Comarco v. Hewlett-Packard: USB Power Delivery Patent Suit Dismissed With Prejudice
Comarco Wireless Systems, LLC filed suit against Hewlett-Packard in the Eastern District of Texas, asserting three USB Power Delivery patents against over 20 HP EliteBook and ZBook laptop and mobile workstation models. The case closed after just 109 days when Comarco voluntarily dismissed all claims with prejudice, with each party bearing its own costs.
USB Power Delivery patent claims against HP extinguished at plaintiff’s own motion
On April 18, 2025, Comarco Wireless Systems, LLC filed an infringement action against Hewlett-Packard, Co. in the Eastern District of Texas (Case No. 2:25-cv-00420), asserting three patents — US10855087B1, US10951042B2, and US9413187B2 — directed at USB Power Delivery technology. The accused products span more than 20 HP EliteBook, ProBook, ZBook, and ZBook Studio mobile workstation and notebook models compliant with the USB Power Delivery Specification.
On August 5, 2025, just 109 days after filing, Comarco filed Notices of Dismissal voluntarily dismissing both the lead case and member case with prejudice. The court accepted the notices pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) and formally dismissed all pending claims with prejudice. Each party was ordered to bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees — meaning no prevailing-party fee award was entered.
The speed of resolution — 109 days, prior to any substantive merits ruling — is consistent with a negotiated resolution or a strategic decision by Comarco to discontinue the litigation. Because dismissal was with prejudice, Comarco cannot re-file the same claims against HP on these patents. The precise commercial terms, if any, underlying the dismissal remain undisclosed in the public record.
Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 109 days
109 days — resolved well before the typical E.D. Texas district court trial schedule
Dismissed with prejudice: what the Rule 41 order means for both parties
Rule 41 dismissal with prejudice permanently bars re-filing
Under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), a plaintiff may voluntarily dismiss before the defendant serves an answer or motion for summary judgment. Here, Comarco filed Notices of Dismissal that expressly stated dismissal WITH PREJUDICE. The court accepted and acknowledged the notices, meaning Comarco is permanently barred from asserting the same three USB Power Delivery patents against HP based on the same claims. This is the most final outcome short of a merits judgment.
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) — with prejudiceComarco loses the right to re-assert these patents against HP
By voluntarily dismissing with prejudice, Comarco permanently surrendered its infringement claims against HP on US10855087B1, US10951042B2, and US9413187B2. There is no damages award, no injunction, and no public indication of a settlement payment. The with-prejudice designation is significant — it forecloses any future enforcement of these patents against HP on the same accused products and conduct, a meaningful concession for a patent licensing entity.
Claims extinguished — no re-filingHP exits the litigation without a merits ruling — but pays its own costs
HP obtains a permanent resolution of the asserted claims without any adverse merits finding. The with-prejudice dismissal provides a strong litigation shield against Comarco reasserting these specific patents against the accused EliteBook and ZBook product lines. However, the cost-bearing order means HP cannot recover its legal fees incurred over the 109-day proceeding — a common outcome where no exceptional-case finding was sought or granted.
Clean exit — no fee recoveryUSB Power Delivery patent exposure remains live for other PC makers
While HP is shielded from these specific claims, Comarco’s three USB Power Delivery patents — US10855087B1, US10951042B2, and US9413187B2 — remain in force and have not been invalidated. Other PC, laptop, and mobile device manufacturers whose products comply with the USB Power Delivery Specification should consider their exposure. The rapid, pre-answer dismissal suggests the litigation landscape around these patents may still be evolving.
Patents remain valid — industry risk persistsFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Comarco Wireless Systems, LLC | Company | Wireless technology licensing entity — holder of USB Power Delivery patents US10855087B1, US10951042B2, and US9413187B2Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Hewlett-Parkard, Co. | Company | Hewlett-Packard, Co. — global PC and mobile workstation manufacturer; maker of accused EliteBook and ZBook product linesSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | David R. Bennett | Attorney | Counsel for Comarco Wireless Systems, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Steven Kalberg | Attorney | Counsel for Comarco Wireless Systems, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | Texas Eastern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court’s order accepts Comarco’s Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) notices and formally enters dismissal with prejudice across both the lead and member cases. The with-prejudice designation — expressly stated in the notices and confirmed by the court — is legally determinative: it carries res judicata effect, permanently extinguishing Comarco’s infringement claims against HP on these patents. The denial of all other pending relief as moot, and the symmetric cost-bearing order, confirm no substantive relief was granted to either party. No merits findings were made on infringement, validity, or claim construction.
US10855087B1, US10951042B2 & US9413187B2 — USB Power Delivery charging technology
The three asserted patents — US10855087B1, US10951042B2, and US9413187B2 — relate to USB Power Delivery (USB-PD) technology, covering charging control, power negotiation, and delivery interface methods used in modern laptops and mobile workstations. Their application numbers (US16/991295, US17/077699, US13/943453) span filings from 2013 through 2020, suggesting the portfolio tracks multiple generations of the USB-PD specification. These patents were asserted against HP devices that explicitly comply with the USB Power Delivery Specification.
USB Power Delivery is now a ubiquitous standard embedded in virtually all modern notebook PCs, mobile workstations, docking stations, and USB-C accessories. A patent portfolio covering core USB-PD methods poses a structural licensing risk to any OEM, ODM, or component supplier whose products implement the specification. The dismissal of this case does not affect the validity or enforceability of these patents against third parties, making them a live concern for the broader PC and consumer electronics ecosystem.
Should your team run an FTO against US10855087B1, US10951042B2, and US9413187B2?
If your organisation designs, manufactures, or distributes USB-C devices, laptops, docking stations, charging adapters, or any product implementing the USB Power Delivery Specification, these three Comarco patents warrant a proactive freedom-to-operate review. The claims were asserted against a broad range of HP commercial notebook and workstation SKUs — the accused product scope suggests the patents may be drafted broadly enough to cover standard USB-PD implementations across the industry.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map all three patent numbers against your product specifications, identify claim elements most likely to read on USB-PD-compliant implementations, surface prior art relevant to validity challenges, and flag any continuation or divisional applications in Comarco’s portfolio that may extend risk. Running this analysis now — before a demand letter or complaint arrives — gives your IP and product teams maximum time to assess design-around options or licensing exposure.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US10855087B1 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar USB Power Delivery and charging patent cases in E.D. Texas
Explore related USB Power Delivery and charging technology infringement actions filed in the Eastern District of Texas against PC and mobile device manufacturers.
What this case signals for the USB Power Delivery patent licensing landscape
A 109-day with-prejudice dismissal with no fee award raises questions about strategy, value, and what comes next for these three patents.
With-prejudice dismissal signals de-risked HP exposure — not sector-wide safety
HP benefits from a permanent bar on these specific claims, but the patents are not invalidated. Any company manufacturing or selling USB-PD-compliant laptops, docking stations, or charging accessories remains potentially exposed. The absence of an invalidity ruling means Comarco — or any future assignee — retains enforcement leverage against the broader market.
Pre-answer dismissal timeline compresses litigation risk window for defendants
The case closed before HP even filed an answer. This pattern — filing, then quickly withdrawing — can indicate a licensing negotiation concluded off-docket, a portfolio revaluation, or a decision to pursue different targets. IP teams at USB-PD device manufacturers should monitor Comarco’s filing activity in E.D. Texas for follow-on actions against other defendants.
Comarco v Hewlett-Parkard — key questions answered
The case was dismissed with prejudice. Comarco Wireless Systems filed Notices of Dismissal expressly stating that both the lead case and member case were voluntarily dismissed with prejudice. The court accepted the notices under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) and entered formal dismissal with prejudice on August 5, 2025. This permanently bars Comarco from re-asserting the same claims against HP on these patents.
Comarco asserted three patents: US10855087B1 (application US16/991295), US10951042B2 (application US17/077699), and US9413187B2 (application US13/943453). All three relate to USB Power Delivery technology. The accused products included over 20 HP EliteBook, ProBook, ZBook, and ZBook Studio notebook and mobile workstation models compliant with the USB Power Delivery Specification.
The accused products include HP EliteBook 830 G8, EliteBook 840 G8, ZBook Firefly 14 G8, ProBook 440 G8, ProBook 450 G8, Pro x360 Fortis 11 G9, ProBook Fortis 14 G9, and multiple ZBook 14u, ZBook 15, ZBook 17, ZBook Studio, ZBook Create, and ZBook x2 mobile workstation generations — all cited as complying with the USB Power Delivery Specification.
The court’s dismissal order specified that each party is to bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees. No fee-shifting award was entered under 35 U.S.C. § 285 or otherwise. This is a common outcome in Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) dismissals where the case resolves before any exceptional-case determination is made.
Yes. The with-prejudice dismissal extinguishes Comarco’s claims only against HP on the accused products. The patents US10855087B1, US10951042B2, and US9413187B2 were not invalidated or held unenforceable. They remain in force and can be asserted against other defendants. Companies manufacturing or selling USB-PD-compliant devices should consider their own exposure and may wish to conduct a freedom-to-operate analysis.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.