NOCO Co. v. Hulkman LLC: Jump Starter Patent Dispute Ends in Voluntary Dismissal

Introduction

When NOCO Company filed suit against Hulkman LLC and Shenzhen Konghui Trading Co., Ltd. in February 2023, the portable jump starter market braced for a significant patent infringement showdown. Nearly two years later, the case closed not with a verdict or damages award, but with a stipulated voluntary dismissal—each party bearing its own costs. Filed in the Northern District of California before Chief Judge William Alsup, NOCO Co. v. Hulkman LLC (Case No. 3:23-cv-00642) involved five utility patents and four competing jump starter products, signaling how fiercely contested intellectual property has become in the consumer automotive electronics space.

For patent attorneys, IP professionals, and R&D teams operating in portable power technology, this case offers meaningful strategic lessons: about venue selection, multi-patent assertion strategies, and the conditions under which even well-resourced plaintiffs elect to exit litigation entirely. The outcome—while procedurally unremarkable—carries substantive implications for how jump starter and portable power device patents are prosecuted, asserted, and defended.

Case Overview

The Parties

The Patents at Issue

NOCO asserted five U.S. utility patents spanning portable jump starter architecture and representing a layered IP strategy:

• • US9770992B2 — foundational jump starter circuitry
• • US10328808B2 — battery booster technology
• • US10981452B2 — charging and power management
• • US11254213B2 — advanced battery jump starting systems
• • US11447023B2 — portable power device improvements

The Accused Products

The complaint targeted four Hulkman Alpha series jump starters: the Alpha 65, Alpha 85, Alpha 85s, and Alpha 100—premium lithium jump starters that compete directly with NOCO BOOST® products on major e-commerce platforms including Amazon.

Legal Representation

Jones Day represented NOCO, with attorneys Anna E. Raimer, David B. Cochran, James McDonell, John C. Evans, and Meredith Marie Wilkes. Perkins Coie LLP defended Hulkman and Shenzhen Konghui, with Eric Maas, John Dudley Esterhay, and Kevin John Patariu leading the defense team.

Litigation Timeline & Procedural History

NOCO filed suit on February 14, 2023, selecting the Northern District of California. The case was assigned to Chief Judge William Alsup. The matter proceeded as a first-instance district court action and remained open for 723 days—approximately 24 months—before closing on February 6, 2025.

This duration suggests the litigation progressed well beyond early motion practice, likely encompassing claim construction proceedings, fact discovery, and potentially expert discovery phases before the parties reached their resolution. A 723-day timeline is consistent with cases that settle or are dismissed after significant litigation investment, but before trial.

The Verdict & Legal Analysis

Outcome

The case terminated via stipulated voluntary dismissal with prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(ii). Critically, the stipulation specified that each party bears its own attorneys’ fees, expenses, and costs—meaning no fee-shifting occurred under 35 U.S.C. § 285 (exceptional case doctrine) or Rule 54.

No damages were awarded. No injunctive relief was entered. No public finding of validity or invalidity of any asserted patent was issued by the court.

Verdict Cause Analysis

The case was an infringement action—NOCO alleged that Hulkman’s Alpha series products directly infringed one or more claims across all five asserted patents. While specific claim construction rulings and motion outcomes are not disclosed in the available case record, several strategic observations emerge from the procedural posture:

Dismissal with prejudice forecloses NOCO from re-filing identical claims against Hulkman on the same patents for the same accused products. This is a meaningful concession by the plaintiff, suggesting either: (1) a confidential licensing or commercial agreement was reached, (2) claim construction outcomes during litigation narrowed NOCO’s infringement theories materially, or (3) NOCO conducted a risk-reward reassessment as trial approached.

The mutual cost-bearing provision is particularly notable. In cases where one party has achieved significant litigation leverage—through successful claim construction, partial summary judgment, or invalidity rulings—fee allocation typically reflects that leverage in settlement terms. A clean 50/50 cost split suggests a negotiated resolution on relatively balanced terms, or an agreement that the parties simply wished to exit the litigation efficiently.

Legal Significance

This case does not produce a published claim construction order or validity ruling—meaning it carries limited direct precedential value in the traditional sense. However, its significance lies in what it reveals about multi-patent portfolio assertion strategies in the portable power device sector. NOCO’s simultaneous assertion of five patents across overlapping technology generations reflects a “patent thicket” enforcement approach designed to maximize settlement pressure and complicate design-around efforts.

The involvement of Judge Alsup—known for his technical rigor and skepticism of overbroad patent claims—may have influenced how aggressively each side pursued litigation versus resolution.