Varta Microbattery v. Costco Wholesale: Three-Patent Microbattery Dispute Ends After 1,708 Days
German battery maker Varta Microbattery GmbH sued Costco Wholesale Corp. in the Eastern District of Texas, asserting three US patents covering rechargeable CoinPower® microbattery technology found in products including Samsung Galaxy Buds and the Eve Energy ICR 1254 cell. The case resolved by joint stipulation and was dismissed with prejudice after nearly five years of litigation.
A Five-Year Microbattery Patent Battle Ends by Mutual Agreement
On 24 February 2020, Varta Microbattery GmbH filed suit against Costco Wholesale Corp. in the Eastern District of Texas before Judge Rodney Gilstrap, asserting infringement of three US patents — US9496581B2, US9153835B2, and US9799913B2 — each directed to rechargeable lithium-ion microbattery technology. The accused products included Costco’s Eve Energy ICR 1254 battery, Samsung Galaxy Buds True Wireless Earbud Headphones sold through Costco, and Varta’s own CoinPower® microbatteries referenced in the technical record.
The case closed on 28 October 2024 when the court acknowledged and accepted a joint stipulation by both parties to dismiss the action with prejudice under Case No. 2:20-cv-00051-JRG. Dismissal with prejudice is a final adjudication on the merits for procedural purposes — Varta cannot reassert the same patent claims against Costco in future litigation. The parties reached this resolution privately, and no public judgment on validity or infringement was entered.
At 1,708 days, the litigation ran nearly five years — a timeline consistent with complex multi-patent cases in the Eastern District that involve claim construction disputes, expert discovery, and IPR inter-play. The fact that both sides stipulated to dismissal rather than proceeding to trial typically signals a negotiated resolution, which may have included licensing terms or cross-commercial arrangements, though the public record is silent on any such terms. No damages award or injunction appears in the docket record.
Filing to Dismissed with Prejudice in 1708 days
1,708 days — nearly 5 years, well above median E.D. Texas patent case duration
Dismissed with prejudice by stipulation: what the resolution means for both parties
Dismissal with prejudice bars future re-filing of the same claims
A dismissal with prejudice by stipulation is a consensual, final termination of the case. Unlike a court-ordered merits ruling, the court makes no finding on infringement or patent validity. However, the ‘with prejudice’ designation carries full res judicata effect — Varta cannot reassert these three patents against Costco on the same accused products in any future federal action. Both parties agreed to this mechanism, suggesting a mutually acceptable exit from litigation.
Final — no re-filing permittedVarta exits without a public infringement finding — patents remain in force
Varta Microbattery retains ownership of all three asserted patents, which remain enforceable against third parties not party to this stipulation. The dismissal with prejudice forecloses future action against Costco specifically, but does not constitute an admission of invalidity or non-infringement. Varta may continue to enforce US9496581B2, US9153835B2, and US9799913B2 against other retailers, manufacturers, or importers of competing microbattery products.
Patents survive; Costco claims releasedCostco secures permanent release from Varta’s three patent claims
Costco obtains a durable shield against re-assertion of these specific patents on the accused Eve Energy ICR 1254 and Samsung Galaxy Buds products. The with-prejudice dismissal, entered by stipulation, means Costco bears no adjudicated liability and no public record of infringement. Costco’s legal exposure to these three microbattery patents — at least from Varta — is conclusively resolved, which likely reduces uncertainty in its battery-product supply chain planning.
Permanent release — no liability on recordMicrobattery IP enforcement remains active beyond this settlement
The resolution of this specific dispute does not signal retreat by Varta in the broader CoinPower® patent enforcement landscape. Varta has pursued parallel actions in multiple jurisdictions targeting the miniature rechargeable battery market — a sector growing rapidly on the back of true wireless earbuds, hearing aids, and IoT wearables. For product teams and procurement managers sourcing ICR-format or coin-cell lithium batteries, this case reinforces that freedom-to-operate analysis against Varta’s portfolio remains commercially essential.
FTO review advisable for coin-cell supply chainsFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Varta Microbattery, GmbH | Company | German battery technology company — holder of US9496581B2, US9153835B2, US9799913B2Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Costco Wholesale, Corp. | Company | Costco Wholesale Corp. — US multinational retail warehouse club chainSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Andrew William Stinson | Attorney | Counsel for Varta Microbattery, GmbHSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | H. Michael Hartmann | Attorney | Counsel for Varta Microbattery, GmbHSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | J. Karl Gross | Attorney | Counsel for Varta Microbattery, GmbHSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Robert T. Wittmann | Attorney | Counsel for Varta Microbattery, GmbHSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Wesley O. Mueller | Attorney | Counsel for Varta Microbattery, GmbHSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Leydig, Voit & Mayer, Ltd. (Chicago) | Law Firm | Representing Varta Microbattery, GmbHSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Ramey & Flock, PC | Law Firm | Representing Varta Microbattery, GmbHSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Melissa Richards Smith | Attorney | Counsel for Costco Wholesale, Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Thomas Howard Reger , II | Attorney | Counsel for Costco Wholesale, Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Fish & Richardson PC (Dallas) | Law Firm | Representing Costco Wholesale, Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Gillam & Smith, LLP | Law Firm | Representing Costco Wholesale, Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Rodney Gilstrap | Judge | Texas Eastern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court’s order is narrow and procedural: it acknowledges and accepts the parties’ joint stipulation without making any finding on infringement, validity, or claim scope. The phrase ‘dismissed with prejudice’ confirms finality as to these parties and these patents on these accused products — but no court has ruled on the technical merits of Varta’s claims. For practitioners, this means the patents’ validity and claim scope remain untested by judicial opinion, leaving the patents in a position of legal strength for future enforcement against non-Costco entities.
US9496581B2, US9153835B2 & US9799913B2 — Rechargeable Microbattery Technology
The three asserted patents — US9496581B2 (application US14/827387), US9153835B2 (application US13/146669), and US9799913B2 (application US15/283568) — cover aspects of rechargeable lithium-ion microbattery technology in the coin-cell or button-cell format. These patents are associated with Varta’s CoinPower® product line, which targets the miniaturised power segment serving true wireless stereo earbuds, hearing aids, fitness trackers, and IoT sensors. The application chain suggests a sustained prosecution strategy beginning in the early 2010s, progressively protecting refinements in cell construction, electrode architecture, and energy density optimisation.
Strategically, this patent family sits at the intersection of two high-growth markets: premium consumer audio (TWS earbuds) and medical wearables (hearing aids). The ICR 1254 form factor specified in the complaint is precisely the battery geometry that underpins mass-market miniature rechargeable devices. Any OEM, contract manufacturer, or retailer operating in these verticals — particularly those sourcing alternative coin-cell batteries from Asian suppliers — faces meaningful FTO exposure against this family. The fact that no validity challenge succeeded publicly in this litigation leaves these patents in a commercially strong enforcement posture.
Should you run an FTO analysis against US9496581B2, US9153835B2 & US9799913B2?
Product teams developing or sourcing rechargeable coin-cell and button-cell batteries for TWS earbuds, hearing aids, smart wearables, or IoT devices should treat Varta’s three-patent family as a priority FTO target. This case confirms that Varta is willing to litigate against retailers — not just manufacturers — meaning that exposure is not limited to companies that make batteries. If your product uses an ICR 1254-type or similar CoinPower-format rechargeable cell, a documented FTO analysis is commercially prudent before launch or before signing new supply agreements.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map claim scope across all three patent numbers simultaneously, flag continuation applications still in prosecution, identify prior art relevant to validity challenges, and surface comparable licensed or litigated technologies in the miniature battery space. With Varta’s enforcement track record spanning multiple jurisdictions, a proactive FTO built on live patent intelligence — rather than a one-time search — gives procurement and product teams the clearest risk picture available from the public record.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US9496581B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Microbattery & Consumer Electronics Patent Cases in E.D. Texas
Cases involving rechargeable microbattery and consumer electronics component patents litigated before Judge Gilstrap in the Eastern District of Texas.
What this case signals for the rechargeable microbattery IP landscape
Five years of litigation ending in a private stipulation carries strategic signals that extend well beyond Varta and Costco.
Retailers carrying third-party battery products face real patent exposure
Costco’s position as a downstream retailer — not a battery manufacturer — did not insulate it from infringement claims. This case illustrates that distributors and retailers of consumer electronics with embedded microbatteries are valid enforcement targets. In-house IP teams at retail chains should ensure upstream indemnification clauses are robust and that battery suppliers have conducted FTO analysis against Varta’s portfolio.
Multi-patent assertions over a single product family extend litigation timelines
Asserting three patents simultaneously across related battery products — as Varta did here — is a deliberate strategy that prolongs litigation and raises the cost of defence. With 1,708 days elapsed before resolution, this case demonstrates that defendants facing stacked patent assertions should budget for multi-year proceedings and evaluate IPR petitions at the Inter Partes Review stage to reduce the patent count early.
Varta v Costco — key questions answered
Varta asserted three US patents: US9496581B2, US9153835B2, and US9799913B2 — all directed to rechargeable coin-cell microbattery technology associated with Varta’s CoinPower® product line. The accused products included the Eve Energy ICR 1254 battery and Samsung Galaxy Buds sold through Costco.
Dismissal with prejudice is a final termination that bars the plaintiff from re-filing the same claims against the same defendant on the same accused products. In this case, entered by joint stipulation, it means Varta cannot reassert US9496581B2, US9153835B2, or US9799913B2 against Costco in a new action. The patents themselves remain valid and enforceable against other parties.
The case ran 1,708 days — approximately 4 years and 8 months — from filing on 24 February 2020 to closure on 28 October 2024. Multi-patent assertions over complex battery technology, combined with the Eastern District’s active docket and the likely involvement of claim construction proceedings, are consistent with litigation of this duration. The public record does not specify whether parallel IPR petitions contributed to the timeline.
No court ruling on the merits was issued. The case ended by joint stipulation dismissed with prejudice, meaning no finding of infringement or non-infringement was made. Costco secured a permanent release from these specific patent claims, but the outcome reflects a negotiated exit rather than a judicial determination in either party’s favour.
The case was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas and presided over by Judge Rodney Gilstrap, one of the most experienced patent trial judges in the US federal system. The Eastern District of Texas is a historically significant venue for patent infringement litigation due to its procedural rules and case management practices.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.