VoltStar v. Anker: Three-Patent Charger Dispute Ends With Prejudice in 300 Days
VoltStar Technologies filed suit against Anker entities in the Western District of Washington, asserting three patents covering compact USB charger technology against six Anker Nano and PowerPort products. The case closed with a stipulated dismissal with prejudice after 300 days, with each party bearing its own costs — a resolution pattern consistent with a confidential settlement.
A Swift Stipulated Exit: VoltStar’s Charger Patent Claims Against Anker
VoltStar Technologies, Inc. filed this patent infringement action on July 6, 2023, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington before Judge Lauren King. VoltStar asserted three patents — US7910833B2, US7960648B2, and reissue patent USRE048794E — against Fantasia Trading, LLC, Anker Innovations Co., Limited, and Anker Technology Corporation. The accused products comprised six compact USB charger models including the Anker 511 Charger (Nano 3), Anker 521 Charger (Nano Pro), Anker Nano II Pro, Anker PowerWave Stand, Anker Powerport III 20W Cube, and Anker Powerport III Nano.
The case terminated on May 1, 2024, via a stipulated dismissal filed jointly by both parties under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). Judge King dismissed the action in its entirety with prejudice, meaning VoltStar is permanently barred from reasserting these specific claims against the Anker defendants in any future proceeding. Critically, the order specifies that both parties are to bear their own attorney’s fees and costs, declining any fee-shifting — a common feature of negotiated exits.
At 300 days, the resolution is notably faster than the average patent infringement case lifecycle, which typically extends well beyond two years through claim construction and trial. The mutual cost-bearing provision and stipulated nature of the dismissal strongly suggest the parties reached a private commercial resolution — potentially a licensing arrangement or design-around agreement — though the public record does not confirm the terms. What drove VoltStar to agree to a with-prejudice dismissal, and whether Anker provided any consideration, remains undisclosed.
Filing to Dismissed with Prejudice in 300 days
300 days — below the median patent case duration of ~2.5 years in U.S. district courts
Dismissed with prejudice by stipulation: what the order means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii): Stipulated dismissal with prejudice explained
A Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) dismissal is filed jointly by all parties — neither side is compelled. The ‘with prejudice’ designation is the critical distinction: VoltStar’s claims are extinguished permanently. It cannot refile the same patent claims against these Anker entities in any U.S. court. This is a stronger finality signal than a without-prejudice dismissal, which would leave the door open to re-litigation.
Permanent bar on refilingVoltStar surrenders right to refile — but likely extracted value
A with-prejudice dismissal is a significant concession by the plaintiff. VoltStar permanently waives its infringement claims against these Anker entities under all three asserted patents. However, plaintiffs rarely agree to with-prejudice dismissals without receiving something in return. The mutual cost-bearing provision suggests no one ‘won’ on paper, but the existence of a private commercial arrangement — such as a license, lump-sum payment, or design-around commitment — cannot be ruled out.
Claims extinguished; private terms likelyAnker achieves litigation closure, but patent exposure remains
The dismissal with prejudice protects Anker’s named entities from these specific VoltStar claims on the accused products. Anker bears no awarded costs. However, the underlying VoltStar patents — US7910833B2, US7960648B2, and USRE048794E — remain in force and could be asserted against other Anker products or product lines not named in this action, or against third-party charger manufacturers.
Protected on named productsSwift resolution signals charger IP as a live licensing market
The 300-day lifecycle and clean stipulated exit suggest VoltStar’s patent portfolio carried enough credibility to prompt commercial resolution rather than prolonged litigation. For compact USB charger manufacturers — particularly those with Nano-form-factor or high-density power delivery products — this case signals that VoltStar’s reissue and original patents are actively enforced. Competitors should treat USRE048794E in particular as a monitoring priority given its broadened reissue scope.
Active enforcement signalledFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | VoltStar Technologies, Inc. | Company | Compact charger technology IP holder — asserting US7910833B2, US7960648B2 and USRE048794ESearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Fantasia Trading, LLC | Company | Anker Innovations group entities — global manufacturer of USB chargers and consumer electronics accessoriesSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Anker Innovations Co., Limited | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Anker Technology Corporation | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Jeremy E. Roller | 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 A. Dunne | Attorney | Counsel for VoltStar Technologies, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Layla Nguyen | Attorney | Counsel for VoltStar Technologies, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Arete Law Group PLLC | Law Firm | Representing VoltStar Technologies, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Sriplaw (FL) | Law Firm | Representing VoltStar Technologies, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Sriplaw (NY) | Law Firm | Representing VoltStar Technologies, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Eric A. Lindberg | Attorney | Counsel for Fantasia Trading, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Jason Xu | Attorney | Counsel for Fantasia Trading, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | John E Handy | Attorney | Counsel for Fantasia Trading, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Corr Cronin LLP | Law Firm | Representing Fantasia Trading, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | RIMON PC (DC) | Law Firm | Representing Fantasia Trading, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Lauren King | Judge | Washington Western District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The dismissal order is minimal by design — a one-paragraph court endorsement of a jointly filed stipulation. The with-prejudice language is the operative term: it carries res judicata effect, permanently extinguishing VoltStar’s right to reassert these three patent claims against the named Anker entities. The mutual cost-bearing clause indicates no party prevailed in a fee-shifting sense. The order reveals nothing about commercial terms, validity of the asserted patents, or whether infringement was contested on the merits.
US7910833B2, US7960648B2 & USRE048794E — Compact USB Charger Power Technology
The three asserted patents cover compact USB charger technology, including power control circuitry and delivery mechanisms relevant to small-form-factor wall chargers. US7910833B2 and US7960648B2 originate from application filings captured in the 12/127592 and 12/251882 series respectively, placing their priority in the late 2000s — a period when miniaturised high-efficiency USB charging was emerging as a commercial category. USRE048794E is a reissue patent derived from application 16/209373, indicating the original claims were subsequently broadened or clarified through the USPTO reissue process.
The strategic significance of this portfolio lies in its coverage of design features now standard in the compact USB charger market — precisely the segment Anker has dominated with its Nano and PowerPort III product lines. A reissue patent (USRE048794E) is particularly notable because reissued claims have been reviewed for validity and scope a second time, making them harder to challenge as overbroad. For any manufacturer competing in the GaN-based compact charger or cube-format USB-C power delivery segment, these three patents collectively represent a material IP risk worth active monitoring and FTO investment.
Should your compact USB charger products be cleared against VoltStar’s patents?
Any company designing or importing compact USB wall chargers — particularly Nano-form-factor, cube-format, or high-density GaN-based USB-C products — should treat VoltStar’s three-patent portfolio as an active enforcement risk. This case demonstrates that VoltStar is willing to assert all three patents simultaneously against named commercial products and pursue litigation through to commercial resolution. The reissue patent USRE048794E deserves particular scrutiny given its post-grant claim review.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent allows R&D and IP teams to map claim elements from US7910833B2, US7960648B2, and USRE048794E against specific charger architectures — including power control topologies and connector interface designs. Eureka can surface related family members, identify prior art relevant to validity challenges, and flag prosecution history estoppel that may limit claim scope. Run your FTO analysis before finalising your next charger product specification.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US7910833B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar USB Charger & Consumer Electronics Patent Cases in U.S. District Courts
Cases involving USB charger and compact power delivery patents in U.S. district courts, with comparable stipulated dismissal or licensing-exit outcomes against consumer electronics defendants.
What this case signals for the compact USB charger IP landscape
A fast, stipulated exit against a global charger brand suggests VoltStar’s portfolio has real commercial leverage in the USB power delivery space.
Reissue patents deserve heightened FTO scrutiny in charger design
USRE048794E is a reissue of an earlier grant, meaning the USPTO reviewed and potentially broadened its claims post-grant. Reissue patents are structurally stronger enforcement tools. Any manufacturer of compact USB chargers — especially high-wattage Nano-form-factor or cube-format designs — should run explicit FTO analysis against VoltStar’s reissue patent before launch.
Stipulated with-prejudice exits often mask licensing economics
When a plaintiff accepts a with-prejudice dismissal with mutual cost-bearing, the absence of a public settlement agreement does not mean no value changed hands. IP teams monitoring the charger patent space should assume VoltStar extracted commercial terms. This pattern — assert, negotiate, exit quietly — is a repeatable playbook worth tracking across VoltStar’s broader portfolio activity.
VoltStar v Fantasia — key questions answered
VoltStar asserted three patents: US7910833B2, US7960648B2, and reissue patent USRE048794E. All three relate to compact USB charger power control and delivery technology. The accused products included six Anker Nano and PowerPort III charger models.
The dismissal was filed by stipulation of both parties under FRCP Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). A with-prejudice dismissal was chosen by mutual agreement, permanently barring VoltStar from refiling the same claims against these Anker entities. The public record does not disclose the reason, but the pattern is consistent with a negotiated commercial resolution.
Not in a legal merits sense. No court ruled on infringement, validity, or damages. The with-prejudice dismissal was stipulated — meaning both parties agreed to end the litigation. The mutual cost-bearing order reinforces that neither side was adjudged a prevailing party. Anker’s practical benefit is permanent protection from these specific claims on the named products.
Yes. The dismissal with prejudice resolves only VoltStar’s claims against these specific Anker entities and named products. It does not invalidate or limit the scope of US7910833B2, US7960648B2, or USRE048794E. VoltStar retains the right to assert these patents against other defendants or unlisted Anker products in future proceedings.
Reissue patents undergo a second USPTO examination, typically to broaden or correct claims. USRE048794E’s reissue designation means its claims were reviewed post-grant and may cover a wider scope than the original patent. For charger manufacturers, this makes it a higher-priority FTO concern — reissued claims are harder to challenge as overbroad and carry enhanced enforcement credibility.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.