Comarco Wireless Systems v. Staples: USB-C Charging Patent Suit Dismissed With Prejudice in 70 Days
Comarco Wireless Systems, LLC filed suit against Staples, Inc. in the Eastern District of Texas asserting three USB-C power delivery patents against a broad range of cellhelmet and accessory charger products. The case ended after just 70 days when Comarco voluntarily dismissed with prejudice — a terminal disposition that bars any refiling on the same claims.
USB-C patent assertion against Staples ends in swift, permanent voluntary dismissal
On 18 April 2025, Comarco Wireless Systems, LLC filed a patent infringement action against Staples, Inc. in the Eastern District of Texas (Case No. 2:25-cv-00421), asserting US10855087B1, US10951042B2, and US9413187B2 — a trio of patents covering USB-C power delivery charging technology. The accused products included a wide range of cellhelmet-branded wall and car chargers, dual-port charging blocks, docking stations, and USB-C accessory hubs sold through Staples retail and online channels.
The case closed on 27 June 2025 — just 70 days after filing — when Comarco filed a Notice of Dismissal voluntarily dismissing the case with prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i). The Eastern District court accepted and acknowledged the notice, formally dismissing all pending claims with prejudice and denying all remaining relief requests as moot. Critically, the order specified that each party would bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees, suggesting no monetary settlement terms were publicly disclosed.
A dismissal with prejudice at this early stage — before any substantive motion practice or claim construction — is commercially significant. It permanently bars Comarco from reasserting these three patents against Staples on the same accused products. The speed of resolution, combined with a cost-neutral order, is consistent with either a confidential licensing agreement or a strategic decision by Comarco to cease enforcement against this particular defendant. The public record does not disclose which of these scenarios drove the outcome.
Filing to Dismissed with Prejudice in 70 days
Resolved in 70 days — well below the E.D. Texas median for patent infringement cases
Dismissed with prejudice: what the voluntary termination means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) — plaintiff’s unilateral right to dismiss before defendant answers
Under FRCP Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), a plaintiff may voluntarily dismiss without a court order if the defendant has not yet served an answer or summary judgment motion. Here, Comarco exercised this right but chose to dismiss with prejudice — a permanent, self-imposed bar. The court accepted and acknowledged the notice rather than issuing an independent ruling, consistent with the ministerial nature of this procedural mechanism.
Voluntary — no merits adjudicationWith prejudice means these claims are gone permanently against Staples
A dismissal with prejudice operates as a final judgment on the merits for res judicata purposes. Comarco cannot refile suit against Staples asserting US10855087B1, US10951042B2, or US9413187B2 on the same accused products. This is a notably stronger concession than a without-prejudice dismissal, which would preserve Comarco’s right to refile. The public record does not disclose what, if anything, Staples provided in exchange for this permanent concession.
Bars refiling on same claimsStaples exits litigation early with a permanent patent-free runway on these products
Staples secured a with-prejudice dismissal without serving an answer, engaging in claim construction, or facing any merits ruling. The cost-neutral order means Staples did not recover attorneys’ fees, but it also faces no liability. With these three Comarco patents permanently extinguished as a threat to its current charger product lineup, Staples has meaningful commercial certainty — at least as to this plaintiff and these specific patent numbers.
No liability, no fee awardComarco’s USB-C portfolio remains active — other retailers and manufacturers remain at risk
While the Staples action is permanently closed, Comarco’s underlying patents — covering USB-C power delivery technology — remain in force and have not been adjudicated on validity or infringement. Other USB-C charger manufacturers, distributors, and retailers selling comparable cellhelmet-style or power delivery products should treat this case as a signal that Comarco is actively enforcing this portfolio, even if this particular defendant secured a swift exit.
Portfolio remains enforceableFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Comarco Wireless Systems, LLC | Company | USB-C power delivery patent licensing entity — holder of US10855087B1, US10951042B2, US9413187B2Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Staples, Inc. | Company | Staples, Inc. — major U.S. office supply and consumer electronics retailerSearch 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 ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Joshua Paul Davis | Attorney | Counsel for Staples, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Womble Bond Dickinson (US) LLP | Law Firm | Representing Staples, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | Texas Eastern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court’s order tracks the language of Comarco’s own Notice of Dismissal, accepting and acknowledging the voluntary dismissal with prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i). No merits determination was made on infringement, validity, or claim scope. The with-prejudice designation carries full preclusive effect: Comarco is permanently barred from reasserting these patents against Staples on these accused products. The denial of all remaining relief ‘as moot’ confirms no pending injunction, damages motion, or fee application survived the dismissal.
US10855087B1, US10951042B2 & US9413187B2 — USB-C Power Delivery Charging Technology
The three asserted patents — US10855087B1 (App. No. 16/991295), US10951042B2 (App. No. 17/077699), and US9413187B2 (App. No. 13/943453) — sit within Comarco’s portfolio directed at USB-C power delivery adapter and charging technology. The patents span both hardware configurations and methods for delivering power through USB-C connectors, covering wall charger and car charger form factors operating in the 20–25W delivery range — precisely the output tier now dominant in consumer smartphone and laptop charging accessories.
Comarco’s decision to assert all three patents simultaneously against a broad, multi-SKU accused product list suggests a portfolio licensing strategy targeting the commoditised USB-C charger accessory market. With USB-C now mandated across consumer devices in multiple jurisdictions, the commercial value of foundational power delivery patents has increased substantially. Companies in the consumer electronics accessories space — particularly those distributing through mass-market retail channels — face meaningful exposure if they have not conducted FTO analyses against this specific patent family.
Should you run an FTO analysis against US10855087B1, US10951042B2 & US9413187B2?
Any company manufacturing, importing, distributing, or retailing USB-C wall chargers, car chargers, or multi-port power delivery accessories in the 20–25W range should treat this case as a trigger for a formal FTO review. The accused products in this case are broadly representative of mainstream consumer USB-C charging accessories — if your product line overlaps with cellhelmet-style single or dual-port USB-C chargers, you are in the risk category Comarco is actively targeting.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map your specific product specifications against the claim sets of all three Comarco patents, identify prior art that could support an IPR challenge, and surface any related continuation or family members that may extend coverage. With no adverse claim construction on record from this case, the patent claims remain at their broadest — making early FTO analysis the most cost-effective risk management step available to USB-C accessory market participants.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US10855087B1 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Related USB-C power delivery patent cases in E.D. Texas and beyond
Browse patent infringement cases involving USB-C power delivery technology and charging adapter patents litigated in the Eastern District of Texas and comparable venues.
What this case signals for the USB-C power delivery IP landscape
A rapid with-prejudice dismissal in E.D. Texas suggests strategic recalibration — but Comarco’s three charging patents remain live enforcement tools.
E.D. Texas remains a preferred venue for USB-C patent assertions
Comarco chose the Eastern District of Texas — historically plaintiff-friendly and experienced with patent cases — for this three-patent USB-C charging suit. Companies distributing or selling USB-C power delivery accessories through major retailers should monitor E.D. Texas dockets for related Comarco filings and assess their exposure early.
With-prejudice dismissal at day 70 suggests a possible licensing resolution
The combination of a with-prejudice dismissal, cost-neutral fee order, and sub-90-day resolution is a pattern consistent with a confidential licensing agreement, though the public record is silent on terms. IP teams tracking Comarco should note that this outcome does not signal the portfolio is weak — it may signal the opposite: that defendants are willing to license quickly rather than litigate.
Comarco v Staples — key questions answered
Comarco Wireless Systems, LLC filed a patent infringement suit against Staples, Inc. in the Eastern District of Texas on 18 April 2025, asserting three USB-C power delivery patents. After 70 days, Comarco voluntarily dismissed the case with prejudice under FRCP Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i). The court accepted the dismissal and directed each party to bear its own costs and attorneys’ fees.
Comarco asserted three patents: US10855087B1 (App. No. 16/991295), US10951042B2 (App. No. 17/077699), and US9413187B2 (App. No. 13/943453). All three relate to USB-C power delivery adapter and charging interface technology. The accused products included cellhelmet-branded wall and car chargers, dual-port charging blocks, and USB-C docking accessories sold through Staples.
A with-prejudice dismissal permanently bars Comarco from suing Staples again on the same patents for the same accused products — it carries res judicata effect equivalent to a final judgment. However, the patents themselves remain in force and were never adjudicated on validity or infringement. Comarco retains the right to enforce all three patents against other defendants selling comparable USB-C charger products.
The public record does not disclose the reason. The combination of a with-prejudice dismissal, a cost-neutral fee order, and resolution well before any substantive motion practice is consistent with a confidential licensing or settlement agreement, though no such agreement is publicly documented. It may also reflect a strategic decision by Comarco to cease enforcement against Staples specifically without compromising its broader patent portfolio.
Yes. The dismissal of the Staples case with prejudice does not affect Comarco’s ability to assert US10855087B1, US10951042B2, or US9413187B2 against other companies. The patents emerged from this litigation with no adverse validity findings and no narrowing claim constructions. Retailers, distributors, and manufacturers of 20–25W USB-C wall chargers and car chargers that overlap with the accused product categories should assess their freedom-to-operate exposure.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.