NuCurrent vs. Sariana: Wireless Charging Patent Case Dismissed in Just 151 Days

Introduction

In a wireless charging patent dispute that concluded faster than most district court litigations, NuCurrent, Inc. v. Sariana LLC (Case No. 3:25-cv-00912) ended with a joint motion to dismiss — without prejudice — just 151 days after filing. Filed in the Southern District of California on April 17, 2025, and closed September 15, 2025, the case centered on two NuCurrent patents covering Qi2-compliant wireless charging technology and a line of Satechi-branded consumer charging products distributed by Sariana LLC.

The rapid resolution signals something significant: in high-growth wireless charging patent litigation, early negotiated exits are increasingly common. For patent attorneys tracking Qi2 standard-essential or standards-adjacent patent assertions, for IP professionals managing wireless power portfolios, and for R&D teams building next-generation charging products, this case offers timely strategic intelligence — even absent a merits ruling.

Case Overview

The Parties

The Patents at Issue

This rapid resolution centered on two NuCurrent utility patents covering Qi2-compliant wireless charging technology:

• • US12184084B2 — Wireless power transfer technology (Application No. US18/778704)
• • US12272970B2 — Wireless power transfer technology (Application No. US18/953887)

The Accused Products

NuCurrent targeted Sariana’s full Satechi Qi2 product line, including:

• • Satechi 2-in-1 Foldable Qi2 Wireless Charging Stand (ASIN B0D234Z86W)
• • Satechi 3-in-1 Foldable Qi2 Wireless Charging Stand (ASIN B0D283DDX4)
• • Satechi Qi2 Trio Wireless Charging Pad (ASIN B0DJFPT7S1)
• • Satechi Qi2 Wireless Car Charger (ASIN B0D6TYXCDL)

Litigation Timeline & Procedural History

Filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California, the case moved from complaint to closure in approximately five months — significantly faster than the median patent case duration at the district level, which typically runs 18 to 36 months through trial.

The Southern District of California has become a meaningful venue for consumer electronics IP disputes given its proximity to San Diego’s technology sector and established familiarity with hardware patent claims. The absence of reported claim construction hearings, summary judgment motions, or inter partes review (IPR) petitions within the 151-day window strongly implies the parties reached a negotiated resolution — likely a licensing agreement or covenant not to sue — prior to any substantive motion practice.

Legal Representation

Plaintiff NuCurrent was represented by Gregory S. Markow of CGS3 LLP.

Defendant Sariana retained Fish & Richardson LLP, with attorneys Aaron P. Pirouznia and Madelyn S. McCormick leading the defense. Fish & Richardson’s involvement is notable — the firm is among the most prominent patent litigation practices in the country, frequently retained when defendants anticipate substantive validity or non-infringement challenges.

The Verdict & Legal Analysis

Outcome

The case was terminated by an **Order Granting Joint Motion to Dismiss**, with the basis of termination recorded as **dismissed without prejudice**. No damages award or injunctive relief was entered by the court.

A joint motion to dismiss signals mutual agreement between both parties — neither party was compelled by the court to exit. The “without prejudice” designation preserves NuCurrent’s right to refile claims, a structurally important point for patent holders who may wish to maintain assertion leverage while formalizing a licensing arrangement privately. Specific financial terms of any settlement or license were not disclosed in the public record.

Verdict Cause Analysis

The operative cause was an **Infringement Action** — NuCurrent alleged that Sariana’s Satechi Qi2 products practiced one or more claims of US12184084B2 and US12272970B2 without authorization. Because the case resolved before any claim construction ruling or merits adjudication, no judicial determination of infringement, validity, or damages was made.

The strategic dynamics here are instructive. Fish & Richardson’s retention by Sariana typically signals a defendant prepared to mount a vigorous defense, including potential IPR petitions challenging patent validity at the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). The speed of resolution — before any such petitions would have completed — may suggest NuCurrent preferred a licensing outcome to the risk of patent invalidation through inter partes review.

Legal Significance

Because the dismissal was without prejudice and no claim construction or merits ruling was issued, **this case carries no direct precedential value** on the substantive questions of Qi2 patent claim scope or infringement. However, it is procedurally significant as a data point in NuCurrent’s broader assertion campaign and in the litigation posture surrounding Qi2 standard-adjacent patents.

For practitioners monitoring **wireless charging patent litigation**, the case number (3:25-cv-00912) and patent numbers (US12184084B2, US12272970B2) are essential tracking references for any related proceedings.

Industry & Competitive Implications

The NuCurrent v. Sariana case fits squarely within an accelerating pattern: wireless power patent holders asserting standards-adjacent claims against certified product manufacturers and distributors. As Qi2 adoption expands across iPhone accessories, Android devices, and automotive applications, the intersection of standards compliance and patent licensing will intensify.

NuCurrent’s portfolio strategy — asserting recently issued patents (both patents bearing high US12XXXXXX numbers suggesting 2024-2025 issuance) against commercial-stage products — mirrors assertion approaches seen in Bluetooth, Wi-Fi, and USB-C patent licensing campaigns of prior technology cycles.

For companies in the Qi2 supply chain — OEMs, contract manufacturers, brand distributors, and retailers — this case reinforces that:

• • Qi2 certification is not a safe harbor from patent infringement claims
• • Downstream distributors (not only manufacturers) face assertion risk
• • Early licensing engagement with wireless power patent holders may reduce litigation exposure

Competitors to Satechi in the Qi2 accessories market — including Anker, Belkin, Mophie, and others — should monitor NuCurrent’s litigation docket for parallel complaints.

FAQ

What patents were involved in NuCurrent v. Sariana?

US12184084B2 and US12272970B2, both covering Qi2-compliant wireless charging technology, were asserted in Case No. 3:25-cv-00912.

Why was the case dismissed without prejudice?

Both parties jointly moved for dismissal, typically indicating a private settlement or licensing agreement. “Without prejudice” preserves NuCurrent’s right to refile.

Does Qi2 certification protect against patent infringement claims?

No. WPC Qi2 certification confirms standards compliance but does not provide immunity from third-party patent infringement claims.