Waverly Licensing v. AT&T — Battery Charging Patent Case Closed After 1,330 Days
Waverly Licensing, LLC filed suit against AT&T, Inc. in Delaware District Court alleging infringement of US10938246B2, a patent covering methods and apparatus for charging battery-operated devices. The case ran for approximately 3.6 years before closing in November 2025 under a non-standard termination basis.
A 1,330-Day Battery IP Dispute Against AT&T Concludes Quietly
Waverly Licensing, LLC filed this patent infringement action against AT&T, Inc. on March 31, 2022 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware before Judge Colm F. Connolly. The sole patent at issue was US10938246B2 (application no. US16/793910), which covers a method and apparatus for charging a battery-operated device — a technology domain directly relevant to the connectivity and mobile hardware ecosystem in which AT&T operates.
The case was closed on November 20, 2025, with the docket reflecting ‘CASE CLOSED’ under a basis of termination categorised as ‘Other.’ This non-standard designation means the public record does not clearly indicate whether the parties reached a settlement, a consent judgment, or another agreed resolution. No verdict, fee award, or damages figure is reflected in the available record.
At 1,330 days, the duration is notably extended for a single-patent infringement action, suggesting the parties likely engaged in substantive litigation activity — potentially including claim construction, discovery, or pre-trial motion practice — before arriving at the final disposition. The ‘Other’ termination basis leaves the precise terms and strategic driver of the resolution opaque from the public record alone.
Filing to Other in 1330 days
1,330 days — roughly 3.6 years, well above the median for single-patent district court cases
Case closed under ‘Other’ basis: what the record reveals and withholds
What ‘Other’ termination basis actually signals
When a federal district court case closes with a basis of termination listed as ‘Other,’ it typically means the disposition does not fit standard categories such as voluntary dismissal, transfer, or entry of judgment. This is consistent with a confidential settlement, a consent order, or a negotiated resolution structured in a way that avoids a formal public record entry. No merits ruling appears to have been issued.
Non-standard terminationWaverly Licensing: resolution without public victory
As the plaintiff and patent holder, Waverly Licensing initiated the action and carried the burden of proof on infringement. The ‘Other’ basis of termination means no public win is recorded, but it equally means no formal adverse judgment. For a licensing entity, a confidential resolution — if that is what occurred — may represent a commercially acceptable outcome. The patent US10938246B2 remains granted and its enforceability is unaffected by this case’s closure.
Patent remains validAT&T exits without a recorded adverse finding
AT&T faces no public finding of infringement based on the available record. The case closure without a merits judgment means the infringement allegations were never adjudicated to a final public conclusion. If the matter resolved through a confidential arrangement, AT&T’s exposure and any agreed terms would not be visible to third parties. This outcome is consistent with AT&T’s typical approach of managing patent litigation risk through negotiated resolution rather than prolonged trial.
No infringement findingBattery charging IP: enforcement risk persists for the sector
The charging and power management space — particularly methods for charging battery-operated connected devices — remains an active area of patent assertion. US10938246B2 survived this litigation without being invalidated or ruled non-infringed. Telecoms, device OEMs, and accessory makers operating in the wireless charging and power management domain should note that this patent remains enforceable and may be asserted again. The case duration suggests the claims withstood early challenge.
Enforcement risk remainsFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Waverly Licensing, LLC | Company | Patent licensing entity — holder of US10938246B2 covering battery charging methodsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | AT&T, Inc. | Company | AT&T, Inc. — U.S. multinational telecommunications and media conglomerateSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | David L. Finger | Attorney | Counsel for Waverly Licensing, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Jimmy C. Chong | Attorney | Counsel for Waverly Licensing, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Chong Law Firm PA | Law Firm | Representing Waverly Licensing, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Colm F. Connolly | Judge | Delaware District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The docket entry reads simply ‘CASE CLOSED’ with no accompanying judgment, damages award, or consent decree reflected in the public record. The basis of termination is listed as ‘Other,’ which is a residual category that does not specify the precise legal mechanism of closure. This phrasing is consistent with a negotiated resolution or administrative closure, but the public record is silent on the specific terms. Neither party has a public finding on the merits of the infringement allegations.
US10938246B2 — Method and Apparatus for Charging a Battery-Operated Device
US10938246B2 was filed under application number US16/793910 and claims methods and apparatus directed at charging battery-operated devices. This is a utility patent in the power management and mobile device charging domain — a space that spans consumer electronics, telecommunications hardware, wireless accessories, and increasingly IoT devices. The patent’s claim structure around a ‘method and apparatus’ formulation typically affords broad reach across both product and process implementations.
In the context of a suit against AT&T, the patent’s relevance extends to the full range of connected devices that AT&T sells, distributes, or supports — including smartphones, tablets, mobile hotspots, and smart home devices. Patent assertion entities holding charging-method IP can leverage such claims against carriers who bundle compatible hardware with service plans, making telecom defendants a logical — and commercially significant — target. US10938246B2 remains granted and unrevoked.
Should you run an FTO against US10938246B2?
Any company manufacturing, importing, distributing, or bundling battery-operated devices — particularly those sold through carrier channels or with proprietary charging solutions — should evaluate their exposure to US10938246B2. The patent’s ‘method and apparatus’ framing means both the hardware designer and the service provider distributing the device could fall within the claims. Given that this patent survived a 1,330-day litigation cycle without invalidation, it carries heightened credibility as an enforcement asset.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent enables R&D and IP teams to map US10938246B2’s claim elements against your product’s charging architecture, identify prior art that could support an IPR petition, and benchmark the patent against the broader power management IP landscape. Running a structured FTO now — before a demand letter arrives — is materially cheaper than reactive defence in Delaware District Court.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US10938246B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Battery Charging Patent Cases in Delaware District Court
Explore related patent infringement actions involving battery charging and power management technology filed in Delaware District Court against telecoms and device makers.
What this case signals for the battery charging IP landscape
A 3.6-year run against a major telecom defendant without a public adverse ruling keeps US10938246B2 in active enforcement play.
Patent survived without invalidation — enforcement leverage intact
US10938246B2 was not publicly invalidated or found non-infringed during 1,330 days of litigation against AT&T. For competitors in the battery charging and mobile device power management space, this suggests the patent’s claims are defensible and that Waverly Licensing retains full enforcement leverage going forward.
Delaware District Court: a favored venue for patent licensing entities
Filing in Delaware before Judge Connolly is a deliberate strategic choice. Delaware consistently handles high volumes of patent cases and its procedural rules are well understood by both sides. Licensing entities often prefer this venue for its predictability. Defendants in the telecoms and IoT space should treat Delaware filings as a signal of serious enforcement intent.
Waverly v AT&T — key questions answered
The case was closed on November 20, 2025, after 1,330 days, with the basis of termination recorded as ‘Other.’ No public verdict, damages award, or finding of infringement or non-infringement appears in the available record. The specific terms of closure are not publicly disclosed.
Waverly Licensing asserted US10938246B2 (application no. US16/793910), which covers a method and apparatus for charging a battery-operated device. The patent remains granted and was not publicly invalidated or adjudicated on the merits in this case.
Delaware District Court is a highly active patent litigation venue and a common choice for patent assertion entities due to its established procedural framework and familiarity with complex IP disputes. AT&T, as a Delaware-incorporated entity, also presents a logical jurisdictional basis for filing in that district.
No. The patent was not invalidated or found unenforceable in this action. The case closed under a non-standard ‘Other’ basis without a merits ruling, leaving US10938246B2 fully granted and enforceable. Waverly Licensing could assert the patent in future actions against other parties.
‘Other’ is a residual termination category used when the closure does not fit standard designations such as voluntary dismissal, transfer, or judgment. It is commonly associated with negotiated resolutions, consent orders, or confidential settlements that are not fully described in the public docket. It does not indicate a merits ruling by the court.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.