NOCO Company v. CF Group SZKMS: Jump Starter Patent Dispute Ends After 1,455 Days
Ohio-based NOCO Company filed suit against Chinese manufacturer CF Group SZKMS in March 2021, asserting two patents covering its Genius Boost® and NOCO Boost® portable lithium jump starters rated at 1000A and 1500A. After nearly four years of litigation before Judge David A. Ruiz in the Northern District of Ohio, NOCO voluntarily dismissed all claims without prejudice in March 2025.
Four Years of Portable Jump Starter IP Enforcement — Then a Quiet Exit
The NOCO Company, an Ohio-based maker of consumer power products, filed this infringement action on 16 March 2021 against CF Group SZKMS Co., Ltd., a Chinese manufacturer, in the Northern District of Ohio before Judge David A. Ruiz. NOCO alleged infringement of two patents — US10604024B2 and US9007015B1 — covering its flagship Genius Boost® and NOCO Boost® portable lithium jump starters, specifically the 1000A and 1500A product lines.
On 10 March 2025, NOCO filed a notice of voluntary dismissal without prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i), terminating all claims against CF Group SZKMS. Because CF Group had not yet served an answer or motion for summary judgment at the time of the notice — a prerequisite for unilateral Rule 41(a)(1) dismissal — no court order was required. The case was closed the same day, with no merits determination and no cost or fee award recorded.
The 1,455-day duration is notable for a case that ultimately concluded without trial or substantive ruling, suggesting the parties may have reached a private resolution — whether commercial, licensing, or competitive — that rendered continued litigation unnecessary. The absence of defendant counsel on the public docket and the unilateral nature of the dismissal are consistent with a scenario where CF Group either ceased infringing activity or the parties reached an off-record agreement, though neither can be confirmed from publicly available filings.
Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 1455 days
1,455 days litigated — roughly 4× the median time-to-termination for voluntary dismissals in this district
Voluntarily dismissed: what Rule 41 without prejudice means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i): plaintiff’s unilateral exit right
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i) permits a plaintiff to dismiss an action without a court order by filing a notice of dismissal before the defendant serves an answer or motion for summary judgment. NOCO exercised this right unilaterally. No judicial merits review occurred, and no findings of fact or law were made regarding patent validity or infringement.
No merits adjudicationWithout prejudice: the refiling door stays open
NOCO’s notice explicitly states dismissal is without prejudice. This means NOCO retains the right to refile claims against CF Group SZKMS on the same patents — subject to applicable statutes of limitations — if circumstances change. The public record does not reveal whether a private settlement or licensing agreement underpins this resolution. Practitioners should note the distinction matters: a with-prejudice dismissal would bar refiling; this one does not.
Refiling preservedCF Group exits without an infringement finding — but faces ongoing exposure
CF Group SZKMS obtains no judicial vindication: no invalidity ruling, no non-infringement finding, and no fee award. The patents US10604024B2 and US9007015B1 remain fully enforceable. If CF Group continues to manufacture or sell competing jump starter products in the US market, it remains exposed to a new action by NOCO. The lack of defendant counsel on the public docket may suggest limited engagement with US proceedings.
No invalidity findingNOCO’s patents remain live weapons in the portable jump starter market
The voluntary dismissal without prejudice leaves NOCO’s IP arsenal intact. Competitors in the portable lithium jump starter segment — particularly those sourcing from Chinese manufacturers — should treat US10604024B2 and US9007015B1 as active enforcement risks. The 1,455-day duration before a quiet exit is consistent with litigation used to deter market entry or negotiate supply-side changes rather than obtain a damages award.
Patents still enforceableFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | The Noco Company | Company | Consumer power electronics company — holder of US10604024B2 and US9007015B1Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | CF Group SZKMS Co., Ltd | Company | Chinese manufacturer CF Group SZKMS Co., Ltd., alleged to infringe NOCO’s jump starter patentsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Aaron M. Williams | Attorney | Counsel for The Noco CompanySearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | John Charles Evans | Attorney | Counsel for The Noco CompanySearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Meredith M. Wilkes | Attorney | Counsel for The Noco CompanySearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Michael J. Garvin | Attorney | Counsel for The Noco CompanySearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Jones Day (Cleveland) | Law Firm | Representing The Noco CompanySearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Vorys, Sater, Seymour & Pease LLP (Cleveland) | Law Firm | Representing The Noco CompanySearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge David A. Ruiz | Judge | Ohio Northern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
NOCO’s dismissal notice invokes Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) with express without-prejudice language, confirming no merits determination was reached. The phrasing — ‘hereby voluntarily dismisses, without prejudice, all claims’ — is unambiguous: neither patent validity nor infringement was adjudicated. For CF Group, there is no res judicata shield. For NOCO, both patents exit the litigation fully intact and immediately redeployable. The absence of any defendant filing prior to dismissal suggests CF Group may not have actively defended in this forum.
US10604024B2 & US9007015B1 — Portable Lithium Jump Starter Technology
US10604024B2 (application 15/691884) and US9007015B1 (application 14/325938) together protect NOCO’s portable lithium jump starter platform. US9007015B1, the earlier filing, is consistent with foundational technology covering high-current lithium battery configurations enabling cold-cranking amp delivery for vehicle starting. US10604024B2 represents a later-generation filing, likely addressing refined power management, safety circuitry, or multi-function charging applicable to the Genius Boost® and NOCO Boost® 1000A–1500A product lines.
In the competitive portable jump starter market, where Chinese manufacturers have aggressively entered with low-cost alternatives, these patents represent NOCO’s primary technical barrier to commoditisation. A granted US patent with an issued B1/B2 designation confirms post-examination enforceability. Any competitor designing or importing a lithium-based portable jump starter delivering comparable amperage output into the US market should treat both patents as live FTO risks, particularly given NOCO’s demonstrated willingness to file and sustain federal litigation.
Should your team run an FTO against US10604024B2 and US9007015B1?
Any R&D team developing or sourcing portable lithium jump starters for the US market — particularly products in the 1000A–1500A output class — should conduct a freedom-to-operate analysis against both patents before committing to a product launch or import programme. NOCO’s enforcement history in this case, combined with the without-prejudice dismissal that leaves both patents fully enforceable, means the litigation risk has not been extinguished. OEMs, private-label importers, and e-commerce sellers sourcing from Chinese manufacturers are particularly exposed.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the independent and dependent claims of US10604024B2 and US9007015B1 against your product specifications, identify claim elements that may read on competing designs, and surface prior art that could support invalidity arguments if licensing negotiations arise. Eureka also enables continuous monitoring of both patent families for continuation filings, reexamination requests, or new assignments that could signal a change in NOCO’s enforcement strategy.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US10604024B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Portable Jump Starter & Consumer Electronics Patent Cases
Explore comparable patent infringement actions involving portable power and consumer electronics patents litigated in Ohio federal courts and related districts.
What this case signals for the portable jump starter IP landscape
NOCO’s enforcement posture and the case’s quiet exit carry concrete implications for the consumer power products sector.
NOCO actively enforces its jump starter patents — take the risk seriously
Filing a multi-patent federal action and sustaining it for nearly four years signals a genuine enforcement commitment, not a one-off filing. Companies selling portable lithium jump starters in the US market — especially those sourcing products from China — should conduct FTO analysis against US10604024B2 and US9007015B1 before launch or import.
Without-prejudice dismissal means the dispute may not be truly resolved
A Rule 41(a)(1) without-prejudice dismissal creates no preclusion. If CF Group resumes US sales or if a private agreement breaks down, NOCO can refile. Any competitor watching this docket should treat the case closure as a pause, not a permanent resolution of NOCO’s enforcement position.
The v CF — key questions answered
NOCO asserted two patents: US10604024B2 (application 15/691884) and US9007015B1 (application 14/325938). Both cover portable lithium jump starter technology and were asserted in connection with NOCO’s Genius Boost® and NOCO Boost® 1000A and 1500A product lines.
The public record does not state a reason. NOCO filed a Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) notice, which does not require court approval or explanation. The without-prejudice designation preserves NOCO’s right to refile. Possible reasons include a private settlement, a licensing agreement, or CF Group ceasing US sales — none of which can be confirmed from public filings.
No. A voluntary dismissal without prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) involves no merits adjudication. Neither US10604024B2 nor US9007015B1 was ruled invalid, and no non-infringement finding was made. Both patents remain fully enforceable as granted.
Yes. Because the dismissal was without prejudice, NOCO retains the right to refile the same claims against CF Group, subject to applicable statutes of limitations under 35 U.S.C. § 286 (six-year damages window) and any preclusion from a second Rule 41 dismissal if one has previously occurred. The current record shows only one prior dismissal.
A nearly four-year lifespan for a case ending in voluntary dismissal without a trial or merits ruling is unusually long. It may suggest extended settlement negotiations, difficulties serving a Chinese defendant, or strategic use of the litigation to deter ongoing infringement. The absence of defendant counsel entries on the docket suggests limited active defence by CF Group in the US proceedings.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.