NOCO Co Inc v. SZ Jingxinghui Electronics Technology Co Ltd

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: The NOCO Company, Inc. (Ohio)
  • Defendant: SZ Jingxinghui Electronics Technology Co., Ltd. (China)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Vorys, Sater, Seymour and Pease LLP
• Case Identification: 1:17-cv-02208, N.D. Ohio, 10/19/2017
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper on the basis that the defendant is an alien business entity that imports into, offers to sell, and sells the accused products in the United States.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s BASAF-branded portable vehicle jump starters infringe a patent related to safety features that prevent electrical connection in the event of a reverse polarity or incomplete connection.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns compact, lithium-ion-based vehicle jump starters that use microcontroller-based logic to enhance user safety over traditional jumper cables.
• Key Procedural History: Subsequent to the filing of this complaint, the asserted patent was the subject of an Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceeding (IPR2020-00944). The proceeding resulted in the cancellation of claims 1-10 and 12-23. Claim 11, which was not asserted in the original complaint, was found patentable. This development fundamentally alters the scope of claims available for assertion in this litigation.

Case Timeline

II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis

U.S. Patent No. 9,007,015 - "Portable Vehicle Battery Jump Start Apparatus with Safety Protection," issued April 14, 2015

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the dangers associated with traditional vehicle jump-starting, specifically the risk of sparking, short circuits, and potential damage to batteries or persons caused by connecting jumper cables with incorrect polarity or inadvertently touching the clamps together (Patent, col. 1:16-24).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a handheld, portable jump starter containing an internal lithium-ion battery. Its core innovation is a safety system controlled by a microcontroller that prevents the device from delivering power unless specific conditions are met. The system uses distinct sensors to first detect the presence of a vehicle battery and then to verify the polarity of the connection. Only when the sensors signal both a proper connection and correct polarity does the microcontroller activate a power switch to allow current to flow from the internal battery to the vehicle battery ('015 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:11-39).
• Technical Importance: This design offered a compact and significantly safer method for jump-starting a vehicle compared to conventional jumper cables by automating critical safety checks that a user might otherwise perform incorrectly (Compl. ¶¶ 9-10).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent Claim 1.
• The essential elements of Claim 1 include:
  • An internal power supply.
  • An output port with positive and negative polarity outputs.
  • A "vehicle battery isolation sensor" to detect the presence of a connected vehicle battery.
  • A "reverse polarity sensor" to detect the polarity of the connection.
  • A power switch between the internal power supply and the output port.
  • A microcontroller configured to receive signals from both sensors and turn on the power switch only in response to signals indicating both the presence of a battery and a proper polarity connection.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The "600A Peak Car Jump Starter" and "High Capacity 600A Car Jump Starter," sold under the brand name BASAF (the "Infringing Models") (Compl. ¶18).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges the accused products are compact, lithium-ion jump starters sold to consumers in the United States through online marketplaces like Amazon.com (Compl. ¶¶3, 18). Their allegedly infringing functionality includes a lithium battery, an output connector, a sensor to detect battery presence, a sensor to detect reverse polarity, a transistor power switch, and a microcontroller that controls the switch based on sensor inputs (Compl. ¶19). A photograph shows the plaintiff's Genius Boost® product connected to a vehicle battery, illustrating the intended use context for this type of device (Compl. p. 3).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

’015 Patent Infringement Allegations

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: The complaint alleges the existence of two distinct "sensors." A central question is whether the accused devices contain two separate structures that meet the claim definitions of a "vehicle battery isolation sensor" and a "reverse polarity sensor," or if a single circuit performs a more general voltage and polarity check that does not map onto the claimed two-sensor architecture.
  • Technical Questions: Claim 1 requires the microcontroller to be "configured" to perform a specific logical operation: enabling the power switch only upon receiving discrete signals confirming both battery presence and correct polarity. The infringement analysis will require evidence of how the accused microcontroller is programmed and operates, raising the question of whether it executes this specific conditional logic or employs a different, non-infringing safety mechanism.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "vehicle battery isolation sensor"

  • Context and Importance: This term's construction is critical because it distinguishes the invention from a simple voltage detector. The patent claims a specific component for detecting the "presence" of a battery, separate from the one detecting "polarity." Practitioners may focus on whether this requires a structurally distinct component or if the function can be part of a single, multipurpose circuit.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification functionally describes this sensor as one that "detects whether or not a vehicle battery 72 is connected to the booster device" (Patent, col. 4:29-32), which could support an interpretation covering any component that performs this detection function.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent discloses a specific embodiment using an "optically coupled isolator phototransistor" for this purpose (Patent, col. 5:26-37). A party may argue that this detailed implementation narrows the scope of the term to structures that are the same or equivalent to the disclosed optical isolator.

• The Term: "microcontroller configured to..."

  • Context and Importance: The infringement case hinges on whether the accused microcontroller performs the exact logical sequence recited in the claim. The term "configured to" implies a specific design or programming to achieve the recited function, and its meaning will be central to the dispute.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim uses functional language, suggesting that any microcontroller programmed or wired to receive the specified sensor inputs and produce the specified output to the power switch would meet the limitation, regardless of the specific code or circuitry used.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes a particular logic where the microcontroller receives specific "high" or "low" output signals from the sensors to determine whether it is safe to turn on the smart switch (Patent, col. 5:46-54). A defendant could argue that "configured to" requires this specific type of signal interpretation and control logic.

VI. Other Allegations

The complaint does not allege willful or indirect infringement.

VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case

• A dispositive procedural question arises from the post-filing IPR that cancelled all claims originally asserted in the complaint. The case's viability now likely depends on whether the Plaintiff can amend its pleadings to assert the surviving Claim 11, which would shift the litigation's technical focus from the core safety-interlock features to the device's USB charging functionality.
• A key evidentiary question for any remaining damages analysis of the pre-cancellation period will be one of functional implementation: can the Plaintiff prove, likely through reverse engineering, that the accused products' internal circuitry and microcontroller logic perform the specific two-factor safety check (both battery presence and correct polarity) required by the now-cancelled Claim 1, or did the products use a technically distinct method to achieve a similar safety result?