Koji IP LLC v. Energous Corp

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Koji IP, LLC (Texas)
  • Defendant: Energous Corporation (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Ramey LLP
• Case Identification: 5:23-cv-05750, N.D. Cal., 11/08/2023
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Northern District of California because Defendant has committed acts of infringement and maintains a regular and established place of business in the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s wireless power charging systems, products, and services infringe a patent related to smart wireless power transfer between devices.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns systems that intelligently manage wireless power transfer, using a separate communication channel to discover and authorize devices before initiating charging.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, licensing history, or administrative proceedings related to the patent-in-suit.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. 10,790,703 - "Smart wireless power transfer between devices"

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,790,703, "Smart wireless power transfer between devices," issued September 29, 2020.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent seeks to improve upon existing wireless power transfer systems by providing solutions for "wirelessly powering and charging powered devices in a smart manner" ('703 Patent, col. 2:38-41). This implies a need for more than just the raw transfer of energy, suggesting a need for intelligent control and management.
• The Patented Solution: The invention describes a system with a "powering device" and a "powered device" that first establish a "close-range wireless communication" to discover and authorize each other ('703 Patent, Abstract). Only after this discovery and authorization does the powering device activate its "powering circuitry" to transmit energy. The patent details numerous logical flows for how and when this power transfer is initiated or terminated based on device status, battery levels, and authorization, which can be managed via a database ('703 Patent, col. 2:58-64; Fig. 10).
• Technical Importance: The technology adds a layer of intelligent control over the physical act of wireless charging, enabling conditional power transfer that can conserve energy and manage access between authorized devices ('703 Patent, col. 2:19-23).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2-4 ('Compl. ¶9).
• The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
  • A wireless power transfer system comprising a battery power source.
  • Wireless communication circuitry for establishing a "close-range wireless communication."
  • Wireless powering circuitry with a transmitter that emits electromagnetic waves to form a "radiative powering region."
  • A control mechanism wherein the transmission power of the communication circuitry is controlled to create a range "substantially narrower" than the radiative powering region.
  • A logic sequence where the powered device issues a message when its battery is below a threshold.
  • The powering circuitry is activated in response to receiving that message.
  • An additional condition for when the powering system itself is on battery power: activation is only allowed if a "level of drop" in the battery power source's level over a "given time period" is below a threshold.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The complaint does not identify specific accused products by name. It refers generally to "systems, products, and services" that are maintained, operated, and administered by Defendant Energous for "wireless power charging" (Compl. ¶¶8-9).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint does not provide specific details regarding the technical functionality or operation of the accused instrumentalities beyond the general allegation that they perform wireless power charging (Compl. ¶8). No allegations regarding the products' commercial importance or market positioning are made.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint states that a chart supporting the infringement allegations is attached as Exhibit B (Compl. ¶10). This exhibit was not included with the filed complaint. In its absence, the complaint’s infringement theory is limited to the general assertion that Defendant’s systems, products, and services infringe one or more of claims 1-4 of the ’703 patent, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents (Compl. ¶9).

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: Claim 1 requires "close-range wireless communication" for discovery and a separate "radiative powering region" for power transfer. A central question may be whether the accused systems utilize two distinct communication and power transfer mechanisms that map onto these claimed limitations, or if a single RF-based system performs both functions.
• Technical Questions: A significant technical question is whether the accused systems perform the specific, two-part conditional logic required by claim 1. The complaint does not provide evidence that the accused system (1) activates power transfer in response to a low-battery message from a powered device, and more specifically, (2) when the powering device is itself on battery, first checks for the "level of drop in a battery level" over time before allowing activation. Evidence of this specific control logic will be necessary to support a finding of infringement.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "level of drop in a battery level of the battery power source in a given time period" (Claim 1)

• Context and Importance: This term defines a highly specific condition that must be met before a battery-operated powering device will transfer power. The infringement analysis may hinge on whether Defendant’s products perform such a specific calculation (a rate of change) rather than a simple check of the current battery level. Practitioners may focus on this term because its specificity could provide a clear line between the claimed invention and the accused technology.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification provides several examples of what this could be, including "current battery consumption level," "an average battery consumption level," "utilization or activity rate of the processor," or the "number of the currently active application programs" ('703 Patent, col. 41:22-42:3). A party might argue these examples broaden the term beyond a strict mathematical rate of change of the battery level itself.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The plain language of the claim, "level of drop ... in a given time period," suggests a direct measurement of the battery's state of charge over time. A party could argue the specification’s other examples (processor utilization, etc.) are merely factors that influence the drop, but that the claim requires a direct or indirect measurement of the battery's power depletion rate.

The Term: "close-range wireless communication" (Claim 1)

• Context and Importance: This communication is for discovery and messaging, and the claim requires its range to be "substantially narrower" than the "radiative powering region" used for power transfer. The viability of the infringement claim may depend on whether this requires two distinct hardware systems (e.g., Bluetooth for discovery, RF for power) or if it can be met by a single system operating in different modes.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party could argue that a single, versatile radio system (like RF) that operates at low power for discovery (creating a narrow effective range) and high power for charging (creating a wider powering region) meets the limitation.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification lists distinct technologies for this function, such as "WLAN or Wi-Fi," "Bluetooth and ZigBee," "RFID," and "NFC" ('703 Patent, col. 7:30-38), separate from the "electromagnetic waves" of the powering circuitry. This may support an interpretation that a functionally different type of communication technology is required for discovery versus power transfer.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

• The complaint alleges inducement, stating that Defendant has "actively encouraged or instructed others (e.g., its customers...)" to use its products in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶11). Contributory infringement is also alleged, based on the same conduct and the assertion that there are "no substantial non-infringing uses" for Defendant's products and services (Compl. ¶12).

Willful Infringement

• The complaint alleges that Defendant's infringement is and has been willful, seeking treble damages (Prayer for Relief, ¶e). The factual basis for this allegation is Defendant's alleged knowledge of the '703 patent "from at least the filing date of the lawsuit" (Compl. ¶¶11-12). The Plaintiff explicitly reserves the right to amend its complaint to allege pre-suit knowledge if revealed in discovery (Compl. p. 4, fn. 1).

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

• A central issue will be one of evidentiary proof: Can the Plaintiff demonstrate that the accused Energous systems implement the highly specific, two-part conditional activation logic recited in claim 1, particularly the requirement that a battery-powered charging device assesses its own "level of drop" in battery power over time before initiating a charge? The complaint currently lacks any such factual allegations.
• The case may also turn on a question of claim construction and technical separation: Does the claim language requiring a "close-range wireless communication" with a "substantially narrower" range than the "radiative powering region" necessitate two physically or functionally distinct systems for discovery and power transfer, and if so, do the accused products embody this separation?