Charge Fusion v. Polestar: EV Charging Patent Dispute Reaches Settlement in Principle
Charge Fusion Technologies, LLC sued Polestar Automotive USA, Inc. in Delaware federal court, asserting two EV charging system patents against Polestar’s fully electric vehicles including the Polestar 2 and Polestar 3. After 1,147 days of litigation, the parties reached an agreement in principle to settle — though the case was administratively closed in December 2025 with final settlement terms still being negotiated.
EV charging IP clash: Charge Fusion targets Polestar’s electric fleet
Charge Fusion Technologies, LLC filed this patent infringement action in the District of Delaware on October 20, 2022, targeting Polestar Automotive USA, Inc. The complaint asserted two patents — US10998753B2 and US11990788B2 — covering electric vehicle charging systems, against Polestar’s commercially deployed EV lineup, including the Polestar 2 and Polestar 3 models. The case was assigned to Judge John Campbell Barker.
On August 7, 2025, nearly three years into the litigation, the parties notified the court they had agreed in principle to resolve the dispute through settlement. The court granted four successive stays to allow the parties to finalise settlement terms. However, by December 8, 2025, the parties reported that settlement documentation remained incomplete. The court granted a further 31-day stay and administratively closed the case, ordering the parties to reopen and formally dismiss within seven days of finalising their agreement.
The 1,147-day duration — culminating in an administrative closure rather than a litigated judgment — is consistent with a negotiated resolution that stalled at the drafting stage rather than the commercial stage. The agreement in principle suggests core economic terms were likely resolved by August 2025, but the public record does not disclose licensing figures, royalty structures, or any product design-around commitments. The case remains in a legal grey zone: administratively closed but not formally dismissed, meaning it could be reopened.
Filing to Case Terminated in 1147 days
1,147 days from filing to administrative closure — consistent with a contested patent case resolving without trial
Settlement in principle: what the administrative closure means for both parties
Administrative closure is not a dismissal
An administrative closure removes a case from the court’s active docket without terminating it on the merits. Unlike a Rule 41 dismissal, the case remains live and can be reopened upon filing of a notice. Here, the court explicitly ordered the parties to file a notice within seven days of finalising their settlement, after which a formal dismissal would follow. Until then, no judgment has been entered and no claims have been released.
Case still technically liveCharge Fusion holds leverage until final agreement is signed
Because the settlement is agreed in principle but not yet executed, Charge Fusion retains the ability to reopen litigation if terms break down. The patents-in-suit — US10998753B2 and US11990788B2 — remain enforceable and unchallenged on the merits. The public record does not disclose whether Charge Fusion secured a licence, lump-sum payment, or other consideration, but the extended stay history suggests active commercial negotiation was ongoing into late 2025.
Patents still enforceablePolestar avoids merits ruling but faces unresolved IP obligations
Polestar avoided a court determination of infringement or invalidity across three years of litigation. The administrative closure provides temporary relief, but no judgment means no formal non-infringement finding either. If the settlement fails to close, Polestar’s Polestar 2 and Polestar 3 charging systems remain subject to the asserted claims. The multiple stay requests suggest Polestar was engaged in negotiation but may have faced internal approval or cross-border coordination delays.
No infringement ruling obtainedEV charging IP is an active enforcement zone for OEMs
This case is consistent with a broader pattern of EV charging technology assertions targeting established OEMs by patent-holding entities. Charge Fusion’s two-patent portfolio covering charging systems places any EV manufacturer deploying onboard or infrastructure charging in potential scope. OEMs selling into the US market — particularly those without deep defensive EV charging portfolios — should treat this outcome as a signal that licensing demand in this space is commercially viable and likely to recur.
Licensing demand signal for OEMsFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Charge Fusion Technologies, LLC | Company | EV charging technology licensor — holder of US10998753B2 and US11990788B2Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Polestar Automotive USA, Inc. | Company | Polestar Automotive USA, Inc. — US subsidiary of Swedish EV brand, maker of Polestar 2 and Polestar 3Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Bradley D. Liddle | Attorney | Counsel for Charge Fusion Technologies, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Dennis James Butler | Attorney | Counsel for Charge Fusion Technologies, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Frederick A. Tecce | Attorney | Counsel for Charge Fusion Technologies, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Keith Aaron Jones | Attorney | Counsel for Charge Fusion Technologies, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Michael Pomeroy | Attorney | Counsel for Charge Fusion Technologies, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Panitch Schwarze, Belisario & Nadel LLP | Law Firm | Representing Charge Fusion Technologies, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Barden Todd Patterson | Attorney | Counsel for Polestar Automotive USA, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | John A. Elzufon | Attorney | Counsel for Polestar Automotive USA, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Kyrie K Cameron | Attorney | Counsel for Polestar Automotive USA, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Matthew P. Donelson | Attorney | Counsel for Polestar Automotive USA, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Nathan Vincent Gin | Attorney | Counsel for Polestar Automotive USA, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Elzufon Austin & Mondell, P.A. | Law Firm | Representing Polestar Automotive USA, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Elzufon Austin Tarlov & Mondell, PA | Law Firm | Representing Polestar Automotive USA, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Rawle & Henderson LLP | Law Firm | Representing Polestar Automotive USA, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge John Campbell Barker | Judge | Delaware District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court’s December 2025 order reflects a procedural administrative closure, not a merits determination. The verbatim record confirms the parties agreed in principle to settle in August 2025 but failed to execute final terms across four stay periods. The court’s directive — that parties must file a notice within seven days of settlement finalisation to trigger formal dismissal — preserves the case’s live status. Neither party obtained a ruling on infringement, validity, or claim construction, meaning both patents remain presumptively valid and the infringement question is legally unresolved.
US10998753B2 & US11990788B2 — Electric vehicle charging system patents
US10998753B2 (application no. US17/012325) and US11990788B2 (application no. US18/340781) are the two patents asserted by Charge Fusion Technologies in this action. Both patents fall within the EV charging system domain, covering technology relevant to how electric vehicles manage, receive, or coordinate charging power. The sequential application numbers suggest a continuation or continuation-in-part family structure, which typically indicates Charge Fusion sought to broaden or extend claim coverage beyond the original filing.
From a strategic perspective, a two-patent family targeting EV charging architecture carries significant commercial weight as the EV market scales. Polestar’s Polestar 2 and Polestar 3 are fully electric platforms whose charging systems are core to the product proposition. Any OEM integrating AC or DC fast-charging, bidirectional charging, or smart grid interaction capabilities into their vehicle platform should assess whether their implementation falls within the claim scope of this family. The fact that Polestar opted to settle rather than pursue an invalidity or non-infringement defence to judgment suggests the claims were viewed as presenting meaningful litigation risk.
Should you run an FTO against US10998753B2 and US11990788B2?
Any company designing, manufacturing, or deploying EV charging systems — including OEMs, charging infrastructure providers, Tier 1 automotive suppliers, and fleet electrification teams — should assess exposure to this patent family. The Charge Fusion v. Polestar outcome demonstrates that these patents have been treated as commercially enforceable against a production EV platform. If your product involves onboard EV charging management or power delivery architecture, a freedom-to-operate analysis is warranted before market entry or expansion in the US.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent allows IP and R&D teams to rapidly map claim scope against your specific charging system architecture. Upload your technical specifications and Eureka will identify relevant prior art, flag claim overlap risk across the Charge Fusion family, and surface related patents in the EV charging IP landscape. This is particularly valuable for teams evaluating design-around options or preparing for licensing negotiations in the EV sector.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US10998753B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar EV charging patent cases in US District Courts
Explore related EV charging system patent infringement actions filed in US district courts, including Delaware, against electric vehicle manufacturers and charging technology defendants.
What this case signals for the EV charging IP landscape
A three-year dispute between a charging technology licensor and a premium EV brand offers concrete lessons for IP strategy across the electric vehicle sector.
EV charging patents are commercially enforceable against OEMs
Charge Fusion’s willingness to pursue Polestar for over three years — and Polestar’s willingness to settle rather than litigate to judgment — confirms that EV charging system IP is being treated as commercially valuable and defensible. OEMs without freedom-to-operate clearance on charging architecture face measurable litigation exposure.
Delaware remains a preferred venue for EV technology patent assertions
Filing in the District of Delaware against a US-incorporated subsidiary of a foreign OEM is a well-established enforcement pattern. IP teams monitoring EV-related assertions should flag Delaware dockets as a primary watchlist jurisdiction, particularly for cases targeting foreign-headquartered manufacturers operating in the US.
Charge v Polestar — key questions answered
Charge Fusion Technologies, LLC asserted two patents: US10998753B2 (application no. US17/012325) and US11990788B2 (application no. US18/340781). Both patents cover electric vehicle charging system technology and were asserted against Polestar’s Polestar 2 and Polestar 3 electric vehicles in the District of Delaware.
Administrative closure removes a case from the court’s active docket without formally terminating it. In this case, the court administratively closed the matter on December 10, 2025, after the parties failed to finalise settlement terms following an August 2025 agreement in principle. The court ordered the parties to reopen and dismiss the case within seven days of executing their final settlement agreement. The case remains technically live.
Neither party obtained a merits ruling. The case was administratively closed in December 2025 after the parties agreed in principle to settle but failed to finalise terms. There was no court determination on infringement, invalidity, or claim construction. Both asserted patents remain presumptively valid and the infringement question was not adjudicated.
The case ran for 1,147 days, from filing on October 20, 2022, to administrative closure on December 10, 2025. The parties announced an agreement in principle to settle on August 7, 2025, but required four additional court stays over four months before the case was administratively closed with settlement terms still unexecuted.
The case signals that EV charging system patents are being actively enforced against production electric vehicle platforms in US courts, and that OEMs may find it commercially preferable to settle rather than litigate to judgment. EV manufacturers and charging technology suppliers operating in the US should conduct freedom-to-operate assessments against the Charge Fusion patent family, particularly if their products involve onboard charging management or power delivery architecture.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.