Book a demo

Cut patent&paper research from weeks to hours with PatSnap Eureka AI!

Try now
Scramoge Technology v. Apple — Wireless Charging Patent Dispute | PatSnap
Patent Litigation

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.

Resolution time
545days
545 days from filing to close — resolved before trial
Patents asserted
6
US10622842B2 and 5 further wireless charging patents asserted
Outcome
Case Dismissed
Scramoge's claims dismissed with prejudice; Apple's counterclaims without prejudice
Cost ruling
N/A
No cost ruling recorded in the available public record
Published by PatSnap Insights Team · Verified by PatSnap Eureka Data
Case overview

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 →
Case at a glance
CourtCalifornia Northern District Court
JudgeJacqueline Scott Corley
FiledMay 24, 2022
ClosedNovember 20, 2023
Duration545 days
OutcomeCase Dismissed
Verdict causeInfringement Action
BasisCase Dismissed
Prior Art Intelligence
See what prior art exists on this patent.
Eureka scans millions of patents and papers to surface prior art that may have invalidated these claims before costly litigation begins.
Check Prior Art
Case data sourced from PACER / California Northern District Court via PatSnap Eureka Litigation Intelligence Explore similar cases ↗
Case timeline

Filing to Case Dismissed in 545 days

545 days from filing to close — resolved before trial

Case timeline: Complaint filed MAY 24 2022 — 545 days total Horizontal timeline showing the three key events in Scramoge Technology Limited v Apple Computer, Inc. from filing to resolution. Source: PACER, California Northern District Court. MAY 24 2022 Complaint filed Pre-trial proceedings NOV 20 2023 Case Dismissed 545 DAYS TOTAL
Patent at issue

US10622842B2 and 5 further wireless charging patents asserted

Publication No.US10622842B2
Application No.US16/182258
Patent details
ProductWireless power receiver and charging control for mobile devices
Cited in actionMay 24, 2022

Publication No.US9806565B2
Application No.US13/663012
Patent details
ProductWireless power transfer receiver circuitry and regulation
Cited in actionMay 24, 2022

Publication No.US9997962B2
Application No.US14/901426
Patent details
ProductWireless charging system with foreign object detection and power control
Cited in actionMay 24, 2022

Publication No.US10804740B2
Application No.US16/264360
Patent details
ProductWireless power receiver with communication and power management
Cited in actionMay 24, 2022

Publication No.US9843215B2
Application No.US14/636347
Patent details
ProductWireless charging coil alignment and power transfer optimization
Cited in actionMay 24, 2022

Publication No.US10424941B2
Application No.US15/884020
Patent details
ProductWireless power receiver architecture and control methods
Cited in actionMay 24, 2022
Technical brief · sourced from PatSnap patent database
Patent figurePatent figure
Representative claim (1 of 3 independent)
1. A wireless power receiver, comprising: a shielding unit; a first layer on the shielding unit; a wireless power receiving coil on the first layer; a second layer on the wireless power receiving coil; a first region in which at least one of the first layer and the second layer overlaps the wireless power receiving coil in a vertical direction perpendicular to an upper surface of the shielding unit; and a second region in which at least one of the first layer and the second layer does not overlap the wireless power receiving coil in the vertical direction, wherein a first distance, measured in the vertical direct…
Technical background
CROSS REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS This application is a continuation of U.S. application Ser. No. 15/673,763, filed Aug. 10, 2017; which is a continuation of U.S. application Ser. No. 15/195,390, filed Jun. 28, 2016, now U.S. Pat. No. 10,069,346, issued on Sep. 4, 2018; which is a continuation of U.S. application Ser. No. 13/658,116, filed Oct. 23, 2012, now U.S. Pat. No. 9,461,364, issued on Oct. 4, 2016; which claims the benefit under 35 U.S.C. § 119 of Korean Patent Application No. 10-2011-0114721, filed N…
Patent family
34 family members across 7 jurisdictions (TW, US, KR, EP, CN, DE, AT)
PatSnap Eureka · FTO Search Agent
Should you run an FTO against US10622842B2 and the Scramoge wireless charging portfolio?

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.

Run FTO in Eureka
Patent data sourced from USPTO via PatSnap Eureka patent database Search patent records in Eureka ↗
Official verdict

Official order — verbatim text

It is ordered that all claims for relief asserted against Apple by Scramoge are dismissed with prejudice and all counterclaims for relief against Scramoge by Apple are dismissed without prejudice
Source: PACER Docket, Case 3:22-cv-03041, California Northern District Court

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.

PACER case 3:22-cv-03041 · Public docket record Explore in Eureka ↗
Dismissal terms

Case dismissed: what the asymmetric order means for both parties

Legal mechanism

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 order
Patent holder outcome

Scramoge 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 barred
Defendant outcome

Apple'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 preserved
Commercial implications

Wireless 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 risk
Legal analysis based on PACER docket records for case 3:22-cv-03041 and PatSnap Eureka litigation intelligence Search PatSnap Eureka ↗
Parties and representation

Full party and counsel information

RoleNameTypeDetail
PlaintiffScramoge Technology LimitedIndividual/Search in Eureka ↗
DefendantApple Computer, Inc.Company/Search in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselBrett E. CooperAttorneyCounsel for Scramoge Technology LimitedSearch in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselBrian D. LedahlAttorneyCounsel for Scramoge Technology LimitedSearch in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselChristian W. ConkleAttorneyCounsel for Scramoge Technology LimitedSearch in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselDrew B. HollanderAttorneyCounsel for Scramoge Technology LimitedSearch in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselJames MilkeyAttorneyCounsel for Scramoge Technology LimitedSearch in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselJohn Francis PetrsoricAttorneyCounsel for Scramoge Technology LimitedSearch in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselJonathan MaAttorneyCounsel for Scramoge Technology LimitedSearch in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselJonathan Randy YimAttorneyCounsel for Scramoge Technology LimitedSearch in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselMarc A. FensterAttorneyCounsel for Scramoge Technology LimitedSearch in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselReza MirzaieAttorneyCounsel for Scramoge Technology LimitedSearch in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselSeth Raymond HasenourAttorneyCounsel for Scramoge Technology LimitedSearch in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff law firmBC Law Group, PCLaw FirmRepresenting Scramoge Technology LimitedSearch in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff law firmRuss August & Kabat LLPLaw FirmRepresenting Scramoge Technology LimitedSearch in Eureka ↗
Defendant counselAlton Luther Absher IIIAttorneyCounsel for Apple Computer, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗
Defendant counselAmanda N. BrouilletteAttorneyCounsel for Apple Computer, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗
Defendant counselAndrew W. RinehartAttorneyCounsel for Apple Computer, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗
Defendant counselBethany Marvin StevensAttorneyCounsel for Apple Computer, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗
Defendant counselChristopher P. SchafferAttorneyCounsel for Apple Computer, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗
Defendant counselJ. Stephen RavelAttorneyCounsel for Apple Computer, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗
Defendant counselKasey KoballaAttorneyCounsel for Apple Computer, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗
Defendant counselKelly E. RansomAttorneyCounsel for Apple Computer, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗
Defendant counselKim Uyen DoAttorneyCounsel for Apple Computer, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗
Defendant counselMansi Hasendra ShahAttorneyCounsel for Apple Computer, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗
Defendant counselMarissa Ann LalliAttorneyCounsel for Apple Computer, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗
Defendant counselMary Virginia SooterAttorneyCounsel for Apple Computer, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗
Defendant counselNora Q.E. PassamaneckAttorneyCounsel for Apple Computer, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗
Defendant counselRavinder S. DeolAttorneyCounsel for Apple Computer, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗
Defendant counselRishi GuptaAttorneyCounsel for Apple Computer, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗
Defendant counselSarah F. GlendonAttorneyCounsel for Apple Computer, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗
Defendant counselSteven David MooreAttorneyCounsel for Apple Computer, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗
Defendant law firmKelly Hart & Hallman LLP (Austin)Law FirmRepresenting Apple Computer, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗
Defendant law firmKelly Hart & Hallman LLPLaw FirmRepresenting Apple Computer, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗
Defendant law firmKilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLPLaw FirmRepresenting Apple Computer, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗
Defendant law firmWalker Stevens Cannom LLPLaw FirmRepresenting Apple Computer, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗
Defendant law firmWilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr LLPLaw FirmRepresenting Apple Computer, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗
Defendant law firmWilmerHale LLPLaw FirmRepresenting Apple Computer, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗
Presiding judgeJudge Jacqueline Scott CorleyJudgeCalifornia Northern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗
R&D signals

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.

Patent portfolio

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 signal
Technology landscape

Wireless 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 zone
Competitor IP posture

Apple'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 depth
White space opportunity

Multi-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 gap
Related litigation

Similar 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.

🔍
Access 40+ similar cases in PatSnap Eureka
Scramoge Technology Limited patent enforcement history, California Northern District Court case history, Scramoge Technology Limited's full IP portfolio, and comparable case analysis
Qi patent cases vs AppleNPE wireless charging suitsN.D. Cal patent dismissalsMagSafe IP litigation
Unlock similar cases in Eureka →
Strategic implications

What 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.

🔒
Full strategic analysis in PatSnap Eureka
Unlock deeper IP strategy signals for wireless charging patent enforcement at district court level in N.D. California.
NPE litigation risk modelWireless charging IP mapScramoge portfolio watch
Unlock full analysis →
Analysis powered by PatSnap Eureka Litigation Intelligence Explore in Eureka ↗
Frequently asked questions

Limited v Apple — key questions answered

Still have questions? PatSnap Eureka can answer them instantly from patent and litigation data. Ask Eureka ↗
PatSnap Eureka

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.

Disclaimer

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.

Ask anything about this case.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.
Powered by PatSnap Eureka
Link copied to clipboard

Related Litigation Cases

Help us improve this page

Found incorrect or outdated information? Let us know and we'll get it fixed.