DCT
2:25-cv-00421
Comarco Wireless Systems LLC v. Staples Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Comarco Wireless Systems LLC (Texas)
- Defendant: Staples, Inc. (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Direction IP Law
- Case Identification: 2:25-cv-00421, E.D. Tex., 04/18/2025
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant maintains regular and established places of business within the Eastern District of Texas, specifically in Allen and Frisco, Texas.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s sale of various USB-C chargers and accessories that comply with the USB Power Delivery standard infringes three patents related to dynamically determining and communicating appropriate power levels between a power supply and a portable electronic device.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns intelligent power adapters that negotiate with a portable device to deliver an optimal amount of power, preventing damage from mismatched power levels and enabling features like fast charging.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff sent notice letters to Defendant on August 1, 2023, and April 13, 2024, asserting infringement of the patents-in-suit and providing claim charts, which forms the basis for the allegations of willful infringement.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2004-01-15 | Earliest Priority Date for ’187, ’087, and ’042 Patents |
| 2016-08-09 | U.S. Patent No. 9,413,187 Issues |
| 2020-12-01 | U.S. Patent No. 10,855,087 Issues |
| 2021-03-16 | U.S. Patent No. 10,951,042 Issues |
| 2023-08-01 | Plaintiff sends first notice letter to Defendant |
| 2024-04-13 | Plaintiff sends second notice letter to Defendant |
| 2025-04-18 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 9,413,187 - "Power Supply System Providing Power and Analog Data Signal for Use by Portable Electronic Device to Control Battery Charging"
- Issued: August 9, 2016.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent describes a problem arising from the proliferation of portable electronic devices and various power sources (e.g., wall sockets, car outlets), which could lead to a device receiving an incorrect power level, resulting in failure to charge, battery damage, or fire (Compl. ¶10). Prior art systems were allegedly deficient in their ability to intelligently inform a device about the nature of the power source (U.S. Patent No. 10,855,087, col. 2:48-56, incorporated by reference).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a power supply system where the charger and the portable device engage in a "handshake" to determine the correct power level (Compl. ¶11). The system uses a multi-conductor connector where, in addition to power and ground lines, two data lines are used. One line carries a signal from the portable device to the charger, and the other carries a responsive "analog signal" back from the charger, which indicates the power supply's potential output level, allowing the device to control its charging process accordingly (’187 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:24-48).
- Technical Importance: This approach enabled a single charger to safely and efficiently power a variety of devices by creating a communication channel for power negotiation, a foundational concept for modern charging standards (Compl. ¶11).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 8 and dependent claim 9 (Compl. ¶17).
- Independent Claim 8 requires:
- A power supply system external to a portable electronic device.
- Power circuitry to provide DC power.
- Data circuitry to receive a first signal from the device and provide a second signal to the device.
- A connector on a cable end with four conductors for detachably mating with the device.
- The first and second conductors transfer DC power and ground.
- The third conductor transfers the first signal from the device to the data circuitry.
- The fourth conductor transfers the second signal from the data circuitry to the device.
- The second signal is an "analog signal" with a parameter level indicating the power supply's potential output level.
U.S. Patent No. 10,855,087 - "Power Supply Systems"
- Issued: December 1, 2020.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: This patent addresses the same general problem as the ’187 Patent: the need for a power supply to intelligently communicate its capabilities to a portable electronic device to ensure safe and proper battery charging (Compl. ¶¶10-11).
- The Patented Solution: The solution is a power supply system with power and data circuitry coupled to a portable device via a four-conductor connector (’087 Patent, Abstract). The data circuitry receives a first signal from the device and, in coordination with that signal, provides a second signal back. This second signal has a "parament [sic] level" that the portable device can use to control the charging of its battery based on the DC power being provided (’087 Patent, col. 10:63-11:24). This creates a feedback loop for managing power delivery.
- Technical Importance: This patent describes a system that allows the portable device to use a signal from the power supply to actively control its own charging process, refining the concept of cooperative power management between charger and device (Compl. ¶11).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 1 and dependent claims 5-7, 11, and 15-17 (Compl. ¶31).
- Independent Claim 1 requires:
- A power supply system.
- Power circuitry to provide direct current power.
- Data circuitry to receive a first signal from and provide a second signal to a portable electronic device.
- The circuitry is coupled via a connector with a first, second, third, and fourth conductor.
- The conductors are configured to transfer DC power, ground, the first signal (device to data circuitry), and the second signal (data circuitry to device).
- The data circuitry is further configured, in coordination with the first signal, to provide the second signal having a "parament [sic] level that is usable by the portable electronic device in connection with control of charging a rechargeable battery."
U.S. Patent No. 10,951,042 - "Power Supply Systems"
- Issued: March 16, 2021.
The Invention Explained
- Technology Synopsis: This patent is directed to the other side of the charging system: the portable electronic device itself. It claims a portable device containing a rechargeable battery, power circuitry to receive DC power, and data circuitry configured to send a first signal to and receive a second signal from an external power supply via a four-conductor interface. The device uses the "parameter level" of the received second signal to control its own battery charging (Compl. ¶47).
- Accused Features: The complaint accuses portable electronic devices sold by Defendant, such as tablet and laptop computers, that comply with the USB Power Delivery standard and are capable of negotiating charging rates with a compatible power supply (Compl. ¶¶46, 49).
Key Claims at a Glance
- Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts independent claim 1 and dependent claims 5-6 and 11, 15-16 (Compl. ¶46).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The accused products are a wide range of USB-C wall chargers, car chargers, docking stations, and cables sold by Staples, including products under the "cellhelmet," "LAX Gadgets," "Club3D," and other brand names (Compl. ¶¶17, 31). These are collectively referred to as the "'187 Accused PD Chargers" and "'087 Accused PD Chargers" (Compl. ¶¶19, 33).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges that the accused products are compliant with the Universal Serial Bus (USB) Type-C and Power Delivery (PD) standards (Compl. ¶¶19, 33). This compliance means they are designed to provide DC power to portable electronic devices and to engage in a communication protocol with those devices to negotiate voltage and current levels for charging (Compl. ¶¶22, 35). A screenshot in the complaint shows a "cellhelmet USB-A/USB-C Wall Charger, 20W," described as having "Power protection for devices" (Compl. p. 33).
- The complaint alleges these chargers are sold for use with portable electronic devices and are of significant commercial importance in the market for mobile device accessories (Compl. ¶¶17, 33).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
’187 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 8) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a power supply system ... external to the portable electronic device | The accused products are external USB wall and car chargers. | ¶20 | col. 4:24-25 |
| power circuitry to provide the DC power | The accused chargers comprise circuitry to convert AC or car DC power into DC power suitable for charging a portable device. | ¶21 | col. 4:26-27 |
| data circuitry to receive a first signal originating from the portable electronic device and to provide a second signal to the portable electronic device | The accused chargers’ circuitry is compliant with the USB-C specification, which includes data circuitry for two-way communication. | ¶22 | col. 4:28-31 |
| a connector disposed on a cable end, the connector having four conductors for detachably mating with a power input opening of the portable electronic device... | The accused chargers use a USB-C connector, which has multiple conductors (pins) for detachably mating with a device's charging port. | ¶23 | col. 4:32-35 |
| the first and second conductors transferring the DC power and its ground reference | The VBUS and GND pins on the USB-C connector transfer DC power and ground. | ¶23 | col. 4:36-39 |
| the third conductor transferring the first signal from the portable electronic device to the data circuitry | The CC1/CC2 pin on the USB-C connector carries a signal from the portable device to the charger to configure the connection. | ¶23 | col. 4:39-42 |
| the fourth conductor transferring the second signal from the data circuitry to the portable electronic device | The RX pin on the USB-C connector provides a signal from the charger to the portable device to configure data transfer. | ¶23 | col. 4:42-45 |
| the second signal being an analog signal having a parameter level to indicate... the potential power output level of the power supply system | The RX signal is alleged to be an analog signal that can assume a plurality of voltages, which indicates the charger's power capabilities during the power negotiation process. | ¶24 | col. 4:45-48 |
The complaint includes a diagram from the USB-C specification illustrating the pinout of a USB Type-C receptacle, which identifies the VBUS, GND, CC, and RX/TX pins central to the infringement theory (Compl. p. 8).
’087 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| power circuitry configured to provide direct current power | The accused chargers contain circuitry to provide DC power for charging portable electronic devices via a USB-C cable. | ¶34 | col. 11:1-2 |
| data circuitry configured to receive a first signal that originates from a portable electronic device and to provide a second signal to be sent to the portable electronic device... | The accused chargers’ circuitry, compliant with USB PD standards, receives signals on the CC pin and provides responsive signals on the Vconn pin. | ¶35 | col. 11:3-6 |
| the connector comprising a first conductor, a second conductor, a third conductor, and a fourth conductor | The USB-C connector on the accused products comprises VBUS (first), GND (second), a CC pin (third), and a Vconn conductor (fourth). | ¶43 | col. 11:9-11 |
| transfer, via the third conductor, the first signal from the portable electronic device to the data circuitry | The CC pin used as the configuration channel carries a voltage signal from the device, determined by a voltage divider, to the charger. | ¶43 | col. 11:17-19 |
| transfer, via the fourth conductor, the second signal from the data circuitry to the portable electronic device | The CC pin not used for configuration becomes the Vconn conductor, which carries a signal from the charger to the device to enable SOP* communication. | ¶43 | col. 11:20-22 |
| the data circuitry is further configured, in coordination with the first signal, to provide the second signal having a parament [sic] level that is usable by the portable electronic device in connection with control of charging... | In response to the voltage ("first signal") on the CC pin, the charger sends a voltage signal ("second signal") on the Vconn pin, which enables SOP* communication packets that control power delivery for charging. | ¶40 | col. 11:23-28 |
The complaint includes a flowchart from the USB Power Delivery specification illustrating the message flow during power negotiation, which allegedly shows the exchange of signals to control charging (Compl. p. 15).
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: A central question may be whether the term "analog signal" in the '187 Patent, which implies a continuously variable signal, reads on the complex, packet-based digital and voltage-level communications used in the USB Power Delivery standard. Another question may be whether the specific four-conductor structure recited in the claims maps directly onto the 24-pin USB-C connector, or if the plaintiff's selection of four specific pins (e.g., VBUS, GND, CC, RX/Vconn) out of many possibilities meets the claim limitations.
- Technical Questions: The infringement theory for both patents relies on mapping claim elements to specific pins and signals defined by the USB-C and PD standards. A key technical question will be what evidence demonstrates that the signal on the accused "fourth conductor" (identified as the RX pin for the '187 Patent and the Vconn pin for the '087 Patent) performs the precise function required by the respective claims for indicating power level or controlling charging, as opposed to other functions defined by the USB standards.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "analog signal" (from ’187 Patent, claim 8)
Context and Importance: The infringement allegation for the ’187 patent hinges on the assertion that the "RX signal" in a USB-C system is an "analog signal." The definition of this term is critical because USB Power Delivery involves both discrete voltage levels and digital packet communication, creating a dispute over whether this complex signaling scheme falls within the scope of "analog signal." Practitioners may focus on this term because the patent's priority date (2004) predates the finalization of the USB-C standard, raising questions about whether the inventor contemplated the specific signaling methods now in use.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification does not provide an explicit definition, which may suggest the term should be given its plain and ordinary meaning to one of skill in the art at the time. The patent discusses providing voltage and current programming "voltages" to an adapter, which could be interpreted broadly to cover any non-binary voltage-based signaling (’187 Patent, col. 3:16-24).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Figure 4B of the patent family (e.g., in the '087 patent) depicts an "Analog control circuitry" with distinct programming lines (Vvprogram, VIprogram), which could suggest a more specific, continuously variable voltage-divider-style system rather than the protocol-based system of USB PD (’087 Patent, Fig. 4B).
The Term: "parameter level that is usable by the portable electronic device in connection with control of charging" (from ’087 Patent, claim 1)
Context and Importance: This term is the core of the functional limitation describing the purpose of the "second signal." The dispute will likely center on whether the "second signal" alleged by the plaintiff (the voltage on the Vconn pin enabling SOP* communication) is itself a "parameter level" used for "control of charging," or if it is merely an enabling signal for a separate digital communication protocol that actually controls charging.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the system in broad functional terms, stating the signal is "usable by the PED in connection with control of charging a battery" (’087 Patent, Abstract). This language could be argued to cover any signal that is a necessary prerequisite for the ultimate control of charging.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim requires the signal itself to have a "parameter level" that is "usable... in connection with control." This could be interpreted more narrowly to require that the voltage level of the signal itself conveys the control information (e.g., a higher voltage means charge faster), rather than simply turning on a separate digital communication channel.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement. For inducement, it alleges Defendant provided the accused chargers to its customers with instructions and advertisements, specifically intending for them to be used in an infringing manner with portable devices (Compl. ¶¶27, 42). For contributory infringement, it alleges the accused chargers are a material part of the invention, are not staple articles of commerce suitable for substantial non-infringing use, and were known to be especially made for an infringing use (Compl. ¶¶28, 43).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement based on Defendant's alleged knowledge of the patents-in-suit since at least August 1, 2023, and April 13, 2024, the dates of pre-suit notice letters that allegedly included claim charts. It is alleged that Defendant's continued infringement despite this knowledge constitutes an unjustifiably high risk of infringement (Compl. ¶¶29, 44, 57).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of claim scope versus standardization: can the specific language of the asserted claims, which claim a four-conductor system with particular signaling functions, be construed to read on the complex, multi-pin, protocol-driven USB-C Power Delivery standard that was finalized years after the patents' priority date? The case may turn on whether compliance with an industry standard coincidentally results in infringement of the specific architecture claimed in the patents.
- A key evidentiary question will be one of technical and functional mapping: what specific evidence will show that the signals on the accused USB-C pins (e.g., CC, RX, Vconn) function precisely as the "first signal" and "second signal" are defined in the claims? In particular, the analysis will likely focus on whether the accused "second signal" is truly an "analog signal" indicating a power level (’187 Patent) or if its "parameter level" is directly "usable... in connection with control of charging" (’087 Patent), as opposed to merely enabling a separate digital communication protocol that performs those functions.