NuCurrent v. ASUSTeK: Five Qi Wireless Charging Patents — Dismissed With Prejudice
NuCurrent, Inc. filed suit against ASUSTeK Computer in the Eastern District of Texas asserting five patents covering Qi-standard wireless power transfer technology. After 303 days, NuCurrent voluntarily dismissed the case with prejudice before ASUSTeK had filed an answer — with each party bearing its own legal costs.
Early voluntary dismissal in a five-patent Qi wireless charging dispute
NuCurrent, Inc., a Chicago-based wireless power technology company, filed this infringement action on 26 August 2024 in the Eastern District of Texas before Judge Rodney Gilstrap. The complaint alleged that ASUSTeK Computer’s Qi-certified devices — including both power transmitting (PTx) and power receiving (PRx) products listed on the Wireless Power Consortium’s Product Database — infringed five NuCurrent patents covering wireless power transfer and coil technologies.
NuCurrent filed a voluntary notice of dismissal with prejudice on 25 June 2025 pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i). Because ASUSTeK had not yet filed an answer or moved for summary judgment, the dismissal was self-executing under the rule. The court acknowledged and accepted the notice, formally closing the case. Critically, the with-prejudice designation bars NuCurrent from re-filing the same claims against ASUSTeK on these five patents.
The 303-day duration and pre-answer dismissal suggest the parties likely reached a resolution — potentially a licensing agreement or cross-license — outside of court, though the public record does not confirm the terms of any such arrangement. The mutual cost-bearing order is consistent with a negotiated exit rather than a contested ruling. What drove NuCurrent to foreclose re-filing rather than dismiss without prejudice remains unknown from the docket.
Filing to Dismissed with Prejudice in 303 days
303 days — resolved before defendant answer or summary judgment
Dismissed with prejudice: what the Rule 41 exit means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) — self-executing before answer
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i) permits a plaintiff to dismiss an action without a court order by filing a notice of dismissal before the defendant serves an answer or a motion for summary judgment. Because ASUSTeK had taken neither step, NuCurrent’s notice was self-executing. The court’s order formally acknowledged the dismissal but was not required to make it effective.
Pre-answer voluntary dismissalWith prejudice bars any refiling on these five patents
A dismissal with prejudice operates as a final adjudication on the merits, permanently barring NuCurrent from asserting the same five patents against ASUSTeK in any future action. This is a meaningful concession by the plaintiff: a dismissal without prejudice would have preserved the right to refile. The public record does not explain why NuCurrent elected the more restrictive designation, though it is consistent with a settlement in which ASUSTeK obtained a release.
Permanent bar on refilingASUSTeK exits without a merits ruling — but risk may not be fully resolved
ASUSTeK secures a dismissal without having to litigate invalidity or non-infringement arguments on the record. While the with-prejudice designation protects ASUSTeK from re-suit on these five patents, it does not constitute a finding that the patents are invalid or not infringed. NuCurrent’s portfolio may include additional wireless power patents that could form the basis of future actions against ASUSTeK or similar Qi-device manufacturers.
No merits adjudicationPre-answer exit suggests a commercial resolution in the Qi licensing market
NuCurrent’s willingness to dismiss with prejudice before ASUSTeK even responded to the complaint strongly suggests a licensing or settlement arrangement was reached. For other Qi-certified device makers, this pattern — East Texas filing, pre-answer settlement, with-prejudice exit — is consistent with NuCurrent’s broader licensing strategy. Companies manufacturing or importing Qi PTx or PRx devices should assess their exposure to NuCurrent’s wireless power portfolio.
Likely licensing resolutionFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | NuCurrent, Inc. | Company | Wireless power transfer IP licensor — holder of US11916400B2 and four related Qi patentsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Asustek Computer, Inc. | Company | ASUSTeK Computer Inc. — global consumer electronics and PC manufacturerSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Alison Aubry Richards | Attorney | Counsel for NuCurrent, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Global IP Law Group LLC | Law Firm | Representing NuCurrent, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Rodney Gilstrap | Judge | Texas Eastern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court’s order is purely administrative — it acknowledges NuCurrent’s self-executing Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) notice and adds a cost-bearing directive. No merits finding was made on infringement, validity, or claim construction. The with-prejudice designation is the only substantively consequential element: it forecloses NuCurrent from reasserting these five patents against ASUSTeK, functioning as a permanent injunction against refiling rather than a judicial determination of the underlying dispute.
US11916400B2 — Qi wireless power transfer coil and system technology
The five asserted patents — US11916400B2, US9232893B2, US9208942B2, US11476566B2, and US11336003B2 — collectively cover NuCurrent’s near-field wireless power transfer technology, including coil architecture, coupling structures, and system-level implementations compliant with the WPC’s Qi specification. US11916400B2, the lead patent, derives from Application No. 17/966542, indicating a continuation lineage. The filing dates across the portfolio span multiple years, suggesting layered protection around Qi-compliant coil design and certification.
The Qi wireless charging standard has become ubiquitous across consumer electronics — smartphones, wearables, laptop accessories, and gaming peripherals. ASUSTeK’s presence across all these product categories makes it a commercially significant target. NuCurrent’s portfolio strategy — asserting multiple patents covering both the transmitting and receiving sides of the Qi link — raises the cost of designing around any single claim. For competitors in the Qi ecosystem, the breadth of this portfolio warrants monitoring even after this particular dispute’s resolution.
Should your Qi-certified products be cleared against NuCurrent’s portfolio?
Any company manufacturing, importing, or distributing Qi-certified wireless charging products — whether PTx chargers, PRx-enabled smartphones, wearables, or accessories — should assess freedom-to-operate against NuCurrent’s issued patent family. The five patents asserted here cover both system-level and coil-level implementations, meaning standard-compliant products are not automatically design-around safe. The with-prejudice dismissal protects ASUSTeK only; other Qi device makers remain exposed.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map NuCurrent’s full patent portfolio — including pending continuations and related applications — against your specific product architecture. By analysing claim scope across US11916400B2, US9232893B2, US9208942B2, US11476566B2, and US11336003B2 simultaneously, Eureka helps R&D and IP teams identify design-around opportunities and prioritise IPR candidacy before a demand letter arrives.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US11916400B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Qi wireless charging patent disputes in E.D. Texas
Cases involving Qi wireless power transfer patents litigated before Judge Gilstrap in the Eastern District of Texas, including NuCurrent enforcement actions and related WPC-standard disputes.
What this case signals for the Qi wireless charging IP landscape
NuCurrent’s East Texas campaign against Qi device makers shows a repeatable enforcement pattern worth tracking closely.
East Texas + pre-answer exit is a recognisable NuCurrent licensing tactic
Filing in the Eastern District of Texas before Judge Gilstrap and securing a with-prejudice dismissal before the defendant answers is consistent with a plaintiff using litigation as a licensing lever. For Qi device manufacturers, this case suggests NuCurrent is actively monetising its wireless power portfolio and is willing to resolve quickly when commercial terms align.
Five patents asserted — portfolio breadth raises ongoing FTO risk
NuCurrent asserted patents spanning wireless power coil design and Qi-standard compliance. The breadth of the portfolio — five patents across multiple application numbers — means that a settlement on these claims does not clear the field. Qi-certified PTx and PRx device makers should conduct FTO analysis against NuCurrent’s full patent family, not just the five asserted patents.
NuCurrent v Asustek — key questions answered
NuCurrent, Inc. filed an infringement action against ASUSTeK in the Eastern District of Texas on 26 August 2024 asserting five Qi wireless charging patents. On 25 June 2025, NuCurrent voluntarily dismissed the case with prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) before ASUSTeK had filed an answer. Each party was ordered to bear its own costs.
A dismissal with prejudice operates as a final adjudication on the merits, permanently barring NuCurrent from refiling the same claims based on these five patents against ASUSTeK. Unlike a dismissal without prejudice, NuCurrent cannot revive the lawsuit in any court. This concession by the plaintiff typically signals that a commercial resolution — such as a licence or settlement — was reached.
NuCurrent asserted five patents: US11916400B2, US9232893B2, US9208942B2, US11476566B2, and US11336003B2. These patents collectively cover Qi-standard wireless power transfer technology including coil design and system-level implementations for both power transmitting (PTx) and receiving (PRx) devices certified under the Wireless Power Consortium’s Qi specification.
No. The dismissal with prejudice is not a merits ruling. No court found the asserted patents valid or invalid, and no infringement or non-infringement determination was made. The dismissal simply reflects NuCurrent’s decision to end the litigation on terms that preclude refiling. ASUSTeK’s products were never adjudicated against the patent claims.
The pre-answer, with-prejudice exit is consistent with a licensing resolution, suggesting NuCurrent is actively enforcing its wireless power portfolio against Qi device makers. Other manufacturers of Qi-certified PTx or PRx products should assess FTO against NuCurrent’s full patent family — including continuation applications — before assuming the dismissal signals the end of NuCurrent’s enforcement campaign in this sector.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.