VoltStar Technologies v. Salom America: USB Charging Patent Dispute Ends in Prejudicial Dismissal
VoltStar Technologies filed suit against Salom America in the Northern District of Illinois, asserting three US patents covering USB charging technology against Motorola TurboPower and wireless charging products. The parties jointly stipulated to dismiss VoltStar’s claims with prejudice just 237 days after filing, with each side bearing its own costs.
A swift stipulated exit: three charging patents, no merits ruling
VoltStar Technologies, Inc., holder of three US patents relating to USB charging technology, filed this infringement action against Salom America Company in the Northern District of Illinois on April 23, 2024. The asserted patents — US7910833B2, US7960648B2, and reissue patent USRE048794E — were alleged to cover Motorola-branded products distributed or sold by Salom, including the Motorola TurboPower 20 USB-C Wall Charger, the Motorola Wireless Charger, and the Motorola 15W TurboPower Wireless Charging Pad.
The case closed on December 16, 2024, via a joint stipulation under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). Critically, the dismissal is asymmetric: VoltStar’s infringement claims are dismissed with prejudice — meaning VoltStar cannot re-file those same claims against Salom on the same patents — while Salom’s counterclaims are dismissed without prejudice, preserving Salom’s ability to re-assert them in future proceedings. No fee award was made; each party bears its own litigation costs.
Resolution in under eight months is notably fast for a multi-patent infringement action, suggesting the parties reached an out-of-court arrangement — likely a license, covenant not to sue, or commercial settlement — that made continued litigation unnecessary. The public record does not disclose the terms of any underlying agreement. The with-prejudice dismissal of VoltStar’s claims is the operative result for IP practitioners tracking these three patents, as it forecloses re-litigation of the same infringement theory against Salom.
Filing to Case Dismissed in 237 days
237 days — resolved well under the median district court patent case duration of ~2.5 years
Asymmetric stipulated dismissal: what the split terms mean for each party
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii): a bilateral exit with unequal finality
A Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) stipulated dismissal requires both parties’ signatures and takes immediate effect upon filing — no judicial order is needed. Here, the parties agreed to asymmetric finality: plaintiff’s claims dismissed with prejudice, defendant’s counterclaims without. This structure is uncommon and typically reflects a negotiated trade-off, with the plaintiff accepting permanent foreclosure of its claims in exchange for some consideration not visible in the public docket.
Stipulated dismissal — Rule 41With-prejudice exit bars VoltStar from re-suing Salom on these patents
A with-prejudice dismissal of VoltStar’s claims carries claim-preclusive effect: VoltStar cannot reassert infringement of US7910833B2, US7960648B2, or USRE048794E against Salom America for the same accused products. If VoltStar received a license fee or settlement payment — plausible given the speed of resolution — the with-prejudice bar is the price paid for finality. Third-party defendants and different product lines are not necessarily foreclosed by this dismissal.
Claims permanently extinguished vs. SalomSalom’s counterclaims survive — preserved for future deployment
Salom’s counterclaims — likely invalidity and/or non-infringement assertions — were dismissed without prejudice, meaning Salom retains the right to re-file them. This preservation is strategically significant: if VoltStar pursues other defendants or asserts the same patents elsewhere, Salom could intervene or re-file its counterclaims. Fish & Richardson’s involvement on the defense side suggests the counterclaims may have carried meaningful invalidity arguments that VoltStar preferred not to litigate to a merits ruling.
Counterclaims preserved — no merits rulingUSB charging IP landscape: patents remain in play for other defendants
The absence of any merits adjudication means the validity and scope of VoltStar’s three charging patents remains untested by this court. Companies selling competing USB-C wall or wireless charging products cannot rely on this dismissal as a validity shield. The reissue patent (USRE048794E) in particular — having survived USPTO reissue examination — may carry strengthened claim scope. R&D teams and manufacturers in the mobile accessories space should treat these patents as active enforcement risks.
Patents remain enforceable vs. third partiesFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | VoltStar Technologies, Inc. | Company | USB charging technology IP holder — asserting US7910833B2, US7960648B2, and USRE048794ESearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Salom America Company | Company | Salom America Company — distributor of Motorola-branded USB wall and wireless charging productsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Jay Campbell Miller | Attorney | Counsel for VoltStar Technologies, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Joel Benjamin Rothman | Attorney | Counsel for VoltStar Technologies, Inc.Search 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 | Alexander Hale Martin | Attorney | Counsel for Salom America CompanySearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Louis E. Fogel | Attorney | Counsel for Salom America CompanySearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Neil J. Mcnabnay | Attorney | Counsel for Salom America CompanySearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Rodeen Talebi | Attorney | Counsel for Salom America CompanySearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Fish & Richardson LLP | Law Firm | Representing Salom America CompanySearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Sunil R. Harjani | Judge | Illinois Northern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The stipulation’s asymmetric structure — plaintiff’s claims out with prejudice, defendant’s counterclaims out without — is the operative legal result. No claim construction, validity ruling, or infringement finding was issued, so the patents’ scope remains judicially untested. The with-prejudice bar on VoltStar’s claims is functionally equivalent to a final judgment for Salom on the question of re-litigation, but it carries no estoppel benefit for third parties. Salom’s counterclaim preservation suggests the parties deliberately avoided a merits outcome that could have invalidated the asserted patents.
US7910833B2, US7960648B2 & USRE048794E — USB charging technology patents
The three asserted patents — US7910833B2 (application US12/127592), US7960648B2 (application US12/251882), and reissue USRE048794E (application US16/209373) — relate to USB charging technology, covering circuitry, power delivery, and control systems relevant to both wired USB-C wall chargers and wireless charging pads. USRE048794E is a reissue of an earlier patent, meaning it underwent a second round of USPTO examination; reissue patents can carry expanded or clarified claims relative to the original grant, and their prosecution history is particularly relevant to claim scope analysis.
The commercial significance of these patents is substantial given the ubiquity of USB-C and wireless charging in consumer electronics. Asserting them against Motorola TurboPower products — a recognised brand in fast-charging accessories — signals that VoltStar views its portfolio as covering mainstream charging implementations, not merely niche applications. With no claim construction order issued in this case, the outer boundaries of these patents remain undefined by any court, presenting meaningful risk for manufacturers, importers, and retailers of competing USB charging devices who cannot rely on this litigation’s outcome as a validity or scope indicator.
Should your charging product team run an FTO against US7910833B2 and USRE048794E?
Any company designing, importing, or distributing USB-C wall chargers or wireless charging pads in the US market should assess exposure to VoltStar’s three-patent portfolio. This case demonstrates active enforcement intent: VoltStar filed in a plaintiff-friendly northern Illinois venue, retained experienced IP counsel, and secured a with-prejudice resolution — a pattern consistent with a structured licensing programme. The accused Motorola products are mainstream consumer electronics, suggesting broad claim coverage rather than narrow niche assertions.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the claim scope of US7910833B2, US7960648B2, and USRE048794E against your product specifications, identify relevant prior art that was not raised in this litigation, and flag prosecution history estoppel arguments from the reissue proceedings of USRE048794E. R&D and product teams launching new USB-C or wireless charging SKUs should initiate this analysis before US market entry, particularly given that Salom’s without-prejudice counterclaims may surface in future proceedings as a prior art resource.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US7910833B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar USB charging patent infringement cases in US district courts
Cases involving USB charging and wireless power delivery patents in the Northern District of Illinois and comparable federal venues, with comparable stipulated dismissal outcomes.
What this case signals for the USB charging IP enforcement landscape
A fast, asymmetric exit in a multi-patent charger dispute raises pointed questions for anyone operating in the mobile accessories supply chain.
With-prejudice exit does not neutralise the patent portfolio globally
VoltStar’s three charging patents — including a reissue patent — remain active and enforceable against any party other than Salom on these specific accused products. Competitors and new market entrants in USB-C and wireless charging cannot treat this dismissal as clearing the field. Independent FTO analysis against US7910833B2, US7960648B2, and USRE048794E is warranted.
Fish & Richardson’s involvement signals a prepared invalidity defence
Salom retained a top-tier patent litigation firm. The without-prejudice preservation of counterclaims — rather than a clean bilateral dismissal — suggests those counterclaims had substantive weight. If VoltStar asserts the same patents in future actions, defendants may benefit from reviewing Salom’s prior art research and claim construction positions, which remain publicly unavailable but may surface in subsequent filings.
VoltStar v Salom — key questions answered
VoltStar’s infringement claims against Salom America were dismissed with prejudice, meaning VoltStar cannot re-file the same claims against Salom on patents US7910833B2, US7960648B2, or USRE048794E for the accused Motorola charging products. The dismissal does not affect VoltStar’s ability to assert these patents against other defendants, nor does it constitute a ruling on validity or infringement scope.
Under the joint stipulation, Salom agreed to dismiss its counterclaims without prejudice — preserving the right to re-file them in future proceedings. This asymmetry is typically negotiated: VoltStar likely conceded the with-prejudice finality of its own claims in exchange for Salom agreeing not to pursue a merits invalidity ruling that could have damaged the patent portfolio’s value against other potential defendants.
USRE048794E is a reissue of an earlier patent, granted after a second USPTO examination under application US16/209373. Reissue patents may carry broadened or corrected claims and benefit from a reinforced presumption of validity. Because no claim construction was issued in this case, the precise scope of USRE048794E’s claims remains judicially undefined, making independent FTO analysis essential for third-party charger manufacturers.
No. The with-prejudice dismissal creates claim preclusion only between VoltStar and Salom for the specific accused products. Third parties — including other USB-C and wireless charger manufacturers, importers, and retailers — receive no invalidity shield or estoppel benefit from this outcome. VoltStar’s patents remain active and enforceable against unrelated defendants.
Resolution in under eight months — before claim construction or any substantive motion practice reached a ruling — is consistent with an out-of-court settlement or licensing agreement. The public record discloses no financial terms. The speed, combined with the asymmetric dismissal structure and the involvement of Fish & Richardson on the defense side, suggests the parties reached a commercial resolution that made continued litigation uneconomical for both sides.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.