Comarco Wireless v. Lowe’s: USB Charging Patent Suit Dismissed With Prejudice
Comarco Wireless Systems LLC sued Lowe’s Companies over three USB charging and power delivery patents, targeting eight branded products sold in Lowe’s stores. The case was voluntarily dismissed with prejudice after 284 days, with each party bearing its own legal costs — a resolution that forecloses any refiling of the same claims.
USB charging patent suit ends before Lowe’s files an answer
On April 5, 2024, Comarco Wireless Systems LLC filed suit against Lowe’s Companies Inc. in the Eastern District of Texas (Case No. 4:24-cv-00299), asserting infringement of three US patents: US10855087B1, US10951042B2, and US9413187B2. The asserted patents relate to USB charging and power delivery technology. The accused products included DEWALT USB chargers and power banks, Just Wireless portable power banks, a Naztech multi-connector car charger, and two Urban Factory USB-C docking stations sold through Lowe’s retail channels.
On January 14, 2025 — 284 days after filing — Comarco filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal with Prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1), which permits a plaintiff to dismiss without a court order before the defendant serves an answer or motion for summary judgment. The dismissal was entered with prejudice, meaning Comarco permanently relinquished these specific claims against Lowe’s. Each party agreed to bear its own legal costs, suggesting no monetary settlement was publicly recorded.
The timing is notable: the dismissal occurred before Lowe’s filed any responsive pleading, consistent with either a private settlement, a licensing resolution, or a strategic decision by Comarco to withdraw. The with-prejudice designation is commercially significant — unlike a without-prejudice dismissal, it extinguishes Comarco’s right to refile these patent claims against Lowe’s on these accused products. The public record does not disclose whether any license, payment, or other consideration passed between the parties.
Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 284 days
284 days — resolved before trial, consistent with pre-discovery settlement or strategic withdrawal
Dismissed with prejudice: what Rule 41(a)(1) means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1) dismissal: plaintiff’s right, permanent consequence
Under FRCP 41(a)(1), a plaintiff may voluntarily dismiss an action without court approval before the defendant serves an answer or summary judgment motion. Here, Comarco invoked this right to dismiss with prejudice — a self-imposed, permanent bar. The court issued no merits ruling; the case ended entirely by plaintiff’s election, foreclosing any future refiling of these claims against Lowe’s on the same accused products.
No court merits rulingWith prejudice: Comarco cannot refile these claims against Lowe’s
A dismissal with prejudice operates as a final adjudication on the merits under res judicata principles — Comarco is permanently barred from asserting US10855087B1, US10951042B2, and US9413187B2 against Lowe’s for the same accused products. This is categorically different from a without-prejudice dismissal, which would preserve the right to refile. The public record does not disclose whether a private settlement or license agreement accompanied this filing.
Claims permanently extinguishedLowe’s exits without a ruling — and without bearing legal costs
Lowe’s secured dismissal before filing any responsive pleading, avoiding litigation on the merits entirely. The cost-bearing arrangement — each party pays its own fees — means Lowe’s received no fee award despite the early dismissal. The with-prejudice nature provides Lowe’s with lasting protection: Comarco cannot reassert the same patents against the same accused products in a future action.
No cost liability for Lowe’sOther USB charging retailers remain exposed to the same patent portfolio
The dismissal resolves only Comarco’s claims against Lowe’s. US10855087B1, US10951042B2, and US9413187B2 remain in force and may be asserted against other retailers or manufacturers selling comparable USB charging and power delivery products. Companies distributing DEWALT, Just Wireless, Naztech, or Urban Factory USB products through other channels should treat this case as a signal to evaluate their own FTO exposure against Comarco’s portfolio.
Portfolio still active vs. othersFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Comarco Wireless Systems, LLC | Company | Patent licensing entity — holder of US10855087B1, US10951042B2, and US9413187B2 (USB charging IP)Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Lowe’s Companies, Inc. | Company | Lowe’s Companies Inc. — major US home improvement retailer accused of selling infringing USB charging productsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | David R. Bennett, Esq., | Attorney | Counsel for Comarco Wireless Systems, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | David R. Bennett | Law Firm | Representing Comarco Wireless Systems, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Rex A. Mann | Attorney | Counsel for Lowe’s Companies, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Winston Strawn LLP (Chicago) | Law Firm | Representing Lowe’s Companies, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Sean D. Jordan | Judge | Texas Eastern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The dismissal notice invokes Rule 41(a)(1) precisely and includes the with-prejudice designation explicitly — this language is legally operative, not merely procedural. The phrase ‘each party to bear its own attorneys’ fees, costs, and expenses’ suggests the parties reached agreement on exit terms without court involvement. No merits finding was made, so the patents’ validity and scope are entirely unaddressed by this proceeding. The with-prejudice term, however, constitutes a final disposition as to these parties and these accused products.
US10855087B1, US10951042B2 & US9413187B2 — USB Charging & Power Delivery Patents
The three patents asserted in this case — US10855087B1 (App. No. US16/991295), US10951042B2 (App. No. US17/077699), and US9413187B2 (App. No. US13/943453) — cover technology in the USB charging and power delivery domain. US9413187B2, with the earliest application number, suggests foundational coverage, while the ‘087 and ‘042 patents appear to be continuation-family members reflecting more recent claim refinements. Together, the portfolio spans car chargers, portable power banks, wall outlet chargers, and USB-C docking stations with high-wattage power delivery.
The commercial breadth of the accused product set — eight products from four distinct brands (DEWALT, Just Wireless, Naztech, Urban Factory) sold through a single major retailer — suggests the asserted claims are drafted broadly enough to read on mainstream USB charging hardware from multiple manufacturers. For any company designing, importing, or retailing USB-C car chargers, power banks, or multi-display docking stations with power delivery, this portfolio represents a live enforcement risk. The continued validity of all three patents after this case’s dismissal reinforces the need for FTO analysis.
Should your product team run an FTO against US10855087B1 and related patents?
If your company designs, manufactures, imports, or retails USB-C chargers, portable power banks, multi-port wall chargers, or USB-C docking stations with power delivery functionality, this patent family warrants direct FTO scrutiny. The accused products in this case span a wide commercial range — from a 15,000mAh power bank to a 100W USB-C docking station — indicating broad claim coverage. Retailers who stock third-party USB charging accessories are particularly exposed given Comarco’s demonstrated willingness to target the distribution channel rather than only the manufacturer.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map claim scope across US10855087B1, US10951042B2, and US9413187B2 against your specific product specifications, flagging independent claims most likely to read on USB power management architectures. Eureka can also surface related Comarco continuation applications, identify prior art relevant to validity challenges, and monitor for new filings that add to this portfolio — giving R&D and legal teams the intelligence needed before a product launch or retail distribution agreement.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US10855087B1 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar USB charging and power delivery patent cases in E.D. Texas
Cases involving USB charging, power delivery, and consumer electronics patent enforcement in the Eastern District of Texas, including comparable Rule 41 dismissals.
What this case signals for the USB charging and power delivery IP landscape
A pre-answer dismissal with prejudice in the Eastern District of Texas raises questions about licensing strategy, portfolio monetisation, and retailer exposure.
Pre-answer dismissals in E.D. Tex. often signal private resolution
When a plaintiff voluntarily dismisses with prejudice before the defendant files any pleading, it typically signals that the dispute was resolved privately — whether by license, payment, or business agreement. The mutual cost-bearing term is consistent with a negotiated exit rather than a unilateral withdrawal. Retailers and distributors of USB charging products should note that Comarco’s claims did not fail on the merits.
Three active patents — the portfolio threat extends beyond Lowe’s
All three asserted patents remain valid and enforceable. US10855087B1, US10951042B2, and US9413187B2 cover USB charging and power delivery technology broadly applicable to consumer electronics retail. Other companies distributing similar products — USB-C car chargers, multi-port power banks, docking stations with power delivery — should assess their exposure to this portfolio before Comarco files a follow-on action.
Comarco v Lowe’s — key questions answered
Comarco Wireless Systems LLC filed a patent infringement suit against Lowe’s in the Eastern District of Texas on April 5, 2024, asserting three USB charging patents (US10855087B1, US10951042B2, US9413187B2) against eight Lowe’s products. The case was voluntarily dismissed with prejudice on January 14, 2025, under FRCP 41(a)(1), with each party bearing its own costs. No merits ruling was issued.
The with-prejudice dismissal bars Comarco from reasserting US10855087B1, US10951042B2, and US9413187B2 against Lowe’s for the same accused products. However, the patents themselves remain valid and enforceable against all other parties. Comarco retains full rights to assert this portfolio against other retailers, distributors, and manufacturers of comparable USB charging products.
Eight products were accused: DEWALT Type C USB-A Car Charger 4, DEWALT Type C USB-A Power Bank 2, DEWALT Type C USB-A Wall Outlet Charger 2, Just Wireless 20,000mAh Power Bank, Just Wireless 15,000mAh Portable Power Bank, Naztech Micro USB/USB-C/Lightning Car Charger, and two Urban Factory HUBEE USB-C docking stations with 100W power delivery. All were sold through Lowe’s retail stores.
The notice of dismissal explicitly states each party bears its own attorneys’ fees, costs, and expenses. This is a standard term in negotiated exits under Rule 41(a)(1) and does not reflect a court fee-shifting order. It suggests the parties agreed on this allocation, which is consistent with — though does not confirm — a private settlement or licensing arrangement reached before any responsive pleading was filed.
Yes. US10855087B1, US10951042B2, and US9413187B2 remain in force. The dismissal applies only to claims against Lowe’s for the eight specifically named products. Any other retailer, distributor, or manufacturer selling USB-C chargers, power banks, car chargers, or USB-C docking stations with power delivery may face assertion of the same patents. Companies in this product category should consider running an FTO analysis against this portfolio.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.