WiTricity Corp v. Ideanomics

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: WiTricity Corporation (Delaware)
  • Defendant: Ideanomics, Inc. (Nevada) and Wireless Advanced Vehicle Electrification, LLC (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: PCFB LLC
• Case Identification: 2:24-cv-00695, D. Utah, 09/20/2024
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Utah because Defendant Wireless Advanced Vehicle Electrification, LLC (WAVE) has an established place of business in the District and both Defendants have allegedly committed acts of infringement there.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ “WAVE by Ideanomics” wireless charging systems for electric vehicles infringe five U.S. patents related to highly resonant wireless power transfer technology.
• Technical Context: The technology at issue involves methods for efficiently transferring electrical power wirelessly over mid-range distances, a critical technology for the growing electric vehicle market, particularly for commercial and public transportation fleets.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff sent a letter to Defendant WAVE on December 16, 2020, providing notice of infringement of one of the asserted patents and referencing the others. This allegation of pre-suit notice is presented as the basis for a claim of willful infringement.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2005-07-12	Earliest Priority Date for ’021, ’422, and ’790 Patents
2009-02-13	Earliest Priority Date for ’228 and ’595 Patents
2013-03-19	U.S. Patent No. 8,400,021 Issued
2015-11-10	U.S. Patent No. 9,184,595 Issued
2016-09-20	U.S. Patent No. 9,450,422 Issued
2017-12-12	U.S. Patent No. 9,843,228 Issued
2018-11-27	U.S. Patent No. 10,141,790 Issued
2020-12-16	Plaintiff allegedly sent notice letter to Defendant WAVE
2024-09-20	Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 9,843,228 - “Impedance Matching in Wireless Power Systems,” issued December 12, 2017

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the general technical challenge of efficiently transferring power wirelessly over a distance, a problem that traditional radiative and short-range inductive methods had not effectively solved for mid-range applications (Compl. ¶18).
• The Patented Solution: The invention describes a specific circuit architecture for a wireless power transfer module designed for high efficiency. The solution uses a combination of inductive elements and capacitors arranged in series and parallel pathways to form a "high-Q resonator," a component that can store and transfer energy with minimal loss (’228 Patent, Abstract; col. 5:48-67). This specific circuit configuration is designed to achieve impedance matching, which is critical for maximizing power transfer between a source and a device.
• Technical Importance: By creating highly efficient resonant systems, the technology enabled practical wireless charging over distances greater than the size of the charging device itself, a key step for applications like electric vehicle charging (Compl. ¶18).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶22).
• Essential elements of claim 1 include:
  • A first inductive element formed by at least one loop of electrically conductive material.
  • Additional circuitry connected to the inductive element with terminals for a power supply or load.
  • The first inductive element and a portion of the additional circuitry forming a high-Q resonator with an intrinsic Q value greater than 100 at a resonant frequency between 10 kHz and 100 MHz.
  • The additional circuitry comprising a first capacitor in series with the inductive element (forming a first circuit pathway), a second capacitor in parallel with the first pathway (forming a second circuit pathway), and a second inductive element in series with both pathways.

U.S. Patent No. 9,184,595 - “Wireless Energy Transfer in Lossy Environments,” issued November 10, 2015

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the problem of maintaining high efficiency in wireless power transfer systems when "lossy" materials (materials that absorb electromagnetic energy, like metal or certain composites) are present in the surrounding environment (’595 Patent, col. 1:44-55). Such materials can degrade the performance of a resonator by lowering its quality factor (Q).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes surrounding a magnetic resonator with a "layer of non-lossy material" to form a "keep-out zone" (’595 Patent, Abstract). This zone acts as a buffer, physically separating the resonator's magnetic fields from nearby lossy materials. This separation is intended to preserve the resonator's high "unperturbed" quality factor, ensuring that the "perturbed" quality factor (the Q factor when lossy materials are present) remains at least 50% of its original value.
• Technical Importance: This solution is significant for real-world deployments of wireless chargers, such as in pavement or near a vehicle chassis, where the presence of lossy materials is unavoidable and could otherwise render the system inefficient (Compl. ¶20).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶34).
• Essential elements of claim 1 include:
  • A source magnetic resonator with a capacitively-loaded conducting loop coupled to a power source.
  • The resonator having an unperturbed source quality factor, Qs.
  • A layer of non-lossy material surrounding the resonator to form a keep-out zone.
  • A perturbed quality factor, Qperturbed, of the resonator (due to lossy material outside the keep-out zone) that is at least 50% of the unperturbed source quality factor Qs.

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 8,400,021 - “Wireless Energy Transfer with High-Q Sub-wavelength Resonators,” issued March 19, 2013

• Technology Synopsis: This patent describes a system for wireless energy transfer using two distinct electromagnetic resonators (a source and a device) that are not electrically wired together. The invention focuses on achieving efficient transfer over a distance (D) by ensuring the resonators have very high Q-factors (quality factors) and specific relationships between their ohmic and radiative resistance (’021 Patent, Abstract).
• Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶46).
• Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the WAVE system's charging pad, power electronics, and vehicle pad function as the claimed first and second electromagnetic resonators that meet the specific Q-factor and resistance relationships required by the claim (Compl. ¶47-48). The complaint's diagram of the bus charging system is used to identify these components (Compl. p. 15).

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 9,450,422 - “Wireless Energy Transfer,” issued September 20, 2016

• Technology Synopsis: This patent details a wireless power system with a source resonator and a movable device resonator. The invention is defined by specific mathematical relationships between the resonators' intrinsic loss rates (Γ1, Γ2), their coupling coefficient (κ), and the work drainage rate (Γw) of the load, ensuring efficient power transfer over a range of distances (’422 Patent, Abstract).
• Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶58).
• Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the WAVE system's components, including the charging pad and vehicle pad, meet the claimed mathematical conditions for intrinsic loss rates and work drainage rate, thereby infringing the patent (Compl. ¶59-60). The complaint's diagram is again referenced to show the accused components (Compl. p. 19).

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 10,141,790 - “Wireless Non-radiative Energy Transfer,” issued November 27, 2018

• Technology Synopsis: This patent describes a wireless power system comprising a source resonator and a device resonator, each with a high intrinsic quality factor (Q ≥ 200). The invention is characterized by a specific relationship between the energy transfer rate (κ) and the intrinsic loss rates (Γ1, Γ2), as well as a size constraint where the source resonator is not more than 100/30 times the size of the device resonator (’790 Patent, Abstract; col. 12:35-50).
• Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶70).
• Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the WAVE system's ground and vehicle components function as the claimed source and device resonators and satisfy the patent's required criteria for quality factors, loss rates, and relative size (Compl. ¶71-72). The bus charging diagram is used to illustrate these accused components (Compl. p. 23).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused instrumentality is the “WAVE by Ideanomics” wireless inductive charging system (Compl. ¶20).

Functionality and Market Context

The system is designed to provide high-power wireless charging for electric vehicles, particularly for commercial and municipal fleets in sectors such as “Mass Transit,” “Ports,” and “Warehouse and Distribution” (Compl. ¶20, ¶22). The complaint alleges the system is available in 50 kW, 125 kW, 250 kW, and 500 kW versions and has been deployed in multiple public transportation systems across the United States (Compl. ¶21). The system consists of ground-based components (charging pad, power electronics, power supply) and vehicle-mounted components (vehicle pad, secondary power electronics) that work together to transfer power wirelessly when a vehicle is positioned over the charging pad (Compl. p. 7).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

’228 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1)	Alleged Infringing Functionality	Complaint Citation	Patent Citation
A wireless power transfer system module, the module comprising: a first inductive element formed by at least one loop of electrically conductive material;	The “WAVE by Ideanomics” system is a wireless power transfer module that includes a first inductive element formed by at least one loop of conductive material.	¶23	col. 5:48-50
additional circuitry connected to the first inductive element, wherein the additional circuitry comprises terminals for connection to a power supply or electrical load...	The WAVE system includes additional circuitry connected to the inductive element with terminals for connection to a power supply or electrical load.	¶23	col. 5:51-54
...wherein the first inductive element forms a high-Q resonator with at least a portion of the additional circuitry, the resonator having an intrinsic Q value greater than 100 for at least one resonant frequency between 10 kHz and 100 MHz;	The WAVE system's resonator allegedly has an intrinsic Q value greater than 100 for at least one resonant frequency between 10 kHz and 100 MHz.	¶23	col. 5:54-59
and wherein the additional circuitry comprises a first capacitor connected in series with the first inductive element to form a first circuit pathway, a second capacitor connected in parallel to the first circuit pathway and forming a second circuit pathway, and a second inductive element connected in series with the first and second circuit pathways.	The WAVE system's additional circuitry allegedly includes a first capacitor in series with the inductive element, a second capacitor in parallel to the first circuit pathway, and a second inductive element connected in series with both pathways.	¶23	col. 5:59-67

The complaint provides a diagram of a bus charging via the WAVE system, identifying the "CHARGING PAD," "PRIMARY POWER ELECTRONICS," and "PRIMARY POWER SUPPLY" as containing the allegedly infringing elements (Compl. p. 7).

Identified Points of Contention

• Technical Questions: The complaint's allegations regarding the specific circuit topology (e.g., a first series capacitor, a second parallel capacitor, and a second series inductive element) are conclusory (Compl. ¶23). A central question will be whether the accused WAVE systems actually contain this precise circuit structure or an equivalent.
• Scope Questions: The claim requires a resonator with an "intrinsic Q value greater than 100." This is a quantitative performance limitation. A point of contention may be the method of measurement and whether the accused products, as commercially deployed, meet this numerical threshold under typical operating conditions.

’595 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1)	Alleged Infringing Functionality	Complaint Citation	Patent Citation
A wireless power transfer system comprising: a source magnetic resonator comprising a capacitively-loaded conducting loop coupled to a power source...	The WAVE system includes a source magnetic resonator comprising a capacitively-loaded conducting loop coupled to a power source.	¶35	col. 19:66-col. 20:2
...the source magnetic resonator configured to generate an oscillating magnetic field to transfer power wirelessly to a device magnetic resonator;	The WAVE system's resonator is configured to generate an oscillating magnetic field to transfer power to a device resonator on a vehicle.	¶35	col. 20:2-5
wherein the source magnetic resonator has an unperturbed source quality factor Qs, and a layer of non-lossy material that surrounds the source magnetic resonator to form a keep-out zone...	The WAVE system allegedly has a source magnetic resonator with an unperturbed quality factor Qs and a layer of non-lossy material that forms a keep-out zone.	¶35	col. 20:6-9
...and wherein a perturbed quality factor Qperturbed of the source magnetic resonator due to lossy material outside the keep-out zone is at least 50% of the unperturbed source quality factor Qs.	The perturbed quality factor of the WAVE system's resonator is alleged to be at least 50% of the unperturbed source quality factor Qs.	¶35	col. 20:9-13

The complaint reuses the bus charging diagram to allege that the "charging pad, primary power electronics, and power supply" embody the claimed resonator, keep-out zone, and non-lossy material (Compl. p. 11).

Identified Points of Contention

• Technical Questions: A key evidentiary question will be whether the perturbed quality factor (Qperturbed) of the accused system is in fact "at least 50% of the unperturbed source quality factor Qs." This requires establishing baseline (unperturbed) performance and then measuring performance in a real-world (perturbed) environment, raising potential disputes over testing methodology and conditions.
• Scope Questions: The definitions of "non-lossy material" and "keep-out zone" will be critical. A dispute may arise over whether the materials used in the WAVE charging pad, likely chosen for durability and environmental sealing, can be properly characterized as "non-lossy" for the purpose of creating a "keep-out zone" as contemplated by the patent.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

For the ’228 Patent

• The Term: “high-Q resonator”
• Context and Importance: This term is central to the claimed invention, as a "high" quality factor (Q) is what enables efficient energy storage and transfer. The patent later quantifies this with "an intrinsic Q value greater than 100." The construction of what constitutes a "high-Q resonator" will be foundational to the infringement analysis.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification suggests that the term refers to a functional characteristic, describing resonators that can "exchange energy efficiently" and have "low intrinsic-loss rates" (’228 Patent, col. 5:28-30). This could support a construction based on performance rather than a specific structure.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim itself ties the term to a specific circuit topology (series and parallel capacitors, etc.). A defendant may argue that a "high-Q resonator" in the context of this patent must be formed from the specific circuit elements recited in the claim.

For the ’595 Patent

• The Term: “keep-out zone”
• Context and Importance: The "keep-out zone" is the claimed structural solution to the problem of energy loss from environmental factors. Infringement of claim 1 hinges on whether the accused WAVE charging pad has a structure that meets the definition of this term.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the zone functionally as a region that may "inhibit, prevent, or reduce the effects of the lossy material on the resonator" (’595 Patent, col. 14:26-28). This suggests a broad, function-oriented definition.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim requires the zone to be formed by "a layer of non-lossy material that surrounds the source magnetic resonator." A defendant may argue that this requires a distinct, physically separate layer of a specific type of material, rather than being an inherent property of the charger's overall construction or housing.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement for all five patents. The inducement allegations are based on Defendants allegedly instructing and training customers to use the WAVE system in an infringing manner through websites and product documentation (e.g., Compl. ¶26-27, ¶38-39). The contributory infringement allegations are based on Defendants providing the WAVE system or its components, knowing they are especially made for infringing use and are not staple articles of commerce with substantial non-infringing uses (e.g., Compl. ¶28, ¶40).

Willful Infringement

The complaint alleges willful infringement based on both pre-suit and post-suit knowledge. Pre-suit knowledge is alleged to stem from a December 16, 2020 notice letter sent by WiTricity to WAVE, which allegedly accused WAVE’s bus charging systems of infringing the ’595 Patent and also referenced the other asserted patents (Compl. ¶25, ¶37, ¶49, ¶61, ¶73). Post-suit knowledge is based on the filing of the complaint itself.

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

• A core issue will be one of evidentiary proof for claimed performance metrics: The asserted claims in all five patents are heavily reliant on quantitative, performance-based limitations (e.g., “Q value greater than 100,” “perturbed quality factor... is at least 50% of the unperturbed,” “κ/√{square root over (Γ1Γ2)}>1”). A central legal and factual battle will likely involve the methodology and evidence required to prove that the accused commercial products meet these specific numerical thresholds under real-world operating conditions.
• A second key question will be one of definitional scope for structural elements: The infringement analysis for patents like the ’595 and ’228 will depend on the construction of terms such as “keep-out zone,” “non-lossy material,” and the specific multi-component "additional circuitry." The case may turn on whether the physical construction of the WAVE system, designed for industrial durability, can be mapped onto these claim terms as they are defined by the patent's specification.
• Finally, a critical question for damages will be the adequacy of pre-suit notice for willfulness: The complaint alleges a 2020 letter gave notice of infringement of the ’595 Patent while also "referencing" the other asserted patents. The court will have to determine if this "referencing" was sufficient to put Defendants on notice for all five patents, which would significantly impact potential liability for enhanced damages.