1:20-cv-01173
NOCO Co Inc v. Nice Well Enterprises Ltd
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: The NOCO Company, Inc. (Ohio)
- Defendant: Nice Well Enterprise Limited (Hong Kong); Smart Well International Development Limited (Hong Kong)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Vorys, Sater, Seymour and Pease LLP
- Case Identification: 1:20-cv-01173, N.D. Ohio, 09/15/2021
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper because Defendants are alien business entities that import, offer to sell, and sell the accused products within the United States.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ "Imazing" brand of portable lithium-ion vehicle jump starters infringe a patent related to safety features that prevent electrical connection in unsafe conditions, such as reverse polarity.
- Technical Context: The technology involves portable energy storage devices for jump-starting vehicles, which incorporate microcontrollers and sensors to enhance safety over traditional jumper cables.
- Key Procedural History: This filing is a Second Amended Complaint. Notably, the sole asserted patent, U.S. Patent No. 9,007,015, was the subject of an Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceeding (IPR2020-00944) filed before this complaint. A certificate issued in 2024, after this complaint was filed, cancelled Claim 1, the only claim whose infringement is detailed in the complaint.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2014-07-03 | ’015 Patent Priority Date |
| 2014-01-01 | Plaintiff's NOCO Boost® product line introduced (approx.) |
| 2015-04-14 | ’015 Patent Issue Date |
| 2020-05-14 | Inter Partes Review (IPR) filed against ’015 Patent |
| 2021-09-15 | Second Amended Complaint Filing Date |
| 2024-06-11 | IPR Certificate issues, cancelling asserted Claim 1 |
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’s background section describes the dangers associated with traditional vehicle jump-starting, such as sparking and short circuits caused by connecting jumper cables to the wrong battery terminals (reverse polarity) or inadvertently touching the clamps together (Compl. ¶11; ’015 Patent, col. 1:16-24). Prior art safety devices were noted to have shortcomings in "complexity, cost or potential for malfunction" (’015 Patent, col. 3:9-12).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a handheld, lithium-ion-powered jump starter that uses a programmable microcontroller to manage safety. The microcontroller receives signals from two key sensors: a "vehicle battery isolation sensor" to detect if a vehicle battery is connected, and a "reverse polarity sensor" to detect if the connection is correct. The device only allows its internal battery to supply power to the output clamps when the sensors confirm that a battery is present and correctly connected, thereby preventing power flow in unsafe conditions (’015 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:11-38). Figure 1 provides a functional block diagram illustrating the relationship between the microcontroller (MCU), the sensors, and the "Smart Switch F.E.T. Circuit" that controls power output (’015 Patent, Fig. 1).
- Technical Importance: The use of a programmable microcontroller allows for more flexible and sophisticated safety logic compared to older, purely hardware-based solutions, aiming to create a safer and more user-friendly portable jump starter (’015 Patent, col. 4:11-18).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts infringement of independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶¶20, 22).
- The essential elements of Claim 1 include:
- An internal power supply.
- An output port with positive and negative outputs.
- A vehicle battery isolation sensor to detect the presence of a vehicle battery.
- A reverse polarity sensor to detect the polarity of the connection.
- A power switch between the power supply and the output port.
- A microcontroller configured to receive signals from both sensors and turn on the power switch only when the signals indicate 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 complaint accuses compact lithium jump starters sold under the "Imazing" brand, specifically models IM21, IM23, IM25, IM27, IM29, and IM31 ("Infringing Models") (Compl. ¶21).
Functionality and Market Context
The complaint alleges these are portable devices that use an internal lithium battery pack to jump-start vehicles (Compl. ¶23). Their accused functionality centers on safety features, including a microcontroller that processes signals from sensors to determine when it is safe to supply power to the terminal connectors (Compl. ¶28). The complaint alleges these products are sold to consumers in the United States through the Amazon Marketplace (Compl. ¶5).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
’015 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| an internal power supply; | Each Infringing Model has a lithium battery pack that acts as an internal power supply. | ¶23 | col. 4:1-7 |
| an output port having positive and negative polarity outputs; | Each Infringing Model has an output port comprising the device's cable battery terminal connectors. | ¶24 | col. 7:32-34 |
| a vehicle battery isolation sensor connected in circuit with said positive and negative polarity outputs, configured to detect presence of a vehicle battery connected between said positive and negative polarity outputs; | Each Infringing Model has a vehicle battery isolation sensor, which includes a resistive voltage divider, that detects the presence of a vehicle battery. | ¶25 | col. 5:29-38 |
| a reverse polarity sensor connected in circuit with said positive and negative polarity outputs, configured to detect polarity of a vehicle battery connected between said positive and negative polarity outputs and to provide an output signal indicating whether positive and negative terminals of said vehicle battery are properly connected...; | Each Infringing Model has a reverse polarity sensor that detects proper polarity. For some models, this is a resistive voltage divider; for others, it is an optocoupler. | ¶26 | col. 5:18-29 |
| a power switch connected between said internal power supply and said output port; and | Each Infringing Model has a power switch located on a circuit board between the power supply and output port. | ¶27 | col. 4:30-38 |
| a microcontroller configured to receive input signals from said vehicle isolation sensor and said reverse polarity sensor, and to provide an output signal to said power switch, such that said power switch is turned on ... in response to signals from said sensors indicating the presence of a vehicle battery ... and proper polarity connection ..., and is not turned on when signals from said sensors indicate either the absence of a vehicle battery ... or improper polarity connection... | Each Infringing Model has a microcontroller that receives signals from the sensors and only turns the device on when the sensors indicate a vehicle battery is connected with the correct polarity. | ¶28 | col. 5:46-54 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: A central question may be whether the claim terms "vehicle battery isolation sensor" and "reverse polarity sensor" can be construed to cover the accused structures. The patent specification describes these sensors as being implemented with "optically coupled isolator phototransistor[s]" (’015 Patent, col. 5:19-32), while the complaint alleges the accused devices use "a resistive voltage divider" for the isolation sensor and either a "resistive voltage divider" or an "optocoupler" for the polarity sensor (Compl. ¶¶25-26). The dispute may focus on whether "resistive voltage divider" is a structural equivalent or falls within the scope of the claim terms.
- Technical Questions: What evidence demonstrates that the accused microcontroller performs the specific two-part logical check required by the claim (i.e., confirming both battery presence and proper polarity before enabling the power switch)? The complaint makes a conclusory allegation, and the factual basis for this operational detail may be a point of discovery and dispute (Compl. ¶28).
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "vehicle battery isolation sensor"
Context and Importance: This term's construction is critical because there is a potential mismatch between the embodiment disclosed in the patent and the technology alleged to be in the accused products. The patent discloses an optocoupler-based sensor, whereas the complaint alleges infringement by a "resistive voltage divider" (Compl. ¶25). The outcome of claim construction will determine if the accused feature can meet this limitation.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself does not specify a particular structure, instead defining the sensor functionally as being "configured to detect presence of a vehicle battery" (’015 Patent, col. 8:12-15). This may support an argument that any structure performing this function, including a resistive voltage divider, falls within the claim's scope.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent’s detailed description exclusively describes this sensor as "an optically coupled isolator phototransistor (4N27)" (’015 Patent, col. 5:29-32). A defendant may argue this disclosure limits the claim scope to optocouplers or their structural equivalents, potentially excluding different technologies like resistive voltage dividers.
The Term: "reverse polarity sensor"
Context and Importance: Similar to the isolation sensor, the definition of this term is central to the infringement analysis. The complaint alleges some accused models use a "resistive voltage divider" (Compl. ¶26), a structure not explicitly named in the patent's description of this sensor.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term is defined by its function: to "detect polarity of a vehicle battery" and "provide an output signal indicating whether" the terminals are "properly connected" (’015 Patent, col. 8:16-22). This functional language may support a construction that is not limited to a specific circuit implementation.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The only embodiment disclosed in the specification for this sensor is an "optically coupled isolator phototransistor (4N27)" (’015 Patent, col. 5:18-21). This may be used to argue for a narrower construction limited to the disclosed structure or its equivalents.
VI. Other Allegations
Indirect Infringement
The complaint alleges direct infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) and does not plead separate counts for indirect or induced infringement (Compl. ¶31).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
A threshold issue will be the procedural impact of the IPR. Given that Claim 1—the only claim for which infringement is detailed in the complaint—was cancelled by an IPR certificate issued after the complaint was filed, the viability of the entire infringement action as currently pleaded is in serious question.
Should the case proceed, a core issue will be one of definitional scope. Can the terms "vehicle battery isolation sensor" and "reverse polarity sensor," which are described in the patent’s only embodiment as optocoupler circuits, be construed broadly enough to read on the "resistive voltage divider" circuits alleged to be used in the accused products?
A key evidentiary question will be one of functional operation. What technical evidence will be presented to prove that the accused "Imazing" products' microcontrollers perform the precise, two-condition logical gating function recited in Claim 1, as opposed to a different safety control method?