Something smells fishy here...
There are too many generalities, too much journalistic fluff. I'm wary.
Consider: "Photons", "electromagnetic waves", "radio waste" and "beam scavenging" are used almost interchangeably in this article.
And yet....I would not call these interchangeable words. Photons and radio energy are simply not the same thing. Neither are photons and waves.
Consider also: the article says the company has variously received about $490,000 for product research. A) That's just not enough money to get anywhere near a useful product. If it were, we'd have had fuel cells in our cars by 1975. B) A little money to "look into" a concept does not mean it's validated.
Anyway...I'm not saying I know any better than the next guy. I'm just saying that this particular article is either very poorly written and incomplete, or the whole thing is a lengthy stretch of an iffy idea, being used to lay hands on grant money.
Of course, it could just be a bad article, written to sound like the author had a clue.
OOORR.....I'm completely wrong.