VoltStar Technologies v. Motorola Mobility: Charging Patent Suit Dismissed Without Prejudice
VoltStar Technologies filed suit against Motorola Mobility in Florida’s Southern District Court alleging infringement of three patents covering wireless and USB-C charging technology. The case targeted Motorola’s 15W Turbo Power Wireless Charging Pad and Turbo Power 20 USB-C Wall Charger, and was resolved by joint stipulation within 216 days — without a merits ruling.
Charging IP clash ends in joint dismissal before merits are tested
VoltStar Technologies, Inc. filed this patent infringement action on October 13, 2023 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida against Motorola Mobility, Inc. The complaint asserted three patents — US7910833B2, US7960648B2, and reissue patent USRE048794E — each directed at charging technology, against Motorola’s 15W Turbo Power Wireless Charging Pad and Turbo Power 20 USB-C Wall Charger. Motorola was represented by Crowell & Moring LLP and Kelley Legal, while VoltStar retained Sriplaw, PA.
The case closed on May 16, 2024, after both parties filed a joint stipulation of dismissal without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A). The court’s order directed the parties to formalise the stipulation within 15 days, denied all pending motions as moot, and instructed the clerk to administratively close the file. A dismissal without prejudice means VoltStar’s infringement claims survive procedurally — the patent holder retains the ability to refile substantially the same claims against Motorola or third parties.
The 216-day duration — from filing to administrative closure — is consistent with cases resolved through licensing negotiation or settlement before substantial merits litigation commences. The public record does not disclose whether any financial consideration or licensing agreement was reached between the parties. The reissue patent USRE048794E is a notable element, as reissue patents reflect post-grant corrections that can broaden or clarify claim scope, potentially strengthening VoltStar’s negotiating position at the table.
Filing to Dismissed without Prejudice in 216 days
216 days — resolved before trial, consistent with early settlement or licensing resolution
Dismissed without prejudice: what the joint stipulation means for both parties
Rule 41(a) joint stipulation: no merits adjudication
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A), parties may jointly stipulate to dismiss an action without court approval. Here, both VoltStar and Motorola signed the stipulation, meaning neither side obtained a judicial ruling on infringement, validity, or damages. The court’s role was purely administrative — directing the parties to file and closing the docket. No findings of fact or law were made.
Procedural dismissal — no merits rulingVoltStar retains the right to refile against Motorola
A dismissal without prejudice leaves VoltStar’s legal position intact. The three asserted patents — including reissue USRE048794E — remain enforceable, and VoltStar faces no estoppel or res judicata bar from this action. The company could pursue a new infringement action against Motorola if licensing negotiations break down, or assert the same patents against other charging device manufacturers. The public record does not confirm whether a settlement or licence was agreed.
Claims survive — refiling permittedMotorola exits without a validity ruling — but exposure persists
Motorola Mobility avoids an adverse infringement finding and any damages award, but it has not obtained a declaration of non-infringement or invalidity. The Turbo Power Wireless Charging Pad and Turbo Power 20 USB-C Wall Charger products remain potentially within scope of VoltStar’s patents. Without an IPR petition filed or a court ruling on validity, Motorola’s FTO position on these charging product lines is not judicially resolved.
No invalidity ruling — risk persistsCharging accessory makers should monitor VoltStar’s patent portfolio
The inclusion of a reissue patent (USRE048794E) alongside two utility patents signals that VoltStar has actively maintained and potentially broadened its claim scope post-grant. With the case ending before discovery or claim construction, the commercial scope of these patents remains untested in litigation. Other wireless and USB-C charger manufacturers — particularly those with products in the same wattage and form-factor categories as Motorola’s Turbo Power line — face residual risk from this unresolved portfolio.
Reissue patent scope unchallenged in courtFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | VoltStar Technologies, Inc. | Company | Charging technology IP licensor — holder of US7910833B2, US7960648B2, and USRE048794ESearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Motorola Mobility, Inc. | Company | Motorola Mobility, Inc. — consumer electronics manufacturer, maker of Turbo Power charging accessoriesSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Joel Benjamin Rothman | 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 | Sriplaw, PA | Law Firm | Representing VoltStar Technologies, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Ali H.K. Tehrani | Attorney | Counsel for Motorola Mobility, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Brian Paul Gearing | Attorney | Counsel for Motorola Mobility, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Marissa D. Kelley | Attorney | Counsel for Motorola Mobility, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Crowell & Moring, LLP | Law Firm | Representing Motorola Mobility, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Kelley Legal | Law Firm | Representing Motorola Mobility, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | Florida Southern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court’s May 16, 2024 order reflects a purely administrative closure: no claim was adjudicated on its merits. The order’s reference to ECF No. 35 suggests prior court activity prompted the parties to confer, after which they jointly elected Rule 41(a) dismissal without prejudice. The ‘denied as moot’ language on pending motions confirms no substantive rulings issued. For both parties, the legal slate is clean — but VoltStar’s three charging patents remain live and enforceable against Motorola and the broader market.
US7910833B2, US7960648B2 & USRE048794E — Wireless and USB-C Charging Technology
The three patents asserted in this case — US7910833B2, US7960648B2, and reissue patent USRE048794E — cover technologies in the electrical charging domain, targeting the kind of power delivery, cable management, or wireless energy transfer functionality found in consumer charging accessories. USRE048794E’s reissue designation indicates the patent underwent post-grant correction proceedings before the USPTO, a process that can expand, clarify, or restructure original claims to better capture commercially relevant embodiments. The application numbers suggest filings in the mid-to-late 2000s through mid-2010s, placing their priority dates in an era of rapid charging standardisation.
For charging accessory manufacturers, a portfolio combining two utility patents and a reissue patent against a single product line is a deliberate enforcement strategy. The fact that Motorola’s 15W Turbo Power Wireless Charging Pad and Turbo Power 20 USB-C Wall Charger were both targeted suggests VoltStar’s claims span both wireless and wired charging paradigms. Companies developing products in the fast-charge, wireless, or multi-protocol USB-C space should treat this portfolio as an active enforcement risk — particularly given that no invalidity determination was made in this proceeding.
Should your team run an FTO against US7910833B2, US7960648B2, and USRE048794E?
Any company commercialising wireless charging pads, USB-C wall chargers, or multi-protocol fast-charge accessories in the US market should assess exposure to VoltStar’s patent portfolio. The dismissal without prejudice in this case means no court has invalidated or limited these patents. If your product operates in the 15W+ wireless or USB-C power delivery space — particularly with Turbo Power or comparable fast-charge specifications — an FTO analysis against all three patents, including the reissue, is warranted before your next product launch.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent allows R&D and IP teams to map claim scope across utility and reissue patents simultaneously, identify prior art that was not raised in litigation, and benchmark your product’s technical specifications against asserted claim elements. For a portfolio like VoltStar’s — where reissue broadening may have extended coverage beyond the original grant — Eureka’s claim charting tools can surface nuanced infringement risk that standard keyword searches miss.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US7910833B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar wireless and USB-C charging patent cases in U.S. district courts
Cases involving wireless charging and USB-C power delivery patents in U.S. district courts, including other S.D. Fla. infringement actions against consumer electronics manufacturers.
What this case signals for the wireless charging IP landscape
A swift joint dismissal without prejudice in a multi-patent charging case raises questions about licensing dynamics and the enforceability of reissue patents in this sector.
Reissue patents as leverage: broader claims, stronger negotiating position
USRE048794E is a reissue of an earlier patent, meaning VoltStar sought and obtained modified claim language after original grant. Reissue patents frequently reflect deliberate broadening of scope to capture new product generations. For charging product developers, this signals that VoltStar’s IP portfolio is actively managed — not a passive asset — and the claim perimeter may be wider than the original filing suggested.
Fast resolution suggests licensing may have driven the outcome
Cases dismissed without prejudice at 216 days — before claim construction or summary judgment — are frequently associated with licensing resolution or ongoing commercial negotiation. Motorola’s use of Crowell & Moring, a firm with deep patent litigation capacity, suggests the defence was resourced for full litigation but both sides opted for commercial resolution. The absence of a with-prejudice dismissal keeps leverage on the table for VoltStar.
VoltStar v Motorola — key questions answered
VoltStar Technologies asserted three patents: US7910833B2, US7960648B2, and reissue patent USRE048794E. These were directed at wireless and USB-C charging technology and asserted against Motorola’s 15W Turbo Power Wireless Charging Pad and Turbo Power 20 USB-C Wall Charger.
The case was dismissed pursuant to a joint stipulation under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A), signed by both parties. The court administratively closed the case on May 16, 2024. A dismissal without prejudice means VoltStar retains the right to refile the same claims; no merits ruling was issued on infringement or validity.
USRE048794E is a reissue patent, meaning VoltStar obtained post-grant corrections to an earlier patent from the USPTO. Reissue patents can broaden or clarify claim scope compared to the original grant. In litigation, reissue patents are significant because their amended claims may cover product generations not clearly captured by the original filing, and no court in this case ruled on their validity or scope.
Yes. A dismissal without prejudice under Rule 41(a) does not bar refiling. VoltStar faces no res judicata or collateral estoppel from this proceeding because no substantive merits ruling was issued. The three asserted patents remain enforceable, and VoltStar could bring a new action against Motorola or assert the patents against other charging product manufacturers.
The accused products were the Motorola 15W Turbo Power Wireless Charging Pad and the Motorola Turbo Power 20 USB-C Wall Charger. Both are consumer charging accessories in Motorola’s Turbo Power line, covering wireless and wired USB-C power delivery modalities.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.