Comarco Wireless Systems LLC v. Lowe's Companies Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Comarco Wireless Systems LLC (Texas)
  • Defendant: Lowe’s Companies, Inc. (North Carolina)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Direction IP Law
• Case Identification: 4:24-cv-00299, E.D. Tex., 04/05/2024
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant maintains regular and established places of business within the Eastern District of Texas.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s sale of various USB charging products, including power banks, wall chargers, and docking stations, infringes three patents related to power supply systems that intelligently communicate with portable electronic devices to ensure appropriate charging levels.
• Technical Context: The technology addresses the need for safe and efficient charging of portable electronics from a variety of power sources by enabling a "handshake" protocol between the charger and the device to determine the correct power delivery.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff sent a notice letter to Defendant on August 1, 2023, identifying the patents-in-suit and providing claim charts demonstrating infringement, which forms the basis for Plaintiff’s allegations of willful and indirect infringement.

Case Timeline

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"

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The proliferation of portable electronic devices and various power sources (e.g., car outlets, wall sockets) created a risk of power mismatches, which could result in a failure to charge, damage to the device, or battery overheating and fire (Compl. ¶10).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is an external power supply system that engages in a "handshake" with a portable electronic device to determine the appropriate power level. The system uses a four-conductor connection to transfer DC power and ground, and to exchange signals between the power supply's data circuitry and the portable device, with the power supply sending back an analog signal that indicates its potential power output level (’187 Patent, Abstract; Compl. ¶11).
• Technical Importance: This approach allows a single power adapter to safely charge different devices by intelligently communicating its power capabilities, mitigating the risks associated with universal but non-standardized power sources (Compl. ¶10-11).

Key Claims at a Glance

• Independent claim 8 is asserted (Compl. ¶17).
• Essential elements of claim 8 include:
  • 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 portable device and provide a second signal to it.
  • A connector on a cable end with four conductors for transferring DC power, ground, the first signal, and the second signal.
  • The data circuitry provides the second signal in response to the first, with the second signal being an analog signal with a parameter level indicating the power supply's potential power output.
• The complaint also asserts dependent claim 9 (Compl. ¶17).

U.S. Patent No. 10,855,087 - "Power Supply Systems"

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: As with the related ’187 Patent, this invention addresses the problem of safely charging portable devices from various DC power sources by preventing dangerous power mismatches (Compl. ¶10).
• The Patented Solution: The patent describes a power supply system with power and data circuitry that communicates with a portable electronic device over a four-conductor interface. The data circuitry receives a "first signal" from the portable device and, in response, provides a "second signal" having a "parameter level" that the portable device can use to control the charging of its rechargeable battery based on the power being supplied (’087 Patent, Abstract; col. 1:10-24).
• Technical Importance: This system enables dynamic control over the charging process based on communication between the power source and the device, enhancing safety and efficiency across different charging standards (Compl. ¶11).

Key Claims at a Glance

• Independent claims 1, 5, 11, and 15 are asserted (Compl. ¶44).
• Essential elements of claim 1 include:
  • A power supply system with power circuitry and data circuitry.
  • The data circuitry is configured to receive a first signal originating from a portable device and to provide a second signal to it.
  • The circuitry is coupled to the device via a connector with four conductors for transferring DC power, ground, the first signal, and the second signal.
  • The second signal has a parameter level usable by the portable device to control charging based on the supplied DC power.
• The complaint also asserts dependent claims 6-7 and 16-17 (Compl. ¶44).

U.S. Patent No. 10,951,042 - "Power Supply Systems"

Technology Synopsis

This patent claims the invention from the perspective of the portable electronic device itself, rather than the external power supply. It describes a portable device with a rechargeable battery, power circuitry to receive DC power, and data circuitry to provide a first signal to and receive a second signal from a power supply to control charging (’042 Patent, Abstract). The underlying technical problem and solution of a "handshake" to determine appropriate power levels remain the same (Compl. ¶10-11).

Asserted Claims

Independent claims 1, 5, 11, and 15 are asserted (Compl. ¶81).

Accused Features

The complaint accuses portable power banks that contain rechargeable batteries, such as the Just Wireless Portable Power Bank and the DEWALT Type C USB A Power Bank 2, of infringing the ’042 Patent (Compl. ¶81).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

A wide range of power supply and charging products sold by Defendant Lowe’s Companies, Inc., including USB-C dongles, multi-stream mobile stations, portable power banks, wall outlet chargers, car chargers, and decorator outlets with integrated USB ports (Compl. ¶17, ¶44, ¶81). The products are from various manufacturers, including Mobile Pixels, Urban Factory, Just Wireless, DEWALT, Eaton, and others.

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges that the accused products are compliant with industry standards for charging, including USB Battery Charging (BC) 1.2, USB Power Delivery (PD), and/or Qualcomm Quick Charge (QC) (Compl. ¶19, ¶25, ¶32, ¶46).
• The infringement theories are based on the technical operation of these standards. For example, the complaint alleges that under the USB BC 1.2 "Primary Detection" method, a portable device sends a voltage on the D+ data line (the "first signal") to the charger, which then shorts the D+ and D- lines through a resistor, creating a voltage on the D- line (the "second signal") that informs the device it is connected to a dedicated charging port (Compl. ¶21, ¶48, ¶51-52). A diagram from the USB Battery Charging Specification is included to illustrate this process (Compl. p. 32).
• These products represent common consumer electronic accessories used for charging a wide array of portable devices like smartphones, tablets, and laptops.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

9,413,187 Patent Infringement Allegations

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: The complaint appears to anticipate a dispute over whether the D- signal is truly "provided" by the charger's data circuitry, as it is a modification of the D+ signal originating from the device. The complaint explicitly states that if this is not found to be literal infringement, it constitutes infringement under the doctrine of equivalents (Compl. ¶21). This raises the question: Does a signal that is a modified version of the "first signal" meet the limitation of a "second signal" provided by the data circuitry?
  • Technical Questions: A central question may be whether the voltage on the D- line in the USB BC 1.2 protocol functions as an "analog signal having a parameter level to indicate... the potential power output level." The defense may argue that this is a binary detection mechanism (i.e., identifying the presence of a dedicated charging port) rather than an analog signal that communicates a variable power level as contemplated by the patent.

10,855,087 Patent Infringement Allegations

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: Similar to the ’187 Patent, a potential dispute exists over whether the USB BC 1.2 D+/D- interaction meets the claim language of receiving a "first signal" and providing a distinct "second signal." The complaint again relies on an equivalence argument as a fallback position (Compl. ¶48).
  • Technical Questions: The analysis may focus on whether the D- signal's voltage level is truly a "parameter level that is usable... in connection with control of charging" in the manner claimed. The question will be whether simply identifying a port type constitutes the claimed method of control, or if the patent requires communication of a more specific power characteristic.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "a first signal originating from the portable electronic device" (’187 Patent, cl. 8) / "a first signal that originates from a portable electronic device" (’087 Patent, cl. 1)

• Context and Importance: This term's construction is critical because the complaint's infringement theory maps it to the D+ signal in the USB BC 1.2 standard. However, the complaint alleges this D+ signal is then modified by the charger to create the D- "second signal." Practitioners may focus on this term to dispute whether the accused system truly involves two separate signals as claimed, or merely one signal that is altered.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the system in general terms as enabling communication between the device and the power source, which could support interpreting this as the initial part of a two-way communication protocol, regardless of how the return signal is generated (’187 Patent, col. 2:48-56).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim language recites data circuitry that both "receive[s] a first signal" and "provide[s] a second signal," which may suggest two distinct actions rather than a single action of modifying the first signal. Specific embodiments in the patent might show a microprocessor in the charger generating a new signal from scratch, rather than passively modifying one from the device.

• The Term: "an analog signal having a parameter level to indicate... the potential power output level" (’187 Patent, cl. 8) / "a parament [sic] level that is usable... in connection with control of charging a rechargeable battery" (’087 Patent, cl. 1)

• Context and Importance: The viability of the infringement allegation hinges on this term. The complaint alleges that detecting the voltage of the D- signal to identify a port type meets this limitation. Practitioners may focus on this term to argue that the USB BC 1.2 standard provides a binary-like indication (e.g., charging port vs. standard port), not a "parameter level" that communicates a specific or variable "power output level" as the patent may require.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification may discuss the signal as being "usable... in connection with control of charging," which could be read broadly to include any signal that informs the device's charging logic, including a signal that simply enables full-rate charging (’087 Patent, col. 10:63-11:28).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The term "parameter level" and the phrase "indicate... the potential power output level" in the ’187 Patent suggest a signal that conveys quantitative information about the power supply's capability (e.g., 5W, 10W, 15W), not just a qualitative status (e.g., "is a charger"). The abstract of the ’187 Patent reinforces this interpretation.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement for all three patents. It asserts that Defendant's advertising, sales, and instructions encourage customers to use the accused products in an infringing manner. Knowledge is alleged based on a notice letter sent August 1, 2023 (Compl. ¶39-41, ¶76-78, ¶105-107).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement for all three patents, asserting that Defendant had actual knowledge of the patents and the alleged infringement from at least the date it received the August 1, 2023 notice letter, but continued its allegedly infringing activities despite an unjustifiably high risk of infringement (Compl. ¶42, ¶79, ¶108).

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

• A core issue will be one of technical and definitional mapping: Does the USB Battery Charging 1.2 standard's method of using D+ and D- lines for port detection meet the patent claims' requirements for a "first signal" originating from the portable device and a separate "second signal" provided by the power supply? The complaint's pre-emptive argument for infringement under the doctrine of equivalents suggests this will be a central point of contention.
• A key claim construction question will be one of functional scope: Can the term "parameter level" be construed to cover a signal that merely identifies a type of charging port, or does the intrinsic evidence require the signal to communicate a more specific, quantitative power level? The outcome of this construction may determine whether the accused products, which implement standard USB protocols, fall within the scope of the claims.
• A third issue will relate to damages and willfulness: Assuming infringement is found, the allegation that Defendant continued selling the accused products for over eight months after receiving a detailed notice letter with claim charts will be central to Plaintiff's arguments for enhanced damages.