DCT
8:23-cv-00269
NOCO Co v. Winplus North America Inc
Key Events
Amended Complaint
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: The NOCO Company (Ohio)
- Defendant: Winplus North America, LLC (California); Winplus NA, LLC (Delaware); and ADC Solutions Auto LLC (Delaware) (collectively "Winplus")
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Jones Day
- Case Identification: 8:23-cv-00269, C.D. Cal., 04/09/2025
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendants reside in the Central District of California and the alleged wrongful acts occurred within the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s "TYPE S" line of portable vehicle jump starters infringes two patents related to safety features and USB recharging technology.
- Technical Context: The technology at issue involves portable lithium-ion-based power packs used to jump-start vehicles, a significant segment of the automotive consumer electronics market.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff previously accused Defendant Winplus of infringing a related patent (U.S. Patent No. 9,007,015) in a prior U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) investigation, which may be relevant to the current allegations of willful infringement.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2014-01-01 | NOCO introduces its BOOST line of jump starter products |
| 2017-08-31 | Earliest Priority Date for '023 and '243 Patents |
| 2022-09-20 | U.S. Patent No. 11,447,023 Issued |
| 2023-02-21 | U.S. Patent No. 11,584,243 Issued |
| 2025-04-09 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 11,447,023 - “Portable Vehicle Battery Jump Start Apparatus with Safety Protection and Jumper Cable Device Thereof,” issued September 20, 2022
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent's background describes the dangers of traditional vehicle jump-starting, where improperly connecting jumper cables can cause sparks, short circuits, and damage to the vehicle or battery ('023 Patent, col. 1:15-28). It also notes the inconvenience of recharging older portable jump starters, which often required proprietary, high-power chargers (Compl. ¶17).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a handheld jump-starting apparatus that incorporates a control system to prevent the flow of power until it detects that the jumper clamps are connected to a vehicle battery with the correct polarity ('023 Patent, Abstract). Additionally, the apparatus includes a USB input circuit with a DC/DC converter, which allows the device's internal high-capacity battery to be recharged from a common, low-voltage USB power source by increasing the input voltage ('023 Patent, col. 4:13-20; FIG. 1).
- Technical Importance: This technology combined intelligent safety controls with the convenience of recharging from the ubiquitous USB standard, making powerful jump starters safer and more user-friendly for consumers (Compl. ¶¶14, 17).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 1 and reserves the right to assert additional claims (Compl. ¶48).
- The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
- a power supply;
- positive and negative polarity battery terminal connectors;
- a power switch or circuit to turn on power to the connectors;
- a control system or circuit configured to detect a correct polarity connection prior to turning on the power switch;
- a USB input circuit with a DC/DC converter configured to increase power voltage from a USB source to the power supply; and
- a USB input connector for connecting to the USB power source.
U.S. Patent No. 11,584,243 - “Jump Starting Device With USB,” issued February 21, 2023
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the historical need for non-standard or proprietary plugs to recharge jump starters powerful enough for a 12-volt car battery ('243 Patent, col. 1:18-2:4; Compl. ¶17).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a jump-starting device featuring a USB charge circuit that includes a DC-DC converter. This converter is specifically configured to "upconvert" the lower voltage from a standard USB input to a higher voltage sufficient to recharge the device's internal power supply ('243 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:51-67). This allows a powerful device to be recharged using a convenient, standardized USB connection.
- Technical Importance: This approach helped integrate high-power automotive accessories into the universal USB charging ecosystem, eliminating the need for consumers to keep track of specialized, bulky chargers (Compl. ¶17).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 1 and reserves the right to assert additional claims (Compl. ¶54).
- The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
- a power supply;
- positive and negative battery connectors;
- a power switch or switch circuit to deliver power to the connectors;
- a USB input connector; and
- a USB charge circuit with a DC-DC converter configured to upconvert voltage from the USB input connector to the power supply.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The complaint identifies a range of "TYPE S" branded portable battery jump starters sold by the Defendants (Compl. ¶22).
Functionality and Market Context
- The accused products are portable, lithium-ion-based devices designed to jump-start vehicles and serve as power banks (Compl. ¶¶28-29, 40-41). The complaint alleges they are "knockoff and copycat products" intended to trade on the success of Plaintiff's products (Compl. ¶¶1, 9).
- Functionally, they are alleged to possess an internal power supply, positive (red) and negative (black) clamps for battery connection, a "high-speed USB-C input/output port" for recharging the device, and safety features marketed as "Safe & Smart Jump-Starting Technology," including "Polarity Protection" (Compl. ¶¶29, 30, 32, 33).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint alleges that the accused "TYPE S" jump starters practice each element of the asserted claims. A representative image shows the accused product being used to jump-start a vehicle battery (Compl. at 7).
11,447,023 Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a power supply | The accused products contain an internal battery, described as having a "Battery Capacity" of, for example, "10,000mAh @ 3.7V" (Compl. ¶29). | ¶29 | col. 8:46 |
| a positive polarity battery terminal connector... and a negative polarity battery terminal connector... | The products include red (positive) and black (negative) terminal connectors for connecting to a depleted battery (Compl. ¶30). | ¶30 | col. 8:47-54 |
| a power switch or circuit configured to turn on power from the power supply... | The complaint alleges, upon information and belief, that the products contain an internal power relay or switch to turn on power to the connectors (Compl. ¶31). | ¶31 | col. 8:55-58 |
| a control system or circuit... configured to detect whether the... connectors have a correct polarity connection... prior to turning on the power switch or circuit | The products are marketed with "Safe & Smart Jump-Starting Technology" that includes "Polarity Protection," which the complaint illustrates with a marketing graphic (Compl. at 8). | ¶32 | col. 8:59-67 |
| a USB input circuit... comprising a DC/DC converter, the USB input circuit configured for converting power from a USB power source to increase power voltage to the power supply | The products feature a "high-speed USB-C input/output port" and, upon information and belief, contain a USB input circuit with a DC/DC converter to increase voltage for charging (Compl. ¶34). | ¶33-34 | col. 9:1-7 |
| a USB input connector configured for connecting to the USB power source... | The products are charged via a USB input connection, as shown in an image of the device being charged in a vehicle (Compl. at 9). | ¶35 | col. 9:8-14 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: A central question may be whether the accused products' "Polarity Protection" feature meets the claim limitation requiring detection of correct polarity prior to enabling the power switch. The provided marketing materials do not specify the timing or mechanism of this protection, raising the question of whether it is a pre-emptive check as claimed or a post-connection alert or passive safeguard.
- Technical Questions: The complaint's allegations regarding the internal "power switch," "control system," and the presence and function of the "DC/DC converter" are made "upon information and belief." A key evidentiary issue will be whether discovery and technical analysis confirm that these internal components exist and operate as specifically required by the claim language.
11,584,243 Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a power supply | The accused devices contain an internal battery with a specified capacity (Compl. ¶41). | ¶41 | col. 8:32 |
| a positive battery connector... and a negative battery connector... | The products include red and black connectors to electrically connect to a vehicle battery's terminals (Compl. ¶42). | ¶42 | col. 8:33-40 |
| a power switch or switch circuit... configured to switch power on from the power supply to boost or charge the depleted or discharged battery... | Upon information and belief, the products include an internal power relay or switch that delivers power from the internal supply to the battery connectors (Compl. ¶43). | ¶43 | col. 8:41-47 |
| a USB input connector | The products include a "high-speed USB-C input/output port" for recharging (Compl. ¶44). | ¶44 | col. 8:48 |
| a USB charge circuit... comprising a DC-DC converter configured to upconvert voltage from the USB input connector to the power supply | Upon information and belief, the products' USB charge circuit includes a DC-DC converter that "upconverts" voltage from the USB input to charge the internal power supply (Compl. ¶46). | ¶45-46 | col. 8:49-54 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: The dispute may focus on the term "upconvert voltage." The question will be whether the accused devices' charging mechanism, particularly when using standards like USB Power Delivery which can negotiate different voltage levels, performs "upconversion" as construed from the patent's specification.
- Technical Questions: As with the '023 Patent, the allegations concerning the internal configuration of the power switch and the precise function of the DC-DC converter are based "upon information and belief." Proving that the accused products' internal architecture matches the claim language will be a primary evidentiary hurdle.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
'023 Patent Term: "control system or circuit... configured to detect whether the... connectors have a correct polarity connection... prior to turning on the power switch"
Context and Importance
- This term defines the core safety function. The infringement analysis will depend on whether the accused "Polarity Protection" feature is merely a warning or a passive failsafe, or if it actively performs a pre-connection polarity check before allowing high current to flow, as the claim requires. Practitioners may focus on this term because it contains both a structural ("control system or circuit") and a functional ("detect... prior to turning on") component.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the system in functional terms, stating the microcontroller (MCU) receives input signals and provides an output signal to the power switch, suggesting any implementation that achieves this logic sequence could be covered ('023 Patent, col. 3:20-27).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description provides a specific embodiment using optically coupled isolator phototransistors to generate the signals for the MCU ('023 Patent, col. 4:51-68). A defendant may argue this disclosure limits the scope of "control system" to the disclosed embodiment or its direct equivalents.
'243 Patent Term: "upconvert voltage"
Context and Importance
- This term is central to how the device recharges. Infringement hinges on whether the accused products' method of charging from a USB-C port constitutes "upconversion." Modern USB standards can involve voltage negotiation rather than simple voltage boosting, which may create a point of dispute.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification provides a clear functional definition: "The 5V potential provided from standard USB chargers is up-converted to the 12.4 VDC voltage required for charging the internal lithium battery pack" ('243 Patent, col. 8:50-53). This language may support a broad interpretation covering any process that results in a higher charging voltage than the initial input voltage.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The figures depict a specific DC-DC converter circuit (49) to perform this function ('243 Patent, FIG. 2C). A defendant might argue that "upconvert" should be construed in light of this specific boost converter-type circuit and may not read on other methods of achieving a higher charging voltage, such as those available through the USB Power Delivery protocol.
VI. Other Allegations
Indirect Infringement
- The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of indirect infringement. The allegations focus on Defendants' own acts of making, using, selling, and importing, consistent with a direct infringement theory.
Willful Infringement
- The complaint alleges willful infringement for both patents. The basis for willfulness includes allegations that Defendant competes with Plaintiff, has been aware of Plaintiff's patent portfolio, and, critically, was previously accused by Plaintiff of infringing a related patent (U.S. Pat. No. 9,007,015) in an ITC investigation (Compl. ¶¶50, 56). This prior litigation is alleged to establish pre-suit knowledge of the technology and patents, forming a basis for enhanced damages.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of evidentiary proof: can the Plaintiff demonstrate, through reverse engineering or discovery, that the internal architecture and software logic of the accused "TYPE S" products perform the specific functions of pre-emptive polarity detection and voltage upconversion as claimed? The complaint's reliance on "information and belief" for these key technical elements suggests this will be a central battleground.
- The case will also turn on a question of definitional scope: does the accused products' advertised "Polarity Protection" feature meet the '023 patent's specific requirement to "detect... correct polarity... prior to turning on the power switch," or does it provide a different, non-infringing form of safety?
- A significant question for damages will be culpability: did Defendant's alleged knowledge of a related patent from prior ITC litigation put it on notice of potential infringement by the '023 and '243 patents, rising to the level of objective recklessness required to support a finding of willful infringement?