VoltStar Technologies v. Encased Products: Fast-Charger Patent Dispute Dismissed With Prejudice
VoltStar Technologies filed suit against Encased Products in the Eastern District of New York, asserting reissue patent USRE048794E against Galvanox-branded USB fast-charging products. The parties jointly stipulated to a dismissal with prejudice after 181 days, with each side bearing its own costs — a resolution that permanently closes the door on this specific claim.
Fast-Charger IP Dispute Ends in Mutual Stipulation Before Trial
On 24 April 2024, VoltStar Technologies, Inc. filed an infringement action in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Case No. 1:24-cv-03062) against Encased Products Inc., asserting reissue patent USRE048794E. The accused products were three Galvanox-branded USB chargers: the 18W iPhone PD Charger, the 20W Fast Charger, and the Travel Charger — consumer power-delivery accessories sold under Encased Products’ Galvanox line.
The case closed on 22 October 2024 via a joint stipulation of dismissal with prejudice under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). The stipulation expressly provides that each party bears its own costs, attorneys’ fees, and expenses. A dismissal with prejudice operates as a final adjudication on the merits, permanently barring VoltStar from reasserting these infringement claims against Encased Products on the same patent and accused products.
The 181-day resolution — before any substantive court ruling on the merits — is consistent with an out-of-court settlement or licensing agreement reached between the parties, though the public record does not disclose specific financial terms. The mutual cost-bearing provision suggests a negotiated outcome rather than a clear win for either side. Whether VoltStar secured a licence, royalty, or simply chose to walk away remains unknown from the available docket.
Filing to Dismissed with Prejudice in 181 days
181 days — resolved well within the typical 2–3 year E.D.N.Y. patent litigation cycle
Dismissed with prejudice: what the stipulated exit means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) dismissal with prejudice explained
A stipulated dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) requires the consent of all parties. When filed ‘with prejudice,’ it carries the same legal weight as a final judgment on the merits. VoltStar cannot re-file the same infringement claims against Encased Products on USRE048794E. The court takes no position on liability — the parties simply elect to end the litigation on agreed terms.
Final bar on re-filingVoltStar accepts a permanent bar — likely in exchange for something
By agreeing to a with-prejudice dismissal, VoltStar permanently surrenders its right to sue Encased Products again on this patent for these products. Patent holders rarely accept such a bar without receiving something in return — a licence, royalty payment, or product modification. The public record is silent on whether a commercial agreement was reached, but the structure of the stipulation is consistent with a negotiated resolution favouring the plaintiff.
Likely licensed or compensatedEncased Products avoids a merits ruling — but the patent survives
Encased Products secures certainty: no damages award, no injunction, and no adverse merits finding against the Galvanox charger line. However, the dismissal does not invalidate USRE048794E — the patent remains enforceable and VoltStar retains the right to assert it against other accused infringers. Encased Products may have agreed to a licence or product change to achieve this outcome, but no public confirmation exists.
No merits finding; patent intactUSRE048794E remains a live threat for other charger makers
The with-prejudice dismissal resolves only the dispute between these two parties. Any competitor selling USB fast-charging or power-delivery accessories that may read on USRE048794E should treat the patent as fully enforceable. The reissue designation signals the patent was broadened or corrected post-grant, potentially widening its claim scope. Other consumer electronics brands selling competing charger products face continued exposure.
Broader market still at riskFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | VoltStar Technologies, Inc. | Company | USB power-delivery technology licensor — holder of reissue patent USRE048794ESearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Encased Products Inc. | Company | Consumer electronics accessories maker; sells Galvanox-branded USB fast chargersSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Joseph Anthony Dunne | 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 | Andrew Bochner | Attorney | Counsel for Encased Products Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Avery Horovitz | Attorney | Counsel for Encased Products Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Michael Theodore Zoppo | Attorney | Counsel for Encased Products Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Neil McNabnay | Attorney | Counsel for Encased Products Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Bochner PLLC | Law Firm | Representing Encased Products Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Fish & Richardson – Neil Mcnabnay | Law Firm | Representing Encased Products Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Fish & Richardson PC | Law Firm | Representing Encased Products Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | New York Eastern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The stipulation’s explicit ‘with prejudice’ language — combined with the mutual cost-bearing provision — is the operative detail. A with-prejudice dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) functions as a final judgment, extinguishing VoltStar’s right to refile these claims against Encased Products. The absence of a cost award to either party suggests the parties reached a negotiated resolution rather than one side capitulating. The court made no finding on infringement, validity, or damages.
USRE048794E — USB Power Delivery fast-charging technology (reissue patent)
USRE048794E is a United States reissue patent, derived from application US16/209373. Reissue patents are granted when the USPTO determines the original patent was wholly or partly inoperative or invalid — commonly because the claims were drafted too narrowly. A reissue can broaden claim scope within two years of original grant, or narrow it at any time. The underlying technology relates to USB power delivery and fast-charging circuitry, a high-volume consumer electronics domain encompassing wall chargers, travel adapters, and USB-C PD accessories.
In the consumer charger segment, reissue patents carry particular strategic weight because broadened claims can capture a wider range of charging architectures. VoltStar’s decision to assert USRE048794E against three distinct Galvanox SKUs — covering 18W iPhone PD, 20W fast-charging, and travel form factors — suggests the claims may read broadly across wattage tiers and product configurations. For any brand competing in the USB-C or USB PD charger space, the continued enforceability of this patent post-dismissal represents a tangible IP risk.
Should your team run an FTO against USRE048794E?
If your company designs, imports, or sells USB fast-charging products — particularly 18W to 20W USB-C PD wall chargers or travel adapters — USRE048794E warrants a formal freedom-to-operate assessment. The patent’s reissue status means its claims may be broader than the original grant, and VoltStar’s enforcement history in E.D.N.Y. suggests an active assertion posture. The Galvanox product range spans the mainstream consumer price point where competition is intense.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map your product’s technical specifications against the claim language of USRE048794E, surface relevant prior art for invalidity analysis, and flag related continuation or family members that may present additional risk. Given the speed of the VoltStar-Encased resolution, proactive FTO work is considerably cheaper than reactive litigation defence in this space.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on USRE048794E to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar USB fast-charging and power delivery patent cases in U.S. District Courts
Explore comparable USB power delivery and fast-charging patent infringement actions filed in the Eastern District of New York and peer district courts.
What this case signals for the USB fast-charging IP landscape
A rapid pre-trial exit with prejudice on a reissue patent suggests VoltStar is actively licensing — and other charger brands should take note.
Reissue patents signal broadened claims — assess your exposure now
USRE048794E is a reissue patent, meaning the USPTO granted a corrected or expanded version of the original grant. Reissued patents can carry broader claims than their predecessors. Any company selling USB-C or PD fast-charging products should map current product specs against USRE048794E claim language before receiving a demand letter.
181-day resolution points to active licensing programme
VoltStar’s pattern — filing suit, achieving a with-prejudice dismissal with each side bearing costs — is a common signature of a licensing-focused enforcement strategy. Other charger accessory brands in the Galvanox competitive set should anticipate that VoltStar may assert the same patent against them in subsequent actions.
VoltStar v Encased — key questions answered
A dismissal with prejudice is a final disposition that bars the plaintiff from refiling the same claims. In Case No. 1:24-cv-03062, VoltStar Technologies agreed by stipulation to permanently drop its infringement action against Encased Products under USRE048794E. The court entered no merits ruling on infringement or validity — the parties simply agreed to end the litigation on these terms.
USRE048794E is a U.S. reissue patent covering USB fast-charging and power delivery technology, derived from application US16/209373. The ‘RE’ prefix indicates the USPTO granted a corrected reissue of the original patent. Reissue patents are notable because they may carry broader claims than the original, potentially covering a wider range of competing products and manufacturing approaches.
VoltStar’s complaint accused three Galvanox-branded products: the Galvanox 18W iPhone PD Charger, the Galvanox 20W Fast Charger, and the Galvanox Travel Charger. The range spans common consumer USB-C power delivery wattage tiers, suggesting VoltStar alleged the patent reads broadly across Encased Products’ charger line.
The public record does not disclose the commercial terms behind the stipulation. However, a with-prejudice dismissal where each party bears its own costs is a common structure when the parties have reached a private resolution — such as a licensing agreement or a product modification commitment. It is also consistent with VoltStar deciding not to pursue the action further, though a plaintiff accepting a permanent bar typically receives something of value in return.
No. The stipulated dismissal resolves only the dispute between VoltStar and Encased Products. USRE048794E remains a fully enforceable U.S. patent, and VoltStar retains all rights to assert it against other parties. Companies selling competing USB fast-charging or power delivery products should not assume the patent is invalid or unenforceable based on this dismissal.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.