Voltstar Tech Inc v. Apple Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Voltstar Technologies, Inc. (Illinois)
  • Defendant: Apple Inc. (California)
  • Plaintiff's Counsel: SRIPLAW, P. A.
• Case Identification: 1:26-cv-04285, N.D. Ill., 04/16/2026
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged based on Defendant's commission of infringing acts within the district and its maintenance of regular and established places of business, including multiple retail stores, in the Northern District of Illinois.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant's power adapter and wireless charging products infringe four patents related to the compact design of electrical chargers and energy-saving technologies that reduce phantom power load.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns the design and functionality of external power converters for consumer electronics, a market where compact size, usability, and energy efficiency are significant competitive factors.
• Key Procedural History: The asserted patents have extensive post-grant histories. U.S. Patent No. RE48,794 and U.S. Patent No. RE50,625 are reissues of the same original patent, U.S. Patent No. 9,024,581, which involved amendments to claim scope during reissue proceedings. U.S. Patent No. 7,910,833 and U.S. Patent No. 7,960,648 have both undergone reexamination and/or inter partes review (IPR) proceedings, resulting in the cancellation and amendment of numerous claims, including some claims originally asserted. The survival of the currently asserted claims through these proceedings may be a central issue.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2008-05-21	Priority Date for '794 Patent and '625 Patent
2008-05-27	Priority Date for '833 Patent
2008-10-15	Priority Date for '648 Patent
2011-03-22	'833 Patent Issued
2011-06-14	'648 Patent Issued
2015-05-05	Original '581 Patent (parent to '794 and '625 patents) Issued
2015-12-01	Reexamination Certificate for '648 Patent Issued
2017-01-30	Disclaimer filed for claims of '833 Patent
2017-11-03	Reexamination Certificate for '833 Patent Issued
2021-10-26	'794 Patent (Reissue) Issued
2022-01-21	Inter Partes Review Certificate for '833 Patent Issued
2022-10-07	'625 Patent (Reissue) Issued
2026-04-16	Complaint Filed

II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis

U.S. Reissue Patent No. RE48,794 E - "Charger Plug With Improved Package"

• Patent Identification: U.S. Reissue Patent No. RE48,794 E, "Charger Plug With Improved Package," issued October 26, 2021.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes issues with prior art electrical chargers, including manufacturing complexities and costs associated with insert molding and hand-soldering of power blades RE48,794 E Patent, col. 2:1-24 It also notes that many chargers are bulky and block adjacent wall outlets RE48,794 E Patent, col. 1:47-50
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a reduced-size charger plug with an improved package design that simplifies construction. It utilizes a pair of blades that are slidably mounted into a charger housing and connected to the internal circuitry via solder-less spring contacts, which obviates the need for insertion molding and hand soldering RE48,794 E Patent, abstract RE48,794 E Patent, col. 3:1-17 The complaint emphasizes that this construction results in specific compact dimensions Compl. ¶12
• Technical Importance: This approach sought to reduce the manufacturing cost and physical footprint of ubiquitous power adapters, making them less obtrusive and more user-friendly.

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts at least Claim 1 Compl. ¶48
• Independent Claim 1 of the '794 Patent requires:
  • A charger plug for converting 120V input power to DC output power.
  • First and second separate blade members secured within a housing with prong portions extending from a front wall.
  • A DC connector to receive a power cord plug end.
  • The housing forming a charger plug face area, an outer profile, and a rear end.
  • The charger plug being configured for a standard wall outlet and being sized so the housing has a longitudinal length less than 2.0 inches and a width less than 1.75 inches.
  • The outer profile having no interference with an adjacent receptacle on all sides when a like charger is mounted in any orientation.
  • The configuration allows the power cord to be conveniently removed while the charger remains plugged in.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims for this patent.

U.S. Reissue Patent No. RE50,625 E - "Charger Plug With Improved Package"

• Patent Identification: U.S. Reissue Patent No. RE50,625 E, "Charger Plug With Improved Package," issued October 7, 2025. (Note: The issue date is listed as Oct 7, 2022 in the complaint, but the patent document shows Oct 7, 2025.)

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: As a continuation of the application leading to the '794 patent, the '625 patent addresses the same problems of manufacturing complexity and size in power chargers RE50,625 E Patent, col. 1:59-62 RE50,625 E Patent, col. 2:1-12
• The Patented Solution: The '625 patent further elaborates on the internal mechanical and electrical structure, focusing on the specific use of spring contacts to create a solder-less electrical connection between the power blades and the printed circuit board Compl. ¶17 RE50,625 E Patent, col. 10:37-44 This design is intended to maintain reliable electrical contact while simplifying assembly and reducing the overall package size RE50,625 E Patent, col. 2:56-62
• Technical Importance: By detailing a solder-less connection method, the invention aimed to further streamline mass production of power adapters and enable even more compact internal layouts.

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts Claims 22, 23, 26, 28, 29, 30, 33, 36, 37, 38 and 41 Compl. ¶53 The complaint does not specify which are independent, but the first listed, Claim 22, is an independent claim.
• Independent Claim 22 of the '625 Patent requires:
  • A charger plug for converting 120V input to DC output.
  • First and second separate non-movably secured blade members.
  • A printed circuit board located within the housing.
  • Spring contacts electrically connected to the blade members, where the spring contacts are elastically deformed by the blade members to provide an elastic contacting force on the printed circuit board.
  • A housing sized with a longitudinal length less than 2.0 inches and having no interference with adjacent receptacles.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims for this patent.

U.S. Patent No. 7,910,833 - "Energy-Saving Power Adapter/Charger"

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,910,833, "Energy-Saving Power Adapter/Charger," issued March 22, 2011.
• Technology Synopsis: The patent addresses the problem of "phantom load," which is the residual power consumed by chargers when they are plugged in but not actively charging a device Compl. ¶21 '833 Patent, col. 2:1-4 The patented solution is a charger that includes circuitry to automatically shut off power when the connected device is fully charged or disconnected, thereby reducing wasted energy '833 Patent, abstract
• Asserted Claims: Claims 24 and 33 Compl. ¶58
• Accused Features: The internal monitoring and switch circuitry of the Apple Wireless Charger are alleged to infringe by detecting when a device is fully charged and controlling the flow of current accordingly Compl. ¶¶42-43

U.S. Patent No. 7,960,648 - "Energy-Saving Cable Assemblies"

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,960,648, "Energy-Saving Cable Assemblies," issued June 14, 2011.
• Technology Synopsis: As a continuation of the '833 patent family, this patent also relates to reducing "phantom load" in chargers used with mobile devices Compl. ¶25 The invention provides a cable assembly with a remotely locatable switch that allows a user or automated circuitry to disconnect the charger from drawing power '648 Patent, abstract
• Asserted Claims: Claims 31, 32 and 39 Compl. ¶63
• Accused Features: The Apple Wireless Charger's internal circuitry, which allegedly shuts off power automatically when a device is fully charged or not present, is accused of infringing the '648 patent Compl. ¶25 Compl. ¶43

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The complaint identifies two accused instrumentalities: the "Apple 20W USB-C Power Adapter" and the "Apple Magsafe Charger," which the complaint also refers to as the "Apple Wireless Charger" Compl. ¶26 Compl. ¶37

Functionality and Market Context

• The Apple 20W Adapter is a compact charger for connecting devices like mobile phones to an AC power source Compl. ¶27 The complaint alleges its reduced size is a key feature, preventing it from blocking adjacent wall outlets Compl. ¶28 The complaint provides an image of the Apple 20W Adapter and its packaging Compl. p. 8
• The Apple MagSafe Charger is a Qi-compliant wireless charger that uses electromagnetic induction to charge devices Compl. ¶38 Compl. ¶41 It is alleged to contain internal monitoring circuitry that detects the charge status of a mobile device and uses internal switches to control current flow, including a "load sensing portion" that senses the frequency of pulses to determine the load Compl. ¶42 An image of the Apple MagSafe Charger is included in the complaint Compl. p. 10

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references claim chart exhibits that were not provided with the filing Compl. ¶30 Compl. ¶35 Compl. ¶44 Therefore, a narrative summary of the infringement allegations is provided below in lieu of a claim chart table.

'794 Patent Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that the Apple 20W Adapter infringes at least Claim 1 of the '794 patent Compl. ¶48 The infringement theory is based on the adapter's physical characteristics. The complaint asserts the adapter has a longitudinal length of approximately 1.628 inches (less than the claimed 2.0 inches) and a width of approximately 1.670 inches (less than the claimed 1.75 inches) Compl. ¶32 It is also alleged that the adapter's compact shape prevents it from blocking adjacent outlets, and that its internal construction, including the placement of the printed circuit board relative to the blade members, meets other limitations of the claim Compl. ¶28 Compl. ¶33

'625 Patent Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges the Apple 20W Adapter infringes several claims of the '625 patent, including independent Claim 22 Compl. ¶53 The core of this allegation is that the adapter incorporates "spring contacts electrically connected to the blade members" that extend from a printed circuit board, and that this connection is achieved "without the use of solder" Compl. ¶34 This maps the internal construction of the accused adapter to the patent's claims directed at a solder-less assembly method.

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: A primary question for the '794 patent will be whether Apple's product meets the dimensional and non-interference limitations as defined in the claims. The reissue history of the '794 patent, which narrowed a dimensional limitation from "equal to or less than" to "less than," suggests that the exact size will be a critical point of dispute Compl. p. 6, fn. 1
• Technical Questions: For the '625 patent, a key technical question will be whether the internal connection in the Apple 20W Adapter is, in fact, a "solder-less" connection using "spring contacts" as those terms are understood in the patent. The analysis may depend on the specific mechanical and electrical nature of the components used inside Apple's product. For the '833 and '648 patents, a central question will be whether the Apple Wireless Charger's method for detecting load-allegedly by sensing the "frequency of pulses"-is technically equivalent to the load-sensing mechanism described and claimed in the patents '833 Patent, col. 14:28-31 Compl. ¶42

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "being sized so that the charger plug housing comprises a longitudinal length... less than 2.0 inches, a width of the housing outer profile being less than 1.75 inches" ('794 Patent, Claim 1)

• Context and Importance: These dimensional limitations are the cornerstone of the infringement allegation against the Apple 20W Adapter. Practitioners may focus on this term because the patent's prosecution history, specifically the amendment during reissue to change "equal to or less than 2.0 inches" to "less than 2.0 inches," indicates this boundary is critical and was likely added to overcome prior art Compl. p. 6, fn. 1 The definition and method of measurement for "longitudinal length" and "width of the housing outer profile" will be central to the dispute.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification's general goal of creating a compact charger that does not interfere with adjacent outlets could be argued to support a flexible interpretation of how these measurements are taken RE48,794 E Patent, col. 1:47-50
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specificity of the numerical values, combined with their introduction during reissue, suggests the patentee intended these to be strict, limiting requirements. Figures in the patent showing specific embodiments may be used to argue for a precise measurement methodology RE48,794 E Patent, Figs. 1, 2A

The Term: "spring contacts electrically connected to the blade members ... without the use of solder" ('625 Patent, as alleged in Compl. ¶34)

• Context and Importance: This term is central to the '625 patent's alleged novelty and the infringement allegation against the Apple 20W Adapter. The dispute will likely turn on whether the internal connectors in the accused product function as "spring contacts" and whether the overall assembly is truly "without... solder" in the manner claimed.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party might argue that any resilient metal contact that provides an electrical connection without a metallurgical bond constitutes a "solder-less spring contact." The specification describes the goal of eliminating hand soldering generally RE50,625 E Patent, col. 2:15-19
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent provides detailed descriptions and figures of a specific wire-form spring contact with an elbow barb and a flexing spring arm RE50,625 E Patent, col. 10:37-55 RE50,625 E Patent, Fig. 17 A party may argue that the term should be limited to this or structurally similar embodiments, and that other connection types (e.g., pressure-fit connectors that are not springs) would not qualify.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

• The complaint's four counts are exclusively for "DIRECT INFRINGEMENT" Compl. pp. 12-14 The complaint does not plead specific facts to support the knowledge or intent elements required for claims of induced or contributory infringement.

Willful Infringement

• The prayer for relief requests a finding that Defendant's infringement has been "willful, wanton, and deliberate" and seeks treble damages Compl., Prayer for Relief ¶C However, the body of the complaint does not contain specific factual allegations to support a claim of pre- or post-suit willfulness, such as prior knowledge of the patents.

VII. Analyst's Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case

1. A question of dimensional precision: Will the accused Apple 20W Adapter, when measured, fall within the strict dimensional limitations of "less than 2.0 inches" in length and "less than 1.75 inches" in width as required by the '794 patent, especially considering this language was added during reissue to distinguish from prior art?

2. A technical question of internal construction: Does the electrical connection between the power blades and the circuit board in the Apple 20W Adapter function as a "solder-less" system using "spring contacts" as defined by the '625 patent, or is there a fundamental mismatch in the mechanical and electrical operation of the components?

3. A question of technological scope: For the energy-saving patents ('833 and '648), does the accused Apple Wireless Charger's circuitry for detecting a device's charging status-allegedly by sensing the "frequency of pulses"-fall within the scope of the patents' claims for reducing phantom load, particularly in light of the significant narrowing of those patents during reexamination and inter partes review?