DCT

2:17-cv-00145

Fundamental Innovation Systems Intl LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co Ltd

Log In
Key Events
Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:17-cv-00145, E.D. Tex., 02/21/2017
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Eastern District of Texas because Samsung maintains a regular and established place of business in the district, including Samsung Mobile headquarters, and has committed acts of infringement such as marketing and selling the accused products within the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s mobile devices (including smartphones and tablets) and USB power adapters infringe eight patents related to technologies for charging devices over a Universal Serial Bus (USB) connection.
  • Technical Context: The patents address methods for enabling portable electronic devices to draw higher levels of charging power from a USB port than standard specifications allow, a key technology for the rapid charging of modern consumer electronics.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint states the patents-in-suit originated from research and development at Research In Motion Limited (BlackBerry). Plaintiff alleges that Defendant received specific notice of infringement via a letter dated December 14, 2015, a fact central to the allegations of willful infringement.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2001-03-01 Earliest Priority Date for ’936, ’111, ’586, ’766, ’550 Patents
2003-02-21 Earliest Priority Date for ’319, ’983 Patents
2005-08-30 U.S. Patent No. 6,936,936 Issues
2005-12-13 Earliest Priority Date for ’655 Patent
2007-07-03 U.S. Patent No. 7,239,111 Issues
2010-09-07 U.S. Patent No. 7,791,319 Issues
2010-11-16 U.S. Patent No. 7,834,586 Issues
2011-02-22 U.S. Patent No. 7,893,655 Issues
2012-07-31 U.S. Patent No. 8,232,766 Issues
2013-09-24 U.S. Patent No. 8,541,983 Issues
2014-01-07 U.S. Patent No. 8,624,550 Issues
2015-12-14 Date of alleged first notice of infringement to Samsung
2017-02-21 Complaint Filed

II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis

U.S. Patent No. 8,232,766 - “Multifunctional Charger System and Method”

  • Issued: July 31, 2012

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the challenge of using a standard Universal Serial Bus (USB) interface for both data communication and efficient charging of a mobile device (U.S. Patent No. 6,936,936, col. 1:24-46). Standard USB specifications impose strict power limits and require a host-initiated "enumeration" process before a device can draw power, which is impractical for charging from non-host sources like wall adapters ('936 Patent, col. 1:47-62).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a power adapter with an "identification subsystem" that provides a special "identification signal" to the mobile device over the USB data lines (D+ and D-) ('936 Patent, col. 2:1-14). This signal, which is distinct from a standard USB enumeration handshake, informs the mobile device that it is connected to a dedicated charger not bound by USB power limits. Upon detecting this signal, the device can bypass the enumeration process and immediately draw a higher current for faster charging ('936 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 3).
  • Technical Importance: This approach helped standardize the use of a single USB port for both data transfer and high-power charging, contributing to the miniaturization and user convenience of portable electronics (Compl. ¶7).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of specific asserted claims. It alleges infringement of the ’766 Patent generally without identifying any particular claims (Compl. ¶¶27-30).

U.S. Patent No. 7,834,586 - “Multifunctional Charger System and Method”

  • Issued: November 16, 2010

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: As with the ’766 Patent, this patent addresses the limitations of charging mobile devices over a standard USB port, which traditionally offered limited power and required a complex enumeration process with a host computer ('936 Patent, col. 1:24-62).
  • The Patented Solution: The patent describes a system where a mobile device is configured to detect an identification signal on its USB data lines, which indicates it is connected to a power source capable of supplying current beyond standard USB limits (Compl. ¶11; ’936 Patent, col. 8:13-18). This detection allows the mobile device to draw current "unrestricted by a USB specification limit," facilitating faster charging from dedicated power adapters ('936 Patent, col. 2:50-62).
  • Technical Importance: The technology enabled a universal charging solution for mobile devices, reducing the need for proprietary power connectors and supporting the development of a broad ecosystem of third-party chargers (Compl. ¶7).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of specific asserted claims. It alleges infringement of the ’586 Patent generally without identifying any particular claims (Compl. ¶¶38-41).

U.S. Patent No. 7,791,319 - “Circuit and Method of Operation for an Electrical Power Supply”

  • Issued: September 7, 2010 (Compl. ¶46)
  • Technology Synopsis: The complaint alleges this patent family relates to techniques for managing power from a limited source, such as a USB port, by modulating the current supply between device operation and battery charging (Compl. ¶8). This allows a device with a deeply discharged battery to become operational almost immediately while ensuring the total power draw does not exceed the source's capacity (Compl. ¶8).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint does not specify which claims are asserted (Compl. ¶¶49-52).
  • Accused Features: The complaint accuses Samsung mobile devices, such as the Galaxy S7 and S6 series, of infringing the ’319 Patent (Compl. ¶49).

U.S. Patent No. 8,541,983 - “Circuit and Method of Operation for an Electrical Power Supply”

  • Issued: September 24, 2013 (Compl. ¶57)
  • Technology Synopsis: This patent is described as relating to the same power management technology as the ’319 Patent, focusing on dynamically allocating power between device functions and battery charging when connected to a limited source like a USB port (Compl. ¶8).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint does not specify which claims are asserted (Compl. ¶¶60-63).
  • Accused Features: The complaint accuses Samsung mobile devices, such as the Galaxy S7 and S6 series, of infringing the ’983 Patent (Compl. ¶60).

U.S. Patent No. 7,893,655 - “Charging And Power Supply For Mobile Devices”

  • Issued: February 22, 2011 (Compl. ¶68)
  • Technology Synopsis: This patent is described as relating to the same power management technology as the ’319 and ’983 patents, enabling device operation and charging from a limited-capacity power source (Compl. ¶8).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint does not specify which claims are asserted (Compl. ¶¶71-74).
  • Accused Features: The complaint accuses Samsung mobile devices, such as the Galaxy S7 and S6 series, of infringing the ’655 Patent (Compl. ¶71).

U.S. Patent No. 6,936,936 - “Multifunctional Charger System and Method”

  • Issued: August 30, 2005 (Compl. ¶79)
  • Technology Synopsis: The complaint states this patent relates to novel techniques for using a USB connection for both data communication and charging, representing a "fundamental break from previous techniques" (Compl. ¶7).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint does not specify which claims are asserted (Compl. ¶¶82-85).
  • Accused Features: The complaint accuses both Samsung mobile devices (Galaxy S7, Note 5, etc.) and Samsung-branded wall chargers (adaptive fast-charging and 5V-output models) of infringing the ’936 Patent (Compl. ¶82).

U.S. Patent No. 7,239,111 - “Universal Serial Bus Adapter For A Mobile Device”

  • Issued: July 3, 2007 (Compl. ¶90)
  • Technology Synopsis: This patent is described as relating to the same USB charging adapter technology as the ’936 Patent (Compl. ¶7).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint does not specify which claims are asserted (Compl. ¶¶93-96).
  • Accused Features: The complaint accuses Samsung-branded adaptive fast-charging and 5V-output wall chargers of infringing the ’111 Patent (Compl. ¶93).

U.S. Patent No. 8,624,550 - “Multifunctional Charger System and Method”

  • Issued: January 7, 2014 (Compl. ¶101)
  • Technology Synopsis: This patent is described as relating to the same USB charging adapter technology as the ’936 and ’111 patents (Compl. ¶7).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint does not specify which claims are asserted (Compl. ¶¶104-106).
  • Accused Features: The complaint accuses Samsung-branded adaptive fast-charging and 5V-output wall chargers of infringing the ’550 Patent (Compl. ¶104).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

  • Product Identification: The Accused Products include a range of Samsung consumer electronic devices, specifically smartphones and tablets such as the Galaxy S7, S6, and Note series, as well as Samsung-branded power adapters, including "adaptive fast-charging chargers" and "5V-output wall chargers" (Compl. ¶10).
  • Functionality and Market Context:
    • The complaint alleges that the accused mobile devices contain USB interfaces and charging sub-systems that are configured to "detect an identification signal received via the USB interface" (Compl. ¶11). This signal, described as an "abnormal USB data condition" distinct from standard enumeration, allegedly enables the device to draw current "unrestricted by a USB specification limit" (Compl. ¶11). The devices are also alleged to include circuitry to dynamically manage power between device operation and battery charging from a limited external source (Compl. ¶¶12-13).
    • The accused power adapters are alleged to be configured to "generate an identification signal that indicates to the mobile device that it is receiving power from a source that is not a USB host or hub" (Compl. ¶14). This signal allegedly allows the adapter to supply current to a mobile device "without regard to at least one associated condition specified in a USB specification" (Compl. ¶14).
    • No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not identify specific asserted claims for any of the patents-in-suit. Instead, it makes general allegations that the Accused Products infringe each patent. This lack of specificity precludes the creation of a detailed claim chart summary. The infringement theory common to all asserted patents is that the accused Samsung devices and chargers use a signaling method over the USB data lines to enable charging at a current level higher than permitted by default USB specifications, and that this method infringes the patented inventions.

  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: The patents describe an "identification signal" that allows a device to bypass standard USB power limitations. A central issue for the court may be construing the scope of this term. The question may arise whether this term, as defined and described in the patents, can be read to cover the specific signaling protocols implemented in Samsung’s proprietary charging technologies, such as "Adaptive Fast Charging."
    • Technical Questions: The complaint alleges that the accused adapters generate a specific "identification signal" and that the accused mobile devices detect this signal to enter a high-current charging mode (Compl. ¶¶11, 14). A key factual question will be what electrical signals the accused products actually generate and detect on the USB data lines. The complaint makes conclusory allegations about this functionality but does not provide technical evidence, such as circuit diagrams or oscilloscope measurements, to substantiate them.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The complaint does not assert specific claims from the patents-in-suit, which prevents the identification of specific claim terms that will be central to claim construction. However, based on the general infringement theory presented, certain concepts will be critical to the dispute.

  • The Term: "identification signal"
  • Context and Importance: This concept appears to be the core of the asserted inventions. Its definition will be critical to determining infringement, as the dispute may center on whether the communication protocol between Samsung's chargers and devices constitutes such a "signal."
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification of the parent ’936 Patent describes the signal's function broadly, stating it is "operative to inform the mobile device that the USB adapter is not limited by the power limits imposed by the USB specification" (’936 Patent, col. 2:56-62). This language suggests a functional definition that could encompass any signal achieving that result.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The ’936 Patent also discloses a specific embodiment where the signal is created by applying "voltage signals greater than 2 volts to both the D+ and D- lines in the USB connector" (’936 Patent, col. 9:11-15; Fig. 3). A defendant may argue that the scope of the claims should be limited to this or similar specific electrical conditions, rather than covering any form of charger-device communication protocol.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement, stating that Samsung's user manuals, specifications, and other instructions advise customers to use the Accused Products in a manner that directly infringes the patents-in-suit (Compl. ¶18). It also alleges contributory infringement on the basis that the Accused Products contain non-staple components, such as "custom-made charging chips," that are especially made or adapted for use in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶17).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint asserts that Samsung has had "actual knowledge of its infringement" of the patents-in-suit since "no later than December 14, 2015" as a result of a notice letter sent by Plaintiff (Compl. ¶15). The allegation of continued infringement after this date forms the basis of the claim for willful infringement and a request for enhanced damages (e.g., Compl. ¶33).

VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case

  1. Definitional Scope: A core issue will be one of "technological scope:" can the term "identification signal," rooted in the patents’ disclosure of applying specific DC voltage levels to USB data lines, be construed to cover the more complex, data-packet-based negotiation protocols used in modern fast-charging standards like Samsung's Adaptive Fast Charging?

  2. Evidentiary Proof: A key evidentiary question will be one of "technical operation:" what factual evidence will be presented to demonstrate that the accused Samsung products perform the functions described in the complaint? The case may depend on technical analysis of the signals on the USB data lines and the internal operations of the accused devices' charging circuits.

  3. Willfulness and Damages: Given the specific allegation of pre-suit notice in 2015, a central focus of the litigation, should infringement be found, will likely be on Samsung’s state of mind. The determination of whether any infringement was willful will be critical to the potential for enhanced damages.