OSSIa Inc v. EnErgous Corp

1. Case Identification

• Case #: PGR2016-00024
• Patent #: 9,124,125
• Filed: May 31, 2016
• Petitioner(s): Ossia, Inc.
• Patent Owner(s): Energous Corporation
• Challenged Claims: 1-18

2. Patent Overview

• Title: Wireless Power Transmission with Selective Range
• Brief Description: The ’125 patent discloses methods and systems for wireless power transmission. The technology purports to use a technique called "pocket-forming," where radio frequency (RF) waves converge to create controlled "pockets of energy" at specific locations to charge devices, surrounded by "null-spaces" where charging is prevented.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Lack of Enablement under §112(a) - Claims 1-18

• Core Argument for this Ground: Petitioner argued that the ’125 patent and its incorporated-by-reference ’993 publication fail to teach a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSA) how to make and use the full scope of the claimed invention without undue experimentation. The specification was characterized as providing only aspirational goals without the necessary technical guidance to achieve them.
  • The patent allegedly fails to enable the generation of "pocket-forming RF waves" from a transmitter through a single antenna. Petitioner asserted that creating controlled interference patterns from a single antenna is a highly difficult technical feat, yet the specification provides no technical details for how this could be accomplished.
  • Petitioner contended that the concept of "accumulating pockets of energy" is not enabled because it is physically nonsensical to "accumulate" or "gather" power, which is a rate of energy transfer, not a storable quantity in a region of space. The patent provides no guidance on how to overcome this physical principle.
  • The specification was argued to lack an enabling disclosure for "implementing an adaptive power focusing to avoid obstacles." It allegedly provides no technical detail on how to detect obstacles, determine if they are interfering, or modify the RF signals to avoid them, instead describing only the desired outcome.

Ground 2: Lack of Written Description under §112(a) - Claims 1-18

• Core Argument for this Ground: Petitioner argued that the specification fails to demonstrate that the inventor was in possession of the claimed subject matter as of the filing date. The disclosure was asserted to be a mere wish or plan, outlining problems to be solved and desired results rather than describing an actual, invented solution.
  • For the "avoid obstacles" limitation, Petitioner argued the specification describes only the intended result. The patent allegedly fails to describe how to generate destructive interference to avoid obstacles or how to determine where obstacles are, thus failing to show possession of a functional system.
  • For the "employing a selective range" limitation, the patent was said to provide no details regarding the components of the transmitter or the relationship between the transmitter and the selective range that would suggest the inventor possessed the claimed feature. The disclosure amounts to nothing more than goals for the claimed "selective range."
  • For claims requiring a transmitter that generates "short RF control signals," Petitioner asserted a complete lack of written description, as the specification only describes a receiver generating such signals, not the claimed transmitter.

Ground 3: Indefiniteness under §112(b) - Claims 1-9 and 16

• Core Argument for this Ground: Petitioner argued that key claim terms, when read in light of the specification, fail to inform a POSA about the scope of the invention with reasonable certainty. The claims contain ambiguous terms, nonsensical phrases, and terms lacking adequate structural support in the specification.
  • The term "selective range" in claims 1-9 was argued to be a means-plus-function term under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) that performs the function of "charging or powering." Petitioner contended the patent fails to disclose adequate corresponding structure, describing only an abstract spatial concept of a charging distance, rendering the term indefinite.
  • The phrase "sensitive areas including people or other equipment affected by pockets of energy" in claim 5 was asserted to be indefinite for lacking any objective standard to determine the scope of a "sensitive area" or to distinguish between a device to be charged and "other equipment."
  • Claim 8 was argued to be indefinite because the phrase "the unified waveform defines pockets of energy and null-spaces along pocket-forming" is an incomplete and ambiguous thought.
  • Claim 16 was argued to be indefinite for containing nonsensical phrases such as "mill-spaces [sic] along pocket-forming" and an ambiguous "wireless power range that include either a minimum or maximum range."

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

• "selective range for charging or powering the electronic device": Petitioner proposed this term should be construed as a means-plus-function term under §112(f). The recited function is "for charging or powering the electronic device," but the specification allegedly only discloses an abstract "wireless charging distance, selected relative to a reference point" as the corresponding structure, which Petitioner argued is insufficient.
• "pockets of energy": Petitioner proposed construing this term as "areas or regions of space where energy or power may accumulate in the form of constructive interference patterns of RF waves," based on the patent's limited description.
• "pocket-forming": Petitioner proposed the construction "generating two or more RF waves which converge in 3-D space, forming controlled constructive and destructive interference patterns."

5. Key Technical Contentions (Beyond Claim Construction)

• Impossibility of "Accumulating Power": A central technical argument was that the claim limitation of "accumulating pockets of energy" is physically impossible as claimed. Petitioner asserted that while energy can be stored (e.g., in a battery), power is a rate of energy delivery and cannot be "collected" or "gathered" in a region of space, making the claims non-enabled.
• Single-Antenna Pocket-Forming: Petitioner contended that creating controlled, multi-wave interference patterns (i.e., "pocket-forming") from a single antenna, as encompassed by the scope of claim 1, is a formidable technical challenge for which the patent provides no technical roadmap, rendering it non-enabling.

6. Relief Requested

• Petitioner requested institution of Post Grant Review and cancellation of claims 1-18 of Patent 9,124,125 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 112.