Federal Circuit Affirms PTAB Invalidity Ruling Against WiTricity in Wireless Charging Patent Dispute

Introduction

In a significant decision for the wireless power transfer industry, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (PTAB) final written decision canceling claims of WiTricity Corporation’s foundational wireless charging patent. Case No. 23-1916, closed on April 16, 2025, after 698 days of appellate proceedings, delivers a clear message to patent holders in the wireless energy transfer space: even pioneering patents face serious validity scrutiny under inter partes review.

WiTricity Corp., a Massachusetts-based wireless charging technology leader, challenged PTAB’s invalidity determination concerning U.S. Patent No. 7,741,734 B2, which covers wireless non-radiative energy transfer technology. The Federal Circuit found WiTricity’s arguments unpersuasive and affirmed the Board’s ruling in favor of defendant InductEV Inc. For patent attorneys, IP professionals, and R&D teams operating in the electric vehicle charging and wireless power sector, this outcome carries critical implications for patent prosecution strategy, portfolio management, and freedom-to-operate analysis.

Case Overview

The Parties

The Patent at Issue

This landmark case involved U.S. Patent No. 7,741,734 B2, covering wireless non-radiative energy transfer — the core technology enabling efficient power transmission between a source and a device without physical contact. This patent represents foundational intellectual property in resonant magnetic coupling, a technology underpinning modern wireless EV charging infrastructure.

• • US 7,741,734 B2 — Wireless non-radiative energy transfer technology

The Verdict & Legal Analysis

Outcome

The Federal Circuit issued an unambiguous ruling: AFFIRMED. The court upheld PTAB’s final written decision finding the claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,741,734 B2 unpatentable. The court’s closing statement — “We have considered WiTricity’s remaining arguments and find them unpersuasive” — signals a comprehensive review of WiTricity’s appellate arguments across validity grounds, with none succeeding. No damages were at issue in this appeal; the proceeding concerned patentability, not infringement compensation.

Legal Significance

This decision carries meaningful precedential weight for wireless charging patent litigation for several reasons:

First, it confirms that even foundational, pioneer patents in emerging technology sectors remain vulnerable to IPR invalidity challenges, particularly when prior art exists in adjacent fields such as resonant circuit design, electromagnetic induction, and RF engineering.

Second, the Federal Circuit’s affirmance reinforces PTAB’s role as an effective venue for patent challengers seeking cancellation of blocking patents in rapidly commercializing technology spaces like EV wireless charging.

Third, for practitioners tracking patent validity in wireless power transfer, this case signals that broad foundational claims — even those anchored to MIT research — are not insulated from successful prior art challenges.