Noco v. Deltran: Jump Starter Patent Dispute Stayed Pending IPR
Noco, Co. filed suit against Deltona Transformer Corp. and its affiliates in the Middle District of Florida, asserting three patents covering portable lithium-ion jump starter technology against Deltran’s Battery Tender-branded product line. After 401 days of litigation, the court granted Deltran’s motion to stay both cases pending inter partes review proceedings at the PTAB.
Three Jump Starter Patents Stalled by IPR Gateway in Florida
Noco, Co. filed this infringement action on November 13, 2023 in the Middle District of Florida, asserting three US patents — US11584243B2, US11667203B2, and US11447023B2 — against Deltona Transformer Corp., Deltran Operations USA, Inc., and Deltran USA, LLC. The accused products are seven Battery Tender-branded portable jump starters ranging from 600 AMP to 2000 AMP output capacity, all incorporating lithium-ion power bank architecture. The dispute runs in parallel with a related earlier case, Case No. 6:20-cv-50, indicating an ongoing enforcement campaign by Noco in the same court.
On December 18, 2024, the court granted Deltran’s motion to stay both cases pending inter partes review proceedings initiated at the PTAB. The order directed the Clerk to administratively close the cases and required the parties to notify the court once PTAB issues its findings on ADC’s IPRs and determines whether to institute Deltran’s petition. This outcome means no merits ruling on infringement or validity has been issued — the district court litigation is effectively suspended until the PTAB completes its review.
The 401-day duration before the stay reflects the procedural complexity of a multi-patent, multi-defendant action involving a parallel older case. Deltran’s successful motion to stay suggests the PTAB petitions were filed with sufficient strength to persuade the court that IPR institution was reasonably likely, consistent with prevailing judicial practice of deferring to PTAB where claim overlap is substantial. What remains unknown from the public record is the precise scope of the IPR petitions, which patents or claims are challenged, and whether settlement discussions are ongoing.
Filing to Case Stayed in 401 days
401 days litigated before court stayed proceedings — IPR outcomes now control next steps
Case stayed pending IPR: what this means for both parties
A stay pending IPR suspends all district court proceedings
When a court grants a stay pending inter partes review, it halts the district court litigation entirely — no discovery, no claim construction, no trial — until the PTAB resolves the validity challenge. The administrative closure here is procedural housekeeping; the case can be reopened. Courts typically weigh three factors: likelihood of IPR institution, potential simplification of issues, and prejudice to the non-movant. Deltran’s success on this motion suggests those factors favored the defendants.
IPR stay grantedNoco faces validity risk before it can enforce its patents
For Noco, the stay is a setback to near-term enforcement. Its three asserted patents must now survive PTAB scrutiny before the district court will resume. If the PTAB institutes review and cancels claims, Noco’s infringement case narrows or collapses entirely. If the PTAB declines institution or confirms patentability, Noco re-enters the district court with validated patents — potentially a stronger litigation posture. The outcome is binary and entirely outside Noco’s control at this stage.
Enforcement pausedDeltran wins time — and a potential validity shield at the PTAB
By securing the stay, Deltran and its affiliates avoid costly district court litigation while the PTAB evaluates whether Noco’s patent claims should have issued. A successful IPR — full or partial cancellation of asserted claims — would fundamentally alter the infringement analysis. Even a partial cancellation could narrow the claim scope enough to avoid coverage of the Battery Tender product line. Deltran’s petition must still be instituted; that remains the critical near-term event to monitor.
IPR petition pendingJump starter IP battles now route through the PTAB first
This case reflects a broader pattern in consumer power products litigation: district court defendants increasingly use IPR as a litigation lever to pause expensive federal proceedings. For competitors in the portable jump starter and power bank market, the PTAB proceedings will shape which claim scope survives. Products in the 600–2000 AMP range with lithium-ion power bank architecture are directly in scope. Companies in this space should monitor PTAB docket entries for petition institution decisions on all three Noco patents.
PTAB now determinativeFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Noco, Co. | Company | Portable power device manufacturer — holder of US11584243B2, US11667203B2, and US11447023B2Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Deltona Transformer, Corp. | Company | Battery Tender brand owner and affiliated entities — accused of infringing portable jump starter patentsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Deltran Operations USA, Inc. | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Deltran USA, LLC | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | David B. Cochran | Attorney | Counsel for Noco, Co.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Grant Edward Lavelle Schnell | Attorney | Counsel for Noco, Co.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | John C. Evans | Attorney | Counsel for Noco, Co.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Joseph D. Farley | Attorney | Counsel for Noco, Co.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Meredith M. Wilkes | Attorney | Counsel for Noco, Co.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Michelle Hogan | Attorney | Counsel for Noco, Co.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Akerman LLP | Law Firm | Representing Noco, Co.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Jones Day | Law Firm | Representing Noco, Co.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Austen C. Endersby | Attorney | Counsel for Deltona Transformer, Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Jodi-Ann Tillman | Attorney | Counsel for Deltona Transformer, Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Jonathan R. Lagarenne | Attorney | Counsel for Deltona Transformer, Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Lauren Brette Sabol | Attorney | Counsel for Deltona Transformer, Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Megan Anne McNamara | Attorney | Counsel for Deltona Transformer, Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Patricia M. Flanagan | Attorney | Counsel for Deltona Transformer, Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Ryan N. Miller | Attorney | Counsel for Deltona Transformer, Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Selene C. Vazquez | Attorney | Counsel for Deltona Transformer, Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Fox Rothschild LLP | Law Firm | Representing Deltona Transformer, Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Shutts & Bowen LLP | Law Firm | Representing Deltona Transformer, Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | Florida Middle District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court’s order is unambiguous in scope: both related cases are stayed and administratively closed pending PTAB resolution, with no merits determination on infringement or validity. The directive requiring parties to notify the court once PTAB issues findings — including whether it institutes Deltran’s petition — confirms that the district court views IPR disposition as a threshold condition for resuming litigation. This order does not resolve the underlying dispute; it defers it entirely to the PTAB, meaning the strength of Deltran’s invalidity arguments will be tested administratively before any jury sees the case.
US11584243B2, US11667203B2 & US11447023B2 — Portable Jump Starter Technology
The three patents asserted by Noco — US11584243B2, US11667203B2, and US11447023B2 — each derive from application filings in the US16/8xxxxx series, suggesting a family of related inventions built around the same core architecture. The technology domain is portable lithium-ion battery systems that combine high-current vehicle jump-starting capability (600–2000 AMP peak output) with USB power bank functionality. This dual-use architecture — combining automotive and consumer electronics utility in a single compact device — is the commercial and technical core of the dispute.
Noco’s decision to assert three patents from what appears to be a coordinated family signals a layered claim strategy designed to cover the jump starter architecture at multiple levels of specificity. For competitors in the portable power products market, these patents represent a meaningful enforcement risk across a broad product tier — from entry-level 600 AMP units to 2000 AMP power stations with AC inverter output. Any manufacturer or retailer sourcing or developing lithium-ion jump starters in this output range should treat these patents as active enforcement risks until PTAB proceedings conclude.
Should you run an FTO against Noco’s jump starter patent family?
Any company designing, importing, or selling portable lithium-ion jump starters — particularly those combining high-current vehicle starting with USB power bank output — should consider an FTO assessment against US11584243B2, US11667203B2, and US11447023B2. The accused Battery Tender products span a wide commercial range, suggesting the asserted claims are drafted broadly enough to capture mainstream product configurations. The PTAB proceedings may narrow claim scope, but until institution and final written decisions are issued, these patents carry live enforcement risk.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the claim scope of all three Noco patents against your product architecture, flag relevant prior art surfaced in Deltran’s IPR petitions once published, and monitor PTAB docket events in real time. For R&D teams designing next-generation portable power products, Eureka can identify design-around opportunities and track how claim amendments during IPR proceedings affect your freedom to operate — before your product reaches market.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US11584243B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Portable Power & Jump Starter Patent Cases in U.S. District Courts
Cases involving portable lithium-ion jump starter and power bank patents litigated in U.S. district courts, including related Noco enforcement actions in M.D. Florida.
What this case signals for the portable power products IP landscape
Noco’s multi-patent enforcement campaign and Deltran’s IPR counter-strategy reflect a well-worn playbook now reshaping the jump starter and power bank sector.
IPR stays are increasingly the first defense in consumer electronics patent suits
Deltran’s successful stay motion underscores that defendants in product-adjacent patent cases can effectively freeze district court timelines by filing PTAB petitions early. Companies facing infringement claims in this sector should assess IPR eligibility of asserted patents as a priority litigation response, not a secondary option.
Three co-pending patents signal a broad Noco enforcement campaign
Asserting three patents across a seven-product lineup — and running parallel litigation in the same court — suggests Noco has built a coordinated IP enforcement strategy around its jump starter architecture. Competitors launching portable jump starter products in the 600–2000 AMP range should conduct thorough FTO analysis against Noco’s portfolio before commercialisation.
Noco v Deltona — key questions answered
The Middle District of Florida stayed the case on December 18, 2024, after 401 days of litigation. The court granted Deltran’s motion to stay pending inter partes review proceedings at the PTAB, administratively closing both this case and a related 2020 case. No merits ruling on infringement or validity was issued.
Noco asserted three patents: US11584243B2, US11667203B2, and US11447023B2. All relate to portable lithium-ion battery jump starter technology with integrated power bank functionality. The accused products were seven Battery Tender-branded jump starters ranging from 600 AMP to 2000 AMP output capacity.
A stay pending inter partes review suspends all district court proceedings — discovery, claim construction, and trial — until the PTAB resolves the patent validity challenge. The case is administratively closed but not dismissed. Proceedings can resume once the PTAB issues its findings, either confirming or cancelling the asserted claims.
Yes. The December 2024 stay order references a companion case, No. 6:20-cv-50-PGB-LHP, also in the Middle District of Florida involving the same parties. Both cases were stayed simultaneously, suggesting an ongoing multi-year enforcement dispute between Noco and Deltran entities over portable jump starter technology.
The parties must notify the court once the PTAB issues findings on the IPR proceedings. If the PTAB institutes review and cancels claims, Noco’s infringement case narrows or may collapse. If the PTAB declines institution or confirms patentability, the district court litigation is likely to resume. The PTAB institution decision is the critical near-term event.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.