Context: Qi is an open standard for wireless, inductive charging. The market for Qi wireless charging devices has boomed significantly in recent years, projected to be worth $11.4 billion by 2031 (January 2025 IndustryArc report). A few months ago, Korea’s LG Electronics joined Via Licensing Alliance’s (Via LA) QI-related standard-essential patent (SEP) pool (May 28, 2025 ip fray article). Via LA is a major operator of collective licensing programs, and last week we reported on the upcoming Via LA Bridge Summit that will be held in San Francisco later this month (August 29, 2025 ip fray article).
What’s new: Via LA has just announced that Korean automotive supplier BH EVS has joined its Qi Wireless Charging patent pool, a one-stop shop for patents in this field. According to Via LA President Heath Hoglund, this means the pool has now licensed approximately 50% of the global automotive supplier market.
Direct impact: The fact that BH EVS’s CTO, Alex Jinsup Park, provided a quote (which you can find further below) shows the amicable nature of this agreement. Most of the time, such licenses are announced by the pool administrators or licensors without quotes from the licensee side.
Wider ramifications: Given this pool’s momentum on the licensor (LG) and licensee (BH EVS) side as well as its high level of market acceptance, it looks like it will grow further. Companies declining to take a license would find it hard to convince courts that they should get to free-ride when their competitors actually pay a reasonable royalty. Implementers of the Qi standard must also be careful because some courts have already held that, in light of the existence of other (wireless) charging methods, QI SEPs do not confer market power (in antitrust terms) on their owners (July 4, 2024 ip fray article). Cases such as Philips v. Belkin show that Qi patents do get enforced.
These are the quotes the two companies provided:
“With the addition of BH EVS, Via LA’s Qi patent pool now licenses approximately 50% of the global automotive supplier market,” said Heath Hoglund, President of Via LA. “Our pool remains the only one-stop solution for companies delivering Qi-enabled products. We’re pleased to welcome BH EVS to the pool as a licensee.”
“We are pleased to join Via LA’s Qi patent pool, which provides efficient access to a comprehensive portfolio of Qi SEPs and supports the global adoption of wireless charging standards,” said Alex Jinsup Park, Executive Vice President and CTO of BH EVS. “Through this partnership, BH EVS will continue to strengthen our leadership in automotive wireless charging and deliver innovative, reliable solutions to our global OEM partners.”
Via LA’s Qi SEP licensors include Bosch, Canon, ConvenientPower HK, Dolby Hybrid Technologies, Electronics and Telecommunications Research Institute (ETRI; this organization just joined Avanci Automotive with its cellular SEPs after previously contributing video patents to Avanci licensing programs), Hyundai Mobis, Intel, Philips, LG (as mentioned further above), Navigate, NEC, Panasonic, Siemens and WiTricity Corporation. Even before LG joined, the pool already covered approximately 50% of all Qi-essential patents, but LG took it to a significantly higher level.
The licensees BV EHS has joined include Bosch (one of various companies that are both licensors and licensees), ALPS ALPINE, Aluratek, Bang & Olufsen, Bracketron, Bury, Byrne Electrical Specialists, CE LINK, ChenChengXing Technology, Continental Automotive Technologies (being renamed to Aumovio), ConvenientPower HK, Corsair Memory, Design Pool (dba Native Union), Elecom, Emilai, EQUIPRENT Andreas Teichmann, Faurecia Clarion Electronics Europe SAS, Fuse Chicken, habemus! electronic + transfer, Hama, Hana Technologies (Kew Labs), Huizhou Desay SV Automotive, Hyundai Mobis, iDeal Of Sweden, Jiangsu Sunway I-Auto Interconnect Tech, Koncept Technologies, Philips, LG, Lidl, Molex, OHOM, P-UP, Panasonic, PopSockets, Shanghai Nature, Sivantos, Skullcandy, Spectra Merchandising International, Uno Minda, Valeo Telematik und Akustik and VOXX International.
In practical terms, any implementer refusing to take a license on those terms will face a dual hurdle in certain courts. First, in the absence of market power (as per the UPC’s and the Dusseldorf Regional Court’s positions in connection with the Philips-Belkin dispute) there is no entitlement to a license on FRAND (fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory) licensing terms. Second, even if a court held that such an obligation exists, the wide market acceptance of the terms of this pool suggests FRAND compliance anyway.