SnapRays v. Home Depot: 7-Patent Smart Wallplate Dispute Settled After 580 Days
SnapRays LLC, trading as SnapPower, brought a seven-patent infringement action against Home Depot in the Eastern District of Texas covering powered cover plates, motion-activated lights, USB charger wallplates, and nightlight wallplates. The parties reached a settlement after 580 days, producing a split dismissal: four counts with prejudice, seven without.
SnapPower’s wallplate patent portfolio tested against retail giant Home Depot
On 21 May 2024, SnapRays LLC — doing business as SnapPower — filed a multi-count infringement action against The Home Depot, Inc. and its subsidiary Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. in the Eastern District of Texas before Judge Amos L. Mazzant. The complaint asserted seven U.S. patents covering the company’s core powered cover plate technology, spanning motion-activated lights, nightlight wallplates, USB charger wallplates, power-failure lights, and the underlying electrical contact mechanisms that power them without requiring rewiring.
The case closed on 22 December 2025 via a stipulated dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), following a negotiated settlement. The dismissal terms are notably asymmetric: Plaintiff’s Counts I through VII were dismissed without prejudice — preserving SnapRays’ ability to re-assert those claims should a future dispute arise — while Counts VIII through XI were dismissed with prejudice, permanently extinguishing those specific claims. Defendants’ defenses were also dismissed without prejudice.
The 580-day duration suggests the parties engaged in meaningful discovery or claim-construction activity before reaching terms. The split dismissal structure is commercially significant: it is consistent with a settlement in which SnapRays received consideration for the with-prejudice counts while retaining optionality on the remaining claims. The financial terms of any settlement agreement are not part of the public record, and the precise scope of any licence or covenant not to sue granted to Home Depot remains unknown.
Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 580 days
580 days — above median for E.D. Tex. patent cases resolved before trial
Split dismissal unpacked: what the mixed prejudice terms mean for both parties
Rule 41 stipulated dismissal with asymmetric prejudice terms
A Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) dismissal is a court-approved stipulation signed by all parties. Here, Counts I–VII were dismissed without prejudice — meaning SnapRays could theoretically re-file those claims — while Counts VIII–XI were dismissed with prejudice, barring any future re-filing. This split structure is uncommon and typically reflects a negotiated settlement where certain claims are fully resolved while others remain live optionality for the patent holder.
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) stipulationSnapRays retains re-assertion rights on seven of eleven counts
By securing dismissal without prejudice on Counts I–VII, SnapRays preserves a litigation pathway against Home Depot or others if product lines evolve or if settlement terms are breached. The with-prejudice dismissal of Counts VIII–XI suggests those claims were the subject of direct resolution — possibly a licence, royalty payment, or covenant not to sue. Public records do not confirm financial terms.
Partial optionality retainedHome Depot’s defenses dismissed without prejudice — litigation risk persists
Home Depot’s defenses — which may have included invalidity or non-infringement arguments — were also dismissed without prejudice. This means those defenses were not adjudicated on the merits and could be re-raised if SnapRays re-files on the unresolved counts. Home Depot did not obtain a final ruling of invalidity or non-infringement on any of the seven asserted patents, leaving its product lines exposed to future enforcement action.
No invalidity ruling securedSmart wallplate IP remains live enforcement risk for the home improvement sector
With seven patents still uncancelled and the majority of counts dismissed without prejudice, SnapPower’s IP portfolio continues to represent a credible enforcement threat for retailers and OEMs selling powered cover plate products. The case signals that SnapPower is willing to litigate in the Eastern District of Texas — a plaintiff-favoured venue — and to pursue large retail defendants. Competitors and distributors in the smart electrical accessories space should treat these patents as active enforcement assets.
Active portfolio — E.D. Tex. venue riskFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | SnapRays, LLC | Company | Smart wallplate and powered cover plate innovator — holder of US10381789B2 and 6 related patentsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Home Depot, Inc. | Company | Home Depot, Inc. and Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. — major U.S. home improvement retailerSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Chad Nydegger | Attorney | Counsel for SnapRays, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Elliott James Williams | Attorney | Counsel for SnapRays, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Michael Charles Smith | Attorney | Counsel for SnapRays, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Monica Litle Goff | Attorney | Counsel for SnapRays, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Sarah Marie Terry | Attorney | Counsel for SnapRays, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Carter Arnet PLLC | Law Firm | Representing SnapRays, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Scheef & Stone LLP (Marshall) | Law Firm | Representing SnapRays, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Stoel Rives LLP – Portland | Law Firm | Representing SnapRays, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Workman Nydegger | Law Firm | Representing SnapRays, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Amir H. Alavi | Attorney | Counsel for Home Depot, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Masood Anjom | Attorney | Counsel for Home Depot, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Steven Thomas Jugle | Attorney | Counsel for Home Depot, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Alavi & Anaipakos PLLC | Law Firm | Representing Home Depot, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Amos L Mazzant | Judge | Texas Eastern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The stipulated dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) reflects a negotiated resolution rather than any judicial determination on the merits. Critically, the asymmetric prejudice treatment — seven counts without prejudice, four with — encodes the settlement’s scope: fully resolved claims are closed permanently while unresolved claims remain re-fileable. No court findings on infringement, validity, or claim construction were issued, leaving the legal strength of all seven patents untested by this proceeding.
US10381789B2 and six related patents — powered cover plate technology portfolio
The seven asserted patents — led by US10381789B2 (application US16/244838) — collectively protect SnapPower’s core innovation: a standard electrical outlet cover plate that harvests power from existing in-wall wiring contacts without requiring any rewiring, enabling integrated functions such as motion-activated lighting, nightlights, USB charging, and power-failure emergency lights. The family spans applications filed between approximately 2013 and 2019, covering both the underlying electrical contact architecture and the functional device embodiments built upon it.
This patent cluster is strategically significant because it claims the wallplate form factor itself as the locus of innovation — a space occupied by hundreds of SKUs across major home improvement and electrical supply retailers. Any private-label or third-party powered cover plate product sold through retail channels is a potential infringement target. The breadth of the portfolio, covering multiple product categories under a unified electrical contact claim architecture, makes it unusually difficult to design around without departing from the standard wallplate footprint entirely.
Should your team run an FTO against SnapPower’s wallplate patent portfolio?
Any company manufacturing, importing, or distributing powered cover plates, smart wallplates, outlet nightlights, USB charger plates, or motion-activated wallplate lights for the U.S. market should treat this seven-patent portfolio as an active clearance requirement. The Eastern District of Texas filing against Home Depot confirms SnapPower’s enforcement posture. With Counts I–VII surviving without prejudice, the portfolio remains immediately actionable against new defendants or re-named products.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map all seven asserted patents against your product’s claim elements, identify prior art that Home Depot’s unlitigated defenses may have surfaced, flag continuation applications that could broaden claim scope post-settlement, and benchmark your design-around options against the full SnapPower family. Run a Eureka FTO analysis before your next product launch or retail distribution agreement — not after a complaint arrives.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US10381789B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar smart wallplate and consumer electrical patent cases in E.D. Texas
Explore comparable powered cover plate and smart electrical accessory patent disputes filed in the Eastern District of Texas and related U.S. district courts.
What this case signals for the smart wallplate and home electrical IP landscape
SnapPower’s willingness to assert a seven-patent portfolio against the U.S.’s largest home improvement retailer marks a significant escalation in powered cover plate IP enforcement.
E.D. Texas remains the venue of choice for consumer electronics patent enforcement
SnapRays’ choice of the Eastern District of Texas under Judge Mazzant — a judge with extensive Markman hearing experience — signals deliberate forum selection. Companies distributing smart electrical accessories through U.S. retail channels should evaluate their exposure in this jurisdiction before a complaint lands.
Split dismissals often encode settlement value — read the prejudice asymmetry carefully
The with-prejudice/without-prejudice split across eleven counts is a structural signal that the settlement addressed some, but not all, of the asserted IP. IP counsel reviewing similar stipulated dismissals should map which patent claims were fully resolved versus left open, as this directly affects FTO clearance assessments for third-party products.
SnapRays v Home — key questions answered
SnapRays asserted seven U.S. patents: US10381789B2, US9035180B2, US9899814B2, US10109945B2, US10373773B2, US10381788B2, and US10404045B2. These patents collectively cover powered cover plate technology including motion-activated lights, nightlight wallplates, USB charger wallplates, and power-failure lights that draw power from standard in-wall wiring contacts without rewiring.
The case settled and was dismissed via a Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) stipulation on 22 December 2025. Counts I–VII were dismissed without prejudice — preserving SnapRays’ right to re-file those claims — while Counts VIII–XI were dismissed with prejudice, permanently barring re-filing. Home Depot’s defenses were dismissed without prejudice, meaning no invalidity or non-infringement findings were made.
The Eastern District of Texas, particularly before Judge Amos L. Mazzant, is a well-established patent plaintiff venue known for efficient case management and Markman hearing experience. SnapRays’ choice of this court is consistent with a deliberate forum strategy designed to maximise settlement leverage against large retail defendants distributing competing wallplate products.
The settlement resolves only the dispute between SnapRays and Home Depot. Because Counts I–VII were dismissed without prejudice and no invalidity ruling was issued, all seven patents remain in force and are fully assertable against other retailers, distributors, or manufacturers of powered cover plate products. Third parties should not treat this settlement as IP clearance for their own products.
The case record identifies the accused products as motion-activated lights, nightlight wallplates, power failure lights, USB charger wallplates, and powered cover plates generally. These product categories align directly with SnapPower’s commercial lineup and suggest the dispute centred on Home Depot’s retail offering of competing or private-label wallplate accessories that incorporate similar electrical contact and integrated function technology.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.