DCT
2:25-cv-01245
Comarco Wireless Systems LLC v. Transcend Information Inc
Key Events
Complaint
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Comarco Wireless Systems LLC (Texas)
- Defendant: Transcend Information, Inc. (Taiwan)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Direction IP Law
- Case Identification: 2:25-cv-01245, E.D. Tex., 12/22/2025
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper based on Defendant having committed acts of patent infringement within the Eastern District of Texas.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s USB hubs infringe a patent related to power supply systems that enable communication between a charger and a portable electronic device to determine the appropriate power level for charging.
- Technical Context: The technology addresses the need for safe and intelligent charging of portable devices from a variety of power sources, a critical function in the modern market dominated by USB-powered electronics.
- Key Procedural History: The asserted patent arises from a family of applications with a priority date in 2004. The complaint alleges Defendant had pre-suit knowledge of the patent and its alleged infringement based on a notice letter sent in July 2022, a fact central to the willfulness allegations.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2004-01-15 | Earliest Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 10,855,087 |
| 2020-12-01 | U.S. Patent No. 10,855,087 Issues |
| 2022-07-21 | Plaintiff allegedly sends pre-suit notice letter to Defendant |
| 2025-12-22 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 10,855,087 - "Power Supply Systems,"
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,855,087, "Power Supply Systems," issued December 1, 2020 (’087 Patent).
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The proliferation of different DC power sources, such as automobile cigarette lighters and airplane EMPOWER outlets, created a risk that a portable electronic device could be damaged by recharging from an inappropriate power source (e.g., one that could cause overheating if the device’s battery malfunctions) (’087 Patent, col. 1:36-2:10).
- The Patented Solution: The invention describes a power supply system that facilitates a two-way communication, or "handshake," between the power adapter and the electronic device. The system's data circuitry receives a "first signal" that originates from the portable device and, in coordination with that signal, provides a "second signal" back to the device. This second signal has a "parameter level" that allows the portable device to intelligently control the charging of its battery based on the characteristics of the power source (’087 Patent, Abstract; col. 3:28-48).
- Technical Importance: This approach enabled a single adapter to be used with various power sources and devices, with the end device (rather than the user) making the determination about safe charging protocols (Compl. ¶14).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claims 1 and 11 (Compl. ¶¶18, 42).
- The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
- Power circuitry configured to provide direct current power.
- 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.
- A connector with a first, second, third, and fourth conductor to transfer DC power, a ground reference, the first signal, and the second signal, respectively.
- The data circuitry is further configured to provide the second signal with a parameter level usable by the portable device to control battery charging.
- The complaint reserves the right to assert dependent claims 5-7 and 15-17 (Compl. ¶42).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The complaint identifies two categories of accused products:
- ’087 Accused BC Chargers: Transcend USB 3.0 4-Port Hub TS-HUB3K and the Transcend HUB 6 in 1 Hub, which are alleged to comply with the USB Battery Charging (BC) 1.2 specification (Compl. ¶18).
- ’087 Accused PD Chargers: Transcend HUB 6 in 1 Hub, Type C (TS-HUB5C), which is alleged to comply with the USB Power Delivery (PD) specification (Compl. ¶42).
Functionality and Market Context
- The accused instrumentalities are USB hubs designed to provide both data connectivity and power to portable electronic devices (Compl. ¶¶20, 43). Their functionality is alleged to be governed by established industry standards (USB BC 1.2 and USB PD), which define specific electrical signaling protocols for identifying charger capabilities and negotiating power levels between a power source and a device (Compl. ¶¶20, 65). The complaint includes a screenshot from a retail website for the TS-HUB3K, which expressly states the product "Supports USB Battery Charging specification v1.2" (Compl. p. 7). A marketing image for the TS-HUB5C similarly advertises "USB Power Delivery for 60W pass-through charging" (Compl. p. 68).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
- Claim Chart Summary: The complaint’s infringement theory for the "BC Chargers" maps the elements of claim 1 of the ’087 Patent to the technical operation of the USB BC 1.2 standard.
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| A power supply system comprising: power circuitry configured to provide direct current power; | The accused USB hubs contain power circuitry that provides DC power to connected devices. | ¶20 | col. 3:50-54 |
| and 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 hub's data circuitry allegedly uses the Primary Detection method from the USB BC 1.2 standard. The D+ signal from the portable device is the "first signal," and the resulting voltage on the D- pin (after being shorted to D+ through a resistor in the hub) is the "second signal." | ¶22 | col. 3:32-35 |
| the connector comprising a first conductor, a second conductor, a third conductor, and a fourth conductor... | The USB connector's VBUS pin is the first conductor, the GND pin is the second conductor, the D+ pin is the third conductor, and the D- pin is the fourth conductor. | ¶22 | col. 3:28-32 |
| transfer, via the third conductor, the first signal from the portable electronic device to the data circuitry, | The D+ signal is transferred from the portable device to the hub's data circuitry via the D+ pin. | ¶25 | col. 5:14-16 |
| and transfer, via the fourth conductor, the second signal from the data circuitry to the portable electronic device, | The D- signal is transferred from the hub's data circuitry to the portable device via the D- pin. The complaint notes this element may require the doctrine of equivalents. | ¶26 | col. 5:16-19 |
| wherein the data circuitry is further configured...to provide the second signal having a parament level that is usable by the portable electronic device in connection with control of charging... | The voltage level ("parameter level") of the D- signal informs the portable device that it is connected to a charging port, allowing it to draw a higher current to charge its battery. | ¶27 | col. 5:20-25 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: The infringement case appears to depend on whether the patent's generic claim terms (e.g., "first signal," "data circuitry") can be construed to read on the specific, standardized protocols of USB BC 1.2 and USB PD. The patent itself does not mention USB or its associated terminology (VBUS, D+, D-). A central question will be whether the inventor intended to cover, and the claims can be interpreted to encompass, these industry-standard implementations.
- Technical Questions: The complaint preemptively raises a doctrine of equivalents argument for the "second signal" element, suggesting a potential weakness in its literal infringement theory (Compl. ¶26, ¶28). The dispute will likely focus on whether the accused hub "provides" the D- signal from its "data circuitry." The defendant may argue that the hub’s circuitry merely creates a condition (shorting D+ to D- via a resistor) that allows the portable device to detect a modified version of its own D+ signal, rather than the hub actively generating and providing a "second signal" as required by the claim. The complaint uses a technical diagram from the USB BC 1.2 specification to illustrate this D+/D- interaction (Compl. p. 11, Fig. 3-6).
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "data circuitry configured...to provide a second signal to be sent to the portable electronic device"
Context and Importance: This term is the crux of the infringement dispute. The definition will determine whether the accused hub's act of shorting the D+ and D- data lines—which creates a detectable voltage on D- for the portable device—constitutes "providing a second signal." Practitioners may focus on whether "provide" requires active generation of a new signal or if passively enabling a detectable condition is sufficient.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent specification is written in general terms, describing circuitry that provides an "output signal...in coordination with the input signal" (’087 Patent, Abstract). This broad language could support an interpretation where any responsive, informative signal enabled by the data circuitry qualifies.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim requires the signal to be provided from the data circuitry. Further, patent figures depict distinct "Control circuitry" blocks (e.g., Fig. 3, 370), which could be argued to imply circuitry that actively generates and transmits a signal, rather than passively modifying one originating from the portable device.
The Term: "parameter level"
Context and Importance: Plaintiff's theory identifies the voltage on the D- pin as the claimed "parameter level." The viability of this theory depends on whether a voltage that primarily indicates the type of port (charging vs. standard) satisfies this limitation.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes using a signal to "set the magnitude of V.sub.out and limit the amount of current," which is consistent with the function of the USB BC 1.2 protocol (’087 Patent, col. 3:11-13). A voltage level is a fundamental electrical parameter.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification also discusses more complex "analog components" providing "voltage programming and current programming voltages" and "digital signal[s]" like a "stream of bits" (’087 Patent, col. 3:16-18; Compl. ¶14). A defendant might argue these embodiments suggest the "parameter level" must be a more specific, programmable value rather than a simple voltage detection that distinguishes between port types.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement. The factual basis is that Defendant advertises and sells the accused hubs with knowledge that customers will use them in an infringing manner (i.e., by connecting them to portable devices for charging) and provides instructions for such use (Compl. ¶¶50-52).
- Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on Defendant’s continued sale of the accused products after receiving a pre-suit notice letter from Plaintiff on July 21, 2022, which allegedly included claim charts demonstrating infringement (Compl. ¶53).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of claim scope and construction: Can the generic terminology of the ’087 patent, which describes a two-way signaling concept for power adapters, be construed to cover the specific, standardized signaling protocols defined in the public USB Battery Charging 1.2 and USB Power Delivery specifications, which were developed and adopted by a broad industry consortium?
- A key infringement question will be one of technical operation and legal equivalence: Does an accused charger that shorts the D+ and D- lines "provide a second signal from the data circuitry," as the claim requires? The case may turn on whether this is a literal infringement or, as the complaint anticipates, requires proving that this passive electrical modification performs the same function, in the same way, to achieve the same result as the claimed invention.