WITRICITY CORPORATION v. INDUCTEV, INC. (2024)

This case was last updated from U.S. District Courts on 05/20/2023 at 07:51:30 (UTC).

On March 20, 2023, WiTricity Corporation (“WiTricity” or “Plaintiff”), represented by Frank R. Emmerich, Jr., filed an intellectual property lawsuit against InductEV, Inc. (“InductEV” or “Defendant”), seeking declaratory and injunctive relief for alleged infringement of U.S. patents owned by the plaintiff. This case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, with Judge Cynthia M. Rufe presiding.

In the complaint, the plaintiff stated, “WiTricity was founded in 2007 based on novel technology for wireless power transfer. The technology, invented and patented initially by a team of physicists from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (‘MIT’) and subsequently improved upon by WiTricity engineers and scientists, is known as ‘highly resonant wireless power transfer.’ Highly resonant wireless power transfer enables the transfer of power from one device to another at high efficiency and over an increased distance.”

The plaintiff further stated, “WiTricity continues to develop and patent the core technology necessary for wireless charging of electric vehicles, as well as acquire additional intellectual property building upon WiTricity’s foundational technology. WiTricity now controls more than 1,300 issued patents worldwide.”

Plaintiff then alleged, “The plaintiff filed this complaint for the alleged infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,461,719 (the ‘719 Patent’); 10,027,184 (the ‘184 Patent’); 8,912,687 (the ‘687 Patent’); and 8,466,654 (the “’654 Patent”) (collectively, the ‘Patents-in-Suit’).”

The plaintiff also alleged, “Upon information and belief, InductEV has infringed and continues to infringe one or more claims of the ’719 Patent, including but not limited to exemplary claim 1, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271(a), at least by without authority making, using, offering to sell, and/or selling the InductEV Charger within the United States. InductEV has been on notice of infringement of the ’719 Patent since at least as early as June 4, 2015, when WiTricity sent a letter to InductEV under its prior name, Momentum Dynamics, seeking to open licensing discussions and stated that Momentum Dynamics had been infringing WiTricity’s patents.”

The plaintiff additionally alleged, “Upon information and belief, InductEV contributes to infringement by providing to its customers the InductEV Inductive Charging System or components thereof and instructing them how to assemble, install, make, and/or use the InductEV Inductive Charging System, knowing that those products are especially made or adapted for use in infringement of the ’719 Patent.”

Plaintiff then alleged, “InductEV’s continued actions of making, using, offering to sell, and/or selling its product within the United States after receiving notice would be with Defendant’s knowledge of the ’184 Patent, knowledge of infringement of the ’184 Patent, intent to encourage others (e.g., its customers) to infringe the ’184 Patent, and knowledge that Defendant’s encouraging acts actually result in direct infringement of the ’184 Patent by InductEV’s customers.”

The plaintiff further alleged, “The InductEV Inductive Charging System is not suitable for substantial noninfringing uses. InductEV’s infringement of the ’184 Patent was and continues to be willful. InductEV’s actions render this an exceptional case under 35 U.S.C. § 285. Plaintiff has been injured by InductEV’s infringement of the ’184 Patent.”

Plaintiff stated four claims for the alleged infringement of the Patents-in-Suit owned by the plaintiff.

In the prayer for relief, the plaintiff requested declaratory and injunctive relief. The plaintiff also requested an award of damages with reasonable attorneys’ fees, expenses, and costs incurred by the plaintiff.

This is a summary of a legal complaint. all statements, claims, and allegations listed herein reflect the position of the plaintiff only and do not reresent the position of unicourt. additionally, this case summary may not reflect the current position of the parties to this litigation or the current status of this case. to view the latest case updates and court documents, please sign up for a unicourt account.

Case Details

• Case Number:

  2:23-CV-01099

• Filing Date:

  03/21/2023

• Case Status:

  Pending - Other Pending

• Case Type:

  Intellectual Property - Patent

• Court:

  U.S. District Courts

• Courthouse:

  Pennsylvania Eastern District Court

Judge Details

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Why is this public record being published online?