-10-16 (Paper 10). The Board was explicit that its order "does not constitute a final written decision pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 318(a)."
• Judge panel: Administrative Patent Judges Bryan F. Moore, Jon B. Tornquist, and Jacqueline T. Harlow; opinion authored by Harlow. (Paper 10). Petitioner entities named in the caption: LG Electronics, Inc.; LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc.; LG Electronics MobileComm U.S.A. Inc.; LG Electronics Mobile Research U.S.A. LLC; LG Electronics Alabama, Inc.
• Petition grounds (from a third-party PTAB case database summary of the petition — flagged as secondary source; I did not read the petition itself):
  • Ground 1: claims 1-8, 13-14, 17-20 obvious over Gilbert (US 6,357,011) in view of Takimoto (US 6,337,563) and the NCP1800 datasheet (ON Semiconductor, Nov. 2001).
  • Ground 2: claim 9 obvious over Gilbert + Takimoto + NCP1800 datasheet + Riggio (US 5,329,223).
  • Ground 3: claims 1, 15-16, 17-19 obvious over Gilbert + Takimoto + the bq24020 datasheet (Texas Instruments, Dec. 2002).
  • Statutory basis: § 103 throughout. The NCP1800 and bq24020 datasheets are notable because they are the same off-the-shelf controllers the patent's own specification names (NCP1800 in FIG. 6; bq24020 as U909 in FIGS. 7A-7C).
• Institution decision: None. The Board stated: "This proceeding is still in its early stages as the Board has not issued a decision on institution." Paper 10. No § 314(a) institution decision was ever entered.
• Final Written Decision: None issued. No claim was cancelled, confirmed, or discussed on the merits. All 20 claims remain exactly as granted.
• Settlement / termination: On 2018-10-15, with Board authorization, the parties filed a joint motion to dismiss (Paper 8) representing that they "have settled all of their disputes regarding U.S. Patent No. 7,999,514 B2." They also filed a settlement agreement (Ex. 2025) and related email correspondence (Ex. 2026) together with a joint request (Paper 9) to keep them business-confidential under 35 U.S.C. § 317(b) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.74(c). The Board granted confidential treatment — the settlement terms are not public. The Board granted the joint motion and dismissed the petition under 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.5(a), 42.71, reasoning that because "this case has not yet been instituted, we treat this motion as requesting dismissal of the Petition." The Board also expressly construed the parties' stray reference to U.S. Patent No. 7,791,319 as "an inadvertent typographical error" and confirmed the subject patent is the '514 patent.
• Appeal: None possible and none filed. With no final written decision, there is no § 318(a) decision to appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 319. Nothing surfaced on the Federal Circuit docket, CourtListener, or in PTAB records.
• Defensive value: The petition never got past the preliminary stage, so it is not a road map endorsed (or rejected) by the Board — but it is still a free strategic head start: LG's assembled combination (Gilbert + Takimoto + the NCP1800/bq24020 datasheets) is public and available to any new defendant, with no § 315(e) estoppel attached to it. Note the § 315(b) one-year clock and that any new petition must be filed within one year of service of a complaint on that defendant/RPI.

Primary sources:

• Termination Decision Document, Paper 10 (PTAB 2018-10-16): https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2018-00678/Inter_Partes_Review_of_U.S._Pat._7999514/10-16-2018-Board/Termination_Decision_Document-10-Termination_Decision_Document/
• Patent Owner Mandatory Notice (IPR2018-00678, listing related proceedings): https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/[1507616](/patent/1507616)/download-documents
• PTAB case tracking: https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/ (USPTO PTAB E2E / PTACTS)
• Case metadata: https://ipverse.greyb.com/ptab-web/cases/case-details/IPR2018-00678

IPR2018-00622 — Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. v. Fundamental Innovation Systems International LLC

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2018-02-12 (confirmed by the National Law Review PTO Litigation Report for 2018-02-13, listing patent 7,999,514 and petitioners Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc.).
• Status: Dismissed before institution by Termination Decision Document entered 2018-07-16 (Paper 10), in a consolidated ruling covering Samsung's six related petitions (IPR2018-00605, -00606, -00607, -00620, -00621, -00622). No institution; no FWD.
• Judge panel: For the consolidated dismissal decision — Administrative Patent Judges Rae Lynn P. Guest, Bryan F. Moore, Jon B. Tornquist, Jacqueline T. Harlow, Christopher L. Ogden, and Paul J. Korniczky; opinion authored by Ogden. (Caveat: I retrieved the panel from the parallel IPR2018-00621 decision, which by its terms addresses "these proceedings" collectively; I did not open the 00622-specific paper. The panels are very likely identical.)
• Petition grounds: Not publicly established at ground level. No institution decision ever issued, so the Board never characterized the grounds. The public exhibit list for this docket (via the Patexia docket) shows exhibits including US 5,703,470 (Baranowski), US 6,302,744 (Shum), US 6,362,610 (Yang), US 6,531,945 (Kerai), US 6,791,298 (Shenai), the USB Specification Rev. 2.0, the USB On-The-Go Supplement Rev. 1.0, Power Supply Cookbook (Brown), Arbetter et al., "Control method for low-voltage DC power supply in battery-powered systems with power management," Garcia, "The Effects of Compensation on Load Transient Response in Switched Mode Power Converters," and Sengupta, "Duty-cycle is one key to buck converters' output current capability," plus a declaration of James T. Geier and the E.D. Tex. claim construction order (Dkt. 140, No. 2:17-cv-00145-JRG). I have not verified which exhibits map to which ground, and I do not represent this as the full ground set. Treat this as a lead, not a record.
• Institution decision: None. The Board noted the proceedings were "still in their preliminary stage and no trial has yet been instituted." Patent Owner's Preliminary Response was filed 2018-07-05 (Paper 7), with Dr. Fernald's declaration (Ex. 2001), the Toko TK71733SCL datasheet (Ex. 2002), and a Dezmelyk declaration (Ex. 2006) — the POPR therefore never received a Board response.
• Final Written Decision: None issued. No claim was cancelled or confirmed. All 20 claims remain exactly as granted.
• Settlement / termination: Joint Motion to Terminate filed 2018-07-12 (Paper 8) with a Joint Request for Confidentiality (Paper 9); decision 2018-07-16. The Board held that 35 U.S.C. § 317 governs only instituted IPRs — quoting § 317(a)'s "An inter partes review instituted under this chapter…" — and therefore denied the joint motions to terminate, but dismissed the petitions under 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(a). The parties represented they had settled all disputes regarding US 6,936,936, US 8,541,983, US 7,791,319, and US 7,999,514, and the settlement included dismissal with prejudice of the related pending district court litigation. The settlement agreement (Ex. 2007) was granted business-confidential treatment under 37 C.F.R. § 42.74(c) — terms not public.
• Appeal: None. No final written decision → no appeal under § 319.
• Defensive value: Same posture as LG's petition — no preclusive effect whatsoever, no § 315(e)(2) estoppel, nothing cancelled. But this one is a useful marker of how the patent owner behaved: FISI filed a substantive POPR rather than rolling over, and the case still evaporated ~5 months after filing, in a consolidated settlement that swept in four patents and the E.D. Tex. case. Read together with LG's October 2018 dismissal, the pattern is a portfolio-wide peace, not a merits defeat or a merits win.

Primary sources:

• Termination Decision Document, Paper 10 (PTAB 2018-07-16), consolidated dismissal of IPR2018-00605/00606/00607/00620/00621/00622: 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
• Docket (filing dates, POPR, joint motion, exhibits): https://services.patexia.com/lawsuits/Samsung-Electronics-America-Inc-et-al-v-Fundamental-Innovation-Systems-International-LLC-et-al-id-[111683](/patent/111683)/documents/
• USPTO PTAB E2E / PTACTS: https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/

Strategic summary

Claim status. No claim of US 7,999,514 — independent claims 1, 18, and 20, or any of dependent claims 2-17 and 19 — has ever been cancelled, held unpatentable, or held patentable in an AIA trial. All 20 claims stand exactly as issued on 2011-08-16, including the literal language quirks already flagged in the claim analysis (claim 1's "a reminder of the power available" and claim 18's "a reminder of power available," versus claim 20's "a remainder of power available"). Those defects were never tested adversarially at the Board, and — because the patent is now expired — they never will be corrected.

Estoppel landscape. Because neither IPR was instituted, § 315(e)(2) estoppel does not attach to either Samsung or LG with respect to this patent. A petition that is denied institution, or dismissed before institution, does not trigger estoppel; the Federal Circuit's Shaw Industries Group, Inc. v. Automated Creel Systems, Inc., 817 F.3d 1293 (Fed. Cir. 2016) line (applied post-SAS in the N.D. Tex. FISI v. ZTE decision, No. 3:17-cv-01827-N (2019-11-20)) confirms that non-instituted grounds remain available in litigation. Practical consequences for a defendant today:

• Every ground LG and Samsung raised is still on the table for a new petitioner or as an invalidity defense — no § 315(e)(2) bar, no IPR-driven prosecution history narrowing.
• Conversely, no ground has been blessed by the Board, so you cannot lean on an earlier panel's reasoning the way a defendant would with a favourable FWD.
• Note the 2018 litigation settlements are party-specific (Samsung, LG) and included dismissal with prejudice of their own E.D. Tex. cases. They bind those parties commercially; they do not bind a new defendant, and they created no public claim construction or invalidity ruling on the '514 patent.

Pattern signals.

• Two different petitioners, same patent, same outcome. Samsung filed first (2018-02-12) with six coordinated petitions across the Veselic 2003/2005 families; LG followed ten days later (2018-02-22) with its own set, including IPR2018-00676 and -00677 against the '319 parent and IPR2018-00678 against the '514. Both sets died pre-institution — Samsung on 2018-07-16, LG on 2018-10-16.
• No defensive aggregator. Unlike many NPE-asserted portfolios of that era, no Unified Patents or RPX-style petitioner appears on the '514 patent. The petitioners were the accused infringers themselves (Samsung and LG, both defendants in FISI's E.D. Tex. campaign — FISI v. Samsung, No. 2:17-cv-00145, and FISI v. LG, No. 2:16-cv-01425). This corrects/refines the earlier section's framing: the Google Patents "family has litigation" flag and the "IPR2018-00678 filed (Settlement)" entries are accurate, but the petitioner there is LG, not a defensive aggregator, and the "Texas Eastern District Court 2:17-cv-00145" case referenced in the family record is the Samsung action, not the LG action.
• No PTAB appeals, ever. The patent owner never had an FWD to appeal, and no petitioner ever had one either. There is no Federal Circuit docket and no CourtListener entry for this patent. The earlier section's "no CAFC 2026 appeal found" conclusion is therefore correct for a stronger reason than mere expiration: there was never an appealable agency decision.
• Expired, not invalidated. Anticipated expiration 2023-02-21; status Expired – Lifetime. A new IPR today would be an academic exercise (no amendment possible, no injunction against an expired patent), and damages exposure is limited to pre-expiration conduct. The commercial risk from the '514 patent is now essentially historic — but the patent owner's 2018 assertion campaign remains the template for any past-damages theory.

Recommended next steps

1. Do not rely on the structured "no PTAB proceedings" block for this patent. It is contradicted by two publicly documented petitions. Pull the case files directly from PTAB E2E (https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/) under IPR2018-00622 and IPR2018-00678 before making any statement to a client or a court about this patent's AIA history.
2. If you are a defendant and a demand letter cites the '514 patent, there is no PTAB silver bullet — but there is a clean slate. No claim has been cancelled, so you cannot say "claim 1 is dead." What you can say is that two sophisticated defendants with real economic incentive to kill this patent both settled before the Board ever ruled on institution — meaning the patent's validity has never been tested by anyone, and the 2018 settlements were commercial, not merits-driven.
3. Harvest the abandoned petitions. Retrieve and read the IPR2018-00678 Petition (LG's Gilbert (US 6,357,011) + Takimoto (US 6,337,563) + NCP1800/bq24020 datasheet combination) and the IPR2018-00622 exhibit set (Baranowski, Shum, Yang, Kerai, Shenai, USB 2.0 spec, USB On-The-Go supplement, Arberter, Garcia, Sengupta). These are fully public, un-estopped, and represent roughly a year of two AmLaw-firm invalidity work product that you can reuse for free. Pair the LG combination against claims 1-9 and 13-20, and the Samsung switching-regulator/spec art against any claim the LG combination does not reach.
4. Check the § 315(b) clock immediately. Estoppel is irrelevant; the one-year bar is not. Any new petition must be filed within one year of service of a complaint alleging infringement on your client or its RPI/privies.
5. If you contemplate a review, note there is nothing live to join. Both proceedings were dismissed, not terminated post-institution, so there is no joinder vehicle and no pending trial schedule. Any trial-stage deadlines (statutory one-year FWD deadline from institution, oral hearing, etc.) are inapplicable — no trial ever began, and no such milestones exist.
6. Litigation-side levers may now be stronger than PTAB-side levers. The patent's expiration on 2023-02-21 limits recovery to past damages; the "reminder"/"remainder" discrepancy between claims 1/18 and claim 20 remains uninterpreted by any tribunal; and claim 20 is a means-plus-function claim under § 112(f) whose scope was never construed. District court claim construction and damages apportionment, not an IPR, are likely the higher-value battleground today.

I'll research the assignment record for US 7999514 before drafting. Let me pull the USPTO Assignment Search data and related records.

Let me dig for the specific reel/frame records and the NPE-database profiles.

Let me try to pin down the actual reel/frame records and correspondent of record.

USPTO Assignment Record Reconstruction — US 7,999,514 B2

Methodology / sourcing note (read first): I was unable to retrieve the reel/frame numbers or the correspondent-of-record fields for this patent. The Assignment Center's UI (assignmentcenter.uspto.gov) is not directly indexable, and my web-search budget was exhausted before I could surface a cached record containing those fields. Rather than invent reel/frame or correspondent data, I have reconstructed the timeline below from Google Patents legal events (which mirror recorded-assignment events), PTAB filings, and federal court opinions that recite the chain of title. Every entry where reel/frame or correspondent is unknown is explicitly marked [not retrieved]. Nothing in the "Assignment timeline" section below should be treated as a substitute for pulling the actual reel/frame records at the Assignment Center search page.

Inventors

Unusual-pattern check — not determinable. I found no evidence that either inventor departed RIM within 12 months of the 2003-02-21 priority filing, and no evidence of a pre-issuance employment break. I am not asserting the absence of such a pattern as a finding — I simply could not retrieve employment/termination data. Note the more relevant "inventor-attrition" tell here is absent on its face: both inventors remained the named assignors on the continuation filing in 2011, which is more consistent with continuing employment than with a departure-then-fire-sale pattern.

Original assignee

• Entity on the issued patent: Research In Motion Limited (RIM), Waterloo, Ontario. RIM was renamed BlackBerry Limited effective 2014 (recorded 2014-10-14 — a change-of-name conveyance, not a transfer).
• Product embodying the claims: Yes — the specification is written around the BlackBerry™ handheld explicitly (US7999514B2, col. describing the "portable BlackBerry™ handheld device"). The claims recite a portable device charged from a USB node, which is precisely RIM's device-plus-docking-cradle architecture of that era.
• Primary line of business at filing: Wireless email handhelds / smartphones and the associated BlackBerry Enterprise Server software.
• Current status of the original assignee: Operating as BlackBerry Limited — but its device business ended (handset operations wound down / licensed out by ~2016-2020), and the company now operates as an enterprise software, security, and IoT licensing business. It is not dissolved and was not in bankruptcy; the patent was sold in a strategic monetization transaction, not a distressed liquidation.

Transfer-of-title entity (current owner): Fundamental Innovation Systems International LLC (FISI), Delaware, formed in 2015, with a parent Fundamental Innovation Systems International Holdings LLC (stated in PTAB IPR2018-00479 papers).

Assignment timeline

Recording fields reconstructed from Google Patents legal events, corroborated by Fundamental Innovation Systems Int'l LLC v. Lenovo (D. Del. 1:20-cv-00551) and PTAB filings. Execution dates for the RIM-internal and BlackBerry→FISI records are not independently verified.

1. Executed c. 2003-03 (execution date [not retrieved]) / recorded on the 2011 continuation [not retrieved] — Reel/Frame [not retrieved]

   • Conveyance: Assignment of interest (inventors → employer)
   • Assignor: Dusan Veselic; Martin G. A. Guthrie
   • Assignee: Research In Motion Limited
   • Correspondent: [not retrieved]
   • Context: Routine inventor employment assignment — conveys the inventors' rights to RIM. (Google legal events also show a 2011-02-19 "assigned to Research In Motion Limited" record tied to assignors Guthrie/Veselic for the 13/028,361 continuation filing.)

2. Executed 2014-10-14 / recorded 2014-10-14 [event date per Google Patents] — Reel/Frame [not retrieved]

   • Conveyance: Change of Name
   • Assignor: Research In Motion Limited
   • Assignee: BlackBerry Limited
   • Correspondent: [not retrieved]
   • Context: Internal corporate reorg — RIM formally rebranded to BlackBerry Limited; no change in beneficial ownership.

3. Executed November 2015 (per RPX / D. Del. record) / recorded 2015-12-17 — Reel/Frame [not retrieved]

   • Conveyance: Assignment (sale)
   • Assignor: BlackBerry Limited
   • Assignee: Fundamental Innovation Systems International LLC
   • Correspondent: [not retrieved]
   • Context: Transfer-to-asserter / portfolio monetization. RPX reports the deal was a "multi-million dollar" acquisition by Centerbridge Partners (PE firm) of "over 55 US assets" plus foreign counterparts; the D. Del. Lenovo opinion confirms Fundamental "acquired the seven patents asserted in this case from Blackberry Limited" in November 2015.

4. Executed [not retrieved] / recorded 2016-12-01 — Reel/Frame [not retrieved]

   • Conveyance: [not retrieved] — likely a corrective/confirmatory assignment or an additional tranche of assets (the record is a second reassignment from BlackBerry Limited to the same FISI entity)
   • Assignor: BlackBerry Limited
   • Assignee: Fundamental Innovation Systems International LLC
   • Correspondent: [not retrieved]
   • Context: Follow-on record to the 2015 acquisition. Because I could not read the conveyance type, I will not characterize this as a separate "cascading" link; it is most consistent with completing/documenting the same 2015 transaction.

Sibling patents in the same family (same chain, useful for pattern confirmation): US 7,791,319; US 7,847,520; US 7,906,940; US 8,541,983 — all trace to the 2003-02-21 priority and, per the litigation record, moved to FISI in the same transaction.

Note on the "Assignment Center has no records" rule: Records do exist for this patent (the three post-2003 reassignment events above are documented). What I could not obtain is the reel/frame + correspondent payload for each. That is a retrieval failure, not an absence of records.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 7999514
    2003 : Filed by Research In Motion
         : Inventors assign to RIM
    2011 : Continuation filed
         : Issued as US 7999514
    2014 : RIM renamed BlackBerry Limited
    2015 : BlackBerry sells portfolio to FISI
    2016 : Second assignment recorded to FISI
    2016 : FISI files first infringement suits
    2019 : RPX settlement coverage deal
    2023 : Patent expires

(2016 suits: FISI v. LG, 2:16-cv-01425; FISI v. Huawei, 2:16-cv-01424.)

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — PRESENT.
The patent moved from operating company BlackBerry Limited to Fundamental Innovation Systems International LLC, a Delaware entity formed in 2015 (RPX), described by RPX as backed by private-equity firm Centerbridge Partners and holding former operating-company patents for assertion. It has a two-tier structure — Fundamental Innovation Systems International Holdings LLC (parent) over Fundamental Innovation Systems International LLC (owner) — recited in PTAB IPR2018-00479's § 42.8 notice. No products are identified as sold by FISI. Caveat on one sub-tell: I did not retrieve a registered-agent service address from the assignment record, so that specific indicator is unclear rather than confirmed; the "licensing-only, PE-backed, no products" evidence is strong on its own. Supporting records: recording 2015-12-17 and 2016-12-01.

2. Known asserter in the chain — PRESENT.
FISI is a high-frequency plaintiff surfaced by RPX ("has filed roughly 20 suits since late 2016," naming Apple, LG, Samsung, Huawei, Lenovo, TCL, ZTE, Belkin, Anker, Cyber Power, and automakers Hyundai/Genesis). It does not match the classic enumerated lists (Acacia, Marathon, Intellectual Ventures, Wi-LAN, etc.), but RPX characterizes it in the same "well-heeled NPE holding large OpCo portfolios" category. Corresponding evidence: RPX Insight, 2021-03-05 — https://litigation.rpxcorp.com/news/65626-two-well-heeled-npes-both-holding-large-opco-portfolios-open-up-march-with-fresh-suits ; PTAB IPR2018-00678 / IPR2018-00622 (terminated by settlement — see prior section).

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — UNCLEAR (not retrievable).
I could not retrieve the correspondent-of-record for any link, so I cannot assess recurrence. The instruction to capture this field is the single most important gap in this analysis. Separately (and not to be conflated with the assignment correspondent field), litigation counsel Irell & Manella LLP (Hong Annita Zhong, Reg. No. 66,530; Michael Fleming, Reg. No. 67,933) recurred across FISI's PTAB proceedings (IPR2018-00479 § 42.8 notice), and portfolio management was contracted to JASPAR – IP Consultants (Kumar/Seaman/Riley, ex-IPVALUE), with earlier engagement of TnT IP LLC — all per RPX/IAM. These are monetization/legal-service repeats, not assignment-record correspondents.

4. Cascading transfers — NOT PRESENT.
The chain is single-step: RIM → (change of name) → BlackBerry → FISI, with the 2015 and 2016 records both running from the same assignor to the same assignee within 12 months. There is no serial relay through multiple differently-named LLCs sharing an address or principal.

5. Pre-litigation transfer — NOT PRESENT (on the literal 6-month test).
The assignment executed in November 2015 (recorded 2015-12-17), while the first suits naming this family (FISI v. LG 2:16-cv-01425, FISI v. Huawei 2:16-cv-01424) were filed in late 2016 — roughly 12 months later, outside the 6-month window. So the "arranged within 6 months pre-suit" tick does not strictly fire. The transfer was nonetheless plainly acquisition-for-assertion (a PE-backed buyer formed months earlier). Flagging this precisely because the timing is the opposite of the usual pre-suit-venue flip.

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — NOT PRESENT.
BlackBerry was not in Chapter 7/11; this was a strategic IP monetization sale (Centerbridge deal). Contrast with the Kodak/Nortel/Polaroid paradigm.

7. Privateering — UNCLEAR.
BlackBerry transferred former-BlackBerry USB-charging patents to a PE-backed NPE that has sued BlackBerry's competitors (Samsung, LG, Huawei, Lenovo, TCL, ZTE). That pattern is consistent with privateering, but I found no public evidence that BlackBerry retained a revenue share or directed FISI's assertions. The 2010/2011 cross-license agreements with Motorola Mobility (analyzed in the D. Del. Lenovo opinion) show BlackBerry's residual licensing entanglement with these patents, but that is a defense-side license, not evidence of assertion control. Do not treat this as a confirmed finding.

8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — NOT PRESENT as a chain termination.
FISI instead licensed into the defensive ecosystem: IAM/RPX reported a November 2019 "RPX agreement" giving RPX members coverage on the USB-charging patents, alongside an Apple settlement. The chain still terminates at FISI (an asserting entity), so the patent is not "neutralized by transfer" to RPX/AST/LOT.

Verdict

NPE — high confidence.

The own-and-assert chain runs BlackBerry Limited → Fundamental Innovation Systems International LLC by assignments recorded 2015-12-17 and 2016-12-01, to a Delaware LLC formed in 2015, PE-backed by Centerbridge Partners, holding no products, with a parent holding LLC (recited in IPR2018-00479). Independent corroboration: RPX (2021-03-05) identifies FISI as an NPE with ~20 suits since late 2016 against Apple, LG, Samsung, Huawei, Lenovo, TCL, ZTE, Belkin, and others, and the D. Del. Lenovo opinion (1:20-cv-00551) confirms the November 2015 acquisition from BlackBerry. That is at least two strong signals — shell/licensing-only transferee and known high-frequency asserter — with the pre-2017 PTAB/institution record (IPR2018-00678 / -00622) and 2019 RPX settlement reinforcing the assertion campaign.

Confidence limitations: reel/frame numbers and the correspondent-of-record for every link were not retrievable in this session; signal #3 (repeat correspondent) is therefore unresolved, and #1's registered-agent sub-tell is unverified. Verify against the Assignment Center before relying on this in any filing.

Verification links:

• USPTO Assignment Center: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (search "7999514")
• Indexed assignment search: https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html
• Google Patents legal events / family record: https://patents.google.com/patent/US7999514/en
• RPX Insight profile: https://litigation.rpxcorp.com/news/65626-two-well-heeled-npes-both-holding-large-opco-portfolios-open-up-march-with-fresh-suits
• D. Del. Lenovo ownership finding: https://www.ded.uscourts.gov/opinion/fundamental-innovation-systems-international-llc-v-lenovo-united-states-inc-et-al-0

Contradiction flag vs. prior section: none material. The earlier summary's PTAB attribution (IPR2018-00678, LG, settled 2018-10-16) is consistent with the litigation counsel and chain-of-title data above. The only prior-section item this analysis extends is the owner of record — the earlier summary listed FISI as "current listed assignee" from BlackBerry; this section supplies the timing (Nov 2015 execution / 2015-12-17 and 2016-12-01 recordings), the PE backer (Centerbridge), and the parent LLC structure.

I'll research the actual prior-art citations for US 7,999,514 and note a date discrepancy in the task prompt (it says April 26, 2026, while my session date is 2026-09-30) — I'll proceed on the patent record, which is date-independent.

Let me dig into the actual cited references and the IPR petitions that challenged this patent.

Let me pull the actual face-of-patent references and examiner citations.

Prior Art Analysis — US 7,999,514 B2

Note on the date prompt: the task states "April 26, 2026"; my session date is 2026‑09‑30. The patent record is date-independent, so I proceed on the record and flag the discrepancy rather than reconcile it silently.

Note on USPTO search scope (important limitation). I did not query USPTO PatentCenter/PAIR or the USPTO full-text search directly, and the Google Patents page fetch I have is truncated before the "Patent Citations" (backward-citation) table — only the "Cited By" (forward) table came through. So I cannot give you the verbatim Form 1449 / examiner-cited reference list for 7999514 at 100% confidence. What I can ground is the prior art that was actually asserted against this family at the PTAB, which is the operative art of record for validity purposes. I mark verified vs. unverified below.

Verified bibliographic anchor (from the authoritative full text): US 7,999,514 B2, "Circuit and method of operation for an electrical power supply," appl. 13/028,361, filed 2011‑02‑16, issued 2011‑08‑16, priority 2003‑02‑21, inventors Veselic & Guthrie, original assignee Research In Motion Ltd., now Fundamental Innovation Systems International LLC. Because priority traces to 2003‑02‑21, prior art must pre-date that date for §102(a)/(e) and pre-date 2002‑02‑21 for §102(b).

The asserted prior art (IPR2018‑00676 / ‑00677 / ‑00678)

The three IPRs were filed by [LG Electronics Inc.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/LG%20Electronics%20Inc.), LG Electronics U.S.A., LG Electronics MobileComm U.S.A., LG Electronics Alabama, and Mobile Research U.S.A. LLC against Patent Owner Fundamental Innovation Systems International LLC. All three terminated by settlement (IPR2018‑00678 dismissed 2018‑10‑16, per the earlier section). The art relied on:

Reference-by-reference

1. Gilbert — US 6,357,011 B1

• Citation: US 6,357,011 B1 (Gilbert).
• Date: I did not independently verify the issue/filing dates on the face of this patent. It is pre‑2003 by construction (it is a §102 reference against a 2003 priority), but I will not state a specific date I have not confirmed. Treat the date as unverified.
• Description (as characterized by the petitioner): a USB‑powered peripheral containing a primary-function module (the portable device) and a rechargeable battery, with a voltage regulator managing charging. The petition asserted Gilbert taught the foundational architecture but did not disclose the regulator's specific implementation.
• Claims it potentially reads on under §102: on the petitioner's mapping, Gilbert was applied to claims 1–8, 13–14, 17–20 (Ground 1) and 1, 15–16, 17–19 (Ground 3). Individually it maps most naturally to the preamble-level elements of independent claims 1, 18 and 20 (external source + portable device + rechargeable battery + regulator). It does not appear to disclose the two limitations that carried the case: (a) sensing/responding to the voltage drop across the battery charge controller, and (b) the "such that … the rechargeable battery receives a remainder of the power available" allocation.

2. Takimoto — US 6,337,563 B1

• Citation: US 6,337,563 B1 (Takimoto).
• Date: Unverified on my side (pre‑2003 by construction).
• Description (as characterized by the petitioner): a circuit that prioritizes power to the portable device and directs only surplus power to charge the battery, using a switching transistor controlled by a dynamic charge controller. This is the reference that supplies the core "leftover current goes to the battery" teaching.
• Claims it potentially reads on under §102: the petitioner used it against all challenged claims in combination; the elements it supplies are the heart of independent claims 1, 18 and 20 (modulating a switch to control battery current; device gets power first). Note the earlier-filed Patent Owner response argued the art "fail[s] to disclose measuring or responding to 'a voltage drop across [a] battery charge controller,'" so Takimoto alone is not a clean §102 anticipation of claims 1/18/20.

3. NCP1800 datasheet (ON Semiconductor, Nov. 2001)

• Citation: ON Semiconductor NCP1800 single-cell Li‑ion charge controller datasheet, November 2001.
• Date: Verified as Nov. 2001 — before the 2003‑02‑21 priority date. Printed-publication status was contested in the parallel IPR (Patent Owner argued the bq24020 datasheet's publication was not established), so expect the same fight over the NCP1800.
• Description: a standard single-cell Li‑ion charge controller whose maximum current is set by the resistance between the ISEL pin and ground — exactly the mechanism described at col. of the '514 specification ("the maximum current output of battery charge controller 20 is simply set via an external resistor R1…"). Note: the '514 specification itself names the NCP1800, so this is, at minimum, applicant-admitted prior art.
• Claims it potentially reads on under §102: claims 14 and 15 (maximum current limited by an external resistance to ground; multiple resistor/switch sets giving varying current levels), and it supports claims 2, 13 and 17 (external drive element / transistor / current limiting).

4. bq24020 datasheet (Texas Instruments, Dec. 2002)

• Citation: Texas Instruments bq24020 Li‑ion charge controller datasheet, December 2002.
• Date: Pre‑priority (Dec. 2002 < Feb. 2003) — but only by ~2–3 months, and its publication date is the one the Patent Owner attacked hardest in IPR2018‑00677 ("Petitioners also do not establish the threshold requirement that the bq24020 datasheet is a printed publication").
• Description: single-chip Li‑ion charge controller supporting externally programmable current limits. It is the very part used in the FIG. 7A–7C embodiment of the '514 patent (labelled U909).
• Claims it potentially reads on under §102: claim 15 (varying current levels via multiple resistor/switch sets) and claim 16 (MOSFET switch); in combination it was mapped to claims 1, 15–16, 17–19. Again, the specification names this part, so it is applicant-admitted.

5. Riggio — US 5,329,223 A

• Citation: US 5,329,223 A (Riggio).
• Date: Unverified on my side (pre‑2003).
• Description: a circuit for controlling voltage to a load using a capacitor connected between the output of an operational amplifier and ground to filter/average the signal.
• Claims it potentially reads on under §102: claim 9 — "a capacitor coupling the output of the operational amplifier to ground, thereby smoothing out variances in the output of the operational amplifier." Riggio is a narrow, single-element reference; it was used only to bolster the §103 combination, and its teaching ("smoothing out variances") mirrors the '514's own statement that "capacitor C1 is included in the circuit to smooth out fluctuations and to prevent oscillation."

6. Bell — US 5,723,970

• Citation: US 5,723,970 (Bell).
• Date: Unverified on my side (pre‑2003).
• Description: appears in the record only as the fourth reference added to the Gilbert + Takimoto + bq24020 combination, and only against method claim 18 in the related IPR2018‑00677.
• Claims it potentially reads on under §102: claim 18 (method of charging). No standalone anticipation.

§102 vs. §103 — the key analytical point

None of these references was asserted as a standalone §102 anticipation. Every ground was a §103 obviousness ground built on a three- or four-reference combination:

• Ground 1: claims 1–8, 13–14, 17–20 obvious over Gilbert + Takimoto + NCP1800-datasheet.
• Ground 2: claim 9 obvious over Gilbert + Takimoto + NCP1800-datasheet + Riggio.
• Ground 3: claims 1, 15–16, 17–19 obvious over Gilbert + Takimoto + bq24020-datasheet (this is the '319-patent equivalent per the ‑00677 petition, which also used Bell for claim 18).

That framing matters for your question as literally asked. A §102 anticipation theory requires a single reference disclosing every element. On this record:

• Gilbert alone discloses the environment (USB-powered peripheral with device + battery + regulator) but not the voltage-drop sensing or the remainder-allocation — so it can only anticipate a preamble-level claim, and claims 1/18/20 all add the drop-sensing + allocation limitations. No clean §102 hit.
• Takimoto alone is the closest to claims 1/18/20 on the "prioritize device, surplus to battery" element, but the Patent Owner squarely contested that it discloses the voltage drop across the battery charge controller — so no clean §102 hit.
• NCP1800 / bq24020 datasheets are printed publications aimed at claims 14–16 (current-limit setting, MOSFET switch). If their publication dates hold up (both pre‑2003), they are the references most likely to support a §102(b) attack on claims 14/15/16 standing alone — but claim 15's "multiple sets of external resistors and switches" is the pinch point, and claim 15 depends from claim 2, so it carries the independent claim's limitations.
• Riggio → claim 9 only; Bell → claim 18 only. Neither is an anticipation reference.

What I deliberately did not count as prior art

The Google Patents record lists "Families Citing this family (135)" — e.g., US 7,377,819 (Dell), US 7,701,173 (RIM), US 8,378,527 (RIM), US 8,084,987 (Active-Semi), US 7,843,171 (Semtech). These are forward/"Cited By" citations, all post‑2003. They are not prior art to a 2003‑priority patent and cannot anticipate 7999514 under §102. Do not let them into the analysis.

Flags / caveats

1. Contradiction with the earlier section — none material. The earlier section correctly identified three independent claims (1, 18, 20) and the "reminder"/"remainder" typo at claim 1; that is consistent with the art mapping above (claim 1 says "reminder," claim 20 says "remainder" — the IPR and the district court both litigated the "receives a remainder of the power available from the battery charge controller" limitation).
2. I could not retrieve the patent's own Form 1449/face-cited list. The references above are the litigated art of record, not necessarily the examiner's cited list. If you need the examiner-cited references verbatim, pull the "References Cited" table from the Google Patents page or the front page of the printed patent (items under "(56)").
3. Dates for the four U.S. patents (Gilbert, Takimoto, Riggio, Bell) are unverified on my side — I am reporting the petitioner's characterizations, which come from a secondary summary of IPR2018‑00678 (an ExParte AI‑lab case summary), not the petition exhibits themselves. Verify against the printed patent front pages before relying on them.
4. The NCP1800 (Nov. 2001) and bq24020 (Dec. 2002) datasheets are both cited or used in the '514 specification itself, making them applicant-admitted art regardless of the printed-publication dispute.

I'll research the prior art of record for US 7,999,514 and the art relied on in the IPR petitions before analyzing obviousness.

Let me pull the specific claim mappings and reference details from the IPR petition and the patent's own cited references.

Obviousness Analysis — U.S. Patent No. 7,999,514 under 35 U.S.C. § 103

Analyst scope note (read first): The full-text record supplied for US 7,999,514 that I was asked to work from contains only the forward-citation material ("Cited By (6)" and "Families Citing this family (135)"), the prior-art keywords, and the specification's background discussion. It does not reproduce the "Patent Citations" (examiner-cited references) table, and the record is truncated mid-way through the "Families Citing this family" list at "Hummingb…". So there is no literal "Prior Art section" listing of cited references on the page as fetched. Accordingly, I have grounded this §103 analysis on the prior-art record that actually exists for this patent: the references relied on in the 2018 PTAB petitions that named the '514 patent and its sibling '319 patent (LG's IPR2018-00678 and the Samsung petition group IPR2018-00605/-00606/-00607/-00620/-00621/-00622), plus the '514 specification's own statements. Where I could not confirm something, I say so.

Critical procedural caveat up front: Every IPR touching this patent family in 2018 was terminated by settlement before institution. IPR2018-00678 (LG) was terminated 2018-10-16, and the Samsung group was dismissed on 2018-07-16 following settlement. No ground below was ever adjudicated on the merits by the Board, and none produced a final written decision. What follows is my own Graham/KSR analysis of the petitioned combinations — not a restatement of any tribunal holding.

Contradiction with prior section — flagged per instructions. The earlier-generated "Litigation summary" states that "the only district court case in which US 7,999,514 is expressly identified as a patent-in-suit is the Samsung action, 2:17-cv-00145." That is incorrect on the record I retrieved: the Eastern District of Texas claim-construction order in Fundamental Innovation Systems International LLC v. [LG Electronics Inc.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/LG%20Electronics%20Inc.), et al., No. 2:16-cv-01425 (Dkt. 146, 2018-04-02) expressly lists "7,999,514 ('the '514 Patent')" among the patents-in-suit, and construes "…the rechargeable battery receives a remainder of [the] power available from the battery charge controller" — a claim term appearing in the '514 patent. See https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/texas/txedce/2:2016cv01425/[173156/146](https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/search/patent/reelFrameDetail?reelFrame=173156-0146)/0.pdf and the mirrored copy at https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2018-00485/Huawei_Device_Co._Ltd._v._Fundamental_Innovation_Systems_International_LLC/docs/06-12-2018-Patent_Owner/Exhibit-2013-Ex_2013_2018_04_02_CC_Memo_Opinion__Order.pdf. So the '514 patent was asserted against LG/Huawei in 2:16-cv-01425 as well as against Samsung in 2:17-cv-00145. The earlier section's "bottom line" understated the district-court footprint.

1. Governing framework

Pre-AIA § 103 applies (earliest effective filing/priority 2003-02-21, before the AIA's 2013 change). Obviousness is a question of law with the Graham v. John Deere factual underpinnings: (1) scope and content of the prior art; (2) level of ordinary skill; (3) differences between the claims and the prior art; (4) objective evidence of non-obviousness. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007), controls the motivation analysis: a combination is obvious where the elements do no more than what the prior art predicts, where a known technique is applied to a known device to yield a predictable result, or where there is a design incentive / market demand to combine known elements — the patent need not be enabled in a single reference and no explicit "teaching, suggestion or motivation" is required.

Level of ordinary skill (POSITA). I could not retrieve the petitioners' verbatim POSITA definition from the petitions. A reasonable formulation consistent with the art and the record: a person holding a B.S. in electrical engineering (or equivalent) with 2–3 years of experience in battery-charging and power-supply circuit design, or equivalent industrial experience. I flag this as an assumption; the precise level matters most for the motivation/expectation-of-success prong, and a POSITA here is plainly capable of integrating discrete analog blocks (switches, op-amps, resistor-programmable charge controllers) into a power path.

2. Scope and content of the prior art

The asserted art, all pre-dating 2003-02-21:

The '514 specification's own admissions are themselves fair game under § 103 and materially strengthen any obviousness case:

• "Most battery charge controllers known in the art are provided with some sort of maximum current control … the maximum current output of battery charge controller 20 is simply set via an external resistor R1." (Spec., Description.)
• The NCP1800 is characterized as "a standard, single-cell, Lithium ion battery charge controller as known in the art," regulated by "the resistance between pin ISEL and ground."
• The comprehensive embodiment is built around "a Texas Instruments bq24020 Lithium Ion battery charge controller" described as providing "the constant current and constant voltage modes required to charge Lithium Ion cells."
• The claimed op-amp sensing, MOSFET switch, current-limit programming, USB sourcing, and CC/CV phases are all described in the specification as conventional building blocks.

An applicant's characterization of a component as a standard, known part is an admission that incorporating it is within the ordinary skill.

3. Differences between the claims and the prior art; motivating combinations

3.1 Combination A — Gilbert + Takimoto + NCP1800 (petitioned in IPR2018-00678, Ground 1)

Petitioner mapped claims 1–8, 13–14, 17–20. Ground detail is summarized at https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2018-00678/doc/1007 and https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2018-00678/doc/1008; the parallel family petitions in the Samsung group relied on the same core art set (Gilbert, Takimoto, NCP1800 datasheet, bq24020 datasheet, plus Hart and Mohan circuit textbooks and a Bader declaration — see the exhibit list reproduced at https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/[1507616](/patent/1507616)/download-documents).

Element-by-element mapping for claim 1 (apparatus):

Motivation to combine (Gilbert + Takimoto): both are in the same field (power management for battery-powered portable/portable-peripheral electronics operating from a limited-capacity bus) — analogous art; Takimoto supplies the implementation detail (switching transistor + dynamic controller that throttles battery charging in favor of the load) that Gilbert omits — a classic KSR "known technique applied to a known device, predictable result."

Motivation to add NCP1800 (or bq24020): the '514 patent itself needs a CC/CV Li-ion controller; both datasheets are off-the-shelf parts performing that known function. Under KSR, "the combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results," and there is a clear design incentive to use a commercial, safety-proven Li-ion charge controller rather than build one. Expectation of success is high because the controller's interface (programmable current limit via ISEL) is exactly the "maximum current setting" the family claims.

3.2 Combination B — + Riggio (Ground 2, claim 9)

Claim 9 adds "a capacitor coupling the output of the operational amplifier to ground, thereby smoothing out variances." Riggio teaches precisely an op-amp-to-ground capacitor "to filter the average signal." Applying a standard RC filter to an op-amp output is routine and yields a predictable stability benefit — a strong § 103 case. (Source: the Ground 2 summary at the ex parte case page above.)

3.3 Combination C — Gilbert + Takimoto + bq24020 (Ground 3, claims 1, 15–16, 17–19)

For claims 15–16 (maximum current set by "multiple sets of external resistors and switches, allowing … varying levels of current"), the bq24020 datasheet's multiple programmable current-limit inputs supply the limitation directly. This is a straightforward substitution of one known off-the-shelf charge controller for another (NCP1800 → bq24020), which KSR treats as an obvious design choice where the substitute performs the same function.

3.4 Remaining dependent claims

• Claims 2, 13, 16 (external driving semiconductor; transistor; MOSFET switch): the '514 specification's own discussion of external pass element Q2 and the NCP1800's external drive transistor, plus the NCP1800 datasheet's typical application circuit, place an external switching/driving semiconductor squarely in the art. These are the least vulnerable claims.
• Claims 3–5, 8, 19 (op-amp comparator; voltage divider scaling; reference comparison): the op-amp-with-reference topology is the ordinary way to sense a voltage differential and is taught across the art (Takimoto's controller 52 and the '514 Fig. 6 itself). Scaling a sensed voltage with a resistor divider to match a reference is routine circuit practice (Hart/Mohan textbook material cited in the family petitions).
• Claims 6–7 (computer data bus; USB): Gilbert is expressly a USB bus-powered peripheral; the USB 100 mA/500 mA limits are in the USB specification (1.1, 1998; 2.0, 2000). Strong.
• Claim 17 (charge controller limits output so device + battery cannot exceed the source's maximum current): NCP1800/bq24020 programmable current limits + the USB spec's 100/500 mA units supply this; this is the same insight as Gilbert's excess-power management. Strong.
• Claim 20 (means-plus-function): under § 112(f) the means map to the same disclosed structures (op-amp/comparator sensing; MOSFET/transistor switch) and thus rise and fall with claim 1.
• Claims 10–12 (low-power critical components fed from the controller; high-power non-critical components (backlight, vibrator) fed from the battery): these map less cleanly to the Gilbert/Takimoto/NCP1800/bq24020 set. The specification frames them as an optional refinement. A better fit would be load-shedding/prioritized power-management art (e.g., laptop or cellular power-management schemes that shed backlight/vibrator loads under limited supply). I do not have a confirmed reference for these three claims from the record I retrieved; treat them as the most defensible dependents against the ground above.

4. Objective evidence of non-obviousness (secondary considerations)

• Commercial success: the BlackBerry devices named in the specification were commercially significant, but there is no proven nexus between the claimed circuit and any success metric; the asserted benefit (fast boot from a deeply discharged battery; simultaneous device power + charging from a USB port) would need a tying argument.
• Licensing / litigation campaign: FISI's broad assertion campaign suggests value, but licensing activity is generally weak secondary evidence absent nexus and absent copying.
• Long-felt need / failure of others: the specification's own recitation of the FIG. 2 / FIG. 3 prior-art problems (device vs. battery power competition; heat dissipation scaling with transistor surface area) can be framed as a long-felt, recognized need — this is the strongest anti-obviousness narrative, and it is essentially the Patent Owner's story (a "surplus-power allocation" problem that ordinary charge controllers were not designed to solve).

5. Rebuttals actually advanced (and how they cut)

The Patent Owner's preliminary responses in the companion petitions (Exhibits reproduced at https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/[1507615](/patent/1507615)/… and …/1507616/…) attacked the combinations on two fronts; these are the live vulnerabilities of the § 103 case:

1. The "remainder of the power available" limitation. Patent Owner argued that Gilbert charges the battery "at a rate proportionate to … the amount of excess power," which does not establish that the battery receives the remainder (and noted the excess could simply be dissipated as heat), and that Takimoto was shown only to send some power to the battery. Ex. 1005 at 3:42-48. This is a genuine gap in the petitioned mapping and — because all IPRs settled pre-institution — was never resolved. In my view the "remainder" language is the principal non-obviousness battleground for claim 1 / 18 / 20.
2. Gilbert's control architecture is internally inconsistent with a battery-isolation switch. Petitioners relied on Gilbert's controller embodiment (Fig. 1) for some limitations and on Gilbert's no-controller embodiments (Figs. 3–4) for the "excess power / such that" limitation; Patent Owner pointed out the battery is coupled directly to the primary-function module in those embodiments. That is a mapping inconsistency (though not necessarily fatal under KSR, which permits modification of a reference).

Note also the textual oddity flagged in the prior section: granted claim 1 uses "a reminder of the power available" while claim 20 uses "a remainder of power available." A court would likely treat claim 1's "reminder" as an obvious typographical error, but a literal-reading challenger can use the discrepancy to argue indefiniteness or to narrow the "remainder" construction — which interacts directly with rebuttal #1 above.

6. Bottom line

• Claims 2–9, 13–17, 19, 20 are, on the record retrieved, strongly vulnerable to a § 103 challenge built on Gilbert (US 6,357,011) + Takimoto (US 6,337,563) + a standard off-the-shelf Li-ion charge controller (NCP1800 and/or bq24020 datasheet), optionally + Riggio (US 5,329,223) for the op-amp capacitor. The motivation is supplied by (i) analogous field, (ii) the design incentive to use a safety-proven commercial charge controller, and (iii) the '514 specification's own admissions that such controllers, resistor-programmed current limits, op-amp sensing, and MOSFET pass elements were all "known in the art."
• Independent claims 1, 18, and 20 turn on the "predetermined amount of power to the device / remainder (or 'reminder') of power to the battery" language and the "configurable to isolate" switch. These are the limitations the applicant added during prosecution of the '319 parent to overcome the then-cited art, and they are the ones the Patent Owner successfully pressed in its preliminary responses. A challenger would want additional art or a clean construction to close this gap.
• Claims 10–12 are the weakest § 103 targets on this art set; expect to need separate load-shedding / prioritized-power-management references.

Caveats I am not glossing over:

1. No tribunal ever decided these grounds — every '514 IPR settled pre-institution, so nothing here is a holding.
2. I could not retrieve the examiner-cited "Patent Citations" list for the '514, so I cannot confirm whether the applicant ever faced the Gilbert/Takimoto art during prosecution (the '514 issued as a continuation in 2011, so it likely never received an independent prior-art search over this art, which itself supports the § 103 case).
3. The Samsung petition's patent-to-petition mapping (IPR2018-00622 → '514) remains unconfirmed from my sources; the settlement covered the '514, but I did not verify which Samsung petition targeted it.
4. The bq24020 datasheet is dated Dec 2002, ~2 months before the 2003-02-21 priority date — its § 102 status is fine under § 102(a) but is closer to the date than the other references and would be worth de-risking with an earlier art date.
5. POSITA definition and the exact petition claim charts were not fully retrieved; the element mappings above are the petitioners' positions as summarized in the secondary sources cited, not verified against the petitions' verbatim text.