Comarco Wireless Systems v. Walgreens: USB Power Patent Case Ends in Voluntary Dismissal
Que souhaitez-vous faire ensuite ?
Choisissez votre parcours en fonction de vos besoins actuels :
📋 Résumé de l'affaire
| Nom de l'affaire | Comarco Wireless Systems, LLC v. Walgreen, Co. |
| Numéro de dossier | 4:23-cv-01111 (E.D. Texas) |
| Tribunal | Tribunal fédéral de première instance pour le district Est du Texas |
| Durée | Dec 2023 – Mar 2024 88 days |
| Résultat | Plaintiff Withdrawal — Dismissed with Prejudice |
| Brevets en cause | |
| Produits incriminés | USB power supply comprising power circuitry to provide DC power to portable electronic devices |
Aperçu du dossier
Les parties
⚖️ Demandeur
Patent-holding entity with an established IP portfolio in wireless power and charging technology.
🛡️ Défendeur
National retail pharmacy chain, likely as a distributor or retailer of accused USB power supply products.
Brevets en cause
This case involved three U.S. patents covering DC power delivery technology for portable electronic devices. These patents are registered with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) and are relevant to the USB power supply and charging space.
- • US10855087B1 — directed to USB power supply circuitry
- • US10951042B2 — covering DC power delivery architecture
- • US9413187B2 — foundational patent in the Comarco charging technology portfolio
Designing a new USB power supply product?
Check if your power delivery design might infringe these or related patents before launch.
Le verdict et l'analyse juridique
Résultat
Comarco Wireless Systems filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal with Prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1). The dismissal was entered with prejudice, meaning Comarco is permanently barred from re-asserting these same claims against Walgreens on the same patents. No damages were awarded and no injunctive relief was granted.
Principales questions juridiques
The case never advanced beyond initial filing, resolving before Walgreens filed an answer or a motion for summary judgment. The “with prejudice” designation, paired with mutual cost-bearing, suggests either a confidential settlement or licensing agreement between the parties, or a strategic reassessment by Comarco of claim viability and litigation costs before formal adversarial proceedings commenced.
Analyse de la liberté d'exploitation (FTO)
This case highlights critical IP risks in USB power supply design. Choose your next step:
📋 Comprendre l'impact de cette affaire
Découvrez les risques et les implications spécifiques liés à ce litige.
- Voir tous les brevets liés à ce domaine technologique
- See which companies are most active in USB power patents
- Comprendre les modèles d'interprétation des revendications
🔍 Vérifier les risques liés à mon produit
Effectuez une analyse FTO complète pour votre propre technologie ou produit.
- Saisissez la description de votre produit ou ses caractéristiques techniques.
- L'IA identifie les brevets susceptibles de constituer un obstacle
- Obtenir un rapport d'évaluation des risques exploitable
Zone à haut risque
USB power supply circuitry
150+ Related Patents
In USB charging space
Options de contournement
Disponible pour de nombreuses réclamations
✅ Points clés à retenir
Voluntary dismissal with prejudice under FRCP 41(a)(1) requires no court order if filed before defendant’s answer — a powerful and clean exit mechanism.
Rechercher la jurisprudence connexe →Eastern District of Texas continues to attract USB technology patent assertions, highlighting its strategic importance for plaintiffs.
Explorer les analyses judiciaires →Foire aux questions
Three U.S. patents: US10855087B1, US10951042B2, and US9413187B2 — all directed to USB power supply circuitry providing DC power to portable electronic devices.
Plaintiff Comarco filed a voluntary dismissal under FRCP 41(a)(1) before Walgreens answered. The with-prejudice designation permanently bars Comarco from reasserting these claims against Walgreens, suggesting either a negotiated resolution or strategic withdrawal.
It reinforces the viability of retailer-targeted assertions in this technology space and highlights early-stage resolution as a common outcome when patent holders use litigation as licensing leverage.
Prêt à renforcer votre stratégie en matière de brevets ?
Rejoignez plus de 18 000 professionnels de la propriété intellectuelle qui utilisent PatSnap Eureka pour effectuer des recherches d'antériorité, rédiger des brevets et analyser le paysage concurrentiel avec une précision optimisée par l'IA.
Références
- PACER — U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas Case 4:23-cv-01111
- Office américain des brevets et des marques — Centre des brevets
- World Intellectual Property Organization — Patents & Technology
- Cornell Legal Information Institute — Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)
- PatSnap — Solutions de veille en matière de propriété intellectuelle pour les cabinets d'avocats
This article details the Comarco Wireless Systems v. Walgreen Co. case (4:23-cv-01111). All case information is drawn from publicly available court records. For platform capabilities, visit PatSnap.