NuCurrent v. OnePlus: Eight Wireless Charging Patents, One Resolution
NuCurrent asserted eight US wireless charging patents against OnePlus’s flagship smartphones and charging accessories — including the OnePlus 12 and AIRVOOC 50W charger — before Judge Alan Albright in Waco. The parties resolved the dispute and the case was dismissed with prejudice after 344 days, with each side bearing its own fees and costs.
NuCurrent’s Qi patent portfolio reaches settlement with OnePlus
NuCurrent, Inc., a Chicago-based developer of high-performance wireless power transfer technology, filed suit against OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co. Ltd. on August 26, 2024, in the Western District of Texas before Judge Alan Albright. The complaint asserted eight US patents spanning Qi-standard wireless charging coil architecture and reverse wireless charging functionality, targeting OnePlus products including the OnePlus 12 smartphone, the AIRVOOC 50W Wireless Charger, and the Warp Charge 50 Wireless Charger.
The case ended on August 5, 2025, when NuCurrent filed a voluntary dismissal with prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i), with each party bearing its own fees and costs. The dismissal with prejudice — filed after the parties represent they have ‘resolved the matter’ — suggests a private settlement was reached, though the financial terms and any licensing arrangement are not reflected in the public record. NuCurrent is permanently barred from re-asserting the same claims against OnePlus on these patents.
The 344-day timeline is consistent with pre-trial resolution in WDTX, where Judge Albright’s docket management historically accelerates discovery and claim construction pressure. The mutual fee-bearing arrangement suggests neither party extracted a clear litigation advantage, and the ‘resolved the matter’ language is consistent with a confidential license or cross-agreement. What drove resolution — claim construction risk, NuCurrent’s portfolio breadth, or OnePlus’s commercial calculus — remains unknown from the public record.
Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 344 days
344 days — resolved before trial, consistent with early settlement pressure in WDTX
Dismissed with prejudice: what the resolution means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) dismissal with prejudice: finality by consent
A plaintiff-filed dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) requires no court approval and takes effect immediately upon filing. The ‘with prejudice’ designation is the critical qualifier: it is a final adjudication on the merits for claim-preclusion purposes, meaning NuCurrent cannot re-file these same patent claims against OnePlus in any federal court. The ‘parties having resolved the matter’ language signals a private agreement preceded the filing.
Final — no re-filing permittedNuCurrent closes out OnePlus exposure — likely on agreed terms
For NuCurrent, dismissal with prejudice is only rational if the commercial objective was achieved — most likely a licensing agreement or lump-sum settlement. NuCurrent’s eight-patent portfolio remains fully intact and enforceable against third parties; the dismissal extinguishes only the claims against OnePlus. The mutual fee-bearing arrangement suggests NuCurrent did not extract an exceptional case finding, but the underlying IP is unimpaired for future enforcement actions.
Patents intact for future enforcementOnePlus escapes ongoing litigation risk — at undisclosed cost
OnePlus secures closure on all eight asserted patents in a single resolution, eliminating the risk of an injunction or damages award on its flagship products. The dismissal with prejudice also provides NuCurrent with no ability to revive this specific action. However, if a license was granted rather than a covenant not to sue, the scope and duration of that license — and whether it covers future OnePlus products — remains private and undisclosed from the docket.
Litigation risk extinguishedNuCurrent’s Qi portfolio signals active enforcement across the wireless charging sector
NuCurrent has demonstrated willingness to assert its Qi coil and reverse wireless charging IP against major device OEMs in WDTX, a plaintiff-favorable venue. The rapid pre-trial resolution — coupled with a large eight-patent assertion — suggests that NuCurrent’s portfolio presents a credible licensing pressure point for any manufacturer incorporating Qi-standard or reverse wireless charging into consumer devices. Competitors operating in this space should treat these patents as active enforcement risk.
Active Qi enforcement riskFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | NUCURRENT, INC., | Company | Wireless power transfer IP licensor — holder of US8823481B2 and 7 related Qi patentsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. | Company | OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co. Ltd. — Chinese smartphone and accessories manufacturerSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Alison A. 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 ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Ari B. Rafilson | Attorney | Counsel for OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Craig D. Cherry | Attorney | Counsel for OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Jack Shaw | Attorney | Counsel for OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Mark D. Siegmund | Attorney | Counsel for OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Shuya Yang | Attorney | Counsel for OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Cherry Johnson Siegmund James PLLC | Law Firm | Representing OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Alan D Albright | Judge | Texas Western District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The verdict text confirms a plaintiff-initiated voluntary dismissal with prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), preceded by the parties having ‘resolved the matter’ — language that consistently accompanies confidential settlement or licensing agreements in WDTX patent practice. The with-prejudice designation operates as a final judgment on the merits for claim-preclusion purposes, permanently extinguishing NuCurrent’s right to assert these specific claims against OnePlus. The mutual fee-bearing order signals no exceptional case finding and no clear litigation winner on the procedural record, though the underlying commercial terms remain undisclosed.
US8823481B2 and 7 related patents — Qi wireless charging coil architecture
The eight asserted patents span application numbers filed across two distinct clusters: the US13/797xxx family (filed circa 2013) and later US15/227192, US17/150895, and US17/966542 filings, suggesting a layered portfolio covering both foundational Qi coil architecture and more recent reverse wireless charging implementations. The patents collectively address coil design, impedance matching, power transfer efficiency, and the bidirectional power flow required for a device to act simultaneously as a PRx and PTx unit — a technically complex capability now commercialised in flagship smartphones.
NuCurrent’s portfolio is strategically significant because it targets the Qi specification layer that underpins virtually every major smartphone OEM’s wireless charging implementation. The inclusion of Qi-ID certified products in the complaint — cross-referenced to the Wireless Power Consortium database — demonstrates that NuCurrent can systematically identify infringing products across the entire ecosystem. Any manufacturer integrating Qi-compliant wireless charging or reverse wireless charging into consumer devices faces potential exposure to this portfolio, particularly given NuCurrent’s demonstrated willingness to enforce in WDTX.
Should your team run an FTO against NuCurrent’s wireless charging portfolio?
Any R&D or product team developing Qi-compatible wireless charging hardware — whether smartphones, wearables, wireless chargers, or accessories incorporating reverse wireless charging — should treat NuCurrent’s eight-patent portfolio as a live FTO priority. The patents span both legacy coil architecture (2013 priority) and current-generation reverse charging implementations, creating layered infringement exposure across multiple product lines. The Qi-ID mapping methodology used in this case means that any WPC-certified device can be systematically checked against these claims.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent allows product teams to map claim scope across all eight NuCurrent patents simultaneously, identify prosecution history estoppel limitations, and benchmark against the Qi specification timeline to surface prior art arguments. For companies already in the WPC ecosystem, Eureka can cross-reference Qi certification data against asserted claim elements — replicating the product-mapping approach NuCurrent used in this case — to quantify exposure before a product launch or market entry decision.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US8823481B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Wireless charging patent cases in WDTX: comparable assertions and outcomes
Cases involving Qi wireless charging and near-field power transfer patents before Judge Albright in the Western District of Texas — outcomes, timelines, and licensing signals.
What this case signals for the wireless charging IP landscape
NuCurrent’s multi-patent Qi assertion against OnePlus reveals a structured enforcement strategy that any wireless charging device maker should monitor closely.
Eight-patent assertions in WDTX create settlement pressure early in discovery
Filing eight related patents in a single WDTX action before Judge Albright concentrates claim construction risk and discovery costs on the defendant simultaneously. This assertion architecture — broad portfolio, single venue, fast-track docket — is consistent with a licensing strategy designed to reach resolution before trial. OEMs commercialising Qi or reverse wireless charging hardware should anticipate this playbook.
Dismissal with prejudice preserves NuCurrent’s portfolio for the next target
A with-prejudice dismissal only forecloses claims against OnePlus — all eight patents remain fully enforceable against every other wireless charging device maker. NuCurrent’s willingness to resolve quickly and move on is consistent with a rolling licensing campaign targeting Qi-compatible smartphone and accessory OEMs. The AIRVOOC and Warp Charge product scope suggests near-field charging coil architecture is central to the infringement theory.
NUCURRENT v OnePlus — key questions answered
NuCurrent asserted eight US patents: US8823481B2, US11916400B2, US8692641B2, US8610530B2, US8823482B2, US11476566B2, US8698590B2, and US11336003B2. The patents cover Qi-standard wireless charging coil architecture and reverse wireless charging functionality, and were asserted against products including the OnePlus 12 smartphone and the AIRVOOC 50W Wireless Charger.
The case was resolved on August 5, 2025, when NuCurrent filed a voluntary dismissal with prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) after the parties represented they had resolved the matter. Dismissal with prejudice is a final adjudication on the merits for claim-preclusion purposes — NuCurrent cannot re-file these claims against OnePlus. Each party bears its own fees and costs. The ‘resolved the matter’ language is consistent with a confidential settlement, though terms are not public.
The accused products included the OnePlus 12 smartphone (part numbers PJD110, CPH2573, CPH2581, CPH2583, Qi-ID 14746), the OnePlus AIRVOOC 50W Wireless Charger, the OnePlus Warp Charge 50 Wireless Charger (Qi-ID 11166), and mobile devices capable of reverse wireless charging acting as a PRx device. The complaint referenced WPC Qi certification IDs, enabling systematic product identification.
The Western District of Texas, and specifically Judge Alan Albright’s court in Waco, has been one of the most plaintiff-favoured patent venues in the US, known for fast-track scheduling and accommodating claim construction practice. Filing before Judge Albright concentrates discovery pressure and claim construction risk on defendants early, which is consistent with a licensing-oriented enforcement strategy. NuCurrent’s choice of venue and assertion of eight patents simultaneously is a recognised playbook for accelerating resolution.
No. The dismissal with prejudice in case 6:24-cv-00437 only extinguishes NuCurrent’s claims against OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co. Ltd. All eight asserted patents remain fully enforceable against any other party. NuCurrent retains the right to assert US8823481B2 and the seven co-asserted patents against other smartphone OEMs, wireless charger manufacturers, or any entity incorporating Qi-standard or reverse wireless charging technology.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.