Litigation
Vampire Labs LLC v. Anker Innovations Ltd
Dismissed with prejudice1:24-cv-01378
- Filed
- 2024-11-12
- Terminated
- 2026-01-09
Patents at issue (1)
Plaintiffs (1)
Defendants (1)
Summary
A district court case filed by Vampire Labs LLC against Anker Innovations Ltd in the Western District of Texas, asserting patent 8358103. The case was dismissed with prejudice as part of a unified settlement.
Case overview & background
Plain-language overview of the case: parties, accused product, patents at issue, and why the suit matters.
Vampire Labs LLC, a patent assertion entity (NPE) based in Austin, Texas, specializing in advanced power management technology aimed at eliminating "Vampire Energy Loss," initiated a patent infringement lawsuit against Anker Innovations Ltd.. Anker Innovations, a prominent Chinese electronics manufacturer, is known for its wide range of consumer electronics, including phone chargers, power banks, and smart home devices, and is recognized as a leading global mobile-charging brand. The litigation centered on alleged infringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,358,103 (the "'103 patent"), which covers technology related to inductive wireless charging systems designed to comply with the widely adopted Qi Specification. The accused products in question were several of Anker's Qi-compliant wireless charging devices, including the Anker 333 Wireless Charger, Anker 544 Wireless Charger, Anker PowerWave Pad, and Anker PowerWave Stand, with the infringement theory based on their adherence to the Qi standard.
The case was filed in the Western District of Texas (W.D. Texas) and assigned to Judge Alan D. Albright. The W.D. Texas has been a highly favored venue for patent litigation, particularly by NPEs, largely due to Judge Albright's active efforts to attract such cases, his fast-paced scheduling practices, and a historically restrictive approach to certain defensive motions, though a new random assignment rule for patent cases was implemented in July 2022. The litigation ultimately concluded with a dismissal with prejudice on January 9, 2026, following a joint stipulation of dismissal filed by both parties on January 8, 2026, indicating a settlement in principle. A dismissal with prejudice permanently bars Vampire Labs from re-asserting the same claims against Anker on the '103 patent, providing Anker with significant IP clearance.
This case is notable for several reasons, including Vampire Labs' profile as an NPE leveraging a patent related to the ubiquitous Qi wireless charging standard against a major consumer electronics company like Anker. The dismissal with prejudice, stemming from a confidential settlement, is a common resolution for NPE cases against large technology defendants. Notably, this case was dismissed on the same date as a parallel infringement suit filed by Vampire Labs against Apple Inc. (1:24-cv-01377), also asserting the '103 patent and another, suggesting a coordinated settlement strategy by Vampire Labs across the wireless charging ecosystem. While Anker has engaged in IPRs in other contexts, there is no public record of an IPR specifically targeting the '103 patent in this particular litigation.
Key legal developments & outcome
Major rulings, motions, claim construction, settlements, and the present posture or final disposition.
The patent infringement litigation between Vampire Labs LLC and Anker Innovations Ltd, case number 1:24-cv-01378, in the Western District of Texas, concluded with a dismissal with prejudice as part of a unified settlement.
Here are the key legal developments and outcome:
Filing & Initial Pleadings (2024-11-12): Vampire Labs LLC filed the complaint against Anker Innovations Ltd in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, asserting U.S. Patent No. 8,358,103. The case was assigned to Judge Alan D. Albright. The asserted patent generally relates to inductive wireless charging technology, and the accused products included Anker's Qi-compliant wireless charging devices.
Pre-trial Motions & Scheduling: Throughout the case, the parties filed multiple joint motions to extend scheduling order deadlines, which the court granted. A Markman hearing for claim construction was scheduled for December 22, 2025.
Parallel PTAB IPR Proceeding (2025-06-27): Apple Inc., also a defendant in a parallel case by Vampire Labs LLC (1:24-cv-01377) involving the same patent, initiated an Inter Partes Review (IPR) against U.S. Patent No. 8,358,103 at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). This proceeding, IPR2025-01215, was filed on June 27, 2025. The PTAB issued its institution decision for this IPR on December 1, 2025.
Settlement in Principle and Motion to Stay (late 2025): The parties informed the court that they had reached a settlement in principle. Consequently, Vampire Labs LLC and Anker Innovations Ltd (along with Apple Inc. from the parallel case) filed a Joint Motion to Stay all deadlines, indicating their intent to file dismissal papers on or before January 8, 2026. The court granted this motion.
Joint Stipulation of Dismissal with Prejudice (2026-01-08): Vampire Labs LLC and Anker Innovations Ltd filed a joint stipulation of dismissal with prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). This dismissal was part of a unified settlement strategy, as the parallel case against Apple Inc. (1:24-cv-01377) was also dismissed on the same day.
Case Termination (2026-01-09): The court formally closed the case on January 9, 2026, terminating all pending motions. The dismissal with prejudice permanently prevents Vampire Labs LLC from re-asserting the same claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,358,103 against Anker Innovations Ltd. No damages award, injunctive relief, or court-issued ruling on the merits was entered.
PTAB IPR Outcome (Post-Dismissal): The parallel IPR proceeding, IPR2025-01215, was subsequently terminated as "Settled," reflecting its resolution as part of the broader settlement.
Plaintiff representatives
Counsel of record for the plaintiff(s): attorneys, firms, and roles (lead counsel, of counsel, local counsel).
- DiNovo Price
- Gregory S. Donahue · lead counsel
- Andrew G. DiNovo · counsel
- Michael Damian French · counsel
- Reichman Jorgensen Lehman & Feldberg and SLC Trial Law
- Scott Lamar Cole · counsel
Counsel of record representing Vampire Labs LLC in Vampire Labs LLC v. Anker Innovations Ltd (1:24-cv-01378) include:
Gregory S. Donahue
- Role: Lead Counsel
- Firm: DiNovo Price LLP (Austin, Texas)
- Experience: Gregory S. Donahue is noted as Lead Counsel for Patent Owner Vampire Labs, LLC in related PTAB proceedings concerning the asserted patent.
Andrew G. DiNovo
- Role: Counsel
- Firm: DiNovo Price LLP (Austin, Texas)
- Experience: Andrew G. DiNovo is a founding partner of DiNovo Price LLP, a firm specializing in patent litigation.
Michael Damian French
- Role: Counsel
- Firm: DiNovo Price LLP (Austin, Texas)
- Experience: Michael Damian French is a named attorney with DiNovo Price LLP, involved in patent infringement cases.
Scott Lamar Cole
- Role: Counsel, noted as Local Counsel in a related case.
- Firm: Reichman Jorgensen Lehman & Feldberg LLP and SLC Trial Law PLLC
- Experience: Scott L. Cole is a patent litigation attorney, also identified as counsel for Vampire Labs LLC in a co-pending case against Apple Inc. involving the same patent.
Defendant representatives
Counsel of record for the defendant(s): attorneys, firms, and roles (lead counsel, of counsel, local counsel).
Based on available public information, the counsel of record representing defendant Anker Innovations Ltd in Vampire Labs LLC v. Anker Innovations Ltd, case 1:24-cv-01378, cannot be definitively identified from the provided search results.
While the case was filed on November 12, 2024, and dismissed with prejudice as part of a unified settlement on January 9, 2026, the public summaries from platforms like PacerMonitor and PatSnap consistently list the plaintiff's counsel (e.g., Andrew G. DiNovo, Michael Damian French, and Gregory S. Donahue from DiNovo Price LLP, and Scott Lamar Cole from Reichman Jorgensen Lehman & Feldberg LLP) but do not explicitly name the attorneys who represented Anker Innovations Ltd in this specific case.
The dismissal with prejudice on the same date as a related case against Apple Inc. (1:24-cv-01377) suggests a coordinated settlement. Although the Apple case lists its counsel, there is no direct evidence to confirm that these same attorneys also represented Anker Innovations Ltd in case 1:24-cv-01378. Without access to the full PACER docket for detailed attorney appearance filings, the specific counsel for Anker in this matter remains undisclosed in the available search results.