Infringement action filed 20 Jun 2023 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida and closed 22 Aug 2023, with 2 patents asserted. Recorded basis of termination: case settled.
A reduced plug-size charger plug for power conversion is disclosed utilizing a pair of blades that are slidably mounted into a charger housing, obviating the need for insertion molding. To promote and maintain electrical contact while minimizing package size and charger plug cost, a pair of spring contacts are provided for electrically connecting the blades with internal circuitry.
A reduced plug-size charger plug for power conversion is disclosed utilizing a pair of blades that are slidably mounted into a charger housing, obviating the need for insertion molding. To promote and maintain electrical contact while minimizing package size and charger plug cost, a pair of spring contacts are provided for electrically connecting the blades with internal circuitry.
Source: case record + Patsnap company data. Attorney names appear as recorded in the docket.Compare both portfolios
Outcome
Basis of termination
From the record · verbatim
"Voltstar Technologies, Inc. and Craig Electronics LLC and Newtech Electronics Industries LLC, by and through their undersigned counsel, and pursuant to Local Rule 16.4 of the Southern District of Florida, hereby notify the Court that the parties have reached a settlement and request until September 21, 2023 in which to file a Stipulation of Dismissal With Prejudice."
Case 1:23-cv-22284 · S.D. Fla. · closed 22 August 2023
Source: case record, verbatim. The quoted paragraph is the basis-of-termination text as filed.
Related cases
Three questions this record usually leads to. Each one runs against the full litigation and patent corpus, and cites what it finds.
1:23-cv-22284 is a patent infringement action brought by VoltStar Technologies, Inc. against Craig Electronics, LLC, filed on 20 Jun 2023 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. The case closed on 22 August 2023.
Which patents were asserted in 1:23-cv-22284?
US9024581B2 (“Charger plug with improved package”), assigned to VOLTSTAR TECHNOLOGIES, INC., currently inactive; USRE48794E1 (“Charger plug with improved package”), assigned to VOLSTAR TECHNOLOGIES, INC., currently active. The record also lists Charger plug with improved package.
How was case 1:23-cv-22284 terminated?
The recorded basis of termination is case settled. The termination text reads: "Voltstar Technologies, Inc. and Craig Electronics LLC and Newtech Electronics Industries LLC, by and through their undersigned counsel, and pursuant to Local Rule 16.4 of the Southern District of Florida, hereby notify the Court that the parties have reached a settlement and request until September 21, 2023 in which to file a Stipulation of Dismissal With Prejudice."
What does dismissal with prejudice mean?
A dismissal with prejudice permanently ends the claims that were filed, so the same claims cannot be brought again against that defendant. It is the usual form when the parties have settled.
How long did case 1:23-cv-22284 take?
63 calendar days, from filing on 20 Jun 2023 to closure on 22 August 2023.
Who were the attorneys and the judge in 1:23-cv-22284?
Chief Judge Darrin P. Gayles presided. Joel Benjamin Rothman and Layla Nguyen are recorded as counsel for plaintiff VoltStar Technologies. Giulia Christine Farrior and Ury Fischer appear for defendant Craig Electronics.
Answers reproduce fields from the case record for 1:23-cv-22284 and do not constitute legal advice.Ask your own question
Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 1:23-cv-22284 and is provided for general information and reference only. It is not legal advice and must not be relied upon as such.
Docket data has limits. Records are drawn from a snapshot and may lag the live docket. Sealed filings, amended complaints, counterclaims and post-closure motions may not be reflected. Party names, attorney names and firm affiliations are reproduced as recorded and may contain omissions. Where a field is absent from the record, this page marks it as not recorded rather than inferring a value.
No characterisation of the parties or the outcome. This page reports what the record contains. Nothing here should be read as an assertion that any party infringed, that any patent is valid or invalid, that any settlement occurred, or that any party prevailed.
No FTO or validity opinion. Nothing on this page constitutes a freedom-to-operate, novelty, validity or infringement opinion. Any decision touching a live patent dispute should be verified independently and reviewed with qualified patent counsel.
