Comarco Wireless Systems v. Walgreens: USB Power Patent Case Ends in Voluntary Dismissal
What would you like to do next?
Choose your path based on your current needs:
📋 Case Summary
| Case Name | Comarco Wireless Systems, LLC v. Walgreen, Co. |
| Case Number | 4:23-cv-01111 (E.D. Texas) |
| Court | U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas |
| Duration | Dec 2023 – Mar 2024 88 days |
| Outcome | Plaintiff Withdrawal — Dismissed with Prejudice |
| Patents at Issue | |
| Accused Products | USB power supply comprising power circuitry to provide DC power to portable electronic devices |
Case Overview
The Parties
⚖️ Plaintiff
Patent-holding entity with an established IP portfolio in wireless power and charging technology.
🛡️ Defendant
National retail pharmacy chain, likely as a distributor or retailer of accused USB power supply products.
Patents at Issue
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.
The Verdict & Legal Analysis
Outcome
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.
Key Legal Issues
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.
Freedom to Operate (FTO) Analysis
This case highlights critical IP risks in USB power supply design. Choose your next step:
📋 Understand This Case’s Impact
Learn about the specific risks and implications from this litigation.
- View all related patents in this technology space
- See which companies are most active in USB power patents
- Understand claim construction patterns
🔍 Check My Product’s Risk
Run a comprehensive FTO analysis for your own technology or product.
- Input your product description or technical features
- AI identifies potentially blocking patents
- Get actionable risk assessment report
High Risk Area
USB power supply circuitry
150+ Related Patents
In USB charging space
Design-Around Options
Available for many claims
✅ Key Takeaways
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.
Search related case law →Eastern District of Texas continues to attract USB technology patent assertions, highlighting its strategic importance for plaintiffs.
Explore court analytics →Frequently Asked 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.
Ready to Strengthen Your Patent Strategy?
Join 18,000+ IP professionals using PatSnap Eureka to conduct prior art searches, draft patents, and analyse competitive landscapes with AI-powered precision.
References
- PACER — U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas Case 4:23-cv-01111
- U.S. Patent and Trademark Office — Patent Center
- World Intellectual Property Organization — Patents & Technology
- Cornell Legal Information Institute — Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)
- PatSnap — IP Intelligence Solutions for Law Firms
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.