Waverly Licensing v. VisionTek Products: Consent Judgment in Battery Charging Patent Dispute
Waverly Licensing, LLC filed a patent infringement action against VisionTek Products, LLC in the Northern District of Illinois over US10938246B2, covering methods and apparatus for charging battery-operated devices. The case resolved by consent judgment in just 111 days, with each party bearing its own costs and attorneys' fees.
Battery Charging Patent Claim Ends in Rapid Consent Judgment
On 29 November 2022, Waverly Licensing, LLC filed a patent infringement action against VisionTek Products, LLC in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, assigned to Judge Joan H. Lefkow. The asserted patent, US10938246B2 (application number US16/793910), covers a method and apparatus for charging a battery-operated device. VisionTek Products is a maker of consumer electronics accessories, including USB power and charging products.
The recorded basis of termination is Consent Judgment. The docket order reflects a stipulation signed by counsel for both parties, agreeing that all claims asserted by Waverly Licensing are dismissed with prejudice under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), and that each party shall bear its own costs and attorneys' fees. The stipulation states it 'shall finally resolve the Action between the parties.'
At 111 days from filing to closure, the resolution is notably swift for patent litigation — consistent with an early negotiated agreement before significant motion practice or claim construction proceedings. The specific commercial terms, if any, underlying the consent judgment are not disclosed in the available public record.
See Complete Case & Patent Analysis →Filing to Consent Judgment in 111 days
111 days — faster than the median patent case lifespan at N.D. Illinois
US10938246B2 — Method and apparatus for charging a battery-operated device
Any company designing, manufacturing, or selling battery charging apparatus — including USB chargers, power banks, wireless charging pads, multi-port charging hubs, or docking stations — should assess its exposure to US10938246B2. Waverly Licensing has demonstrated a willingness to file in federal court, and the patent remains fully enforceable following this consent judgment. An FTO analysis should cover both independent and dependent claims, and extend to related family members via the application number US16/793910.
Official order — verbatim text
The stipulation and order reflects a jointly executed agreement by counsel for both parties, entered as a consent judgment of record. All of Waverly's asserted claims are dismissed with prejudice, foreclosing re-litigation of those specific claims against VisionTek. The mutual cost-bearing provision removes any adverse costs consequence for either side. The specific terms underlying the parties' agreement — beyond the procedural mechanism stated in the order — are not disclosed in the available public record.
Consent judgment: what the agreed resolution means for both parties
What a consent judgment means in patent litigation
A consent judgment is a binding, court-entered judgment on terms agreed by both parties. Unlike a unilateral dismissal, it carries the full force of a court order, enabling enforcement if either party breaches its terms. Here, the stipulation was entered under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), jointly signed by counsel, and expressly stated to 'finally resolve the Action.' The specific terms beyond costs and dismissal are not disclosed in the available public record.
Binding & finalWaverly Licensing secures a court-entered final resolution
As the plaintiff and patent holder, Waverly Licensing obtained a consent judgment that finally resolves this action. The dismissal is with prejudice, meaning VisionTek cannot be sued again on the same claims in this action. Whether the consent judgment encodes any licensing arrangement, payment, or behavioural undertaking is not disclosed in the available public record. Waverly retains US10938246B2 for potential enforcement against other parties.
Patent retainedVisionTek avoids prolonged litigation with no fee award against it
VisionTek Products secured dismissal with prejudice of all asserted claims, meaning Waverly Licensing cannot re-assert these specific claims against VisionTek in a new action. Each party bears its own costs and attorneys' fees, so no fee-shifting burden falls on VisionTek. The consent judgment framework suggests a negotiated conclusion rather than a contested merits ruling. Underlying commercial terms, if any, are not public.
No fee awardUS10938246B2 remains active — risk for other charging device makers
The consent judgment resolves only the dispute with VisionTek Products. US10938246B2 remains an enforceable patent, and Waverly Licensing, as a licensing entity, may assert it against other manufacturers of battery charging apparatus or USB power accessories. Companies in the consumer electronics charging space should evaluate their exposure to this patent's claims, particularly given Waverly's demonstrated willingness to litigate.
Ongoing enforcement riskFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Waverly Licensing, LLC | Company | Patent licensing entity — holder of US10938246B2 (battery charging method and apparatus)Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | VisionTek Products, LLC | Company | VisionTek Products, LLC — consumer electronics accessories company, USB and charging productsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | David Randolph Bennett | Attorney | Counsel for Waverly Licensing, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Steven G. Kalberg | Attorney | Counsel for Waverly Licensing, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Direction IP Law | Law Firm | Representing Waverly Licensing, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Alan W. Nicgorski | Attorney | Counsel for VisionTek Products, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Jeremy Adelson | Attorney | Counsel for VisionTek Products, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Hansen Reynolds LLC | Law Firm | Representing VisionTek Products, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Joan H. Lefkow | Judge | Illinois Northern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
R&D signals in the battery charging IP space
Forward-looking patent and innovation intelligence derived from Waverly Licensing v. VisionTek Products and the broader battery charging technology landscape.
Waverly Licensing's patent holdings in charging technology
Waverly Licensing's assertion of US10938246B2 suggests a focused portfolio in battery and power delivery technology. Mapping Waverly's full patent holdings — including any continuations, divisionals, or related assignments — reveals the breadth of potential enforcement targets and whether adjacent charging topologies (fast-charge, wireless, multi-device) fall within scope.
Licensing entity portfolioFiling trends in battery charging apparatus and control methods
Battery charging control methods are an active filing domain, driven by USB Power Delivery standards, GaN charger proliferation, and EV-adjacent power electronics. Tracking filing trends around application US16/793910's IPC/CPC classifications surfaces emerging innovation clusters and identifies which assignees are building defensible positions in next-generation charging architectures.
Active filing domainVisionTek's patent posture in consumer electronics accessories
VisionTek Products operates in the consumer electronics accessories market — USB hubs, graphics cards, and charging peripherals. Assessing VisionTek's own patent portfolio and any defensive filings in power management reveals whether the company is building IP assets to counter future assertions, or relying primarily on design-around and licensing strategies.
Defensive IP postureAdjacent R&D white space near US10938246B2's claim scope
Around any enforced battery charging patent, design-around opportunities and white-space niches emerge — particularly in adaptive charging algorithms, bidirectional power flow for V2G/V2H, and multi-chemistry battery management. Identifying claim boundaries of US10938246B2 and mapping them against recent prior art reveals where innovation can proceed without entering the patent's protected zone.
Design-around opportunitySimilar battery charging patent infringement cases in N.D. Illinois
Explore comparable patent infringement actions involving battery charging and power management technology filed in the Northern District of Illinois.
What this case signals for the battery charging IP landscape
A rapid consent judgment from a licensing entity suggests active monetisation of battery charging patents — a signal worth tracking.
Licensing entities are actively asserting battery charging patents in federal court
Waverly Licensing's action against VisionTek — filed and resolved within 111 days — is consistent with a targeted licensing campaign. Companies selling USB power accessories, chargers, and battery-operated devices should conduct proactive FTO reviews against US10938246B2 and related family members before receiving a demand letter.
No fee-shifting signals a commercially negotiated exit, not a clear win on validity
The mutual cost-bearing structure, combined with the speed of resolution, suggests both parties prioritised certainty over contested merits. Patent challengers in this space cannot rely on this case as precedent — US10938246B2 was never tested on validity or infringement at the district court level.
Waverly v VisionTek — key questions answered
The case was resolved by consent judgment. The recorded basis of termination is Consent Judgment. The docket order reflects a stipulation by which all claims asserted by Waverly Licensing against VisionTek Products were dismissed with prejudice under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), with each party bearing its own costs and attorneys' fees. The specific terms underlying the parties' agreement are not disclosed in the available public record.
Waverly Licensing asserted US10938246B2 (application number US16/793910), which covers a method and apparatus for charging a battery-operated device. The patent was the sole asserted patent in this infringement action filed in the Northern District of Illinois.
The case lasted 111 days, from filing on 29 November 2022 to closure on 20 March 2023. This is a notably swift resolution for a patent infringement action at the N.D. Illinois district court, consistent with an early negotiated agreement before significant motion practice or claim construction proceedings were completed.
The consent judgment forecloses Waverly Licensing from re-asserting the dismissed claims against VisionTek Products in a new action (dismissal is with prejudice). However, US10938246B2 remains an enforceable patent, and Waverly retains the right to assert it against other parties. The judgment resolves only the dispute between these two specific parties.
Waverly Licensing was represented by David Randolph Bennett and Steven G. Kalberg of Direction IP Law. VisionTek Products was represented by Alan W. Nicgorski and Jeremy Adelson of Hansen Reynolds LLC. The case was presided over by Judge Joan H. Lefkow in the Northern District of Illinois.
This page is compiled from public court dockets and third-party patent and litigation data via PatSnap Eureka, and is provided for general informational purposes only. The information shown — including party names, patent and application numbers, dates, case status, outcomes, and any analysis — may be incomplete, may not reflect the most recent filings or legal status, and may contain errors or omissions. Verify all details against official court records (for example, PACER) and the relevant patent office before relying on them.
Nothing on this page constitutes legal advice or a legal opinion on the validity, infringement, enforceability, or scope of any patent or case, and no attorney‑client relationship is created by its use. Any description of an outcome (such as a dismissal, settlement, or consent judgment) is a general summary, not a legal determination. All patents, trademarks, and company or law‑firm names are the property of their respective owners. PatSnap makes no warranty as to the accuracy or completeness of this content and disclaims, to the fullest extent permitted by law, all liability for reliance on it. For advice on a specific matter, consult qualified legal counsel.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.