Koji IP v. Energous Corporation — Settled & Dismissed With Prejudice in 105 Days
Koji IP, LLC asserted US10790703B2 — a patent covering smart wireless power transfer between devices — against Energous Corporation, a specialist in wireless charging technology. The parties reached a settlement within 105 days of filing, and the Northern District of California dismissed the case with prejudice.
Swift settlement in wireless power transfer patent dispute
On 8 November 2023, Koji IP, LLC filed a patent infringement action against Energous Corporation in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (Case No. 4:23-cv-05750), before Chief Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. The complaint alleged infringement of US10790703B2, a patent directed at smart wireless power transfer between devices — technology squarely aligned with Energous’s core commercial offering in the wireless charging market.
The case closed on 21 February 2024, just 105 days after filing. The court issued a dismissal with prejudice after being advised that the parties had agreed to a settlement. Dismissal with prejudice is a final disposition: Koji IP is permanently barred from reasserting the same claims under US10790703B2 against Energous in any future action. The settlement consideration terms were not disclosed on the public docket.
Resolution in 105 days is notably swift for patent litigation in the Northern District of California, where cases frequently run 18–36 months through trial. The speed suggests both parties had commercial incentives to reach early resolution — potentially including licensing economics or Energous’s exposure given its focus on WattUp wireless power technology. What drove the agreed consideration, and whether a royalty-bearing licence was granted, remains unknown from the public record.
Filing to dismissal in 105 days
105 days — resolved faster than the median patent infringement case in N.D. Cal.
Dismissed with prejudice following confirmed settlement agreement
Dismissed with prejudice: what it forecloses
A dismissal with prejudice is a final judgment on the merits. Koji IP is permanently barred from filing a new action against Energous asserting the same claims under US10790703B2. This differs materially from a without-prejudice dismissal, which would leave open the possibility of refiling. The finality here indicates both parties accepted the settlement as a complete resolution.
Permanent bar on refiling45-day vacatur clause protects against non-performance
The court’s order included a standard contingency: if either party certified within 45 days that the agreed settlement consideration had not been delivered, the dismissal would be vacated and the case restored to the trial calendar. This clause incentivises prompt performance of settlement obligations while giving the court a safety mechanism. No such certification appears on the docket, indicating consideration was delivered.
Consideration delivered105 days: well below the N.D. Cal. median
Patent cases in the Northern District of California typically take 18–36 months from filing to resolution. Settlement in 105 days — before any claim construction proceedings — suggests the parties reached agreement at or near the outset of litigation, possibly in response to early licensing discussions or a pre-suit negotiation already underway when the complaint was filed.
Pre-claim-construction resolutionSettlement consideration remains undisclosed
The public docket does not reveal whether the settlement involved a lump-sum payment, a running royalty licence, a cross-licence, or a covenant not to sue. For competitors and product teams in the wireless power sector, the opaque terms mean the economic signal from this case is limited — though the with-prejudice dismissal confirms that Koji IP’s claims against Energous are fully extinguished.
Terms confidentialFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Koji IP, LLC | Company | IP licensing entity — holder of US10790703B2 (smart wireless power transfer)Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Energous Corporation | Company | Energous Corporation — developer of WattUp wireless power delivery technologySearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Susan S.Q. Kalra | Attorney | Counsel for Koji IP, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | William P. Ramey , III | Attorney | Counsel for Koji IP, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Michael John Lyons | Attorney | Counsel for Energous CorporationSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr | Chief Judge | California Northern District Court — Chief JudgeSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Stipulation of dismissal — official text
The court’s order recites a classic stipulated-dismissal-with-prejudice formula triggered by confirmed settlement. The 45-day contingency clause is procedurally standard and protects against a party failing to perform its settlement obligations. Because no certification of non-delivery was filed, the dismissal became unconditional. For Energous, this extinguishes Koji IP’s claims under US10790703B2 entirely; for Koji IP, it confirms a closed chapter against this defendant while the patent itself remains enforceable against third parties.
US10790703B2 — Smart Wireless Power Transfer Between Devices
US10790703B2 (application number US15/843092) is directed at smart wireless power transfer between devices — a technology covering the intelligent, adaptive delivery of power wirelessly from one device to another. The patent addresses the technical challenge of dynamically managing power transfer conditions between a transmitting and receiving device, a capability central to next-generation wireless charging ecosystems. Its grant reflects USPTO recognition of a protectable inventive step in this rapidly commercialising domain.
Wireless power transfer sits at the intersection of IoT, consumer electronics, and automotive electrification — sectors experiencing intense IP accumulation. US10790703B2 is commercially significant because it targets the functional intelligence layer of wireless charging: not merely the RF or inductive mechanism, but the smart arbitration of power flow. Any competitor operating in device-to-device wireless charging — including wearables, smartphones, hearables, and automotive applications — should assess whether their implementation falls within the patent’s claim scope.
Should your product team run an FTO against US10790703B2?
If your organisation designs, manufactures, or integrates smart wireless power transfer functionality — across consumer electronics, IoT devices, hearables, or automotive platforms — US10790703B2 warrants direct FTO scrutiny. Koji IP’s willingness to assert this patent against a dedicated wireless charging company like Energous demonstrates active enforcement intent. The absence of public claim construction means the effective scope is unresolved, making proactive FTO analysis more — not less — important.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent enables your team to map US10790703B2’s claims against your product architecture in structured, auditable steps. Eureka surfaces the full prosecution history, identifies claim language most relevant to your implementation, and flags related family members that may extend the patent’s geographic reach. Ongoing claim monitoring through Eureka alerts you to continuations or related filings that could extend Koji IP’s coverage into your product category.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US10790703B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar wireless power transfer patent infringement cases
PatSnap Eureka tracks related litigation across truck body equipment, vehicle accessories, and comparable infringement actions in the Georgia district system.
What this case signals for the wireless power transfer IP landscape
A swift, prejudiced settlement against a wireless charging specialist highlights growing assertion risk around foundational wireless power IP.
Wireless power IP is an active assertion target — audit your exposure now
Koji IP’s action against Energous — a company whose entire business is built on wireless power delivery — demonstrates that foundational wireless charging patents are being actively monetised. Any company commercialising device-to-device wireless power transfer should treat an FTO analysis of US10790703B2 as a baseline step before product launch or Series funding.
Early settlement before claim construction limits public claim scope signal
Because the case settled before Markman proceedings, no court has publicly construed the claims of US10790703B2. This absence of claim construction guidance increases uncertainty for third parties: the patent’s effective scope must be assessed from the specification and prosecution history alone, without a judicial reference point.
Koji v Energous — key questions answered
The case was dismissed with prejudice on 21 February 2024 following a confirmed settlement between the parties. Dismissal with prejudice permanently bars Koji IP from reasserting the same claims under US10790703B2 against Energous. Settlement consideration terms were not publicly disclosed.
Koji IP asserted US10790703B2, a U.S. patent directed at smart wireless power transfer between devices. The patent corresponds to application number US15/843092 and was filed in the Northern District of California.
The case resolved in 105 days — filed 8 November 2023 and closed 21 February 2024. This is significantly faster than the typical 18–36 month timeline for patent litigation in the Northern District of California, suggesting early settlement discussions were underway at or shortly after filing.
The with-prejudice dismissal only extinguishes Koji IP’s claims against Energous specifically. US10790703B2 remains an active, enforceable patent. Third parties in the wireless power transfer space are not shielded by this dismissal and should conduct their own FTO analysis against the patent’s claims.
Koji IP was represented by Susan S.Q. Kalra and William P. Ramey III of Ramey LLP and Ramey & Schwaller, LLP. Energous Corporation was represented by Michael John Lyons of Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLP. Chief Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. presided over the case in the Northern District of California.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.