VoltStar Technologies v. Voice Comm: Wall Charger Patent Case Settles in 136 Days
VoltStar Technologies, Inc. asserted reissue patent USRE048794E against Voice Comm, LLC in the District of New Jersey, targeting Ventev-branded 12W and 30W GaN wall chargers. The parties reached a settlement in principle after just 136 days, requesting a stay pending a formal Joint Stipulation of Dismissal.
Reissue patent fuels fast-tracked charger IP dispute in New Jersey
VoltStar Technologies, Inc. filed suit against Voice Comm, LLC on January 28, 2025, in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. The complaint alleged infringement of USRE048794E, a reissue patent covering wall charger power delivery technology, specifically targeting Voice Comm’s Ventev 12W Wall Charger and Ventev 30W GaN Mini Wall Charger + Cable products. The case was assigned case number 1:25-cv-00778 and litigated by Sriplaw, PA on behalf of VoltStar.
The case closed on June 13, 2025, after 136 days, following a joint notification to the court that the parties had reached a settlement in principle. The parties requested that all deadlines and proceedings be stayed until July 13, 2025, by which time they expected to file a Joint Stipulation of Dismissal. The public record does not disclose specific financial terms, licensing arrangements, or product modifications agreed upon as part of the settlement.
A 136-day resolution is notably swift for patent infringement litigation, suggesting the parties may have had pre-litigation licensing discussions or quickly assessed the commercial risk of continued litigation. The involvement of Fish & Richardson — a top-tier patent litigation firm — on behalf of Voice Comm signals the defendant took the claims seriously. What drove the settlement terms, and whether a license was granted, remains undisclosed from the public record.
Filing to Case Settled in 136 days
136 days — faster than the median NJ District patent case
Case settled: what the resolution means for both parties
Settlement in principle followed by Joint Stipulation of Dismissal
The parties notified the court they had reached a settlement in principle and sought a stay of all proceedings pending a formal Joint Stipulation of Dismissal. This is a standard two-step settlement close in U.S. district court: the in-principle agreement halts litigation activity, while the stipulation formally ends the case on the docket. The public record does not specify whether dismissal will be with or without prejudice.
Bilateral settlementVoltStar secures resolution without full trial risk
As plaintiff and patent holder, VoltStar avoided the cost and uncertainty of claim construction, summary judgment, and trial. Settlements in patent infringement cases often involve a licensing fee or royalty arrangement, though no such terms are publicly disclosed here. The speed of resolution — 136 days — suggests VoltStar achieved commercially acceptable terms relatively quickly, consistent with an enforcement-focused licensing strategy.
Plaintiff resolvedVoice Comm avoids infringement finding but terms undisclosed
Voice Comm, represented by Fish & Richardson and Certilman Balin Adler & Hyman, settled before any court ruling on validity or infringement. The absence of a judicial finding means USRE048794E was neither invalidated nor confirmed infringed. Voice Comm’s Ventev-branded charger products may continue in the market, potentially under a licence, though the public record is silent on product changes or ongoing royalty obligations.
No infringement findingGaN charger space faces continued reissue patent exposure
This settlement without a validity ruling leaves USRE048794E fully enforceable. Reissue patents — which broaden or correct original claims — carry particular risk for competitors because the corrected claims can capture products not covered by the original patent. Other manufacturers of compact wall chargers and GaN-based charging accessories should monitor VoltStar’s enforcement activity and consider FTO analysis against USRE048794E.
Reissue patent survivesFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | VoltStar Technologies, Inc. | Company | Power delivery IP licensor — holder of reissue patent USRE048794ESearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | VOICE COMM, LLC | Company | Voice Comm, LLC — distributor of Ventev-branded consumer charging accessoriesSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | REBECCA ARIELLE KORNHAUSER | 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 | JASPREET S. MAYALL | Attorney | Counsel for VOICE COMM, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Michael Theodore Zoppo | Attorney | Counsel for VOICE COMM, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | CERTILMAN BALIN ADLER & HYMAN LLP | Law Firm | Representing VOICE COMM, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Fish & Richardson, PC | Law Firm | Representing VOICE COMM, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | New Jersey District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court filing confirms a settlement in principle rather than a litigated verdict. The joint notification requesting a stay and anticipating a Stipulation of Dismissal reflects standard U.S. district court settlement procedure. No judicial finding on infringement, validity, or claim construction was made. USRE048794E therefore remains in force and unchallenged on the merits, preserving VoltStar’s ability to enforce it against other parties in the consumer charging market.
USRE048794E — reissue patent covering wall charger power delivery technology
USRE048794E is a U.S. reissue patent, meaning it was re-examined and reissued by the USPTO to correct or broaden the claims of an original granted patent. The underlying application number is US16/209373, indicating a filing in the 2018 timeframe. Reissue patents in the power electronics space typically seek to capture advances in power delivery efficiency, thermal management, or circuit miniaturisation — all of which are central to modern compact wall charger design. The reissue designation signals that VoltStar actively managed and expanded the patent’s claim scope after initial grant.
In the competitive consumer electronics charging market, a reissue patent covering wall charger architecture can create significant exposure for OEMs, ODMs, and distributors of USB-C, GaN, and multi-port charging accessories. The specific targeting of Ventev’s 30W GaN Mini Wall Charger suggests the patent’s claims may read on high-density power conversion circuitry common across the GaN charger category. Companies developing or sourcing compact GaN chargers, travel adapters, or bundled cable-and-charger products should treat USRE048794E as a priority risk item.
Should your team run an FTO analysis against USRE048794E?
Any company designing, manufacturing, importing, or distributing compact wall chargers — particularly GaN-based products in the 12W–30W range — should consider an FTO analysis against USRE048794E. This case demonstrates that VoltStar is actively enforcing this reissue patent at the commercial product level. Distributors of third-party charger brands are not insulated from risk, as Voice Comm’s role as a distributor did not prevent it from being named as defendant.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the claims of USRE048794E against your product specifications, identify prior art that may support invalidity arguments, and surface related continuation or reissue patents in VoltStar’s portfolio. For R&D teams specifying power delivery ICs or charging circuit topologies, early-stage FTO reduces the risk of costly redesigns or litigation exposure at the product launch stage.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on USRE048794E to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar USB charger and power delivery patent cases in U.S. District Court
Explore related patent infringement cases involving wall charger and GaN power delivery technology litigated in U.S. federal district courts.
What this case signals for the consumer electronics charging IP landscape
A fast settlement over a reissue charger patent in New Jersey has implications for any company selling USB wall chargers or GaN accessories in the U.S.
Reissue patents require immediate FTO attention for charger makers
USRE048794E is a reissue patent, meaning its claims were deliberately broadened or corrected post-grant. This makes it a high-priority FTO target for any company selling wall chargers, USB-C power adapters, or GaN charging modules in the U.S. market. Companies relying on clearance opinions against the original patent number may need to revisit their analysis.
Swift settlement suggests active licensing programme by VoltStar
A 136-day case close — before any significant court rulings — is consistent with a plaintiff pursuing a structured licensing campaign rather than seeking to permanently exclude competitors. IP teams at charger brands and distributors should assess whether they have received or are likely to receive demand letters from VoltStar, and prepare a pre-litigation response strategy.
VoltStar v VOICE — key questions answered
VoltStar Technologies asserted reissue patent USRE048794E (underlying application US16/209373) against Voice Comm, LLC. The patent relates to wall charger power delivery technology. The accused products were the Ventev 12W Wall Charger and the Ventev 30W GaN Mini Wall Charger + Cable.
The case settled. On or before June 13, 2025 — 136 days after filing — the parties notified the District of New Jersey that they had reached a settlement in principle. They requested a stay of all proceedings until July 13, 2025, to file a Joint Stipulation of Dismissal. No financial terms or licensing details were disclosed publicly.
No. The case settled before any judicial ruling on validity, claim construction, or infringement. USRE048794E remains in force and has not been adjudicated. The patent can continue to be asserted by VoltStar against other parties. Third parties should not treat the settlement as any indication that the patent is weak or invalid.
A reissue patent is one that has been surrendered to the USPTO and reissued with corrected or broadened claims. USRE048794E was originally granted and then reissued, potentially with expanded claim scope. For charger manufacturers, this means clearance opinions against the original patent may be insufficient — the reissued claims can capture a broader range of products, including those designed to avoid the original grant.
VoltStar Technologies was represented by Sriplaw, PA, with attorney Rebecca Arielle Kornhauser named on the record. Voice Comm, LLC was represented by Certilman Balin Adler & Hyman LLP and Fish & Richardson, PC, with attorneys Jaspreet S. Mayall and Michael Theodore Zoppo appearing for the defendant.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.