Noco Co. & Shenzhen Carku v. Federal Circuit — US9007015B1 Affirmed Unpatentable
Noco Co. and Shenzhen Carku Technology Co., Ltd. appealed to the Federal Circuit seeking to overturn an invalidity finding on US9007015B1, a portable vehicle battery jump starter patent with safety protection. A three-judge panel affirmed the unpatentability ruling per curiam after 669 days, extinguishing the patent’s enforceability.
Federal Circuit kills portable jump starter patent in per curiam ruling
On April 14, 2022, Noco Co. and Shenzhen Carku Technology Co., Ltd. filed an appeal (Case No. 22-1646) at the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, challenging an underlying invalidity or cancellation determination targeting US9007015B1. That patent, filed under application number US14/325938, covers a portable vehicle battery jump start apparatus with integrated safety protection — a product category that has seen intense commercial competition and IP activity in the consumer automotive accessories market.
The Federal Circuit, in a panel comprising Circuit Judges Lourie, Dyk, and Stark, issued a per curiam affirmance on February 12, 2024, citing Federal Circuit Rule 36. The Rule 36 disposition means the court affirmed the lower tribunal’s unpatentability finding without a written opinion, adopting the reasoning below. The basis of termination is recorded as ‘Unpatentable,’ confirming that US9007015B1 does not survive validity scrutiny.
The 669-day appeal duration is consistent with a contested patentability proceeding at the Federal Circuit. The per curiam Rule 36 affirmance suggests the panel found no reversible error warranting a precedential opinion, which typically signals the lower tribunal’s analysis was viewed as sound on its face. The absence of defendant information in the public record is notable and may reflect the procedural posture of an inter partes review or post-grant proceeding rather than a district court infringement suit.
Filing to settlement in 669 days
669 days from filing to Federal Circuit affirmance
Federal Circuit affirms unpatentability of US9007015B1 under Rule 36
What a Rule 36 affirmance actually means
Federal Circuit Rule 36 allows the court to affirm a lower tribunal’s judgment without a written opinion when it finds the judgment correct and no precedential value would be added. Here, Judges Lourie, Dyk, and Stark affirmed the unpatentability of US9007015B1 per curiam. The ruling carries full legal effect — the patent is invalid — but leaves no Federal Circuit-authored reasoning on the record for future challengers or patentees to distinguish.
No written opinion issuedUS9007015B1 is now unenforceable
The basis of termination recorded as ‘Unpatentable’ confirms the patent did not survive the validity challenge. Following this affirmance, Noco Co. and Shenzhen Carku Technology have exhausted their appellate options at the Federal Circuit on this record. Neither party can now assert US9007015B1 against competitors in U.S. proceedings, and third parties making or selling portable jump start apparatus with safety protection face reduced patent risk from this specific asset.
Patent invalidated — unenforceableAppeal posture suggests post-grant origin
The absence of any defendant in the case record, combined with a ‘Invalidity/Cancellation Action’ verdict cause summary and a Federal Circuit appeal, is consistent with the posture of an inter partes review (IPR) or ex parte reexamination appeal rather than a district court infringement case. In such proceedings, the patent owner (here, Noco/Carku) appeals an USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board ruling to the Federal Circuit. The public record does not confirm the originating proceeding, so this characterisation is inferred.
Likely post-grant appealCompetitive landscape shifts for jump starter market
US9007015B1 covers a portable vehicle battery jump start apparatus with safety protection — a technology segment dominated by brands including NOCO, Carku, and numerous Chinese OEM suppliers. Invalidation of this patent removes a potential enforcement barrier from a crowded market. Competitors designing, importing, or distributing similar products may find their freedom to operate meaningfully improved, though other patents in the portfolios of Noco and Carku may still present risk.
FTO improved for competitorsFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Noco, Co. | Company | Consumer automotive IP holder — asserting US9007015B1 covering portable jump startersSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Defendant | Company | No defendant identified in the public case record for this Federal Circuit appealSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | David B. Cochran | Attorney | Counsel for Noco, Co.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Gregory A. Castanias | Attorney | Counsel for Noco, Co.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Joseph M. Sauer | Attorney | Counsel for Noco, Co.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Meredith M. Wilkes | Attorney | Counsel for Noco, Co.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Robert Breetz | Attorney | Counsel for Noco, Co.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge / | Chief Judge | Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit — Chief JudgeSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Stipulation of dismissal — official text
The per curiam order — ‘AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.’ — is legally terse but consequential. It confirms the lower tribunal’s unpatentability determination in full, without adding Federal Circuit-authored claim construction or prior art analysis. For Noco and Carku, the ruling closes the appellate path on this patent. For third parties, the absence of a written opinion means no new Federal Circuit precedent is created, but the invalidation itself is final and fully effective.
US9007015B1 — Portable Vehicle Battery Jump Start Apparatus with Safety Protection
US9007015B1, filed under application number US14/325938, protects a portable vehicle battery jump start apparatus incorporating safety protection features. This patent sits within the consumer automotive accessories technology domain, specifically targeting compact lithium-ion or similar battery-based devices designed to jump-start vehicles without a secondary vehicle. The safety protection element — likely encompassing reverse polarity, overcharge, and short-circuit protection — was a commercially differentiating feature at the time of filing and reflects the engineering challenges of delivering high-current output from a handheld form factor.
The portable jump starter segment became intensely competitive as lithium battery costs fell and Chinese OEM manufacturing scaled. Patents covering safety circuitry in this category were strategically valuable as barriers to entry. The Federal Circuit’s affirmance of unpatentability removes this asset from Noco’s and Carku’s enforcement arsenal. For competitors in the space, the invalidation is commercially significant — but companies should note that the broader patent landscape around portable power and jump start technology remains active, with multiple assignees holding potentially overlapping claims.
Should you run an FTO against US9007015B1 and related jump starter patents?
US9007015B1 has been affirmed unpatentable at the Federal Circuit, which means it cannot be enforced against products making, using, or selling portable vehicle battery jump start apparatus in the US. However, product teams and importers in this category should not treat this single invalidation as a full clearance. Noco Co. and Shenzhen Carku Technology both maintain broader IP portfolios, and related continuation or divisional applications may cover similar safety protection circuitry under different claim sets still in force.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent allows R&D and legal teams to map the full patent landscape around portable jump start apparatus and battery safety protection technology — identifying live claims that could cover your product before you go to market. You can track claim amendments, monitor Noco and Carku patent families for new filings, and set alerts for PTAB proceedings targeting similar assets, all from a single workflow built for speed and legal precision.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US9007015B1 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Federal Circuit patentability appeals in portable power device technology
PatSnap Eureka tracks related litigation across truck body equipment, vehicle accessories, and comparable infringement actions in the Georgia district system.
What this ruling signals for the portable jump starter IP landscape
A Federal Circuit invalidation reshapes enforcement risk across the battery jump starter supply chain and signals broader vulnerability in this patent cluster.
Rule 36 affirmances signal low reversibility — plan accordingly
When the Federal Circuit issues a Rule 36 affirmance, it signals the panel saw no meritorious grounds to disturb the finding below. For IP strategists monitoring related patents, this outcome suggests the validity arguments available to Noco and Carku were not compelling at the highest appellate level. Teams holding similar claims in the portable jump starter space should treat this as a red flag for their own validity risk.
Invalidated patents remove FTO barriers — but the portfolio risk remains
US9007015B1 being unenforceable improves freedom to operate for jump starter manufacturers and importers. However, Noco Co. and Shenzhen Carku both hold additional IP assets. A single invalidation does not clear the landscape. R&D and product teams should run a comprehensive FTO analysis against the full portfolios of both entities before assuming open-field clearance in this product category.
Noco v Defendant — key questions answered
The Federal Circuit affirmed the unpatentability of US9007015B1 on February 12, 2024. Noco Co. and Shenzhen Carku Technology had appealed an invalidity/cancellation determination. A per curiam panel of Judges Lourie, Dyk, and Stark issued the affirmance under Federal Circuit Rule 36, meaning no written opinion was produced. The patent, covering a portable vehicle battery jump start apparatus with safety protection, is now unenforceable.
A Rule 36 affirmance means the Federal Circuit upheld the lower tribunal’s judgment without writing a new opinion. It carries full legal effect — the underlying ruling stands. For patent owners, it exhausts the primary appellate route and leaves no Federal Circuit reasoning on the record to distinguish or rely upon in future proceedings. It typically signals the panel found no reversible error warranting further analysis.
No. The Federal Circuit affirmed the unpatentability of US9007015B1 in Case 22-1646, and the basis of termination is recorded as ‘Unpatentable.’ Following this affirmance, the patent cannot be asserted in U.S. infringement proceedings. Third parties manufacturing or importing portable vehicle battery jump start apparatus with safety protection are no longer exposed to infringement claims under this specific patent.
The absence of a named defendant in the public case record is consistent with the procedural posture of a post-grant validity proceeding — such as an inter partes review (IPR) or ex parte reexamination — where the patent owner appeals a USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board ruling to the Federal Circuit. In such proceedings, there may be no traditional adversarial defendant in the appellate record. The public data does not confirm the originating forum.
US9007015B1, filed as application US14/325938, covers a portable vehicle battery jump start apparatus with safety protection. Such devices deliver high-current output from a compact lithium-based battery pack to start a vehicle engine, incorporating circuitry to guard against reverse polarity, short-circuits, and overcharge conditions. This was a commercially significant design feature in the consumer automotive accessories market at the time of filing.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.