DCT
2:22-cv-00266
Comarco Wireless Systems LLC v. Anker Innovations Ltd
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Comarco Wireless Systems LLC (Texas)
- Defendant: Anker Innovations Ltd. (Hong Kong)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Scheef & Stone, LLP; SHERIDAN ROSS P.C.
- Case Identification: 2:22-cv-00266, E.D. Tex., 12/21/2022
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in any U.S. judicial district as Defendant is a foreign corporation.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s USB charging products, including chargers, hubs, and portable power banks, infringe two patents related to power supply systems that communicate with an electronic device to safely control battery charging.
- Technical Context: The technology addresses safety risks in the universal mobile device charging market by enabling a power adapter and a portable device to exchange signals to prevent improper or dangerous charging conditions.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Defendant had pre-suit knowledge of the ’087 Patent via a notice of infringement submitted by Plaintiff to Amazon.com, which was allegedly forwarded to Defendant. The complaint also alleges post-suit knowledge based on the filing of the original complaint in this action.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2004-01-15 | Priority Date for ’087 and ’042 Patents |
| 2020-12-01 | U.S. Patent 10,855,087 (’087 Patent) Issued |
| 2021-03-16 | U.S. Patent 10,951,042 (’042 Patent) Issued |
| 2022-07-03 | Date Anker allegedly received notice of ’087 Patent via Amazon |
| 2022-07-18 | Original Complaint Filed |
| 2022-12-21 | First Amended Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent 10,855,087 - "Power Supply Systems" (Issued Dec. 1, 2020)
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section identifies the problem that arises when a user connects a portable electronic device, such as a notebook computer, to different types of DC power sources, like an automobile outlet versus a higher-voltage airplane “EMPOWER” outlet. Using the wrong connector or having a flawed connector could cause the device to recharge its battery when it should not, creating a risk of overheating or fire, a particularly significant danger on an airplane. (’087 Patent, col. 2:38-56).
- The Patented Solution: The invention describes a “smart” power supply system (e.g., an adapter) that can automatically determine the type of DC power source it is connected to. It accomplishes this by, for example, comparing the source’s voltage to a known reference value. The adapter then generates and sends a data signal to the connected electronic device, which can use that signal to enable or disable its own battery charging circuitry, thereby preventing an unsafe charging event. (’087 Patent, Abstract; col. 3:30-49).
- Technical Importance: This technology provided an automated safety mechanism to mitigate risks associated with the growing use of portable electronics with various, non-standardized power sources. (Compl. ¶8).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1. (Compl. ¶28).
- Essential Elements of Claim 1:
- A power supply system comprising power circuitry and data circuitry.
- The data circuitry is configured to receive a "first signal" from a portable electronic device (PED) and provide a "second signal" to the PED.
- The system uses a connector with a first, second, third, and fourth conductor to couple to the PED.
- The conductors transfer DC power, ground, the first signal (from the PED), and the second signal (to the PED).
- The second signal has a "parameter level" that the PED can use to control the charging of its battery.
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims but refers to infringement of "one or more claims." (Compl. ¶28).
U.S. Patent 10,951,042 - "Power Supply Systems" (Issued Mar. 16, 2021)
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the same technical problem as the ’087 Patent: the danger of mismatching portable devices with various DC power sources, which could lead to battery damage or fire. (’042 Patent, col. 2:35-56).
- The Patented Solution: This patent claims the invention from the perspective of the portable electronic device (PED) itself. The claimed PED includes power circuitry to receive power and data circuitry that initiates a "handshake" by providing a "first signal" to an external power supply and receiving a "second signal" back. This communication, conducted over a four-conductor interface, allows the PED’s internal controller to manage its own charging functions based on the information received from the power supply. (’042 Patent, Abstract; Claim 1).
- Technical Importance: By placing the charging control intelligence within the portable device, this approach allows the device to adapt safely to a wide array of external power sources. (Compl. ¶9).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1. (Compl. ¶34).
- Essential Elements of Claim 1:
- A portable electronic device comprising a rechargeable battery, power circuitry, and data circuitry.
- The data circuitry is configured to provide a "first signal" to a power supply and receive a "second signal" from the power supply.
- The device uses a connector with a first, second, third, and fourth conductor to couple to the power supply.
- The conductors transfer DC power (from the supply), ground, the first signal (to the supply), and the second signal (from the supply).
- The second signal has a "parameter level" usable by the device's data circuitry to control battery charging.
- The complaint refers to infringement of "one or more claims" of the ’042 Patent. (Compl. ¶34).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The complaint identifies three categories of accused products:
- "Accused BC 1.2 Chargers": Products compliant with the USB Battery Charging Specification 1.2, such as the Anker 7-Port USB 3.0 Hub. (Compl. ¶15).
- "Accused PD Chargers": Products compliant with the USB Type-C and Power Delivery (PD) specifications, such as the Anker 3-in-1 Premium USB C Hub. (Compl. ¶16).
- "Accused PEDs": Anker-branded portable electronic devices with rechargeable batteries and USB-C ports, such as the Anker PowerHouse 200. (Compl. ¶17).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges that the accused products implement standardized USB charging protocols that involve a communication handshake between a charger and a device to negotiate and deliver appropriate power levels. (Compl. ¶15-17).
- For BC 1.2 products, this communication allegedly uses the D+ and D- data pins. For USB-C PD products, it allegedly uses the CC1 and CC2 Configuration Channel pins. The complaint alleges these pin pairs function as the claimed "third conductor" and "fourth conductor." (Compl. ¶18, ¶22).
- The complaint lists dozens of Anker products across these categories, suggesting Plaintiff's position that the accused functionality is widespread in Defendant's product lines. (Compl. ¶15-17).
- No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
’087 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| data circuitry configured to receive a first signal that originates from a portable electronic device | The Accused BC 1.2 Chargers allegedly receive a "first signal" on the D+ pin from a connected portable device. | ¶18 | col. 27:3-6 |
| and to provide a second signal to be sent to the portable electronic device | The charger’s circuitry passes the D+ signal through a resistor, causing a voltage drop and creating a new "second signal" on the D- pin that is transmitted back to the device. | ¶18 | col. 27:1-3 |
| the connector comprising a first conductor, a second conductor, a third conductor, and a fourth conductor | The USB port allegedly includes VBUS (first), GND (second), D+ (third), and D- (fourth) conductors. | ¶18, ¶22 | col. 27:5-8 |
| the second signal having a parameter level that is usable by the portable electronic device in connection with control of charging | The voltage of the D- signal is a parameter that informs the portable device that it can charge its battery. | ¶18, ¶23 | col. 27:20-25 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Technical Question: The complaint's theory is that the charger "provides" a second signal by modifying a first signal. The patent, however, describes an adapter that determines a condition (source type) and generates a new, informative signal. A question for the court will be whether simply passing a signal through a resistor to drop its voltage meets the "provide a second signal" limitation, or if this is a fundamentally different technical operation. The complaint's alternative pleading of the doctrine of equivalents for this element suggests an anticipated dispute. (Compl. ¶19).
- Scope Question: For Accused PD Chargers, the complaint alleges infringement by asserting that a portable device plus a USB-C cable constitutes the claimed "portable electronic device." (Compl. ¶22). This raises a significant question of claim scope and whether the claims require the four conductors to be integral to the device itself.
’042 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| A portable electronic device comprising... data circuitry configured to provide a first signal to a power supply | The Accused PEDs, when combined with a USB-C cable, allegedly provide a "first signal" on one of the CC pins to a connected charger. | ¶22 | col. 27:7-10 |
| and to receive a second signal from the power supply | The Accused PEDs, via the cable, allegedly receive a "second signal" (Vconn) on the other CC pin from the charger. | ¶22 | col. 27:10-12 |
| the connector comprising a first conductor, a second conductor, a third conductor, and a fourth conductor | The USB-C cable connector allegedly provides the four required conductors (VBUS, GND, CC1, CC2). | ¶22 | col. 27:12-15 |
| wherein the second signal has a parameter level that is usable by the data circuitry in connection with control of charging | The voltage of the signal on the Vconn pin allegedly informs the Accused PED that it is able to receive current and charge its battery. | ¶23 | col. 27:21-25 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Question: The infringement theory depends entirely on construing the term "portable electronic device" to include not just the device itself but also an external, detachable cable. The complaint argues the "plain and ordinary meaning" supports this and that no disclaimer narrows it to a "unitary device," while also pleading infringement under the doctrine of equivalents as a fallback. (Compl. ¶22, ¶24). This interpretation will likely be a central point of dispute in claim construction.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "portable electronic device" (asserted in both patents)
- Context and Importance: This term's construction is critical. Plaintiff's infringement theory against all USB-C products requires this term to be broad enough to read on a device plus an attached cable. A narrower construction limited to a "unitary device" where the conductors are integral could undermine a significant portion of the case.
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification uses general examples like "notebook computer" without detailing the precise location of every conductor, which a party could argue leaves room for an interpretation including attached peripherals. (’087 Patent, col. 2:42). The complaint argues that the "plain and ordinary meaning" would not exclude a device connected to a cable. (Compl. ¶22).
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent figures consistently depict the "electronic device 335" as a single, self-contained block, distinct from the "cable 350." (’087 Patent, Fig. 3, Fig. 8). The claims of the ’042 Patent recite the device comprising the connector and its conductors, language that may support the view that these components must be integral to the device itself. (’042 Patent, Claim 1).
The Term: "provide a second signal" (’087 Patent)
- Context and Importance: Practitioners may focus on this term because Plaintiff's infringement theory for BC 1.2 chargers rests on it covering the modification and return of a signal, not just the de novo generation of one.
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term "provide" is not explicitly defined, leaving potential ambiguity. A party could argue that causing a signal to exist on a conductor, even by modifying another signal, constitutes "providing" it.
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes the adapter's "comparison circuitry" making a determination about the power source and then outputting a data signal (V.sub.data) based on that logical determination. (’087 Patent, col. 4:30-49). This context suggests the generation of a new, informational signal, rather than the passive modification of an existing one.
VI. Other Allegations
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement based on both pre-suit and post-suit notice. It alleges Defendant was notified of the ’087 Patent no later than July 3, 2022, after Plaintiff submitted an infringement report to Amazon.com that was allegedly passed to Defendant. (Compl. ¶25). It further alleges that Defendant's knowledge continued after the filing of the original complaint on July 18, 2022. (Compl. ¶26, ¶31, ¶37).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
The resolution of this case may turn on the court’s answers to several key questions:
A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the claim term "portable electronic device", which the patent figures depict as a single unit, be construed to encompass a combination of a device and an external, detachable cable? Plaintiff's infringement theory for a large category of accused products appears to depend on an affirmative answer.
A key technical question will be one of functional operation: does the accused BC 1.2 charger's alleged function of modifying and returning a signal meet the claim requirement to "provide a second signal", or does the patent require the de novo generation of an informational signal based on an internal determination?
Finally, should the court find no literal infringement, a central question will be one of equivalency: are the alleged differences—such as locating conductors on a cable rather than integrally within the device, or modifying a signal versus generating one—legally insubstantial changes that infringe under the doctrine of equivalents?