The video showed a phone sleeve with about a 2cm^2 aperture.
Assuming maximum IR is 1kW/m^2, then you'll get 0.2W into a 2cm^2 aperture, but then their own white paper says you need 2W to power a smartphone. That 2W I'd say is too high.
Looking at it another way, 0.2W is about 70mA of charging current. A common battery capacity of a phone is 2400mAh, so it'd take 34 hours to charge, assuming the phone wasn't taking any juice in standby, and that it would even consider charging at that rate.
Let's be generous and say a 2400mAh battery lasts about 10 days in standby, or 240 hours, so the phone standby current draw is 10mA, so net charging current is 60mA, or a 40 hour charge time in standby.
I'm sceptical that this charging rate is enough to gain general acceptance for the prime use case of call phones, but it seems a more practical and cheaper solution compared to uBeam, although I don't know how their beamforming works, I assume it'd be with mechanically adjusted lenses, which begs the question about the complexity for multiple targets.
If on the other hand it used a sleeve with a 5cm x 10 cm aperture on the back of the device, the charge rate would by 25 times that of a 2cm^2 aperture shown in the video, leading to a far more respectable 1.6 hour charge time.
Irrespective, just like uBeam and Energous, I'd say they're a very long way from delivering a useful practical product that fits the significant market they've hoodwinked their investors with.