VoltStar Technologies, Inc. v. Shenzhen Huafengda Plastic Products Co., Ltd.

1:25-cv-23421 S.D. Fla. Closed USRE48794E1
Get a prior-art report

Infringement action filed 30 Jul 2025 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida and closed 7 Apr 2026, with USRE48794E1 asserted. Recorded basis of termination: dismissed with prejudice.

Case recordPatsnap Litigation Data·

Case record

Patent involved
USRE48794E1
Application no.
US16/209373
Case no.
1:25-cv-23421
Verdict cause
Infringement action
Court
S.D. Fla.
Court level
District Court
Case region
Florida
Chief judge
None recorded
Trial level
First instance
Filed – Closed
30 Jul 2025 – 7 Apr 2026
Duration
251 days
Basis of termination
Dismissed with Prejudice
Products & marks
USB C Charger Block 3-Pack 20W Type-C Fast Charging Phone Wall Plug Portable Power Adapter USBC Brick USB-C Box for iPhone 16 15 14 13 12 11 Pro Max Plus XS X XR SE 8 7 6 6S, Pad · USB C Charger Block 2-Pack 20W Type-C Fast Charging Phone Wall Plug Portable Power Adapter USBC Brick USB-C Box for iPhone 16 15 14 13 12 11 Pro Max Plus XS X XR SE 8 7 6 6S, Pad · USB Wall Charger, 5- Pack 2.1A/5V Dual Port USB Cube Power Adapter Charger Plug Charging Block Replacement for iPhone Xs/XR/X, 8/7/6 Plus, Samsung, HTC, LG, Moto, Android Phones · USB Wall Charger, LUOATIP 3- Pack 2.1A 5V Dual Port Cube Power Adapter Plug Block Charging Box Brick for iPhone 13 12 11 Pro Max SE XS XR X 8 7 6 6S Plus, Galaxy, LG, Moto, Android Phones
Validity challenges
None recorded
Source: Patsnap Litigation Data. Case 1:25-cv-23421, United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. Open this record in Eureka
Patsnap Eureka

Check this patent against your own product

Prior art, claim scope, infringement exposure and design-around routes. Every answer cites the records behind it.

Get an FTO claim chart
10,000 free credits to start
Patent at issue
USRE48794E1 Active App. US16/209373

Charger plug with improved package

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.

Read claims and description in Eureka
Patent standing
Legal status
Active
Granted
26 Oct 2021
Est. expiry
23 Oct 2030
Validity challenges
None recorded
Licences recorded
None recorded
Classification
H01R31/06H01R13/24H02J7/00
Examiner
NGUYEN, LINH M
USRE48794E1 patent drawing, figure 1
Fig. 1
USRE48794E1 patent drawing, figure 2
Fig. 2
Source: Patsnap patent data + case record. Bibliographic fields and drawings reproduced from the published patent document. Break down the claims
Parties & counsel

Parties of record

Counsel of record

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

"Plaintiff VOLTSTAR TECHNOLOGIES, INC. and Defendant SHENZHEN HUAFENGDA PLASTIC PRODUCTS CO. LTD. A/K/A LUOATIP, by and through their undersigned counsel, hereby stipulate pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) to the dismissal of the instant lawsuit, with prejudice, with each party to bear its own costs, attorneys’ fees and expenses."

Case 1:25-cv-23421 · S.D. Fla. · closed 7 April 2026
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.

FAQ

Frequently asked questions

What is case 1:25-cv-23421?

1:25-cv-23421 is a patent infringement action brought by VoltStar Technologies, Inc. against Shenzhen Huafengda Plastic Products Co., Ltd., filed on 30 Jul 2025 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. The case closed on 7 April 2026.

Which patent was asserted in 1:25-cv-23421?

USRE48794E1 (“Charger plug with improved package”), assigned to VOLSTAR TECHNOLOGIES, INC., currently active. The record also lists USB C Charger Block 3-Pack 20W Type-C Fast Charging Phone Wall Plug Portable Power Adapter USBC Brick USB-C Box for iPhone 16 15 14 13 12 11 Pro Max Plus XS X XR SE 8 7 6 6S, Pad, USB C Charger Block 2-Pack 20W Type-C Fast Charging Phone Wall Plug Portable Power Adapter USBC Brick USB-C Box for iPhone 16 15 14 13 12 11 Pro Max Plus XS X XR SE 8 7 6 6S, Pad, USB Wall Charger, 5- Pack 2.1A/5V Dual Port USB Cube Power Adapter Charger Plug Charging Block Replacement for iPhone Xs/XR/X, 8/7/6 Plus, Samsung, HTC, LG, Moto, Android Phones and USB Wall Charger, LUOATIP 3- Pack 2.1A 5V Dual Port Cube Power Adapter Plug Block Charging Box Brick for iPhone 13 12 11 Pro Max SE XS XR X 8 7 6 6S Plus, Galaxy, LG, Moto, Android Phones.

How was case 1:25-cv-23421 terminated?

The recorded basis of termination is dismissed with prejudice. The termination text reads: "Plaintiff VOLTSTAR TECHNOLOGIES, INC. and Defendant SHENZHEN HUAFENGDA PLASTIC PRODUCTS CO. LTD. A/K/A LUOATIP, by and through their undersigned counsel, hereby stipulate pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) to the dismissal of the instant lawsuit, with prejudice, with each party to bear its own costs, attorneys’ fees and expenses."

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 1:25-cv-23421 take?

251 calendar days, from filing on 30 Jul 2025 to closure on 7 April 2026.

Who were the attorneys and the judge in 1:25-cv-23421?

George Nicholas Colville, Joel Benjamin Rothman and Layla Nguyen are recorded as counsel for plaintiff VoltStar Technologies. Aoyu Yang and Luca Lee Hickman appear for defendant Shenzhen Huafengda Plastic Products.

Answers reproduce fields from the case record for 1:25-cv-23421 and do not constitute legal advice. Ask your own question

Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 1:25-cv-23421 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.

Help us improve

Something wrong, out of date, or missing on this page? Tell us and it goes straight to the team that maintains it.