VoltStar v. America Ugreen: Charger Patent Dispute Dismissed With Prejudice
VoltStar Technologies filed a patent infringement action against America Ugreen in the Western District of Washington, asserting reissue patent USRE048794E against the UGREEN Nexode Mini 45W Charger. The parties reached a stipulated dismissal with prejudice in just 91 days — a timeline that strongly suggests an out-of-court resolution.
A swift charger patent dispute ends by mutual agreement
On August 16, 2024, VoltStar Technologies, Inc. filed suit against America Ugreen Limited in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington before Judge John H. Chun. The complaint asserted infringement of USRE048794E, a reissued U.S. patent covering compact USB-C power delivery charger technology, specifically targeting Ugreen’s commercially prominent Nexode Mini 45W Charger product.
The case concluded on November 15, 2024, through a joint stipulation under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), dismissing all claims with prejudice. Each party agreed to bear its own litigation costs, attorneys’ fees, and expenses. Dismissal with prejudice means VoltStar is permanently barred from reasserting these specific patent claims against America Ugreen based on the same conduct — a legally final resolution on the merits as between these parties.
The 91-day resolution is notably brief for patent litigation, which typically spans years. Such rapid, stipulated closure — particularly on a with-prejudice basis with no fee award — is consistent with a confidential licensing or settlement agreement reached shortly after the complaint was served. The financial terms, if any, remain undisclosed in the public record, leaving the commercial outcome between the parties unknown.
Filing to Dismissed with Prejudice in 91 days
91 days from filing to dismissal — well below the median district court patent case lifecycle
Dismissed with prejudice: what the stipulated order means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii): a joint, court-endorsed exit
Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) allows both parties to jointly stipulate to dismissal without requiring a court ruling on the merits. When coupled with a ‘with prejudice’ designation — as here — the dismissal carries the same preclusive effect as a final judgment. VoltStar cannot refile this infringement action against America Ugreen for the same patent and accused product.
Stipulated — no merits adjudicationWith prejudice bars any future refiling on these claims
A dismissal with prejudice is a permanent, claim-extinguishing resolution. Unlike a without-prejudice dismissal — which preserves the right to refile — this order prevents VoltStar from bringing the same USRE048794E infringement claims against America Ugreen again. This gives Ugreen meaningful legal certainty on the specific accused product, the Nexode Mini 45W Charger, in this jurisdiction.
No refiling rights for plaintiffVoltStar exits without a public win — but likely on negotiated terms
VoltStar’s voluntary agreement to dismiss with prejudice, absorbing its own legal costs, suggests it received sufficient value through a confidential channel — most likely a licensing agreement or lump-sum payment — to justify ending litigation early. However, nothing in the public record confirms any monetary recovery. Plaintiff gave up its litigation leverage in exchange for certainty of resolution.
Confidential terms likelyUSRE048794E remains active and enforceable against other parties
This dismissal resolves the dispute only between VoltStar and America Ugreen. The reissue patent USRE048794E itself is unaffected — it was never challenged or invalidated in this proceeding. Competing manufacturers of compact USB-C power delivery chargers should note that VoltStar retains full enforcement rights against other market participants and may pursue similar claims elsewhere.
Patent survives; broader risk remainsFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | VoltStar Technologies, Inc. | Company | Compact USB-C charger IP licensor — holder of reissue patent USRE048794ESearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | America Ugreen Limited | Individual | America Ugreen Limited — consumer electronics accessories maker, Nexode charger lineSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Joel Benjamin Rothman | Attorney | Counsel for VoltStar Technologies, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Sriplaw (FL) | Law Firm | Representing VoltStar Technologies, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Hao Tan | Attorney | Counsel for America Ugreen LimitedSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | ARCH & LAKE LLP | Law Firm | Representing America Ugreen LimitedSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge John H. Chun | Judge | Washington Western District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The stipulation’s language is precise and deliberately final: ‘dismissing the instant lawsuit, with prejudice, as between the parties.’ The qualifier ‘as between the parties’ is standard but confirms the order binds only VoltStar and America Ugreen — third parties and other potential defendants are unaffected. The mutual cost-bearing provision removes any inference of fault or litigation weakness on either side, preserving both parties’ public positions while achieving a binding resolution.
USRE048794E — compact USB-C power delivery charger technology
USRE048794E is a U.S. reissue patent — a category granted by the USPTO when an original patent is found to contain correctable errors or where the applicant seeks broadened claim scope. The underlying application number US16/209373 places its origins in a late-2018 filing window, a period of significant R&D activity in compact USB-C and GaN-based power delivery technology. Reissue status means the claims may have wider reach than the original grant, making it a higher-stakes asset in enforcement contexts.
The commercial target — the UGREEN Nexode Mini 45W Charger — is a flagship compact charger product in a fiercely competitive consumer electronics accessories market dominated by brands including Ugreen, Anker, Belkin, and Apple. A reissue patent successfully asserted against a leading SKU in this category signals that USRE048794E may have meaningful claim coverage over common compact charger architectures. IP teams at competing manufacturers should assess whether their own power delivery charger designs fall within the reissued claim scope.
Should you run an FTO search against USRE048794E?
If your organisation designs, manufactures, imports, or retails compact USB-C power delivery chargers in the U.S. market, USRE048794E warrants direct attention. VoltStar has demonstrated willingness to litigate — and to secure favourable resolution — against a major accessories brand within 91 days. The reissue nature of the patent means claim scope may extend beyond what a review of the original grant would suggest. Product teams launching new GaN or USB-C PD charger SKUs should commission an FTO analysis before market entry.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the claim landscape of USRE048794E against your specific product architecture, identify design-around opportunities, and surface related reissue or continuation patents in the same family that may pose additional risk. Eureka also tracks litigation history across the patent family, so your IP team can monitor VoltStar’s enforcement activity in real time and act before receiving a demand letter.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on USRE048794E to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar USB-C charger patent cases in U.S. district courts
Explore comparable USB-C power delivery charger patent infringement actions filed in U.S. district courts, including reissue patent enforcement and early settlement patterns.
What this case signals for the compact USB-C charger IP landscape
A swift, with-prejudice exit in a USB-C charger patent case typically reflects a licensing resolution — and signals active enforcement intent by the patent holder.
Rapid dismissal is a hallmark of pre-trial licensing resolution
When a patent plaintiff agrees to dismiss with prejudice within 91 days — before discovery or claim construction — the most commercially rational explanation is an early licence or settlement payment. Companies in the USB-C charger accessory space should treat this outcome as evidence that VoltStar’s USRE048794E is being actively monetised, not just filed defensively.
Reissue patents carry broader claim scope — FTO analysis is critical
USRE048794E is a reissued patent, meaning the claims were broadened or corrected post-grant. Reissue patents can carry wider scope than their originals, raising exposure for adjacent products. Any manufacturer or retailer of compact USB-C GaN or power delivery chargers operating in the U.S. market should prioritise a freedom-to-operate review against this patent family.
VoltStar v America — key questions answered
The case was dismissed with prejudice on November 15, 2024, pursuant to a joint stipulation under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). Each party agreed to bear its own costs and attorneys’ fees. VoltStar cannot refile these infringement claims against America Ugreen for the same patent and accused product.
VoltStar asserted reissue patent USRE048794E, with underlying application number US16/209373. It is a U.S. reissue patent covering compact USB-C power delivery charger technology. The accused product was the UGREEN Nexode Mini 45W Charger.
Dismissal with prejudice provides America Ugreen with permanent legal protection from VoltStar refiling the same USRE048794E infringement claims against the Nexode Mini 45W Charger in any U.S. court. It carries the preclusive effect of a final judgment, giving Ugreen certainty on this specific dispute.
No. The stipulated dismissal does not affect the validity or enforceability of USRE048794E. The patent was never adjudicated or challenged in this proceeding. VoltStar retains full rights to enforce USRE048794E against other parties in the USB-C charger market.
The 91-day resolution — from filing to dismissal — is unusually fast for patent litigation. A stipulated with-prejudice dismissal at this stage, before discovery or claim construction, is typically consistent with an early licensing agreement or confidential settlement payment. The public record does not confirm any financial terms.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.