DCT
2:20-cv-01356
NOCO Co Inc v. Nekteck Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: The NOCO Company, Inc. (Ohio)
- Defendant: Nekteck, Inc. (California)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Vorys, Sater, Seymour and Pease LLP
- Case Identification: 2:20-cv-01356, S.D. Ohio, 03/13/2020
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Southern District of Ohio because Defendant utilizes Amazon’s "Fulfillment by Amazon" services, which includes maintaining a continuous supply of inventory at an Amazon Fulfillment Center located within the judicial district, allegedly constituting a regular and established place of business for the Defendant.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s portable vehicle jump starters infringe a patent related to safety features that prevent power delivery unless a vehicle's battery is detected and correctly connected.
- Technical Context: The technology involves compact, lithium-ion-based vehicle jump starters that incorporate microcontrollers and sensors to enhance safety and usability over traditional jumper cables.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint was filed on March 13, 2020, asserting infringement of Claim 1 of the patent-in-suit. Subsequently, an inter partes review (IPR) of the patent was initiated (IPR2020-00944). An IPR certificate issued on June 11, 2024, indicates that Claims 1-10 and 12-23 of the patent were cancelled, while Claim 11 was found patentable. The cancellation of Claim 1, the sole claim asserted in this complaint, presents a significant issue for the continuation of the case as filed.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2014-07-03 | ’015 Patent Priority Date |
| 2014 | Plaintiff NOCO introduces its Genius Boost® product |
| 2015-04-14 | ’015 Patent Issue Date |
| 2020-03-13 | Complaint Filing Date |
| 2020-05-14 | Inter Partes Review (IPR2020-00944) filed |
| 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"
- Patent Identification: 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 describes the well-known dangers and inconveniences of traditional vehicle jump-starting methods, such as sparking and short circuits caused by incorrect connections (e.g., reverse polarity), and the need for a second vehicle (’015 Patent, col. 1:16-23).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a handheld, portable jump starter using an internal lithium-ion battery. Its core innovation is the use of a microcontroller that processes signals from two key sensors—one for detecting the presence of a vehicle battery and another for detecting correct polarity—before allowing a power switch (a FET circuit) to connect the internal battery to the output port. This logic is designed to prevent power flow unless a battery is connected securely and with the correct polarity, thereby averting sparks and damage (’015 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:12-34).
- Technical Importance: This technology enabled a new class of compact, user-friendly jump starters that were safer than traditional cables and did not require a second vehicle for operation (Compl. ¶20, ¶23).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶27).
- The essential elements of 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 vehicle battery.
- A "reverse polarity sensor" to detect if the vehicle battery is connected with the correct polarity.
- 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 when signals indicate both the presence of a battery and a proper polarity connection, and to keep the switch off otherwise.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The Nekteck 800A/20000mAh compact lithium jump starter, referred to as the "800 Model" or "Infringing Model" (Compl. ¶28).
Functionality and Market Context
- The 800 Model is a portable power pack designed to jump-start vehicles. The complaint alleges it contains a lithium battery pack, an output connector, sensors, and a microcontroller (Compl. ¶30-35). It is alleged that these components work together to provide safety features that prevent the device from delivering power if a battery is not detected or is connected in reverse polarity (Compl. ¶35). The complaint provides a photograph of Plaintiff’s own Genius Boost® product connected to a car battery to illustrate the technology category (Compl. p. 5). The accused product is sold through Defendant's website and the Amazon Marketplace (Compl. ¶4).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
’015 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| an internal power supply; | The Infringing Model has a lithium battery pack that acts as an internal power supply. | ¶30 | col. 3:65-4:1 |
| an output port having positive and negative polarity outputs; | The Infringing Model has positive and negative polarity outputs on an output connector, shown in its User Guide. | ¶31 | col. 7:30-33 |
| a vehicle battery isolation sensor ... configured to detect presence of a vehicle battery...; | The Infringing Model has an optocoupler sensor that allegedly senses the presence of a vehicle battery. | ¶32 | col. 4:26-31 |
| a reverse polarity sensor ... configured to detect polarity of a vehicle battery ... and to provide an output signal...; | The Infringing Model has a sensor that outputs a signal, causing a red LED and audible beep to indicate a reverse polarity connection. | ¶33 | col. 4:19-26 |
| a power switch connected between said internal power supply and said output port; and | The Infringing Model has a transistor that allegedly controls the device's power switch. | ¶34 | col. 4:35-37 |
| a microcontroller configured to receive input signals from said ... sensors ... and is not turned on when signals from said sensors indicate either the absence of a vehicle battery at said output port or improper polarity connection... | The Infringing Model has a microcontroller that allegedly receives signals from the sensors and processes them to prevent the device from turning on if a battery is not connected or is in a reverse polarity state. | ¶35 | col. 5:46-54 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A central question is whether the accused device's components meet the claim limitations. For example, does the "optocoupler sensor" alleged in the complaint (Compl. ¶32) fall within the scope of the claimed "vehicle battery isolation sensor"? Similarly, does the accused "transistor" (Compl. ¶34) function as the claimed "power switch"?
- Technical Questions: The final limitation of Claim 1 requires the microcontroller to prevent activation under two distinct conditions: (1) absence of a battery, and (2) improper polarity. The complaint alleges this functionality (Compl. ¶35), but a key question for the court will be what technical evidence exists to prove the accused microcontroller actually performs this specific, two-part logical operation as claimed.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "vehicle battery isolation sensor"
- Context and Importance: This term defines one of the two critical safety-check inputs for the microcontroller. The infringement case hinges on whether the accused product's "optocoupler sensor" (Compl. ¶32) meets this limitation. Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction will determine whether a key element of the patented safety system is present in the accused device.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification provides a functional description, stating the sensor is "configured to detect presence of a vehicle battery connected between said positive and negative polarity outputs" (’015 Patent, col. 8:10-13). This could support a construction covering any component that performs this detection function.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent discloses a specific embodiment using an "optically coupled isolator phototransistor" (’015 Patent, col. 5:27-29). A party could argue that the claim term should be interpreted more narrowly in light of this specific disclosure, potentially limiting it to similar optical isolator-based designs.
The Term: "microcontroller configured to ... provide an output signal to said power switch, such that said power switch is turned on ... and is not turned on when signals from said sensors indicate either the absence of a vehicle battery ... or improper polarity connection"
- Context and Importance: This limitation describes the core logic of the invention. Proving infringement requires showing not only that the accused microcontroller enables power flow on a valid connection, but also that it affirmatively prevents power flow under two specified fault conditions.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent abstract describes the function at a high level: "the microcontroller will enable power to be delivered ... only when a good battery is connected ... and only when the battery is connected with proper polarity" (’015 Patent, Abstract). This language supports a focus on the end result rather than the specific implementation.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description explains how the microcontroller interprets specific "high" or "low" output signals from the sensors to make its determination (’015 Patent, col. 5:25-46). A party could argue that "configured to" requires a structure that implements this specific logic, not just one that achieves a similar outcome through different means.
VI. Other Allegations
The complaint does not allege willful or indirect infringement.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- Viability of the Asserted Claim: The most critical issue is procedural and substantive: given that the sole asserted claim (Claim 1) was cancelled in a post-filing inter partes review, what legal basis remains for the lawsuit to proceed as pleaded? The cancellation presents a potentially dispositive challenge for the plaintiff.
- Claim Scope: Should the case proceed, a central issue will be one of definitional scope. Can the claim term "vehicle battery isolation sensor", as described in the patent, be construed to read on the "optocoupler sensor" allegedly used in the accused product? The outcome of this claim construction dispute would be pivotal for the infringement analysis.
- Evidentiary Proof of Function: A key evidentiary question will be one of functional equivalence and proof. What technical evidence can be presented to demonstrate that the accused microcontroller performs the specific, multi-part logical function required by Claim 1—specifically, that it is configured to prevent activation in both the absence of a battery and upon detection of a reverse polarity connection?