DCT

2:23-cv-01099

WiTricity Corp v. InductEV Inc

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: WiTricity Corporation v. InductEV, Inc., 2:23-cv-01099, E.D. Pa., 03/21/2023
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania because Defendant maintains its principal place of business in the district and has allegedly committed acts of infringement there.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s high-power wireless charging systems for electric vehicles infringe four patents related to foundational resonant wireless power transfer, foreign object detection, and secure charging.
  • Technical Context: The patents relate to highly resonant wireless power transfer, a technology enabling efficient charging over a distance without physical contact, which is significant for the growing electric vehicle market.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff provided Defendant with notice of infringement of the ’719 and ’687 Patents as early as June 4, 2015, and of all patents-in-suit as of November 16, 2020, through letters seeking to open licensing discussions. These pre-suit notifications form the basis for the allegations of willful infringement.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2008-07-08 ’654 Patent - Earliest Priority Date
2008-09-27 ’719 Patent - Earliest Priority Date
2011-08-18 ’687 Patent - Earliest Priority Date
2011-09-09 ’184 Patent - Earliest Priority Date
2013-06-11 ’719 Patent - Issue Date
2013-06-18 ’654 Patent - Issue Date
2014-12-16 ’687 Patent - Issue Date
2015-06-04 Alleged first notice of infringement to Defendant
2018-07-17 ’184 Patent - Issue Date
2019-02-18 ’654 Patent assigned from Qualcomm to WiTricity
2020-11-16 Alleged renewed notice of infringement to Defendant
2023-03-21 Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 8,461,719 - “Wireless Energy Transfer Systems,” issued June 11, 2013 (’719 Patent)

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent describes the limitations of existing wireless energy transfer technologies, noting that far-field (radiative) methods are inefficient for near-to-mid-range applications, while traditional non-radiative (inductive) methods require very close proximity and precise alignment of coils (U.S. Patent No. 8,461,719, col. 1:19-65).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention uses a system of at least two coupled electromagnetic resonators, a source and a device, which are specifically designed to have a high quality factor (Q). This high-Q design allows for efficient, non-radiative energy exchange over mid-range distances (distances larger than the characteristic size of the resonators themselves) via their magnetic near-fields, a phenomenon described as "strongly coupled" resonators (’719 Patent, col. 2:25-40; col. 3:1-21).
  • Technical Importance: This approach enabled a new category of wireless power that was more flexible and efficient over greater distances than prior art inductive coupling, making it practical for applications like charging mobile electronics or electric vehicles without precise docking (Compl. ¶12).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶16).
  • Claim 1 requires:
    • A source resonator having a Q-factor, Q1>100, coupled to a power generator.
    • A second (device) resonator having a Q-factor, Q2>100, coupled to a load.
    • The resonators are located a distance D from each other.
    • The resonators are configured to wirelessly exchange energy.
    • A quality factor √Q1Q2 is greater than 100.
    • The source resonator includes a coil of at least one turn of conducting material connected to a network of capacitors.
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims (Compl. ¶16).

U.S. Patent No. 10,027,184 - “Foreign Object Detection In Wireless Energy Transfer Systems,” issued July 17, 2018 (’184 Patent)

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: In high-power wireless charging systems, metallic foreign object debris (FOD), such as tools, cans, or foil wrappers, can interact with the strong magnetic fields, causing the objects to heat up and create a fire or burn hazard (’184 Patent, col. 1:45-54; col. 2:5-13).
  • The Patented Solution: The patent discloses a system for detecting FOD by measuring local perturbations in the oscillating magnetic field. This is achieved using one or more "field gradiometers"—sensors typically made of figure-8 loops of wire—positioned in the magnetic field. A change in the magnetic field gradient caused by FOD induces a measurable voltage in the gradiometer, which can be used by a feedback loop to control the power source (e.g., shut it down or issue an alert) (’184 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 2).
  • Technical Importance: This technology provides an active safety mechanism to mitigate risks associated with foreign objects, which is critical for the public deployment of high-power wireless charging systems for vehicles (’184 Patent, col. 2:14-17).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 16, a method claim (Compl. ¶27).
  • Claim 16 requires the steps of:
    • Performing a health and/or status check of a source resonator.
    • Verifying that no foreign object debris has moved onto or over the source resonator.
    • Positioning a vehicle over the source resonator.
    • Verifying that no foreign object debris has moved onto or over the source resonator.
    • Generating an oscillating magnetic field to transfer energy to the vehicle to charge a battery.
    • Verifying that no foreign object debris has moved onto or over the source resonator during the transfer of energy.
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims (Compl. ¶27).

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 8,912,687 - “Secure Wireless Energy Transfer For Vehicle Applications,” issued December 16, 2014 (’687 Patent)

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent addresses the need for secure and authenticated wireless power transfer, particularly for vehicles. The described solution involves a communication channel between the power source and the vehicle receiver to verify compatibility and authorize the initiation of energy transfer, preventing unauthorized power use or transfer to incompatible devices (’687 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:24-40).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claim 1 is asserted (Compl. ¶37).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the InductEV Inductive Charging System infringes, but does not specify which features map to the security and authorization claims (Compl. ¶37).

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 8,466,654 - “Wireless High Power Transfer Under Regulatory Constraints,” issued June 18, 2013 (’654 Patent)

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent focuses on enabling high-power wireless transfer while complying with regulatory constraints on electromagnetic field exposure. The invention includes a guidance system to assist in aligning the vehicle's receiver coil with the ground-based transmitter coil and a mechanism to adjust the physical proximity (e.g., raising or lowering a coil) to improve coupling efficiency and manage field strength (’654 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 7).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claim 13 is asserted (Compl. ¶48).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the InductEV Inductive Charging System infringes, but does not specify which features map to the guidance and alignment claims (Compl. ¶48).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

  • Product Identification: Defendant’s "Inductive Charging System" is the accused instrumentality (Compl. ¶14).
  • Functionality and Market Context: The system is described as a high-power (e.g., 200kW) wireless charging solution for commercial and transit electric vehicles, such as buses (Compl. ¶14). It comprises a "ground assembly" that transfers power from the grid to in-ground pads, a "vehicle assembly" that receives the wireless energy, and "cloud-based analytics" for monitoring and charging strategies (Compl. ¶14). The complaint alleges the system is deployed in multiple public bus networks across the U.S., with at least 63 ground assemblies and 95 vehicles in operation (Compl. ¶15). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references claim chart exhibits to detail its infringement theories; as these exhibits are not attached to the publicly filed complaint, the following summarizes the narrative allegations.

  • ’719 Patent Infringement Allegations: The complaint alleges that the InductEV system directly infringes at least Claim 1 (Compl. ¶16). The narrative theory suggests that the "ground assembly" functions as the claimed "source resonator" and the "vehicle assembly" functions as the claimed "device resonator" (Compl. ¶14). Together, these components are alleged to form a wireless energy transfer system that meets the high Q-factor and strong coupling requirements of the asserted claim to wirelessly charge vehicle batteries (Compl. ¶14, ¶16).
  • ’184 Patent Infringement Allegations: The complaint alleges that InductEV infringes method Claim 16 by "using the claimed method" (Compl. ¶27). However, the complaint does not provide a narrative description of how the accused system performs the specific verification and charging steps of the claim. It instead incorporates by reference an external claim chart (Exhibit 6) that is not available for analysis (Compl. ¶27). The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the infringement allegations for this patent.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

’719 Patent

  • The Term: "a Q-factor, Q > 100"
  • Context and Importance: This term is the central, quantitative feature distinguishing the claimed "highly resonant" technology from prior art low-Q inductive coupling. The outcome of the case may depend heavily on whether the components of the accused InductEV system are found to possess the requisite Q-factor as defined by the patent. Practitioners may focus on this term because it sets a numerical boundary for infringement.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes Q-factor generally as a measure of energy decay rate and notes that it "characterizes the energy decay... in the resonator" (U.S. Patent No. 8,461,719, col. 11:62-65). The claims do not specify a particular method for measuring Q, potentially allowing for various industry-standard measurement techniques.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification repeatedly emphasizes that high-Q is achieved through specific designs, such as using capacitively-loaded conductive loops, to minimize losses (’719 Patent, col. 22:27-36). A defendant may argue that the term should be limited to the Q-factor of the specific resonator structures disclosed and measured under specific load conditions.

’184 Patent

  • The Term: "verifying that no foreign object debris has moved onto or over the source resonator" (from claim 16)
  • Context and Importance: This method step is recited three times in the claim, occurring before, during, and after vehicle positioning and charging. The dispute will likely center on what actions constitute "verifying." Practitioners may focus on this term because its interpretation will determine whether a general system diagnostic check is sufficient to infringe, or if a specific, dedicated FOD-sensing operation is required.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself is broad and does not specify the mechanism of verification. A plaintiff could argue that any system self-check or monitoring of electrical parameters that would be perturbed by FOD meets this limitation.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification heavily details a specific solution using field gradiometers to detect local magnetic field perturbations (’184 Patent, col. 5:38-67). A defendant may argue that the term "verifying," in the context of the patent, should be construed to require the use of such a dedicated FOD sensor system as described in the preferred embodiments, and not just general system monitoring.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement for all patents-in-suit. Inducement is based on allegations that InductEV instructs its customers on how to use the infringing systems through product documentation and its website (Compl. ¶18-19, ¶29). Contributory infringement is based on allegations that the InductEV system is not a staple article of commerce, is not suitable for substantial noninfringing uses, and is especially adapted to practice the patents (Compl. ¶20-23, ¶30-33).
  • Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged for all four patents (Compl. ¶24, ¶34, ¶45, ¶55). The allegations are supported by specific claims of pre-suit knowledge, citing letters sent to InductEV’s predecessor on June 4, 2015, and renewed requests for licensing on November 16, 2020, which allegedly put Defendant on notice of its infringement (Compl. ¶17, ¶28, ¶38, ¶49).

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

  • A core issue will be one of technical scope: Will the ’719 Patent's numerical "Q > 100" limitation, which defines the boundary of its "highly resonant" technology, be met by the accused InductEV system, or can the system be characterized as conventional induction falling outside the patent's scope?
  • A central dispute will likely be one of methodology: Does the accused system perform the specific, repeated "verifying" steps of the ’184 Patent's foreign object detection method, and can the term "verifying" be met by general system monitoring, or does it require the dedicated gradiometer-based approach detailed in the patent's specification?
  • A key question for damages will be one of intent: Given the complaint’s allegations of pre-suit notice dating back to 2015, the court will need to determine whether Defendant’s continued alleged infringement after receiving notice constituted objective recklessness sufficient to support a finding of willfulness and potential enhanced damages.