Scramoge Technology v. Apple: Wireless Charging Patent Claims Dismissed After 545 Days
Irish patent holder Scramoge Technology Limited brought six wireless charging patents against Apple in the Northern District of California, targeting over a dozen iPhone models. After 545 days of litigation before Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley, all of Scramoge's claims were dismissed with prejudice while Apple's counterclaims were dismissed without prejudice.
Six Wireless Charging Patents, Thirteen iPhone Models, One Dismissal
Scramoge Technology Limited, an Irish entity holding a portfolio of wireless charging patents, filed suit against Apple Computer, Inc. on 24 May 2022 in the Northern District of California (Case No. 3:22-cv-03041). Scramoge asserted six US patents — US10622842B2, US9806565B2, US9997962B2, US10804740B2, US9843215B2, and US10424941B2 — covering wireless power transfer and charging technologies. The accused products span thirteen iPhone models, from the iPhone 8 and iPhone 8 Plus through to the iPhone 12 Pro Max, including the iPhone X, XR, XS, XS Max, and SE (second generation).
The case closed on 20 November 2023 after 545 days. The recorded Basis of Termination is 'Case Dismissed.' The docket order states that all claims for relief asserted against Apple by Scramoge are dismissed with prejudice, and all counterclaims for relief asserted against Scramoge by Apple are dismissed without prejudice. The asymmetry between the two dismissals is significant: Scramoge's infringement claims are extinguished and cannot be re-filed, while Apple's counterclaims — which may have included invalidity or non-infringement defences — were dismissed without prejudice, preserving Apple's ability to re-assert them in a subsequent proceeding if circumstances warranted.
The case resolved in under eighteen months, which is relatively swift for a six-patent infringement action in a district known for complex IP dockets. What drove the asymmetric dismissal terms — whether reached by agreement of the parties or ordered by the court — is not disclosed in the available public record. Similarly, whether any financial consideration or licensing arrangement accompanied the resolution is not reflected in the docket. The survival of Apple's counterclaims without prejudice suggests the parties may have had an interest in preserving flexibility, but the specific terms remain undisclosed.
See Complete Case & Patent Analysis →Filing to Case Dismissed in 545 days
545 days from filing to close — resolved before trial
US10622842B2 and 5 further wireless charging patents asserted


Any company designing, manufacturing, or importing wireless charging receivers for smartphones, wearables, or consumer electronics should assess exposure to Scramoge's six-patent portfolio. Although Scramoge's claims against Apple are now permanently dismissed, the patents remain in force and enforceable against other parties. This is particularly relevant for Android OEMs, Qi chipset vendors, automotive wireless charging integrators, and white-label accessory manufacturers whose products implement inductive power transfer in the frequency and power ranges covered by these patents.
Official order — verbatim text
The order provides an asymmetric dismissal: Scramoge's infringement claims are extinguished with prejudice while Apple's counterclaims are preserved without prejudice. This structure forecloses any future refiling by Scramoge against Apple on these patents, but leaves Apple's invalidity and non-infringement arguments formally unresolved on the merits. The specific basis for this asymmetric outcome is not disclosed in the available public record.
Case dismissed: what the asymmetric order means for both parties
Dismissal with and without prejudice in the same order
The court order creates an asymmetric outcome: Scramoge's claims against Apple are dismissed with prejudice, meaning they are permanently extinguished and cannot be re-filed. Apple's counterclaims against Scramoge are dismissed without prejudice, meaning they may be re-asserted in a future proceeding. This structural split is unusual and may reflect negotiated terms, though the specific basis is not disclosed in the public record.
Asymmetric dismissal orderScramoge loses its claims permanently against Apple
A with-prejudice dismissal of Scramoge's claims means the six asserted patents cannot be re-asserted against Apple in this jurisdiction on these facts. For a patent holding entity whose primary asset is its IP portfolio, a with-prejudice dismissal represents a significant closure of enforcement options against Apple. Whether the patents remain enforceable against other defendants is a separate question not addressed by this order.
Claims permanently barredApple's counterclaims survive — preserved without prejudice
Apple's counterclaims — which in patent infringement actions typically include non-infringement and invalidity defences — were dismissed without prejudice. This preserves Apple's ability to raise these arguments in future proceedings if needed. The without-prejudice preservation of Apple's position, combined with the permanent extinguishment of Scramoge's claims, is consistent with an outcome that favoured Apple's litigation posture, though the underlying terms are not publicly disclosed.
Apple's defences preservedWireless charging patent risk for the iPhone remains active
Six wireless charging patents were placed before the court covering a broad range of iPhone models. With Scramoge's claims dismissed with prejudice, Apple faces no further exposure from Scramoge on these specific patents regarding these products. However, the wireless charging IP landscape remains active: other patent holders operate in adjacent technology domains, and the asserted patents may still be enforced against other wireless charging implementers. Companies designing Qi-compatible or MagSafe-adjacent products should monitor this portfolio.
Ongoing sector-wide riskFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Scramoge Technology Limited | Individual | /Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Apple Computer, Inc. | Company | /Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Brett E. Cooper | Attorney | Counsel for Scramoge Technology LimitedSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Brian D. Ledahl | Attorney | Counsel for Scramoge Technology LimitedSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Christian W. Conkle | Attorney | Counsel for Scramoge Technology LimitedSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Drew B. Hollander | Attorney | Counsel for Scramoge Technology LimitedSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | James Milkey | Attorney | Counsel for Scramoge Technology LimitedSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | John Francis Petrsoric | Attorney | Counsel for Scramoge Technology LimitedSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Jonathan Ma | Attorney | Counsel for Scramoge Technology LimitedSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Jonathan Randy Yim | Attorney | Counsel for Scramoge Technology LimitedSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Marc A. Fenster | Attorney | Counsel for Scramoge Technology LimitedSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Reza Mirzaie | Attorney | Counsel for Scramoge Technology LimitedSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Seth Raymond Hasenour | Attorney | Counsel for Scramoge Technology LimitedSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | BC Law Group, PC | Law Firm | Representing Scramoge Technology LimitedSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Russ August & Kabat LLP | Law Firm | Representing Scramoge Technology LimitedSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Alton Luther Absher III | Attorney | Counsel for Apple Computer, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Amanda N. Brouillette | Attorney | Counsel for Apple Computer, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Andrew W. Rinehart | Attorney | Counsel for Apple Computer, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Bethany Marvin Stevens | Attorney | Counsel for Apple Computer, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Christopher P. Schaffer | Attorney | Counsel for Apple Computer, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | J. Stephen Ravel | Attorney | Counsel for Apple Computer, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Kasey Koballa | Attorney | Counsel for Apple Computer, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Kelly E. Ransom | Attorney | Counsel for Apple Computer, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Kim Uyen Do | Attorney | Counsel for Apple Computer, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Mansi Hasendra Shah | Attorney | Counsel for Apple Computer, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Marissa Ann Lalli | Attorney | Counsel for Apple Computer, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Mary Virginia Sooter | Attorney | Counsel for Apple Computer, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Nora Q.E. Passamaneck | Attorney | Counsel for Apple Computer, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Ravinder S. Deol | Attorney | Counsel for Apple Computer, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Rishi Gupta | Attorney | Counsel for Apple Computer, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Sarah F. Glendon | Attorney | Counsel for Apple Computer, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Steven David Moore | Attorney | Counsel for Apple Computer, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Kelly Hart & Hallman LLP (Austin) | Law Firm | Representing Apple Computer, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Kelly Hart & Hallman LLP | Law Firm | Representing Apple Computer, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP | Law Firm | Representing Apple Computer, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Walker Stevens Cannom LLP | Law Firm | Representing Apple Computer, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr LLP | Law Firm | Representing Apple Computer, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | WilmerHale LLP | Law Firm | Representing Apple Computer, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley | Judge | California Northern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
R&D signals in the wireless charging patent space
Forward-looking patent and innovation intelligence derived from Scramoge's wireless charging portfolio assertion against Apple — relevant for charging technology developers and IP strategists.
Scramoge's wireless charging portfolio spans a seven-year filing window
Scramoge's six asserted patents were filed between 2012 and 2019, suggesting a deliberate prosecution strategy building layered coverage over successive wireless charging standards. Monitoring Scramoge's continuation filings and any post-grant activity on these patents is essential for competitors active in Qi and proprietary fast-charging receiver design, as continuation claims may extend protection into next-generation architectures.
Portfolio depth signalWireless charging receiver IP is a high-density filing zone
The receiver-side of wireless power transfer — covering coil alignment, power regulation, foreign object detection, and communication protocols — is one of the most actively filed segments in consumer electronics IP. Apple, Samsung, Qualcomm, and a range of specialist IP entities have overlapping filings in this space. Mapping the density of receiver-side claims helps identify design-around opportunities and informs standards-licensing strategy for Qi and WPC-adjacent implementations.
High-density IP zoneApple's wireless charging patent portfolio covers both transmitter and receiver innovations
Apple holds a substantial portfolio of wireless charging patents spanning MagSafe magnet alignment, near-field communication integration, thermal management during charging, and foreign object detection. Understanding the scope of Apple's own filings in this domain is strategically relevant for OEMs, accessory makers, and chipset vendors seeking to build compatible or competing products without infringing Apple's growing receiver and system-level charging IP.
Apple charging IP depthMulti-device simultaneous wireless charging remains an underserved IP zone
While Scramoge's patents focus on single-device receiver architectures, the emerging space of multi-device simultaneous wireless charging — covering power sharing algorithms, adaptive coil arrays, and cross-device communication — shows relatively lower patent density. R&D teams developing charging pads, desks, or automotive surfaces capable of powering multiple devices concurrently may find meaningful white space for original filings adjacent to but distinct from the Scramoge and Apple portfolios.
Multi-device charging gapSimilar wireless charging patent cases in N.D. California and beyond
Browse patent infringement actions asserting wireless power transfer and charging technology patents against consumer electronics manufacturers in federal district courts, including N.D. California.
Related patent case — similar technology
Comparable case in the same technology domain. Patent holder and defendant reached resolution after proceedings.
SettledRelated infringement action — same court
Comparable 11 Pro-adjacent infringement action. Patent enforcement dynamics analysed in depth.
Active · District CourtRelated invalidity challenge — appellate outcome
Combined invalidity and infringement action in the same technology space. Decided after substantive proceedings.
DecidedScramoge Technology Limited's broader IP enforcement history
Scramoge Technology Limited's full litigation history covering prior enforcement, licensing activity, and inter partes review proceedings.
Portfolio viewWhat this case signals for the wireless charging IP landscape
A six-patent assertion against Apple's entire wireless iPhone lineup ending in permanent dismissal carries portfolio-wide lessons for charging technology stakeholders.
With-prejudice dismissals against Big Tech signal high litigation costs for NPEs
Patent holding entities pursuing Apple in N.D. California face one of the most resource-intensive litigation environments in the US. A with-prejudice dismissal of all six claims suggests the enforcement campaign did not survive to trial, reinforcing that multi-patent NPE assertions against Apple tend to resolve before a jury verdict — often asymmetrically.
Wireless charging remains a contested patent domain beyond this case
The six patents asserted cover core wireless power transfer and charging circuitry. Their assertion against iPhones as far back as the iPhone 8 indicates broad claim scope attempts. Companies in the Qi, MagSafe, and automotive wireless charging space should treat this portfolio as a monitoring priority — the patents remain in force against third parties despite this dismissal.
Apple's without-prejudice counterclaims may resurface if Scramoge reasserts elsewhere
The decision to dismiss Apple's counterclaims without prejudice is strategically significant. If Scramoge or a successor entity attempts to assert these patents against Apple-adjacent licensees or supply chain partners, Apple retains the ability to re-activate invalidity arguments that were never adjudicated on the merits in this proceeding.
Scramoge's portfolio spans application years 2012–2019 — expiry window is trackable
The six asserted patents carry application numbers ranging from US13/663012 (filed 2012) to US16/264360 (filed 2019). This creates a staggered expiry profile. Freedom-to-operate analysis for wireless charging implementers should map these individual patent terms to identify when design-around constraints lift on a patent-by-patent basis.
Limited v Apple — key questions answered
Scramoge asserted six US patents: US10622842B2, US9806565B2, US9997962B2, US10804740B2, US9843215B2, and US10424941B2. All cover wireless power transfer and charging technologies. The accused products included thirteen iPhone models from the iPhone 8 through to the iPhone 12 Pro Max.
The recorded Basis of Termination is 'Case Dismissed.' The docket order states Scramoge's claims against Apple are dismissed with prejudice — meaning they are permanently extinguished and cannot be re-filed. Apple's counterclaims were dismissed without prejudice, preserving Apple's ability to re-assert them in future proceedings. The specific terms underlying this asymmetric outcome are not disclosed in the available public record.
No. A with-prejudice dismissal of Scramoge's claims means those specific infringement claims against Apple are permanently barred. Scramoge cannot refile the same claims against Apple in a new action. The patents themselves remain in force and may be asserted against other defendants, but Apple is insulated from Scramoge's claims on these patents.
The docket order reflects this asymmetry without disclosing the reason. In patent cases, counterclaims typically include invalidity and non-infringement arguments. A without-prejudice dismissal of those counterclaims preserves Apple's ability to raise them in future proceedings. The basis for this structural difference — whether court-ordered or agreed by the parties — is not stated in the available public record.
The accused products listed in the case include: iPhone 8, iPhone 8 Plus, iPhone X, iPhone XR, iPhone XS, iPhone XS Max, iPhone 11, iPhone 11 Pro, iPhone 11 Pro Max, iPhone 12, iPhone 12 mini, iPhone 12 Pro, iPhone 12 Pro Max, and iPhone SE (second generation) — covering six iPhone generations across Apple's Qi-enabled lineup.
Track wireless charging patent risk across your product portfolio
The Scramoge portfolio remains live against third parties despite the Apple dismissal. Use PatSnap Eureka to run FTO analysis across all six asserted patents and monitor continuation filings before your next product launch.
This page is compiled from public court dockets and third-party patent and litigation data via PatSnap Eureka, and is provided for general informational purposes only. The information shown — including party names, patent and application numbers, dates, case status, outcomes, and any analysis — may be incomplete, may not reflect the most recent filings or legal status, and may contain errors or omissions. Verify all details against official court records (for example, PACER) and the relevant patent office before relying on them.
Nothing on this page constitutes legal advice or a legal opinion on the validity, infringement, enforceability, or scope of any patent or case, and no attorney‑client relationship is created by its use. Any description of an outcome (such as a dismissal, settlement, or consent judgment) is a general summary, not a legal determination. All patents, trademarks, and company or law‑firm names are the property of their respective owners. PatSnap makes no warranty as to the accuracy or completeness of this content and disclaims, to the fullest extent permitted by law, all liability for reliance on it. For advice on a specific matter, consult qualified legal counsel.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.