UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`TCT MOBILE (US), INC.; TCT MOBILE (US) HOLDINGS, INC.;
`HUIZHOU TCL MOBILE COMMUNICATION CO. LTD.; AND TCL
`COMMUNICATION, INC.,
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`FUNDAMENTAL INNOVATION SYSTEMS INTERNATIONAL LLC,
`Patent Owner
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,624,550
`Issue Date: January 7, 2014
`Title: MULTIFUNCTIONAL CHARGER SYSTEM AND METHOD
`
`Case No. IPR2021-_____
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF
`U.S. PATENT 8,624,550
`CHALLENGING CLAIMS 1-18
`UNDER 35 U.S.C. §312 AND 37 C.F.R. §42.104
`
`Mail Stop PATENT BOARD
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`PO Box 1450
`Alexandria, Virginia 22313–1450
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`II.
`III.
`
`Page
`INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................... 1
`SUMMARY OF CHALLENGE 37 C.F.R. §42.104(B) ................................ 3
`INSTITUTION SHOULD BE GRANTED; DISCRETIONARY
`DENIAL IS NOT APPROPRIATE ................................................................ 4
`A.
`The Apple/Fintiv Factors Support Institution. ...................................... 4
`B.
`The General Plastics Factors Support Institution ................................. 8
`C.
`The Factors Under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) Support Institution ................. 9
`IV. OVERVIEW OF THE ’550 PATENT ......................................................... 10
`A. Disclosure of the ’550 Patent ............................................................. 10
`B.
`Priority Applications of the ’550 Patent ............................................. 13
`1.
`The ’021 Application ............................................................... 13
`2.
`The ’486 Application ............................................................... 14
`3.
`Priority Date ............................................................................. 15
`Prosecution History of the ’550 Patent .............................................. 15
`C.
`PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ....................................... 16
`V.
`VI. SUMMARY OF THE PRIOR ART ............................................................. 16
`A. USB 1.1 Specification ........................................................................ 16
`B. Use of SE1 State in Various Contexts ................................................ 26
`1.
`US Patent 6,531,845 (“Kerai”) (Ex. 1012) .............................. 27
`2.
`US Patent 6,625,738 (“Shiga”) (Ex. 1013) .............................. 27
`3.
`US Patent Application Publication US20030135766
`(“Zyskowski”) (Ex. 1014) ........................................................ 29
`US Patent 6,625,790 (“Casebolt”) (Ex. 1015) ......................... 29
`Cypress Semiconductor enCoReUSB Datasheet (Ex.
`1016) ........................................................................................ 30
`C. USB 2.0 Specification ........................................................................ 30
`D. Overview of Morita ............................................................................ 31
`E.
`Overview of Dougherty ...................................................................... 34
`
`4.
`5.
`
`i
`
`

`

`VII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ......................................................................... 36
`A.
`“at least one associated condition specified in a USB
`specification” (claim 1) and “at least one USB Specification
`imposed limit” (claim10) ................................................................... 37
`“abnormal data condition” (claims 4, 6, 7, 13, 15, and 16) ............... 39
`B.
`VIII. ANALYSIS ................................................................................................... 39
`A. Morita In View Of Knowledge of a POSITA Renders The
`Subject Matter Of Claims 1-18 Obvious. ........................................... 39
`1.
`Claim 1 ..................................................................................... 39
`a.
`1[a]. An adapter comprising .......................................... 39
`b.
`1[b] a USB VBUS line and a USB communication
`path................................................................................. 40
`1[c] said adapter configured to supply current on
`the VBUS line without regard to at least one
`associated condition specified in a USB
`specification ................................................................... 43
`(1)
`Supplying More than 100 mA or 500mA of
`Current. ................................................................ 43
`Supplying More than 100mA of Current
`without Enumeration. .......................................... 46
`Claim 2: The adapter of claim 1 wherein said associated
`condition is a current limit. ...................................................... 47
`Claim 3: The adapter of claim 1 wherein said current is
`supplied without USB enumeration ......................................... 48
`Claim 4: The adapter of claim 1 wherein said current is
`supplied in response to an abnormal data condition on
`said USB communication path ................................................ 48
`Claim 5: The adapter of claim 4 wherein said USB
`communication path includes a D+ line and a D− line ............ 53
`Claim 6: The adapter of claim 5 wherein said abnormal
`data condition is an abnormal data line condition on said
`D+ line and said D− line. ......................................................... 53
`
`(2)
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`ii
`
`c.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`

`

`8.
`
`9.
`
`7.
`
`Claim 7: The adapter of claim 6 wherein said abnormal
`data line condition is a logic high signal on each of said
`D+ and D− lines. ...................................................................... 54
`Claim 8: The adapter of claim 7, wherein each said logic
`high signal is greater than 2V. ................................................. 55
`Claim 9: The adapter of claim 2 wherein said current
`limit is 500 mA. ....................................................................... 55
`10. Claim 10: .................................................................................. 56
`a.
`10[a]. An adapter comprising ........................................ 56
`b.
`10[b]. a USB VBUS line and a USB communication
`path................................................................................. 56
`10[c]. said adapter configured to supply current on
`the VBUS line without regard to at least one USB
`Specification imposed limit. .......................................... 56
`11. Claim 11: The adapter of claim 10, wherein said USB
`Specification imposed limit is a current limit. ......................... 57
`12. Claim 12: The adapter of claim 10, wherein said current
`is supplied without USB enumeration. .................................... 57
`13. Claim 13: The adapter of claim 10, wherein said current
`is supplied in response to an abnormal data condition on
`said USB communication path. ............................................... 57
`14. Claim 14: The adapter of claim 13, wherein said USB
`communication path includes a D+ line and a D− line. ........... 58
`15. Claim 15: The adapter of claim 14, wherein said
`abnormal data condition is an abnormal data line
`condition on said D+ line and said D− line. ............................ 58
`16. Claim 16: The adapter of claim 15, wherein said
`abnormal data line condition is a logic high signal on
`each of said D+ and D- lines. ................................................... 58
`17. Claim 17: The adapter of claim 16, wherein each said
`logic high signal is greater than 2V. ........................................ 58
`18. Claim 18: The adapter of claim 11, wherein said current
`limit is 500 mA. ....................................................................... 59
`
`c.
`
`iii
`
`

`

`2.
`
`B. Dougherty In View Of the USB 1.1 Renders The Subject
`Matter Of Claims 1-2, 9, 10-11, And 18 Obvious. ............................ 59
`1.
`Claim 1 ..................................................................................... 59
`a.
`1[a]. An adapter comprising .......................................... 59
`b.
`1[b] a USB VBUS line and a USB communication
`path................................................................................. 61
`1[c] said adapter configured to supply current on
`the VBUS line without regard to at least one
`associated condition specified in a USB
`specification ................................................................... 64
`Claim 2: The adapter of claim 1, wherein said associated
`condition is a current limit ....................................................... 67
`Claim 9: The adapter of claim 2 wherein said current
`limit is 500 mA. ....................................................................... 68
`Claim 10: .................................................................................. 68
`a.
`10[a] An adapter comprising ......................................... 68
`b.
`10[b] a USB VBUS line and a USB communication
`path................................................................................. 68
`10[c] said adapter configured to supply current on
`the VBUS line without regard to at least one USB
`Specification imposed limit. .......................................... 69
`Claim 11: The adapter of claim 10 wherein said USB
`Specification imposed limit is a current limit .......................... 69
`Claim 18: The adapter of claim 11 wherein said current
`limit is 500 mA. ....................................................................... 70
`IX. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................. 70
`X. MANDATORY NOTICES – 37 C.F.R. §42.8 ............................................... 1
`A.
`Real Party-in-Interest (37 C.F.R. §42.8(b)(1)) ..................................... 1
`B.
`Related Matters (37 C.F.R. §42.8(b)(2)) .............................................. 1
`C.
`Lead/Back-up Counsel (37 C.F.R. §42.8(b)(3)) .................................. 2
`D.
`Service Information (37 C.F.R. §42.8(b)(4)) ....................................... 3
`XI. GROUNDS FOR STANDING – 37 C.F.R. §42.104(A) ............................... 3
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`c.
`
`c.
`
`iv
`
`

`

`XII. FEES – 37 C.F.R. §42.15(A) .......................................................................... 3
`XII. FEES — 37 C.F.R. §42.15(A) .......................................................................... 3
`
`v
`
`

`

`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
` Page(s)
`
`Cases
`Allergen USA, INC. v. Prollenium US Inc.,
`1-20-cv-00104, Dkt. No. 34 (July 16, 2020) ........................................................ 5
`Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc.,
`IPR2020-00019, Paper 11 (PTAB Mar. 20, 2020) ............................................... 4
`Apple Inc. v. Seven Networks, LLC,
`IPR2020-00156, Paper 10 (PTAB June 15, 2020) ............................................... 6
`General Plastic Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Canon Kabushiki Kaisha,
`IPR2016-01357, Paper 19 (P.T.A.B. Sept. 6, 2017)............................................. 8
`HP Inc. v. Neodron LTD,
`IPR2020-00459, Paper 17 (PTAB Sept. 14, 2020)............................................... 6
`LG Electronics, Inc. v. Bell Northern Research, LLC,
`IPR 2020-00319 .................................................................................................... 8
`Microsoft Corp. v. Uniloc 2017, LLC,
`IPR 2019-01252 .................................................................................................... 8
`Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co. Ltd.,
`868 F.3d 1013 (Fed. Cir. 2017) .......................................................................... 36
`ParkerVision, Inc. v. Qualcomm Inc.,
`903 F.3d 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2018) .............................................................. 46, 47, 48
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) .......................................................... 37
`
`Sand Revolution II, LLC v. Continental Intermodal Group5 Trucking
`LLC,
`IPR2019-01393, Paper 24 (PTAB June 16, 2020) ............................................... 4
`Thryv, Inc. v. Click-To-Call Techs., LP,
`140 S. Ct. 1367 (2020) .......................................................................................... 8
`
`vi
`
`

`

`Toyota Motor Corp.,
`IPR2016-00422 ................................................................................................... 39
`Uniloc 2017 LLC v. Vudu, Inc.,
`1-19-cv-00183, Dkt. No. 72 (March 26, 2020) .................................................... 5
`
`ZTE (USA) Inc. et al. v. Fundamental Innovation System International
`LLC,
`IPR2018-00110 ............................................................................................... 9, 10
`
`ZTE (USA) Inc. et al. v. Fundamental Innovation System International
`LLC,
`IPR2018-00111 ....................................................................................... 16, 37, 38
`Statutes
`35 U.S.C. § 102(a) ............................................................................................. 30, 31
`35 U.S.C. § 102(a) and (b) ........................................................................... 16, 17, 20
`35 U.S.C. § 102(e) ....................................................................................... 27, 29, 34
`35 U.S.C. §103 ........................................................................................................... 1
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) ................................................................................................. 3, 4
`35 U.S.C. §§ 314(a) ................................................................................................... 4
`35 U.S.C. §315(e)(2) .................................................................................................. 7
`35 U.S.C. § 325(d) ..................................................................................................... 9
`Other Authorities
`37 C.F.R. §42.104(B) ................................................................................................. 3
`157 Cong. Rec. S1363 (Mar. 8, 2011) ....................................................................... 5
`
`vii
`
`

`

`Exhibit
`1001
`
`1002
`
`1003
`
`1004
`1005
`
`1006
`1007
`1008
`1009
`1010
`
`1011
`
`1012
`1013
`1014
`
`1015
`1016
`
`1017
`
`Petitioners’ Exhibit List
`
`Description
`U.S. Patent No. 8,624,550 to Fischer et al., “Multifunctional
`Charger System and Method,” filed June 28, 2012 (the “’550
`Patent”)
`U.S. Patent File History of the ’550 Patent Excerpts (the “’550
`File History”)
`Declaration of Dr. Jacob Baker regarding U.S. Patent No.
`8,624,550 (“Baker”)
`Curriculum Vitae of Dr. Jacob Baker
`Amended Complaint, Fundamental Innovation Systems Int’l LLC
`v. TCT Mobile (US) Inc. et al., No. 1:20-cv-00552-CFC (D. Del.
`Sep. 11, 2020) (“Complaint”)
`U.S. Patent No. 7,360,004 (“Dougherty”)
`Japanese Patent Application No. 2000-165513A (“Morita”)
`U.S. Provisional Application No. 60/273,021
`U.S. Provisional Application No. 60/330,486
`Universal Serial Bus Specification, Revision 1.1, September 23,
`1998 (“USB 1.1”)
`Universal Serial Bus Specification, Revision 2.0, April 27, 2000
`(“USB 2.0”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,531,845 (“Kerai”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,625,738 (“Shiga”)
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2003/0135766
`(“Zyskowski”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,625,790 (“Casebolt”)
`Cypress CY7C63722/23 CY7C63742/43 enCoRe™ USB
`Combination Low-Speed USB & PS/2 Peripheral Controller, by
`Cypress Semiconductor Corporation, published May 25, 2000
`(“Cypress”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,923,146 (“Martensson”)
`
`vii
`
`

`

`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`TCT Mobile (US), Inc.; TCT Mobile (US) Holdings, Inc.; Huizhou TCL
`
`Mobile Communication Co. Ltd.; and TCL Communication, Inc. (“Petitioners”)
`
`petition for inter partes review of claims 1-18 (the “Challenged Claims”) of U.S.
`
`Patent No. 8,624,550 (the “’550 Patent”) on the grounds that they are unpatentable
`
`under 35 U.S.C. §103.
`
`The Challenged Claims relate to an adapter that uses an industry standard
`
`Universal Serial Bus (“USB”) port to charge a device. Providing power through
`
`USB ports was well understood and routine by the priority date of the ’550 Patent,
`
`but the Challenged Claims purport to “invent” an adapter that provides current
`
`“without regard” to the power/current limits in the USB specification(s). In other
`
`words, the Challenged Claims cover little more than a charger/adapter that uses a
`
`USB interface but does not follow one or more of the requirements of the USB
`
`specification. Independent claims (1 & 10), for example, require an “adapter” that
`
`supplies current “without regard” to an associated “condition” or “limit” imposed by
`
`the USB Specification. Certain dependent claims (2, 9, 11, 18) clarify that the
`
`disregarded “condition” or “limit” is the USB Specification’s requirement that no
`
`more than 500mA of current be supplied to any single device.
`
`The USB specification itself, however, notes that certain devices will
`
`disregard this condition/limit in certain situations. Accordingly, this “invention”
`
`1
`
`

`

`would have been known and obvious to a POSITA as of the priority date of the ’550
`
`Patent. Specifically, the USB specification indicates that “high powered” ports will
`
`provide a minimum of 500 mA of current to downstream devices. Accordingly,
`
`those high powered ports—which were known and used in the art as of the priority
`
`date of the ’550 Patent—are themselves invalidating prior art because they are
`
`configured to supply current without regard to the 500 mA limit when, for example,
`
`connected to a single downstream device (e.g., when used as a phone charger).
`
`Indeed, the provisional application to which the ’550 Patent claims priority admits
`
`that such devices were known and available. Ex. 1008 (’021 Application)
`
`(discussing prior art “high powered” hubs configured to supply around 700mA-
`
`800mA of current).
`
`The prior art cited in this petition has not been fully considered by the patent
`
`office. The Morita patent has not been considered by the examiner or the PTAB in
`
`any proceedings and it renders all 18 claims obvious. Specifically, Morita discloses
`
`a charging device that plugs directly into a power outlet, contains a high-powered
`
`port, and charges a single device (a phone) in a charging mode that does not involve
`
`communicating over the USB data lines. In that mode, a POSITA would have
`
`understood that the device provides more than 500mA of current to the phone and,
`
`accordingly, supplies current without regard to the corresponding USB limit.
`
`2
`
`

`

`The Dougherty reference discloses a docking station that supplies 2,500 mA
`
`of current—far exceeding the corresponding 500 mA limit—to a laptop device. The
`
`PTAB considered certain arguments related to Dougherty in prior proceedings, but
`
`found that the prior petitions pointed to an external “communication path” instead
`
`of an internal “communication path” (which the PTAB found to be required by the
`
`Challenged Claims). The PTAB noted, however, “[i]t is possible, if not highly
`
`probable,”
`
`that
`
`the docking station of Dougherty
`
`includes
`
`the required
`
`“communication path” and, thus, essentially invited further arguments regarding
`
`Dougherty’s internal “communication path.” As explained herein, Dougherty in
`
`view of the USB 1.1 Specification discloses that the docking station of Dougherty
`
`does indeed have such an internal communication path
`
`Because there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioners will prevail with
`
`respect to these claims, Petitioners respectfully request that the Board institute inter
`
`partes review.
`
`II.
`
`SUMMARY OF CHALLENGE 37 C.F.R. §42.104(B)
`Petitioners requests that the Board review and cancel claims 1-18 of the ’550
`
`Patent based on the following grounds.
`
`Ground Claims
`
`1
`
`1-18
`
`Basis
`References
`Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) Morita in view of the
`knowledge of a POSITA.
`
`3
`
`

`

`2
`
`III.
`
`1-2, 10-11,
`18
`
`Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) Dougherty in view of the
`USB 1.1 Specification.
`
`INSTITUTION SHOULD BE GRANTED; DISCRETIONARY
`DENIAL IS NOT APPROPRIATE
`The Board should not exercise its discretion to deny institution under 35
`
`U.S.C. §§ 314(a) or 325(d). If the Board considers exercising its discretion to deny
`
`institution, Petitioner respectfully requests leave to file a reply to address any
`
`discretionary denial arguments Patent Owner makes in its preliminary response.
`
`The Apple/Fintiv Factors Support Institution.
`A.
`There is a parallel district court proceeding involving the ’550 Patent in the
`
`District of Delaware. Ex. 1005. The complaint was filed on April 23, 2020.
`
`However, the Apple/Fintiv factors support institution despite the existence of the
`
`Delaware litigation. Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc., IPR2020-00019, Paper 11 (PTAB
`
`Mar. 20, 2020).
`
`First, potential for a district court stay, is neutral or weighs in favor of
`
`institution. Neither party has requested a stay,1 so at worst this factor is neutral
`
`because the Board “will not attempt to predict” how the district court will proceed.
`
`Sand Revolution II, LLC v. Continental Intermodal Group5 Trucking LLC, IPR2019-
`
`01393, Paper 24 at 7 (PTAB June 16, 2020) (informative). Congress, however,
`
`1 Petitioner does intend to move for a stay of the Delaware case.
`
`4
`
`

`

`intended for district courts to be liberal in granting stays pending PTAB proceedings,
`
`especially in cases where petitioners moved quickly after service of a complaint. 157
`
`Cong. Rec. S1363 (Mar. 8, 2011) (Sen. Schumer) (Congress placed “a very heavy
`
`thumb on the scale in favor of a stay being granted”). Given that Petitioners have
`
`moved expeditiously (see factor 2 discussion below), this factor favors institution.
`
`Furthermore, Judge Connolly has consistently granted stays in similar patent
`
`litigation cases, especially those where the petitions are instituted. See, e.g., Allergen
`
`USA, INC. v. Prollenium US Inc., 1-20-cv-00104, Dkt. No. 34 (July 16, 2020);
`
`Uniloc 2017 LLC v. Vudu, Inc., 1-19-cv-00183, Dkt. No. 72 (March 26, 2020).
`
`Second, the proximity of the trial date to the final written decision, weighs in
`
`favor of institution. The Court has scheduled a Markman hearing for June 23, 2021.
`
`PTAB will likely issue an institution decision before the Court issues a final
`
`Markman decision. Judge Connolly consistently grants stays when the PTAB
`
`institutes trial in such instances. See id. And, even in the unlikely case that Judge
`
`Connolly does not grant a stay, the trial date is scheduled for October 17, 2022. This
`
`is several months after the PTAB’s expected final written decision based on this
`
`Petition’s filing date of January 12, 2021, which would tentatively calendar an
`
`institution date of approximately July 12, 2021 and final written decision date of
`
`approximately early July, 2022 (depending on the accorded filing date).
`
`5
`
`

`

`Third, investment in the parallel proceeding, weighs in favor of institution.
`
`Discovery will still be in the early stages, with the deadline not until December 17,
`
`2021. It is unlikely that any fact depositions will have taken place before the
`
`institution decision. Further, as stated above, it is unlikely that the district court will
`
`have issued a Markman ruling by the time of the institution decision, and little to no
`
`Court resources will have been devoted to analyzing prior art invalidity issues.
`
`Again, the parallel district court litigation is likely to be stayed once the present
`
`Petition is instituted.
`
`Furthermore, as part of a holistic analysis, the Board considers the speed with
`
`which the petitioner acted. Apple Inc. v. Seven Networks, LLC, IPR2020-00156,
`
`Paper 10 at 11–12 (PTAB June 15, 2020). In cases where the petitioner acted
`
`diligently and without meaningful delay, as here, any investment of the parties in the
`
`parallel district court litigation is mitigated. HP Inc. v. Neodron LTD, IPR2020-
`
`00459, Paper 17 at 40 (PTAB Sept. 14, 2020). Here, Petitioners filed this Petition
`
`within about four months of the Answer date, and roughly two months after Patent
`
`Owner served preliminary infringement contentions. Such diligence favors
`
`institution.
`
`Fourth, overlap of issues, weighs in favor of institution. The Petition
`
`challenges claims that are not asserted in the district court action. And while the
`
`petition also challenges the same claims as the parallel district court proceeding,
`
`6
`
`

`

`there is a high likelihood that Judge Connolly grants a stay upon institution. In the
`
`unlikely instance where a stay is not granted, a final written decision will still issue
`
`before the beginning of trial. The final written decision, once issued, will trigger
`
`estoppel for in the district court litigation for grounds that were raised or reasonably
`
`could have been raised. See 35 U.S.C. §315(e)(2).
`
`Fifth, whether the parties are the same, weighs in favor of institution. The
`
`parties with respect to this Petition are the same as those engaged in the parallel
`
`district court case.
`
`Finally, other circumstances strongly favor institution. Petitioners advance a
`
`targeted Petition with two grounds: the first ground has never been submitted to the
`
`Board, and the second ground is one which the Board considered and noted it is
`
`“highly probable” to have certain required elements (which it does, see Section III.C,
`
`infra). The strength of the present Petition strongly weighs in favor of institution.
`
`The ’550 Patent has been asserted against several large electronics companies such
`
`as Coolpad, Lenovo, and Petitioners, which litigation remains pending. Patent
`
`Owners assert that USB adapters, which are ubiquitous, and the mobile devices they
`
`charge infringe the ’550 Patent and related patents. Given the substantial impact
`
`that the ’550 Patent and related patents could have on the mobile device industry, it
`
`is in the public interest to address invalidity, especially under new prior art never
`
`before submitted to the Board. And as the Supreme Court recently explained, there
`
`7
`
`

`

`is a significant public interest against “leaving bad patents enforceable.” Thryv, Inc.
`
`v. Click-To-Call Techs., LP, 140 S. Ct. 1367, 1374 (2020).
`
`The General Plastics Factors Support Institution
`B.
`The General Plastics factors support institution despite earlier IPRs being
`
`filed by other, unrelated entities. General Plastic Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Canon
`
`Kabushiki Kaisha, IPR2016-01357, Paper 19 (P.T.A.B. Sept. 6, 2017); see also
`
`Section X.B (Related Matters). First, the current Petitioner (and the real parties-in-
`
`interest) are different from the prior petitioners; and there is no relation between
`
`them. Id. Second, because the current Petitioner had not been sued or provided
`
`notice of alleged infringement when the earlier petitions were filed, the current
`
`Petitioner did not know of the prior art in this Petition when the earlier petitions were
`
`filed (nor did it have any reason to search for the prior art). Id. Third, while the
`
`preliminary responses and decisions from the earlier IPRs did issue before the filing
`
`of the current Petition, this timing is the result of Patent Owner not suing the current
`
`Petitioner until after said issuance and is thus not the result of current Petitioner’s
`
`delay. Id.; Microsoft Corp. v. Uniloc 2017, LLC, IPR 2019-01252, Paper 7 at 8-9
`
`(PTAB Dec. 20, 2019). Fourth, Petitioner was diligent in filing the current petition
`
`as well as promptly moving to file petitions on the other asserted patents after
`
`receiving Patent Owner’s selection of claims. Section X.B; LG Electronics, Inc. v.
`
`8
`
`

`

`Bell Northern Research, LLC, IPR 2020-00319, Paper 15 at 13 (PTAB June 23,
`
`2020).
`
`C.
`
`The Factors Under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) Support Institution
`
`The factors under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) also support institution.
`
`The primary reference cited herein (Morita), which is the basis for Ground 1,
`
`is a USB mobile device charger that was not considered by the patent examiner or
`
`by the PTAB during any of the prior IPR proceedings. Accordingly, this petition
`
`presents and relies principally on evidence and argument not yet considered by the
`
`examiner or the Board.
`
`In certain earlier proceedings, the PTAB did consider the Dougherty reference
`
`cited herein. The PTAB found, however, that the claims of the ’550 Patent require
`
`a “communications path” that is internal to the claimed “adapter” and that petitioners
`
`cited only a communications path that was external to the “adapter” of Dougherty.
`
`See ZTE (USA) Inc. et al. v. Fundamental Innovation System International LLC,
`
`IPR2018-00110 at Paper 12 (Decision Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review)
`
`at 9-12. Because the petitioners presented no evidence or argument regarding the
`
`internal communications path of Dougherty, the PTAB denied institution. Id. at 11-
`
`12.
`
`The PTAB noted, however, that it is likely the adapter of “Dougherty”
`
`comprises the necessary communication path. Id. at 12 (“It is possible, if not highly
`
`9
`
`

`

`probable, that docking station 200 contains an internal USB communication path
`
`that is utilized for these purposes.”) Accordingly, the PTAB essentially invited an
`
`explanation as to how Dougherty satisfies the challenged claims as construed in that
`
`decision. Id. Petitioner provides the corresponding argument and evidence here.
`
`IV. OVERVIEW OF THE ’550 PATENT
`A.
`Disclosure of the ’550 Patent
`
`The ’550 Patent discloses “a USB adapter” that provides power to a connected
`
`device “through a USB port.” Ex. 1001 (’550 Patent) at 2:34-36. The USB adapter
`
`comprises a “USB VBUS line” and a “USB Communication Path.” Id. at Claims 1
`
`and 10. Figure 2, reproduced below, is a schematic diagram of the disclosed USB
`
`adapted coupled to an exemplary mobile device. Id., 3:23-24.
`
`10
`
`

`

`Both the “VBUS line” and the “communication path” were well known and
`
`understood components of USB devices. They are expressly accounted for in USB
`
`specifications which a POSITA would have been familiar with:
`
`11
`
`

`

`See e.g., Ex. 1010 (USB 1.1) at 17 and Figure 4-2 (annotated).
`
`The challenged claims also require that the “adapter” be “configured to”
`
`supply current on the VBUS line “without regard” to a “condition” or “limit” stated
`
`in a USB Specification. Ex. 1001 (’550 Patent) at Claims 1, 10. As discussed in
`
`more detail herein, this may involve, for example, being configured to supply current
`
`in excess of an amount specified by a USB specification (e.g., the 500mA that may
`
`be supplied to a particular device) (Claims 2, 9, 11, 18). See Section VII (Claim
`
`Construction).
`
`Certain of the challenged claims also require that the adapter be configured to
`
`supply current “without USB enumeration” (Claims 3 and 12) or in response to an
`
`“abnormal data condition” (Claims 4 and 13) such as a logic high signal on the D+
`
`and D- lines of the communication path (Claims 6-7 and 15-16). As discussed in
`
`more detail herein, USB “enumeration” is the communication engaged in by USB
`
`devices when connected in order to configure them. See USB 1.1 at 179; Baker,
`
`¶ 74. The ’550 Patent discloses that an adapter can supply current without engaging
`
`in the enumeration process using “an abnormal data line condition at the USB port
`
`18.” Id. at 9:21-24. Specifically, the ’550 patent discloses that a device that detects
`
`“voltages on both the D+ and D- lines of the USB connector [that] are greater than
`
`2 Volts (step 220), [will] determine[] that the device connected to the USB connector
`
`54 is not a typical USB host or hub and that a USB adapter 100 has been detected.”
`
`12
`
`

`

`Id., 9:39-44. In such a scenario, the mobile device can charge the battery or
`
`otherwise use the power from the USB connector, without waiting for enumeration.
`
`Id. at 9:44-47.
`
`B.
`
`Priority Applications of the ’550 Patent
`
`The ’550 patent claims priority through a series of continuations to two
`
`provisional applications: (1) U.S. Provisional Application 60/273,021 (the “’021
`
`Application”) (Ex. 1008), filed March 1, 2001; and (2) U.S. Provisional Application
`
`No. 60/330,486 (the “’486 Application”) (Ex. 1009), filed October 23, 2001.
`
`The ’021 Application
`1.
`The ’021 Application was filed on March 1, 2001. Ex. 1008. The application
`
`does not disclose, describe, or purport to invent any novel adapter or charger. To
`
`the contrary, the specification discloses “a charging circuit” that is part of a mobile
`
`device and that can use current received from the mobile device’s USB connection
`
`to charge the device’s battery. Id. at 18 (“. . . this invention relates to adapting power
`
`from the