Koji IP v. Guru Wireless: Wireless Power Patent Suit Dismissed Without Prejudice
Koji IP, LLC asserted US10790703B2 — covering smart wireless power transfer between devices — against Guru Wireless, Inc. in the Central District of California. The parties jointly stipulated to dismiss all claims and counterclaims without prejudice after just 152 days, leaving the door open for future proceedings.
Wireless power transfer patent dispute ends in joint walkaway
On May 3, 2024, Koji IP, LLC filed suit against Guru Wireless, Inc. in the United States District Court for the Central District of California (Case No. 2:24-cv-03713), asserting infringement of US10790703B2. The patent covers smart wireless power transfer between devices — a technology directly relevant to Guru Wireless’s core product offering in the contactless charging space. Koji IP was represented by Ramey LLP, a firm with an established practice in patent assertion; Guru Wireless retained Hawkinson Yang LLP.
The case closed on October 2, 2024, just 152 days after filing, via a joint stipulation under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). Critically, the dismissal was entered without prejudice as to all of Koji IP’s claims and Guru Wireless’s counterclaims. This means neither party obtained a merits ruling, and the legal dispute is formally unresolved — Koji IP retains the right to refile the same infringement claims against Guru Wireless in the future.
A resolution at 152 days — before any significant motion practice would typically conclude — suggests the parties likely reached a commercial understanding, though the public record is silent on any licensing terms or settlement payment. The without-prejudice posture is notable: it preserves Koji IP’s litigation leverage and prevents Guru Wireless from claiming res judicata protection. What drove the early resolution, and whether a license agreement underlies it, remains undisclosed.
Filing to Dismissed without Prejudice in 152 days
152 days — resolved well before the typical 2–3 year district court patent trial timeline
Dismissed without prejudice: what the joint stipulation means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii): joint stipulated dismissal explained
Under FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), parties may dismiss an action by filing a signed stipulation. Because both sides agreed, no court order was required and no judge ruled on the merits. The dismissal is self-executing upon filing. This is the most consensual exit available in federal litigation and typically signals a negotiated resolution or at minimum a mutual decision to stand down — at least temporarily.
No merits adjudicationWithout prejudice: the critical distinction Guru Wireless must watch
A dismissal without prejudice does not bar Koji IP from refiling the same infringement claims against Guru Wireless. By contrast, a dismissal with prejudice would have functioned as a final judgment on the merits, preventing re-litigation. The public record here is explicit: the stipulation states WITHOUT PREJUDICE for all claims and counterclaims. Guru Wireless cannot assert res judicata or claim estoppel from this proceeding if Koji IP returns to court.
Refiling risk remains openKoji IP retains full enforcement rights over US10790703B2
The without-prejudice dismissal preserves Koji IP’s ability to reassert US10790703B2 against Guru Wireless or any other party. If a licensing agreement was reached (undisclosed on the public record), this dismissal would be the expected procedural vehicle. Koji IP’s litigation posture — represented by Ramey LLP, a frequent patent assertion firm — suggests this patent may see further enforcement activity across the wireless power transfer sector.
Enforcement rights intactUnresolved validity leaves sector on notice
Because no court ruled on the validity or scope of US10790703B2, the patent remains presumptively valid and enforceable. Competitors in the smart wireless power transfer space — including those developing multi-device or over-the-air charging solutions — cannot rely on this proceeding as clearing the way. The absence of any invalidity ruling or claim construction order means the patent’s reach remains legally untested and commercially relevant.
Patent validity untestedFull 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 | Guru Wireless, Inc. | Company | Guru Wireless, Inc. — developer of smart wireless power transfer technologySearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Susan S. Q. Kalra | Attorney | Counsel for Koji IP, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Ramey LLP | Law Firm | Representing Koji IP, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | David C. Yang | Attorney | Counsel for Guru Wireless, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Matthew J Hawkinson | Attorney | Counsel for Guru Wireless, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Hawkinson Yang LLP | Law Firm | Representing Guru Wireless, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | California Central District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The stipulated dismissal language is precise and consequential: the phrase ‘WITHOUT PREJUDICE’ applies to all of Koji IP’s claims and Guru Wireless’s counterclaims symmetrically. This means neither party secured any legal advantage from this proceeding. No claim construction, no validity ruling, and no damages finding entered the record. The joint nature of the stipulation under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) suggests mutual consent, but the without-prejudice posture disproportionately benefits the plaintiff, who retains the option to refile.
US10790703B2 — Smart Wireless Power Transfer Between Devices
US10790703B2, filed under application number US15/843092, protects technology in the smart wireless power transfer space — specifically methods and systems enabling intelligent, device-aware power transmission without physical connectors. The patent’s grant reflects inventive contribution in an area of rapidly accelerating commercial importance: as consumer electronics, IoT sensors, and industrial devices increasingly demand cable-free operation, patented wireless charging architectures carry significant licensing and exclusivity value.
For competitors operating in contactless charging, over-the-air power delivery, or multi-device wireless power ecosystems, US10790703B2 represents a live enforcement risk. Koji IP’s decision to assert this patent against Guru Wireless — a company whose core offering sits squarely in smart wireless power transfer — suggests the patent holder views it as broadly applicable. Without a validity challenge or claim construction on record, the patent’s enforceable scope remains undefined and potentially expansive.
Should your team run an FTO against US10790703B2?
Any R&D team or product organisation developing smart wireless power transfer technology — including IoT charging stations, consumer multi-device pads, industrial wireless power systems, or over-the-air energy delivery solutions — should assess exposure to US10790703B2. This patent was actively asserted in federal court in 2024, and the without-prejudice dismissal means enforcement could resume at any time. The risk is not theoretical.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the claim scope of US10790703B2 against your product architecture, identify prior art that may support an invalidity argument, and flag any continuation or related applications that could extend the patent family’s reach. Given that no court has construed the claims, an independent claim analysis is essential before launching or scaling any wireless power transfer product in the US 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 US district courts
Cases involving wireless power transfer patents asserted in California federal courts, including C.D. Cal., follow patterns relevant to US10790703B2 enforcement risk.
What this case signals for the wireless power transfer IP landscape
A fast, no-prejudice exit in a wireless power patent suit rarely closes the story — it typically opens the next chapter.
Early dismissals without prejudice signal ongoing licensing pressure
When a patent assertion entity like Koji IP dismisses within 152 days and without prejudice, it typically signals either a licensing deal was struck or negotiations are continuing. Either way, the asserted patent remains live. Competitors in wireless power transfer should treat this case as a warning, not a clearance.
US10790703B2 remains unscathed — no invalidity ruling, no claim construction
The absence of any inter partes review petition or merits ruling in this case means US10790703B2 carries its full presumption of validity. Any company commercialising smart wireless power transfer between devices — particularly in IoT, consumer electronics, or industrial charging — should conduct fresh FTO analysis against this patent before scaling.
Koji v Guru — key questions answered
The dismissal without prejudice means no court ruled on the merits of Koji IP’s infringement claims or Guru Wireless’s counterclaims. Koji IP retains the right to refile the same claims based on US10790703B2 against Guru Wireless in the future. Guru Wireless cannot invoke res judicata or claim estoppel from this proceeding.
The asserted patent is US10790703B2, filed under application number US15/843092. It covers smart wireless power transfer between devices. No claim construction or validity ruling was issued in this case, so the enforceable scope of the patent remains judicially undefined.
No. The case was dismissed by joint stipulation under FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) before any substantive motion practice concluded. No invalidity ruling, claim construction order, or IPR petition is on record from this proceeding. The patent remains presumptively valid.
FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) allows parties to dismiss an action without a court order by filing a stipulation signed by all parties who have appeared. In this case, both Koji IP and Guru Wireless signed the stipulation, making the dismissal self-executing. No judge was required to approve the exit, and no merits analysis accompanied the ruling.
Yes. Because the dismissal was entered without prejudice, Koji IP is not barred from refiling infringement claims based on US10790703B2 against Guru Wireless. The statute of limitations and any applicable laches considerations would govern any future filing, but this dismissal itself creates no barrier to re-assertion.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.