DCT

1:21-cv-01483

NOCO Co v. Shenzhen Dingjiang Technology Co Ltd

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:21-cv-01483, N.D. Ohio, 08/26/2022
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the Northern District of Ohio because a substantial portion of the allegedly infringing sales were made in Ohio, and the intellectual property at issue is owned by NOCO, an Ohio-based company.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s marketing and sale of competing portable jump starter products infringe its design patent, copyrights, trademarks, and trade dress.
  • Technical Context: The lawsuit concerns the consumer electronics market for portable automotive battery jump starters and chargers, where brand identity and product appearance are significant competitive factors.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Defendant was aware of Plaintiff's intellectual property rights since at least September 1, 2020, due to a prior litigation between the parties filed in the same district, a fact which may be material to the allegations of willful infringement.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2017-12-21 ’985 Patent Application (Priority) Date
2019-11-26 ’985 Patent Issue Date
2020-09-01 Prior litigation between parties filed
2021-07-23 Date of access noted for accused image on Amazon.com
2022-08-26 First Amended Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Design Patent No. D867,985 - “Combination Jump Starter and Display,” issued November 26, 2019

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: Design patents protect ornamental appearance rather than functional utility. The complaint suggests the design was created to establish a unique and recognizable product appearance in the marketplace to distinguish it from competitors (Compl. ¶27).
  • The Patented Solution: The patent claims the specific ornamental design for a "combination jump starter and display, as shown and described" (’985 Patent, CLAIM). The design, illustrated in figures such as FIG. 1 and FIG. 2, consists of the visual appearance of a rectangular jump starter device being held in a human hand, showcasing its form, proportions, and overall aesthetic impression (’985 Patent, FIG. 1-2). The invention is the specific "look" of the product as depicted, not its function.
  • Technical Importance: The value of a design patent lies in its ability to protect the non-functional aesthetic features that contribute to a product's commercial appeal and brand identity (Compl. ¶27).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • As a design patent, there is only one claim, which covers the entire ornamental design as depicted in the patent's drawings.
  • The claim is for: "The ornamental design for a combination jump starter and display, as shown and described" (’985 Patent, CLAIM).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint accuses a specific marketing image, which it terms the "TOPDON TORNADO1200 Jump Starter Display," used to advertise and sell Defendant's jump starter products (Compl. ¶¶32-33).

Functionality and Market Context

The accused instrumentality is not a physical product but a digital marketing image used on e-commerce platforms like Amazon.com (Compl. ¶22, Fig. 2). Its function is to promote and sell the TOPDON TORNADO1200 Jump Starter (Compl. ¶33). The complaint alleges this image is part of a broader campaign to copy Plaintiff's marketing materials and trade dress to trade on Plaintiff's reputation and confuse consumers (Compl. ¶¶25-26, 49). A side-by-side comparison provided in the complaint shows the accused marketing image for the TOPDON TORNADO1200 Jump Starter, which features the product being held in a hand above a car battery with clamps attached (Compl. ¶33, Fig. 6).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The standard for design patent infringement is the "ordinary observer" test, which asks whether an ordinary observer, familiar with the prior art, would be deceived into purchasing the accused product believing it to be the patented design. The complaint does not contain a formal claim chart but presents its infringement theory through narrative and visual comparisons.

The core of the infringement allegation is that the accused marketing display is "substantially similar" to the patented design, such that it would confuse an ordinary purchaser (Compl. ¶34). The complaint presents a side-by-side comparison of the patent's Figure 2 and the accused display to illustrate this alleged similarity (Compl. ¶33, Fig. 6). The allegation highlights that the accused display "features a human hand in a similar configuration gripping a jump starter product of the same orientation, shape, and size" as shown in the patented design (Compl. ¶35).

  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: A central issue may be whether the claimed design for a "combination jump starter and display," which depicts a physical article, can be infringed by a two-dimensional photographic marketing image. The interpretation of "display" in the patent's claim could become a focus of the dispute.
    • Technical Questions: The infringement analysis will turn on a visual comparison. The court will need to determine whether the overall impression of the accused image is substantially similar to the patented design. Defendant may argue that differences, such as the inclusion of battery clamps, a multimeter, and the background setting in its image, are significant enough to distinguish it from the patented design in the eye of an ordinary observer. Plaintiff may counter that these are minor additions and the overall aesthetic—a hand gripping a jump starter of a particular shape and orientation—is the same.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

In design patent cases, the drawings typically define the scope of the claim, limiting the role of traditional claim construction. However, the language of the claim itself can still be at issue.

  • The Term: "display" (from the claim "The ornamental design for a combination jump starter and display...")
  • Context and Importance: The construction of "display" is important because the accused instrumentality is a marketing photograph, not a physical object. If the term is construed narrowly to mean a physical screen on the device or a physical point-of-sale structure, it could undermine the infringement allegation. If construed broadly to include any visual presentation or depiction of the product, it may support the plaintiff's theory. Practitioners may focus on this term because its scope directly impacts whether the accused marketing image falls within the ambit of the claim.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent title, “Combination Jump Starter and Display,” and the figures themselves, which show the act of displaying the product by holding it, could support an interpretation where "display" refers to the overall visual presentation of the article for observation (’985 Patent, Title; FIG. 1-14).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party could argue that in the context of electronics, "display" typically refers to an integrated screen or user interface. Further, since the drawings depict a three-dimensional object, a party could argue the claim is limited to the appearance of the physical article itself, not a two-dimensional photograph of it.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint's patent infringement count (Count Five) alleges direct infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) and does not contain specific factual allegations to support a claim for indirect patent infringement (Compl. ¶93).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant's infringement has been "knowing, intentional, and willful" (Compl. ¶94). This allegation is primarily based on the assertion that Defendant was on notice of Plaintiff’s intellectual property rights as of September 1, 2020, the filing date of a prior lawsuit between the same parties concerning similar issues (Compl. ¶43).

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

  1. A core issue will be one of visual similarity: Under the "ordinary observer" test, is the overall ornamental impression of Defendant's marketing photograph "substantially the same" as Plaintiff's patented design, or do the additional elements in the photograph (e.g., battery clamps, background) create a sufficiently distinct visual appearance?

  2. The case may also turn on a question of claim scope: Can the claim for an ornamental design for a "combination jump starter and display," as depicted in line drawings of a physical object, be literally infringed by a two-dimensional marketing photograph, or is there a fundamental mismatch between the nature of the claimed design and the accused instrumentality?

  3. An overarching evidentiary question will be the influence of context: The design patent claim is one facet of a broad complaint alleging a pattern of copying across copyright, trademark, and trade dress. A key question is how the evidence presented for these other claims will influence the fact-finder's perception of the "substantial similarity" and intent elements of the design patent infringement claim.