Koji IP v. Renesas Electronics: Wireless Power Patent Dismissed With Prejudice in 21 Days
Koji IP, LLC filed suit against Renesas Electronics Corporation in the Northern District of California asserting US10790703B2, covering smart wireless power transfer between devices. The case ended in a voluntary dismissal with prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) just 21 days after filing — before Renesas filed any response.
A 21-Day Patent Dispute: Koji IP Voluntarily Surrenders Wireless Power Claims
On 22 May 2024, Koji IP, LLC — a patent assertion entity — filed suit against Renesas Electronics Corporation in the Northern District of California, asserting US10790703B2, a patent covering smart wireless power transfer between devices. The case was assigned to Judge Peter H. Kang. Koji IP was represented by Ramey LLP, a firm with a documented history of high-volume patent litigation on behalf of NPEs.
On 12 June 2024, just 21 days after filing, Koji IP filed a notice of dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i), dismissing all claims with prejudice. The filing expressly stated that the dismissal was with prejudice as to the asserted patent, and that each party would bear its own costs and fees. Because Renesas had not yet answered or filed a motion for summary judgment, the dismissal was procedurally available as of right — requiring no court approval.
The speed of resolution — 21 days from filing to dismissal — is notable even by the standards of quick-exit patent cases, and suggests the dispute was resolved or abandoned almost immediately after initiation. The with-prejudice designation is commercially significant: Koji IP has permanently relinquished the right to assert US10790703B2 against Renesas on these claims. The public record does not disclose whether any settlement payment, licensing agreement, or other commercial arrangement was reached between the parties.
Filing to Dismissed with Prejudice in 21 days
Closed in 21 days — well under the 2–3 year median for patent cases in N.D. California
Dismissed with prejudice: what the Rule 41 exit means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i): plaintiff’s right to dismiss before defendant responds
Under FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(i), a plaintiff may voluntarily dismiss an action without a court order if the defendant has not yet served an answer or a motion for summary judgment. Here, Koji IP exercised that right 21 days after filing. Critically, the notice elected dismissal with prejudice — a stricter outcome than the default, which would have been without prejudice.
Voluntary dismissal, with prejudiceWith-prejudice dismissal forecloses future claims on this patent against Renesas
By specifying with prejudice in the Rule 41 notice, Koji IP has permanently surrendered the right to reassert US10790703B2 against Renesas on these claims. This is an unusually strong concession for a plaintiff-initiated dismissal. Whether Koji IP received consideration in exchange — such as a licence fee or covenant not to sue for other products — is not disclosed in the public record.
Claims extinguished against RenesasRenesas exits without admitting liability and pays no disclosed costs
Renesas Electronics Corporation was dismissed before it needed to file any substantive response. The dismissal with prejudice means it faces no further exposure from Koji IP on US10790703B2 for the asserted claims. Each party bearing its own fees is consistent with a negotiated exit, though no terms are confirmed. Renesas retains full freedom to operate under the patent as against Koji IP for these claims.
No liability, no costs awardedWireless power IP remains a litigation-active space — Renesas is now ring-fenced
Smart wireless power transfer is a commercially contested technology area as consumer electronics, automotive, and IoT sectors expand charging interoperability. US10790703B2 may still be asserted against other semiconductor or device manufacturers by Koji IP. Renesas’s rapid resolution — with prejudice — effectively removes a key legal risk on this patent, though competitors in the space should assess their own exposure.
Wireless power sector risk remainsFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Koji IP, LLC | Company | Patent assertion entity — holder of US10790703B2 covering smart wireless power transferSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Renesas Electronics Corporation | Company | Renesas Electronics Corporation — global semiconductor company specialising in microcontrollers and SoCsSearch 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 ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Peter H Kang | Judge | California Northern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The dismissal notice is precise in its with-prejudice designation, which is the operative legal consequence here. Under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), a plaintiff-initiated dismissal is ordinarily without prejudice by default unless the notice states otherwise. Koji IP’s explicit election of with-prejudice status — covering the asserted patent specifically — extinguishes all asserted claims against Renesas as a matter of res judicata. The fee-splitting provision, while not unusual, reinforces a negotiated rather than unilateral exit.
US10790703B2 — Smart Wireless Power Transfer Between Devices
US10790703B2 (application number US15/843092) covers smart wireless power transfer between devices — a technology domain encompassing intelligent negotiation, management, and delivery of wireless energy between electronic devices. The patent likely addresses control logic, power delivery optimisation, or device-to-device communication protocols that govern how wireless charging sessions are initiated and managed. The application history under US15/843092 places its development in the context of the rapid expansion of Qi and related wireless charging standards.
For semiconductor companies like Renesas — which supplies microcontrollers, power management ICs, and wireless connectivity SoCs used in consumer electronics and automotive platforms — exposure to a wireless power management patent of this type is strategically significant. As wireless charging becomes a baseline feature in smartphones, wearables, EVs, and industrial IoT devices, patent assertions targeting the control layer of wireless power delivery are likely to intensify. US10790703B2 remains potentially assertable against other market participants.
Should your team run an FTO analysis against US10790703B2?
Any company developing or integrating smart wireless power transfer functionality — including bidirectional charging, device-to-device power sharing, or adaptive wireless power management — should consider conducting an FTO review against US10790703B2. This is especially relevant for semiconductor IP teams, wireless charging IC designers, and consumer electronics manufacturers sourcing or building power delivery controllers. Koji IP’s willingness to assert this patent in federal court confirms it views the claims as commercially viable.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map your product’s technical features against the claim language of US10790703B2, surface the full prosecution history from US15/843092, and identify prior art or design-around opportunities. Eureka also monitors Koji IP’s broader portfolio for related continuations or divisionals that may extend the assertion risk beyond this single patent number.
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 N.D. California
Explore related patent infringement cases involving wireless power transfer and smart charging technology filed in the Northern District of California.
What this case signals for the wireless power transfer IP landscape
A 21-day with-prejudice dismissal by a serial PAE against a major semiconductor firm carries signals worth reading carefully.
PAE-initiated with-prejudice dismissals often suggest rapid licence resolution
When a patent assertion entity like Koji IP voluntarily dismisses with prejudice within weeks — especially before the defendant responds — the most common explanation is a negotiated licence or covenant arrangement. The public record is silent on terms, but the speed and finality of the exit is consistent with a commercial resolution rather than a strategic retreat.
Ramey LLP’s high-volume model means similar claims may be in-flight against peers
Ramey LLP is associated with a high-volume patent assertion approach. US10790703B2 may be asserted against other players in the wireless power, semiconductor, or IoT device space. Companies operating in smart charging, wireless power delivery, or device-to-device energy transfer should monitor Koji IP’s litigation activity and assess FTO exposure proactively.
Koji v Renesas — key questions answered
Koji IP, LLC filed suit against Renesas Electronics Corporation on 22 May 2024 in the N.D. California asserting US10790703B2 for smart wireless power transfer infringement. On 12 June 2024 — 21 days later — Koji IP voluntarily dismissed all claims with prejudice under FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(i), with each party bearing its own fees. No liability was admitted and no court merits ruling was issued.
A with-prejudice dismissal extinguishes Koji IP’s right to re-assert the same claims of US10790703B2 against Renesas in any future action. It is legally equivalent to a final adjudication on the merits for purposes of res judicata, even though no court ruled on the substance of the infringement allegations. Renesas is permanently shielded from further suit by Koji IP on these specific claims.
The public record does not disclose any settlement terms. The dismissal notice states each party bears its own costs, which is consistent with either a negotiated resolution or a unilateral withdrawal. The with-prejudice designation and the 21-day timeline suggest a rapid commercial resolution is possible, but no payment or licence terms have been publicly confirmed.
US10790703B2 covers smart wireless power transfer between devices, addressing the intelligent management and delivery of wireless energy. Companies designing or integrating wireless charging controllers, bidirectional power transfer systems, or device-to-device energy sharing features — including in consumer electronics, automotive, and IoT — may be at risk if Koji IP continues to assert this patent. An FTO analysis is advisable for any company in this technology space.
Under FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(i), a plaintiff may dismiss as of right before the defendant answers or moves for summary judgment. The 21-day window is consistent with a pre-answer resolution — possibly a licence negotiation, commercial settlement, or strategic withdrawal. Ramey LLP, Koji IP’s counsel, employs a high-volume filing model where rapid resolutions after filing are not uncommon. The with-prejudice election, however, makes this outcome more final than typical quick-exit cases.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.