NOCO Co Inc v. Guangzhou Boju Information Technology Co Ltd

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: The NOCO Company, Inc. (Ohio)
  • Defendant: Guangzhou Boju Information Technology Co., Ltd. dba BougeRV (China)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Vorys, Sater, Seymour and Pease LLP
• Case Identification: 1:18-cv-02295, N.D. Ohio, 10/03/2018
• Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted on the basis that the defendant is an alien business entity and because a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim allegedly occurred in the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s AC port plug product infringes a design patent covering the ornamental design of Plaintiff's own AC Port Plug product.
• Technical Context: The technology at issue involves the ornamental design of panel-mounted AC power inlets, which are accessory products used in the automotive and marine industries to provide convenient access to power.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, inter partes review proceedings, or licensing history related to the patent-in-suit.

Case Timeline

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

• Patent Identification: U.S. Design Patent No. D684,929, titled “AC PORT,” issued June 25, 2013 (the “D’929 Patent”).

U.S. Design Patent No. D684,929 - “AC PORT”

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The complaint asserts that the patent was sought to protect the "distinctive ornamental design" of its AC Port Plug (Compl. ¶9), a product intended to provide "improved accessibility to power outlets for uses in automotive and industrial settings" (Compl. ¶8).
• The Patented Solution: The D’929 Patent protects the specific visual appearance of an AC port. The claimed design, as shown in the patent's figures, consists of the solid-line features of the port housing, which include a circular faceplate with a flange, a recessed central receptacle, and four indented regions on the faceplate’s periphery (D’929 Patent, Figs. 1-2, 4). The patent explicitly disclaims the electrical cord and the protective cap, which are shown in broken lines and noted as not being part of the claimed design (D’929 Patent, Description).
• Technical Importance: The complaint suggests the design is a key feature of a product within NOCO's "robust product line" for the automotive and marine industries, indicating the design's role in product differentiation and branding (Compl. ¶7-8).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The D’929 Patent contains a single claim for: "The ornamental design for an AC port, as shown and described" (D’929 Patent, Claim).
• The essential visual elements of this design claim, depicted in solid lines in the patent's figures, include:
  • The overall configuration of the AC port housing.
  • A circular faceplate with a surrounding flange.
  • A recessed central area housing the electrical socket.
  • Four indented, generally trapezoidal regions spaced around the periphery of the faceplate, two of which contain screw holes.
  • A cylindrical body extending from the rear of the faceplate.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused product is an AC port plug sold by Defendant BougeRV, which the complaint refers to as the "Infringing Port Plug" (Compl. ¶11).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges the accused product is a "copycat version" of NOCO's AC Port Plug (Compl. ¶11). It is allegedly promoted and sold in the United States through the Amazon.com online marketplace (Compl. ¶11). The complaint includes a side-by-side visual comparison, showing photographic images of the accused product alongside drawings from the D’929 patent (Compl. p. 4). This comparison shows the front and side views of the accused product's main housing (Compl. p. 4).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that the design of the accused product is "the same or substantially the same as the design of the D’929 Patent" such that an ordinary observer would be deceived (Compl. ¶14). The complaint provides a visual comparison of patent figures and photographs of the accused product to illustrate the alleged similarity (Compl. p. 4).

D'929 Patent Infringement Allegations

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: The primary legal question is whether the accused design is "substantially the same" as the patented design in the eyes of an ordinary observer. The analysis will depend on comparing the overall visual impression of the two designs, not on a simple tally of corresponding features.
• Technical Questions: A factual question for the court will be whether any minor differences in proportion, curvature, or the precise shape of the indented regions between the patented design and the accused product are significant enough to differentiate the overall visual appearance of the two designs. The complaint's visual evidence suggests a high degree of similarity between the two designs (Compl. p. 4).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

As this is a design patent, there are no specific claim terms for construction in the manner of a utility patent. The "claim" is the visual design itself, as depicted in the solid-line drawings of the patent (D’929 Patent, Figs. 1-7). The central legal question is not the definition of a word, but the scope and overall visual impression of the design.

• The "Claim": The ornamental design for an AC port.
• Context and Importance: The scope of protection is defined by the drawings. The determination of infringement will turn on a comparison of the overall appearance of the accused product with the patented design. The disclaimer of the cord and cap is significant, as it limits the protected design to the port housing itself, which will be the focus of the infringement analysis.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The title "AC PORT" is general and not limited to a specific use (D'929 Patent, (54)). The infringement test focuses on the overall visual effect, which may allow the design to cover products with minor, non-substantial variations.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The precise shapes and proportions of the features shown in solid lines in the drawings define the bounds of the protected design (D'929 Patent, Figs. 1-7). The express disclaimer of the elements shown in broken lines—the cord and cap—explicitly narrows the scope of the claim to the housing of the AC port (D’929 Patent, Description).

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges direct infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) through acts of making, importing, offering to sell, and selling the accused product (Compl. ¶12). It does not contain specific factual allegations to support separate claims for induced or contributory infringement.
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant’s infringement was "undertaken without authority, permission or license" (Compl. ¶15) and describes the accused product as a "copycat version" (Compl. ¶11). Plaintiff seeks enhanced damages and a finding that the case is exceptional, which suggests an allegation of willful infringement (Compl. p. 6, ¶¶ 5, 7).

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

• A central issue will be one of visual comparison: will an ordinary observer, giving the level of attention a typical purchaser would, find the overall ornamental design of the BougeRV port plug to be substantially the same as the design claimed in the D’929 patent, considering both designs as a whole?
• A secondary question, which may require evidence beyond the complaint, will be the role of prior art: the scope of the patented design and the significance of any differences between it and the accused product will be assessed in the context of prior designs for similar AC port products.