Comarco Wireless Tech Inc v. Apple Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Comarco Wireless Technologies, Inc. (Delaware)
  • Defendant: Apple, Inc. (California)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Julander, Brown & Bollard
• Case Identification: 8:15-cv-00145, C.D. Cal., 01/30/2015
• Venue Allegations: Venue is based on Defendant Apple Inc. maintaining its principal place of business in California.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s power adapters and associated Lightning cables, when used together, infringe a patent related to power supply equipment that communicates identification and power capability information to an electronic device.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns "smart" power accessories for portable electronics, which use signaling to ensure safe and appropriate charging by identifying the power source and adapter capabilities to the connected device.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint was filed on January 30, 2015. Subsequently, an Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceeding was initiated against the patent-in-suit (IPR2015-01879). This IPR resulted in a certificate issued on May 31, 2019, confirming that both claims asserted in this litigation (claims 1 and 2) have been cancelled.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2004-01-15	U.S. Patent No. 8,492,933 Priority Date
2013-07-23	U.S. Patent No. 8,492,933 Issued
2015-01-30	Complaint Filed
2015-09-08	IPR proceeding (IPR2015-01879) filed against U.S. Patent No. 8,492,933
2019-05-31	IPR Certificate issued cancelling claims 1 and 2 of the '933 patent

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

U.S. Patent No. 8,492,933 - Power Supply Equipment Providing a Data Signal, Identification Information and Power to an Electronic Device, issued July 23, 2013

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes a problem with universal DC/DC power adapters used for devices like notebook computers. These adapters could be connected to different power sources, such as an automobile outlet or a power-limited airplane outlet (e.g., EMPOWER system). The patent notes the risk that if a user connects to a power-limited source like an airplane outlet, the electronic device might attempt to draw too much current to recharge its battery, potentially causing overheating, damage, or fire because the device could not distinguish the type of power source ('933 Patent, col. 2:28-41).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a power supply system comprising an adapter and a detachable "smart" connector tip. The adapter itself includes circuitry to determine the type of power source (e.g., automobile vs. airplane) and produce an "analog data signal" to inform the electronic device. Separately, the output connector includes its own circuitry that can receive a "data request" from the electronic device and, in response, transmit back a "data output" that identifies the power supply equipment, such as its power capabilities or whether it is an approved adapter ('933 Patent, Abstract; col. 10:35-52). This dual-component signaling architecture provides multiple layers of intelligent power management.
• Technical Importance: This design allowed a single, universal adapter to be used more safely across a plurality of electronic devices and power sources by embedding intelligence in both the main adapter body and the interchangeable connector tip ('933 Patent, col. 4:16-19).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claim 1 and dependent claim 2 ('933 Patent, col. 10:35-52; Compl. ¶¶ 11, 18).
• Independent Claim 1 recites a power supply system with three main components:
  • An "adapter" that converts power and includes circuitry to produce an "analog data signal" for controlling power draw.
  • A "cable" connecting the adapter to an output connector.
  • An "output connector" which itself includes:
    • A plurality of "conductors" to transfer DC power and the analog data signal.
    • "Circuitry to receive a data request" from the electronic device and "in response transmit a data output" to identify the equipment.
• Dependent Claim 2 specifies that the output connector of claim 1 can be detached from the cable ('933 Patent, col. 10:53-54).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint names the Apple 5 Watt USB Power Adapter (Part No. MD810LL/A), the Apple 12 Watt USB Power Adapter (Part No. MD836LL/A), Apple Lightning cable connectors (e.g., Part No. MD8182M/A), and the Apple Lightning to 30-Pin Adapter (Part No. MD823ZM/A) (Compl. ¶¶ 11, 18).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that the accused power adapters are sold and used in combination with the accused Lightning cables to charge Apple's portable electronic devices, such as the iPad (Compl. ¶11). The adapters are alleged to convert power, and the complaint asserts that when combined with a Lightning cable, the system infringes the '933 patent. The complaint alleges these adapters and cables are not staple articles of commerce and are made for a specific infringing purpose (Compl. ¶14). The complaint does not provide specific technical details about the operation of the accused products, instead referencing a claim chart in an exhibit that was not included with the filed complaint (Compl. ¶11).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references a claim chart (Exhibit B) to detail its infringement theory, but this exhibit was not provided in the public filing (Compl. ¶11). The narrative allegations suggest a theory where the combination of an Apple Power Adapter and an Apple Lightning cable satisfies the elements of the asserted claims. The Apple Power Adapter is alleged to be the claimed "adapter", the Lightning cable is the claimed "cable", and the connector on the end of the Lightning cable is alleged to be the claimed "output connector" containing the requisite identification circuitry (Compl. ¶11).

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Technical Questions: A primary technical question is whether the accused Apple system performs the two distinct signaling functions required by claim 1. The claim recites an "analog data signal" produced by the adapter for power control, plus a separate request/response identification protocol handled by circuitry in the "output connector". The court would need to examine whether the accused products actually implement this specific two-part architecture, or if they use a different signaling method.
  • Scope Questions: The infringement analysis raises the question of whether the functionality of Apple's Lightning connector chip, which is understood to perform authentication to verify an authorized accessory, falls within the scope of the claimed "circuitry to receive a data request... and in response transmit a data output... to identify the power supply equipment." The focus of the patent appears to be on identifying the power source type or power capabilities, which may or may not align with the function of Apple's authentication protocol.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "circuitry to receive a data request from the electronic device and in response transmit a data output to the electronic device to identify the power supply equipment"

• Context and Importance: This term is central to the claimed invention, defining the "smart" functionality of the output connector. The outcome of the infringement analysis depends on whether the operation of the circuitry in Apple's Lightning connector is found to meet this limitation.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification suggests the identification can be for various purposes, including simply confirming that the adapter is "an approved adapter" ('933 Patent, col. 7:13-16). This language could support an argument that Apple's authentication function is a form of "identification."
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim requires a specific sequence: a "request" from the device followed by a "response" from the connector. The specification provides a specific embodiment where the connector contains a Dallas Semiconductor programmable memory chip (DS2502) that is interrogated by the device ('933 Patent, col. 7:30-42). This could support a narrower construction limited to a specific type of interrogation protocol that may differ from the one used in the accused products.

• The Term: "analog data signal"

• Context and Importance: This signal is generated by the main adapter body, separate from the identification circuitry in the connector tip. To prove infringement, the plaintiff would have to identify this specific signal in the accused Apple adapters.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent does not provide a formal definition, which may allow for any non-digital, voltage-based signal to be considered an "analog data signal."
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes this signal in a specific context: the adapter's comparison circuitry compares the DC input voltage against a reference voltage (e.g., 14.3 Volts) to distinguish an automobile outlet from an airplane outlet and outputs a signal ("Vdata") accordingly ('933 Patent, col. 4:20-44). This suggests the term refers to a signal whose purpose is to convey the type of external power source, which could be argued as a more limited function than general power management signaling.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement by asserting that Apple encourages its customers to use the accused adapters and cables together, with the specific intent to cause infringement (Compl. ¶¶ 13, 18). Contributory infringement is alleged on the basis that the components are not staple articles of commerce suitable for substantial non-infringing use and are sold with the intent that they be combined to infringe (Compl. ¶¶ 14, 19).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint includes a conclusory allegation that Apple's infringement "has been and is willful," without providing specific facts regarding pre- or post-suit knowledge (Compl. ¶¶ 16, 21).

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

1. Procedural Viability: The most significant issue is the legal status of the asserted patent claims. Given that an IPR proceeding subsequent to the complaint's filing resulted in the cancellation of claims 1 and 2, a central question is the continued viability of a lawsuit predicated entirely on claims that are no longer valid.

2. Architectural Mismatch: A key technical question is one of functional architecture: does the accused Apple power system employ the specific two-part signaling structure required by Claim 1? The analysis will need to determine if there is an "analog data signal" generated by the adapter for power control that is functionally and structurally distinct from a separate "request/response" identification protocol operating within the Lightning connector's circuitry.

3. Definitional Scope: The case raises a core question of definitional scope: can the function of Apple's Lightning connector authentication chip be construed as "circuitry to... identify the power supply equipment"? The court would need to decide if this claim language, taught in the patent's context of communicating power capabilities and source types, reads on a system primarily designed to authenticate an accessory as being licensed or authorized.