Koji IP LLC v. Ossia Inc: Wireless Power Transfer Patent Action Dismissed in 62 Days
Koji IP LLC filed suit against Ossia Inc in the Western District of Washington alleging infringement of US10790703B2, a patent covering smart wireless power transfer between devices. The case closed in just 62 days when Koji IP voluntarily dismissed all claims without prejudice under Rule 41, with each party bearing its own costs.
Early voluntary exit in a wireless power transfer patent dispute
On May 23, 2025, Koji IP LLC filed a patent infringement action against Ossia Inc in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, assigned to Judge Jamal N. Whitehead. The suit centred on US10790703B2, a patent covering smart wireless power transfer between devices — a technology domain in which Ossia Inc is an active commercial participant with its Cota wireless power platform.
The case closed on July 24, 2025, just 62 days after filing. Koji IP LLC filed a notice of voluntary dismissal pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i), permissible without court order because Ossia had not yet answered or filed a motion for summary judgment. The dismissal was expressly stated to be without prejudice as to the asserted patent, and each party was directed to bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees.
A 62-day lifecycle is notably brief even for early-stage dismissals, suggesting the parties may have reached an informal understanding or that Koji IP reassessed its enforcement strategy before Ossia engaged formally. The public record does not reveal whether any licensing discussions occurred. Because the dismissal is without prejudice, Koji IP retains the right to assert US10790703B2 against Ossia — or other parties — in a future action.
Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 62 days
62 days — resolved well below the median district court patent case duration of 2+ years
Voluntarily dismissed: what the Rule 41 exit means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i): dismissal as of right, no court order needed
Federal Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) permits a plaintiff to dismiss an action without a court order by filing a notice, provided the defendant has not yet served an answer or motion for summary judgment. Ossia had not done so here, making the dismissal procedurally straightforward. This mechanism gives plaintiffs maximum flexibility to exit early — and leaves the door open to refile.
Pre-answer voluntary exitWithout prejudice: the distinction that keeps future options open
The dismissal notice expressly states it is without prejudice as to the asserted patent. This is legally significant: Koji IP retains the right to bring future infringement claims on US10790703B2 against Ossia or any other party. A with-prejudice dismissal would bar refiling on the same claims. The public record does not indicate why the case was dropped, and the without-prejudice designation preserves strategic flexibility.
Refile right retainedOssia walks away — but the patent threat has not been neutralised
Ossia Inc avoids litigation costs and any injunction or damages exposure in this action. However, the without-prejudice dismissal means Ossia has not obtained a ruling on validity or non-infringement. There is no estoppel, no licence, and no declaratory judgment. Ossia remains exposed to a future assertion of US10790703B2, and the patent itself remains in force.
No liability — threat persistsWireless power sector: patent risk remains live after dismissal
US10790703B2 remains a valid, asserted patent with no adverse ruling against it. Companies operating in the smart wireless power transfer space — particularly those developing ambient or over-the-air charging products — should note that this patent has been actively enforced. The early dismissal may reflect licensing posture or strategic repositioning, and a refile or broader assertion campaign cannot be ruled out.
Active enforcement riskFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Koji IP LLC | Company | Patent assertion entity — holder of US10790703B2 (wireless power transfer)Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Ossia Inc | Company | Ossia Inc — developer of Cota real wireless power technology, based in WashingtonSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Daniel J Gerl | Attorney | Counsel for Koji IP LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Deborah A Purcell | Attorney | Counsel for Koji IP LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | NEXTLAW | Law Firm | Representing Koji IP LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | QUINTAIROS PRIETO WOOD & BOYER PA (WA) | Law Firm | Representing Koji IP LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Brian Nelson Platt | Attorney | Counsel for Ossia IncSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Kenneth J Dyer | Attorney | Counsel for Ossia IncSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Workman Nydegger | Law Firm | Representing Ossia IncSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Jamal N Whitehead | Judge | Washington Western District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The dismissal notice invokes Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) and is unambiguous on two points: the dismissal is without prejudice as to the asserted patent, and each party bears its own costs. The without-prejudice designation is the operative term — it forecloses no future claim. No merits determination was made, no validity or infringement finding exists, and no estoppel attaches. Ossia’s non-response at the time of filing gave Koji IP the procedural right to exit cleanly and cheaply.
US10790703B2 — Smart wireless power transfer between devices
US10790703B2, filed under application number US15/843092 (suggesting a late-2017 priority date), protects technology relating to smart wireless power transfer between devices. The patent sits within the rapidly commercialising domain of over-the-air and RF-based wireless charging, covering intelligent coordination of power delivery between transmitting and receiving devices. Its grant date reflects the maturation of this technology into patentable, claim-supported territory.
For the wireless power sector, US10790703B2 represents the kind of foundational claim that a patent assertion entity can deploy broadly. Ossia Inc, whose Cota platform is one of the most prominent real wireless power systems commercially available, is an obvious target for any holder of wireless power transfer IP. The patent’s enforceability is untested — no court has ruled on validity or infringement — which means its threat value remains intact across the sector.
Should your product team run an FTO against US10790703B2?
Any company developing products that involve dynamic, intelligent wireless power transfer — including ambient RF charging, adaptive resonance systems, multi-device power negotiation, or IoT power delivery platforms — should assess their exposure to US10790703B2. The fact that Koji IP has already filed against a commercial player suggests this is not a dormant asset. Product teams launching or scaling wireless charging features should not assume an early dismissal means the patent is inactive.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent enables R&D and IP teams to map product features against the claim language of US10790703B2 in minutes. Upload your product specification or technical brief, and Eureka will identify which claims pose the highest overlap risk, surface related patents in the same family, and flag any continuation applications that may extend the risk horizon — before your product reaches market.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US10790703B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar wireless power transfer patent cases in U.S. district courts
Explore related patent infringement actions involving wireless power transfer technology filed in U.S. district courts, including the Western District of Washington.
What this case signals for the wireless power transfer IP landscape
A 62-day voluntary dismissal without prejudice rarely ends the story — here is what IP teams in the wireless charging sector should take away.
Without-prejudice dismissal keeps US10790703B2 fully armed for future use
Koji IP’s decision to dismiss without prejudice before Ossia even answered preserves every enforcement option. Patent teams at wireless power companies should treat this patent as actively monitored and potentially ready for reassertion. Conducting an FTO analysis against US10790703B2 now — before any refile — is the lower-cost approach.
Pre-answer dismissals often signal parallel licensing negotiations
When a plaintiff exits this quickly under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), it frequently suggests out-of-court dialogue rather than a loss of interest. IP professionals should monitor whether Ossia discloses any licensing arrangement in future filings or communications. A refile against Ossia or a related entity within 12 months would suggest the first action was purely a negotiating lever.
Koji v Ossia — key questions answered
The dismissal without prejudice means Koji IP LLC retains the right to refile infringement claims on US10790703B2 against Ossia Inc or any other party in a future action. No merits ruling was made, no estoppel attaches, and the patent remains in force. Each party bears its own legal costs under the terms of the dismissal notice.
Koji IP LLC asserted US10790703B2, filed under application number US15/843092. The patent covers smart wireless power transfer between devices, a technology relevant to over-the-air, RF-based, and adaptive wireless charging systems. The patent was not adjudicated on the merits — no validity or infringement finding was made in this action.
The public record does not disclose the reason. The case closed 62 days after filing, before Ossia answered or filed any dispositive motion. Common drivers of such early exits include out-of-court licensing discussions, a reassessment of claim mapping, or a strategic decision to pursue other defendants first. The without-prejudice designation keeps all options open.
No. Because the dismissal was expressly without prejudice, Ossia has not obtained any ruling on non-infringement or invalidity. No declaratory judgment or estoppel protects Ossia from a future action on US10790703B2. Ossia’s legal exposure to this patent remains unchanged by the dismissal.
The case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, Case No. 2:25-cv-00993, and assigned to Judge Jamal N. Whitehead. The plaintiff was represented by Daniel J. Gerl and Deborah A. Purcell of NEXTLAW and Quintairos Prieto Wood & Boyer PA. Ossia was represented by Brian Nelson Platt and Kenneth J. Dyer of Workman Nydegger.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.