DCT
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 Team Enterprise Limited, Nice Well Enterprise Limited, and 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, 03/17/2021
- Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted on the basis that Defendants are alien business entities that import, offer to sell, and sell the accused products throughout the United States, including into Ohio via the Amazon Marketplace.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ "Imazing" brand of compact lithium jump starters infringes a patent related to safety features that prevent electrical connection in cases of reverse polarity or when a battery is not properly detected.
- Technical Context: The technology resides in the field of portable, lithium-ion-based vehicle battery jump starters, a consumer electronics category where safety features preventing sparking and short circuits are a key market differentiator.
- Key Procedural History: This First Amended Complaint was filed in March 2021, asserting infringement of U.S. Patent No. 9,007,015. Notably, the patent-in-suit was subject to an inter partes review (IPR) proceeding (IPR2020-00944), which concluded with a certificate issued on June 11, 2024. The IPR resulted in the cancellation of claims 1-10 and 12-23. As the complaint's sole infringement count relies on Claim 1, this subsequent cancellation presents a dispositive challenge to the asserted infringement theory.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2014-07-03 | ’015 Patent Priority Date |
| 2015-04-14 | ’015 Patent Issue Date |
| 2020-05-14 | IPR Proceeding Filed (IPR2020-00944) |
| 2021-03-17 | First Amended Complaint Filing Date |
| 2024-06-11 | IPR Certificate Issued 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 and complaint describe the well-known dangers of traditional vehicle jump-starting, including sparking and short circuits caused by connecting jumper cables with reverse polarity or inadvertently touching the clamps together (’015 Patent, col. 1:16-23; Compl. ¶12).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a handheld, lithium-ion-powered jump starter that uses a microcontroller and a set of sensors to enhance safety (’015 Patent, Abstract). The device first uses an "isolation sensor" to verify that it is connected to a vehicle battery and a "reverse polarity sensor" to check that the connection is correct (’015 Patent, col. 4:20-33). Only when the microcontroller receives signals indicating both the presence of a battery and proper polarity will it activate a power switch (a "smart switch FET circuit") to deliver current to the output port, thereby preventing power flow under unsafe conditions (’015 Patent, col. 4:34-51). A photograph shows Plaintiff's NOCO Boost® product connected to a vehicle's battery terminals (Compl. p. 4).
- Technical Importance: This logic-controlled approach automates safety checks, aiming to eliminate common user errors that make traditional jump-starting hazardous and providing a significant safety improvement over prior art devices (Compl. ¶¶14, 17).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts infringement of at least Claim 1 of the ’015 Patent (Compl. ¶23).
- The essential elements of independent Claim 1 are:
- 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 battery.
- A reverse polarity sensor to detect the polarity of the connected battery.
- A power switch between the internal supply and the output port.
- A microcontroller configured to receive signals from the sensors and turn on the power switch only when signals indicate both the presence of a battery and a proper polarity connection.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The accused products are compact lithium jump starters sold under the "Imazing" brand, specifically models IM21, IM23, IM25, IM27, IM29, and IM31 (the "Infringing Models") (Compl. ¶22).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges these are portable jump starters that incorporate the patented safety features (Compl. ¶22). Functionally, they are alleged to possess an internal lithium battery, an output port for battery terminal connectors, sensors to detect battery presence and polarity, a power switch, and a microcontroller that processes sensor signals to control the flow of power (Compl. ¶¶24-29). The products are sold to U.S. consumers through the Amazon Marketplace (Compl. ¶6).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The infringement analysis below is based on the allegations in the complaint, which was filed prior to the IPR decision that cancelled the asserted claim.
’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. | ¶24 | col. 4:1-3 |
| an output port having positive and negative polarity outputs | Each Infringing Model has an output port with positive and negative polarity outputs, comprising the device's cable battery terminal connectors. | ¶25 | col. 7:10-12 |
| 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 allegedly includes a resistive voltage divider, that detects the presence of a vehicle battery and sends a signal to the microcontroller. | ¶26 | col. 5:28-39 |
| a reverse polarity sensor connected in circuit with said positive and negative polarity outputs, configured to detect polarity of a vehicle battery... and to provide an output signal indicating whether positive and negative terminals... are properly connected | Each Infringing Model has a reverse polarity sensor that detects correct polarity. The complaint alleges this sensor includes either a resistive voltage divider (distinct from the isolation sensor's) or an optocoupler, and sends a signal to the microcontroller. | ¶27 | col. 5:14-28 |
| a power switch connected between said internal power supply and said output port | Each Infringing Model has a power switch located on a circuit board between the internal lithium battery pack and the output port. | ¶28 | col. 5:49-54 |
| 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... indicating the presence of a vehicle battery... and proper polarity connection..., and is not turned on when signals... 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 is programmed to turn the device on only when the sensors indicate that a vehicle battery is connected with correct polarity, and to keep the device off if a battery is not connected or is connected with reverse polarity. | ¶29 | col. 5:46-65 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Validity Question: The primary point of contention is the validity of the asserted claim itself. The subsequent cancellation of Claim 1 by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office in an IPR proceeding appears to be a fatal defect in the Plaintiff's case as pleaded.
- Technical Question: Assuming the claim were valid, a key question would be whether the accused products' alleged sensor implementations (e.g., "a resistive voltage divider") meet the claim limitations for a "vehicle battery isolation sensor" and a "reverse polarity sensor" as those terms would be construed in light of the patent's disclosure of specific "optically coupled isolator phototransistor" circuits (’015 Patent, col. 8:5-6; Compl. ¶¶26-27). The infringement analysis would depend on whether the differing alleged structures operate in a manner covered by the claims.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "vehicle battery isolation sensor"
- Context and Importance: This term is critical because its definition determines what types of circuits can satisfy a core element of the invention. The dispute would likely center on whether the term is limited to the specific structure disclosed in the patent or can encompass other structures, like the "resistive voltage divider" alleged in the complaint (Compl. ¶26).
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language is functional, defining the sensor by what it does: "configured to detect presence of a vehicle battery" (’015 Patent, col. 8:12-14). Plaintiff could argue this language is broad enough to cover any component that performs this function.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes a specific embodiment using an "optically coupled isolator phototransistor (4N27)" (’015 Patent, col. 5:28-30, Fig. 2A-4). A defendant would likely argue this disclosure limits the claim scope to opto-isolator-based sensors or their structural equivalents.
The Term: "microcontroller configured to..."
- Context and Importance: This limitation recites the specific logic that embodies the safety feature. Infringement hinges on demonstrating that the accused microcontroller is programmed to execute the precise conditional logic laid out in the claim. Practitioners may focus on this term because even a minor deviation in the operational logic could provide a basis for a non-infringement argument.
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim recites the logic in functional terms ("is not turned on when... or... and is turned on when...") (’015 Patent, col. 8:36-46). Plaintiff would argue that any software or hardware implementation of this exact logical sequence infringes, regardless of the specific code or circuitry used.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A defendant could argue that its device's control logic differs in a material way. For example, its conditions for enabling or disabling the power switch might not map directly onto the claim's specific "and"/"or" structure, potentially raising a question of literal infringement.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not plead any counts for indirect infringement (e.g., induced or contributory infringement). It only alleges direct infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) (Compl. ¶32).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint does not contain allegations of willful infringement or plead facts related to pre-suit knowledge of the patent by the Defendants.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A dispositive issue will be one of claim viability: can this lawsuit proceed as pleaded, given that its sole asserted basis for infringement, Claim 1 of the ’015 Patent, was cancelled in an inter partes review proceeding that concluded after the complaint was filed?
- Should the case proceed on other grounds, a central question will be one of claim scope: can the term "sensor", as used in the claims, be interpreted to cover the "resistive voltage divider" circuits allegedly used in the accused products, when the patent's own specification discloses a more specific "optically coupled isolator" embodiment?
- An ultimate evidentiary question will be one of functional operation: does the software logic in the accused products' microcontrollers perform the exact multi-part conditional function required by Claim 1, or is there a technical mismatch in the safety logic that would support a finding of non-infringement?