NOCO Co. v. Nekteck Inc. — Genius Boost® Jump Starter Patent Dismissed With Prejudice
NOCO Co. asserted US9007015B1 — the patent underlying its Genius Boost® portable jump starter — against Nekteck’s 800A/20000mAh jump starter in the Southern District of Ohio. After nearly five years of litigation, the parties jointly dismissed the action with prejudice, each absorbing their own legal costs.
Five-Year Jump Starter Patent Battle Ends at the Courthouse Door
NOCO Co., the Ohio-based maker of the widely marketed Genius Boost® portable jump starters, filed suit against Nekteck Inc. on 13 March 2020 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio. NOCO asserted US9007015B1, a utility patent covering key aspects of its lithium-ion jump starter technology, against Nekteck’s competing 800A/20000mAh model. The action framed the dispute as a direct product-to-product infringement contest in a fast-growing consumer electronics segment.
On 30 December 2024, the parties filed a joint stipulation of voluntary dismissal with prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). The dismissal carries a bilateral costs arrangement: each side will bear its own attorneys’ fees and expenses. A with-prejudice dismissal extinguishes NOCO’s ability to reassert the same claims against Nekteck based on this patent, functioning as a final adjudication on the merits even though no court judgment issued on the substance of the infringement allegations.
The 1,753-day duration — nearly five years from filing to closure — suggests the parties litigated actively before reaching resolution, though the absence of a public settlement agreement leaves the commercial terms, if any, unknown. The mutual cost-bearing arrangement is consistent with a negotiated resolution rather than a capitulation by either side, and may suggest the parties reached a business accommodation. What drove the ultimate decision to dismiss rather than proceed to trial or summary judgment remains undisclosed on the public docket.
Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 1753 days
1,753 days — nearly five years, well above the median district court patent case duration
Voluntarily dismissed with prejudice: what the stipulation means for both parties
Rule 41 with-prejudice dismissal operates as a final judgment
A voluntary dismissal with prejudice under FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) is the parties’ joint agreement to end the litigation permanently. Unlike a without-prejudice dismissal, which preserves the right to refile, a with-prejudice dismissal bars NOCO from reasserting US9007015B1 infringement claims against Nekteck arising from the same accused products. No court ruled on validity or infringement — the case simply ends with finality by agreement.
FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) stipulationNOCO surrenders its right to re-litigate against Nekteck on this patent
By agreeing to a with-prejudice dismissal, NOCO permanently closes this enforcement avenue against Nekteck and the 800 Model. US9007015B1 remains in force — the patent was not invalidated — but NOCO cannot re-file these specific infringement claims against Nekteck. Whether NOCO extracted commercial concessions (a licence, design-around commitment, or market withdrawal) as a condition of dismissal is not apparent from the public record.
Patent survives; enforcement barred vs. NekteckNekteck exits litigation without an invalidity ruling in its favour
Nekteck achieves certainty — no judgment of infringement, no injunction, no damages award. However, because the dismissal is with prejudice rather than a court finding of non-infringement or invalidity, Nekteck does not gain a formal shield should NOCO or a successor assert related patents in the future. The agreed mutual cost-bearing arrangement means neither side pays the other’s legal fees, suggesting balanced negotiating leverage at the close.
No infringement finding; cost neutralUnresolved claim scope leaves market uncertainty for portable jump starter rivals
Because no court adjudicated the merits of US9007015B1, the claim scope relevant to lithium-ion jump starter products remains untested by judicial decision. Other market participants — particularly importers and private-label sellers of competing jump starters — cannot draw on this case for non-infringement precedent. NOCO retains full enforcement rights against third parties, and the five-year litigation signal may deter smaller competitors from copying the Genius Boost® design without conducting an FTO review.
Patent enforceable vs. third partiesFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Noco, Co. | Company | Consumer electronics IP holder — maker of the Genius Boost® jump starter, asserting US9007015B1Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Nekteck, Inc. | Company | Consumer electronics competitor — maker of the Nekteck 800A/20000mAh portable jump starterSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Aaron Mark Williams | Attorney | Counsel for Noco, Co.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | John C. Evans | Attorney | Counsel for Noco, Co.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Meredith Marie Wilkes | Attorney | Counsel for Noco, Co.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Michael J. Garvin | Attorney | Counsel for Noco, Co.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Patrick R. Akers | Attorney | Counsel for Noco, Co.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Rex Wayne Miller , II | Attorney | Counsel for Noco, Co.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Fennemore Craig PC | Law Firm | Representing Noco, Co.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Jones Day | Law Firm | Representing Noco, Co.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Vorys, Sater, Seymour & Pease LLP | Law Firm | Representing Noco, Co.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Anastasia Joy Wade | Attorney | Counsel for Nekteck, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Michael P O’Donnell | Attorney | Counsel for Nekteck, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Brouse Mcdowell LPA | Law Firm | Representing Nekteck, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Frantz Ward, LLP | Law Firm | Representing Nekteck, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | Ohio Southern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The stipulation’s language — ‘voluntarily dismissed, with prejudice, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii)’ — is legally precise: this is a bilateral, consent-based termination carrying permanent res judicata effect as between NOCO and Nekteck on these claims. The explicit carve-out that ‘each party will bear its own attorneys’ fees and costs’ removes any fee-shifting dynamic under 35 U.S.C. § 285. No merits finding was made on infringement, validity, or claim construction, leaving US9007015B1 enforceable against the broader market.
US9007015B1 — Portable Lithium-Ion Jump Starter Technology
US9007015B1, filed under application number US14/325938 in 2014, covers technology central to the NOCO Genius Boost® line of portable jump starters — compact, lithium-ion-powered devices designed to start vehicle engines without a secondary vehicle. The patent’s utility designation reflects specific claims around the electrical architecture enabling safe, controlled current delivery from a small-format battery pack, a technically demanding challenge that differentiates premium products from commodity alternatives in the market.
The strategic importance of this patent lies in the explosive growth of the portable jump starter category, driven by consumer demand for compact roadside assistance tools. NOCO’s Genius Boost® commands significant brand recognition and retail shelf presence; a patent covering core boost circuitry creates a meaningful moat against lower-cost competitors — particularly OEM importers — selling functionally similar products at lower price points. With the patent remaining in force and no invalidity finding on record, it continues to represent a credible litigation threat for market participants in the portable power accessories space.
Should you run an FTO analysis against US9007015B1?
Any company designing, importing, distributing, or retailing portable lithium-ion jump starters — particularly products marketed with high peak amp ratings and compact form factors similar to the Genius Boost® line — should treat US9007015B1 as a priority FTO target. This case demonstrates that NOCO actively monitors the market for competing products and is prepared to sustain multi-year litigation. The absence of a merits ruling means no published claim construction narrows the patent’s scope, leaving the full breadth of issued claims in play.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the claim landscape of US9007015B1, identify the specific independent and dependent claims most likely to capture competing jump starter architectures, and surface prior art that may support a design-around or invalidity argument. For product teams developing next-generation portable power devices, Eureka can flag continuation applications in NOCO’s portfolio that may extend coverage beyond the issued patent — a critical step before committing to a product design or retail launch.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US9007015B1 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Portable Power Electronics Patent Cases in U.S. District Courts
Cases involving portable power electronics patent infringement in U.S. district courts, including comparable consumer battery product disputes in Ohio and neighbouring jurisdictions.
What this case signals for the portable jump starter IP landscape
A five-year infringement action ending by stipulation raises pointed questions about patent enforcement strategy in consumer power electronics.
With-prejudice dismissal is not a clean win for either party
Competitors and counsel should not read this outcome as an invalidity signal for US9007015B1. No court tested the claims. NOCO retains full enforcement rights against other accused infringers, and the patent’s commercial threat in the jump starter market remains intact. Third parties should conduct independent FTO analysis rather than relying on this case’s resolution.
Mutual cost-bearing signals a negotiated exit, not a capitulation
When both parties walk away absorbing their own fees after nearly five years, it typically signals that neither side held an overwhelming legal position — or that a business resolution made continued litigation uneconomical. In consumer electronics, where product cycles are short, a five-year dispute can outlast the commercial relevance of the accused product itself.
Noco v Nekteck — key questions answered
NOCO asserted US9007015B1, filed under application number US14/325938, covering portable lithium-ion jump starter technology associated with NOCO’s Genius Boost® product line. The accused product was Nekteck’s 800A/20000mAh jump starter, referred to as the 800 Model.
No. The case was voluntarily dismissed with prejudice by joint stipulation on 30 December 2024 under FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). No court issued a ruling on infringement, validity, or claim construction. US9007015B1 remains a valid, enforceable patent against third parties.
A with-prejudice dismissal under FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) permanently bars NOCO from re-filing the same patent infringement claims against Nekteck based on the same accused products. It operates as a final adjudication on the merits as between these two parties only, though no substantive ruling on the patent’s merits was issued. The patent remains enforceable against other parties.
The case lasted 1,753 days — approximately four years and ten months from filing on 13 March 2020 to closure on 30 December 2024. This duration exceeds the median lifespan of most district court patent cases and suggests active litigation occurred before the parties reached their joint dismissal, though the specific procedural history and any pre-trial rulings would require review of the full docket.
The joint stipulation of dismissal expressly provides that each party will bear its own attorneys’ fees and costs. No fee-shifting award was made under 35 U.S.C. § 285 (which requires a court finding of an exceptional case) or otherwise. The mutual cost-bearing arrangement is consistent with a negotiated business resolution rather than a one-sided concession.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.