DCT
2:20-cv-01358
NOCO Co Inc v. Medcursor Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: The NOCO Company, Inc. (Ohio)
- Defendant: Medcursor, Inc. (Nevada)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Vorys, Sater, Seymour and Pease LLP
- Case Identification: 2:20-cv-01358, S.D. Ohio, 03/13/2020
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant maintains a "regular and established place of business" in the district through its use of an Amazon Fulfillment Center to store inventory and fulfill orders via the "Fulfillment by Amazon" program, which Plaintiff characterizes as Defendant's agent conducting its business.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s compact lithium-ion battery jump starters infringe a patent related to microcontroller-based safety features that prevent sparking and damage from improper connections.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns portable automotive jump starters that use integrated sensors and logic to verify a proper connection to a vehicle's battery before delivering power.
- Key Procedural History: Subsequent to the filing of this complaint, the asserted patent was the subject of an inter partes review (IPR) proceeding (IPR2020-00944). The final IPR certificate, which is attached to the patent file, indicates that independent claim 1, the primary claim asserted in the complaint, and all other claims except claim 11 have been cancelled. This development fundamentally impacts the viability of the infringement claims as pleaded.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2014 | NOCO introduces Genius Boost® product |
| 2014-07-03 | '015 Patent Priority Date |
| 2015-04-14 | '015 Patent Issue Date |
| 2020-03-13 | Complaint Filing Date |
| 2020-05-14 | IPR2020-00944 filed against '015 Patent |
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 addresses the well-known dangers of traditional vehicle jump-starting, such as sparking from accidental short circuits or damage caused by connecting jumper cables to the wrong battery terminals (reverse polarity) ('015 Patent, col. 1:16-24; Compl. ¶18).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a handheld, portable jump starter with an internal lithium-ion battery. It employs a microcontroller-based safety system that uses two distinct types of sensors: a "vehicle battery isolation sensor" to confirm a connection to a vehicle battery is present, and a "reverse polarity sensor" to verify the connection is not reversed. Only when the microcontroller receives signals indicating both a present and correctly polarized connection will it activate a "smart switch" to allow power to flow to the vehicle battery ('015 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:11-39). This automated, two-factor safety check is the core of the patented solution.
- Technical Importance: This approach enabled the creation of compact, user-friendly jump starters that incorporated sophisticated, automated safety logic to prevent common and dangerous user errors ('015 Patent, col. 3:8-12; Compl. ¶23).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts infringement of at least independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶29). As noted, this claim was subsequently cancelled in an IPR proceeding.
- The essential elements of the now-cancelled 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 connected vehicle battery.
- A reverse polarity sensor to detect the polarity of the connection.
- A power switch between the internal supply and the output port.
- A microcontroller configured to receive signals from both the isolation and polarity sensors, and to turn on the power switch only if the signals indicate both the presence of a battery and a proper polarity connection. ('015 Patent, col. 8:5-49).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The complaint accuses the Nekteck brand "500 Model" (500A/12000mAh) and "600 Model" (600A/12000mAh) compact lithium jump starters of infringement (Compl. ¶28).
Functionality and Market Context
The complaint alleges the accused products are compact, lithium-ion-powered jump starters sold primarily through the Amazon Marketplace (Compl. ¶¶4, 28). The complaint asserts these products incorporate the key safety features of the '015 Patent, including a "lithium battery pack," sensors for detecting battery presence and polarity, a transistor-based power switch, and a microcontroller that controls the switch based on sensor inputs (Compl. ¶¶30-35). The complaint provides a photograph of Plaintiff's own "Genius Boost®" product connected to a vehicle battery to illustrate the commercial embodiment of its technology (Compl. p. 5).
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; | Each Infringing Model has a lithium battery pack that acts as an internal power supply. | ¶30 | col. 4:1-5 |
| an output port having positive and negative polarity outputs; | Each Infringing Model has positive and negative polarity outputs on an output connector. | ¶31 | col. 3:18-19 |
| a vehicle battery isolation sensor...configured to detect presence of a vehicle battery...; | Each Infringing Model has an optocoupler sensor that 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 indicating whether...properly connected...; | Each Infringing Model has a sensor that outputs a signal indicating whether a battery is connected in proper polarity. | ¶33 | col. 4:20-26 |
| a power switch connected between said internal power supply and said output port; | Each of the Infringing Models has a transistor that controls the device’s power switch. | ¶34 | col. 4:35-39 |
| a microcontroller configured to receive input signals from said vehicle isolation sensor and said reverse polarity sensor...and is not turned on when signals from said sensors indicate either the absence of a vehicle battery...or improper polarity connection... | Each of the Infringing Models has a microcontroller that receives signals from the sensors and processes them such that the device is not turned on when the sensors indicate a battery is not connected or is in a reverse polarity state. | ¶35 | col. 8:36-49 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Overriding Legal Question: The cancellation of Claim 1 post-filing presents a dispositive legal barrier to the infringement theory pleaded in the complaint. The primary question is whether Plaintiff has a basis to amend its case to assert the sole surviving claim, Claim 11.
- Scope Questions: Assuming Claim 1 were valid, a dispute could arise over whether the accused product's "optocoupler sensor" (Compl. ¶32) meets the specific limitations of a "vehicle battery isolation sensor" as claimed. The complaint's description of its function—triggering when "voltage signals from the device's lithium battery pack are immediately raised"—raises the question of whether it operates in the manner disclosed in the patent (Compl. ¶32).
- Technical Questions: A key technical question would be whether the accused devices use two distinct sensors for isolation and polarity, as required by the claim structure, or a single, more generalized voltage/polarity detection circuit. The complaint alleges separate sensors for each function but provides limited detail on their independent operation (Compl. ¶¶32-33).
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
"vehicle battery isolation sensor"
- Context and Importance: This term defines one of the two mandatory sensor inputs for the claimed safety logic. The infringement analysis would depend on whether the accused "optocoupler sensor" falls within its scope. Practitioners may focus on this term to determine if the claim requires a specific type of sensor or merely one that performs the broad function of detecting a battery's presence.
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent describes the sensor's function broadly as to "detects whether or not a vehicle battery 72 is connected to the booster device" ('015 Patent, col. 4:26-29), which could support an interpretation covering any component that achieves this result.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification's exemplary embodiment discloses a specific "optically coupled isolator phototransistor (4N27)" within a defined circuit ('015 Patent, col. 5:28-35; Fig. 2A-4). This specific disclosure could be used to argue for a narrower construction limited to optical isolators or circuits with equivalent structures.
"microcontroller configured to..."
- Context and Importance: This limitation recites the core logic of the invention. The dispute would center on whether the accused microcontroller performs the identical two-part function recited in the claim (processing signals from two separate sensors for presence and polarity) and whether its structure is equivalent to that disclosed in the patent.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation: The claim language explicitly requires the microcontroller to act "in response to signals from said sensors indicating the presence of a vehicle battery at said output port and proper polarity connection" ('015 Patent, col. 8:41-44, emphasis added). The specification discloses a programmable MCU, such as a Holtek HT67F30, as the corresponding structure for performing this logic ('015 Patent, col. 4:11-19). An infringement analysis would have to show the accused device's microcontroller performs this precise conjunctive logical check.
VI. Other Allegations
The complaint contains no allegations of indirect or willful infringement.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
Procedural Viability: The central issue is the legal effect of the IPR determination that cancelled Claim 1, the foundation of the complaint's infringement allegations. The primary question for the court is whether the action can proceed based on the sole surviving claim, Claim 11, which would likely require Plaintiff to file an amended complaint with a new infringement theory.
Claim Scope (Hypothetical): If the case were to have proceeded on the original complaint, a key question would be one of definitional scope: can the term "vehicle battery isolation sensor," which is part of a two-sensor safety system in the patent, be construed to read on the accused product's "optocoupler sensor" as described in the complaint?
Evidentiary Sufficiency (Hypothetical): The case would also have presented a question of functional proof: does the evidence show that the accused microcontroller performs the specific, two-input logical function recited in Claim 1—confirming both battery presence and correct polarity from distinct sensor inputs before enabling power—or does it employ a different, albeit effective, safety mechanism?