VoltStar Technologies v. Amazon: Five Charging Patents Settled in 291 Days
VoltStar Technologies, Inc. filed suit against Amazon.com, Inc. in the Southern District of New York asserting five patents covering USB and wireless charging technology against Amazon’s official Fire Tablet charger and Basics Wireless Charging Stand. The parties reached a settlement in principle within 291 days, resulting in a dismissal without prejudice.
Filing to Case Dismissed in 291 days
291 days — resolved before typical S.D.N.Y. patent trial schedule
Settlement dismissal: what the without-prejudice order means for both sides
Dismissed without prejudice on settlement in principle
Judge Furman’s order dismisses the action without prejudice after ECF No. 59 notified the Court that all claims had been settled in principle. A 60-day window allows the parties to reopen the case if the settlement is not consummated. The Court signals it will not retain jurisdiction to enforce the agreement unless the settlement is submitted and ‘so ordered’ by the deadline.
Rule 41 — conditional dismissalVoltStar retains rights to re-file if settlement collapses
The without-prejudice dismissal preserves VoltStar’s ability to reinstate claims within 60 days if the settlement is not finalised. If consummated, VoltStar likely secures a licensing arrangement — though financial terms are not part of the public record. The five asserted patents remain valid and enforceable against third parties.
Patents remain enforceableAmazon avoids merits ruling with no cost liability
Amazon, represented by DLA Piper, exits the litigation without any court finding of infringement and with no costs awarded against it. A private settlement avoids an adverse claim-construction or validity ruling that could have affected Amazon’s broader charging accessory portfolio. The terms — including any royalty or design-around commitment — are not publicly disclosed.
No infringement findingPrivate resolution leaves charging patent landscape unsettled
Because no merits ruling issued, the scope and validity of VoltStar’s five charging patents remain untested in court. Competitors shipping USB and wireless charging accessories for consumer electronics — particularly Fire Tablet and e-reader ecosystems — cannot rely on this case to inform freedom-to-operate analysis. VoltStar’s portfolio is free to be asserted against other defendants.
No claim-construction precedentFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | VoltStar Technologies, Inc. | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Amazon.com, Inc. | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Joseph Anthony Dunne | Attorney | Counsel for VoltStar Technologies, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Layla Nguyen | Attorney | Counsel for VoltStar Technologies, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Sriplaw PA | Law Firm | Representing VoltStar Technologies, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Aima Mori | Attorney | Counsel for Amazon.com, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Ellen Agnes Scordino | Attorney | Counsel for Amazon.com, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Emily Radin | Attorney | Counsel for Amazon.com, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Gregory John Ferroni | Attorney | Counsel for Amazon.com, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Jennifer Librach Nall | Attorney | Counsel for Amazon.com, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Nan Lan | Attorney | Counsel for Amazon.com, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Peter D. VandeVort | Attorney | Counsel for Amazon.com, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | DLA Piper US LLP | Law Firm | Representing Amazon.com, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Jesse M. Furman | Judge | New York Southern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The dismissal order is explicitly conditioned — ‘without prejudice to the right to reopen within sixty days’ — meaning it does not constitute a final adjudication on the merits. The Court’s pointed language warning against extension requests and conditioning jurisdiction-retention on public submission of the settlement agreement suggests Judge Furman is actively managing docket finality. The absence of costs reflects a mutual decision rather than a judicial fee-shifting determination.
US7910833B2 and four related charging patents — USB & wireless power delivery
The asserted portfolio spans five patents — US7910833B2, US9024581B2, US7960648B2, USRE050625E, and USRE48794E — filed across application numbers dating to 2008 (US12/127592 and US12/124515) and including two reissue patents filed in 2021 and 2018 respectively. The technology domain covers USB power delivery circuitry and wireless charging interface methods, directly relevant to low-wattage adapters and Qi-based charging stands.
The inclusion of two reissue patents is strategically significant: reissues allow patentees to broaden or clarify original claims, often to capture products that post-date initial filing. For a portfolio covering USB and wireless charging — one of the highest-volume consumer electronics accessory categories — this architecture suggests VoltStar engineered coverage specifically to reach OEM chargers and third-party wireless stands like those sold under the Amazon Basics brand. Any competitor in this space faces non-trivial claim-coverage risk.
Should your team run an FTO against VoltStar’s charging patent portfolio?
If your organisation designs, manufactures, or distributes USB power adapters, OEM chargers, or wireless charging stands for consumer electronics — particularly for tablets and e-readers — VoltStar’s five-patent portfolio represents a credible freedom-to-operate concern. The settlement with Amazon forecloses any public claim-construction or invalidity ruling, meaning the portfolio’s effective scope remains undefined and potentially broad.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map each of the five VoltStar patents against your product’s technical specifications, identify claim elements most likely to read on commercial charging circuits, and surface prior art that could support a validity challenge. Given the reissue filings, Eureka can also trace prosecution history to identify any file-wrapper estoppel that may limit claim scope — critical intelligence before entering this product category.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US7910833B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar USB and wireless charging patent cases in U.S. district courts
Cases involving USB power delivery and wireless charging patents litigated in S.D.N.Y. and comparable U.S. district courts against consumer electronics defendants.
What this case signals for the USB and wireless charging IP landscape
A five-patent settlement against Amazon in under 300 days suggests VoltStar’s charging portfolio carries credible enforcement leverage.
Multi-patent stacking amplifies settlement pressure on large defendants
VoltStar asserted five patents simultaneously — two reissue patents and three original grants — covering overlapping aspects of USB and wireless charging. Stacking reissues alongside original patents typically signals a deliberate claim-broadening strategy, raising the cost of defence and increasing incentive to settle early.
No merits ruling means VoltStar’s patents stay actionable across the market
With no claim construction order or invalidity finding on the record, all five VoltStar patents remain fully enforceable. Other charging accessory manufacturers selling into the same product categories — USB power adapters and Qi wireless stands — should treat this portfolio as an active enforcement risk.
VoltStar v Amazon.com — key questions answered
VoltStar asserted five patents: US7910833B2, US9024581B2, US7960648B2, USRE050625E, and USRE48794E. The portfolio covers USB charging circuitry and wireless charging interface technology. Two of the five are reissue patents, suggesting deliberate claim-broadening after original issuance.
The case was dismissed without prejudice on 19 December 2025, after the parties notified Judge Furman that all claims had been settled in principle. The order includes a 60-day window to reopen if the settlement is not consummated and makes no award of costs. No merits ruling was issued.
VoltStar accused two Amazon products: the Amazon 5W USB Official OEM Charger and Power Adapter for Fire Tablets and Kindle eReaders, and the Amazon Basics Wireless Charging Stand. These represent two distinct charging modalities — wired USB and wireless Qi-based charging.
Within the 60-day reopen window specified in Judge Furman’s order, VoltStar can reinstate all claims if the settlement is not finalised. After that window closes, VoltStar could theoretically file a new complaint on the same patents, subject to any licence or covenant-not-to-sue included in the settlement agreement — the terms of which are not public.
Reissue patents (USRE prefix) are patents re-examined and reissued by the USPTO, often to correct errors or broaden claim scope. VoltStar’s USRE050625E and USRE48794E were filed in 2021 and 2018 respectively — well after the original applications. Their inclusion alongside three original patents suggests a strategy to expand coverage to encompass newer charging product designs, including wireless charging stands.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.