Noco v. Nice Team Enterprise: Default Judgment & Permanent Injunction on Lithium Jump Starter Patent
The Noco Company secured a permanent injunction against Nice Team Enterprise Ltd. and Smart Well International Development Limited over US Patent No. 9,007,015, covering compact lithium jump starter technology. After 1,660 days of proceedings in the Ohio Northern District Court, defendants failed to defend, resulting in a default judgment — permanently barring infringement of Noco’s Genius Boost® platform.
Noco’s Lithium Jump Starter Patent Enforced by Default Against Chinese Defendants
Filed on 28 May 2020 in the Ohio Northern District Court before Judge Solomon Oliver Jr., this infringement action pitted The Noco Company — an Ohio-based manufacturer of portable power products — against Nice Team Enterprise Ltd. and Smart Well International Development Limited over competing compact lithium jump starter products. The accused Imazing models (IM21, IM23, IM25, IM27, IM29, and IM31) were alleged to infringe US Patent No. 9,007,015B1, which protects the core technology underlying Noco’s Genius Boost® lithium jump starter line.
The case concluded on 13 December 2024 via default judgment — the court’s mechanism for resolving claims when a defendant fails to appear or respond. Judge Oliver granted Noco’s Motion for Default Judgment and Permanent Injunction, permanently enjoining the defendants from infringing the ‘015 Patent in any manner. The judgment was entered against both Nice Well Enterprise Limited and Smart Well International Development Limited, encompassing all forms of infringing conduct rather than merely the specific models named in the complaint.
The 1,660-day duration is notable for a default proceeding and likely reflects the practical difficulties of serving foreign defendants and establishing jurisdictional footing against overseas entities. The public record does not reveal whether defendants were aware of the proceedings and chose not to engage, or whether service was the primary obstacle. What is clear is that the permanent injunction gives Noco strong, court-backed enforcement tools — including potential contempt proceedings — against any resumed infringing activity in the US market.
Filing to Default Judgment in 1660 days
1,660 days — notably long for a default judgment case, suggesting protracted efforts to serve or engage overseas defendants
Default judgment entered: what the permanent injunction means for both parties
Default judgment: the court rules without defendant participation
A default judgment is entered when a defendant fails to plead or otherwise defend against a complaint. The court accepts the plaintiff’s well-pleaded allegations as true and may grant the requested relief. Here, Judge Oliver granted both a default judgment on liability and a permanent injunction — the most severe remedy available in patent infringement — without any merits contest from the defendants. The injunction is immediately enforceable against both named defendant entities.
Federal Rule 55 default procedureNoco obtains maximum relief: permanent market exclusion of infringing rivals
Noco secured the strongest possible civil remedy: a permanent injunction barring defendants from infringing US9007015 ‘in any manner.’ This broad framing extends beyond the six named Imazing models to all infringing conduct, giving Noco a durable enforcement position. The judgment also formally confirms Noco’s patent rights on the record. Should defendants resume US sales — directly or through alternative channels — Noco can pursue contempt proceedings without filing a new lawsuit.
Permanent injunction — broad scopeDefendants barred from US market with no merits record to appeal
Nice Team Enterprise Ltd. and Smart Well International Development Limited are now subject to a permanent injunction enforceable in US federal courts. Because the judgment was entered by default, defendants forfeited any opportunity to contest patent validity, claim scope, or non-infringement. While a defaulting party may move to set aside the judgment under Rule 60(b), the threshold is high and typically requires showing excusable neglect or a meritorious defence. The absence of defendant counsel in the record suggests limited appetite or capacity for US litigation.
No validity challenge on recordEnforcement risk rises for all compact lithium jump starter importers
This judgment signals that Noco is actively monitoring and litigating against competing lithium jump starter products in the US. The ‘015 Patent now carries a court-endorsed enforcement record. Other importers or distributors of similar compact lithium jump starter technology — particularly those sourcing from Chinese manufacturers — should treat this as a credible enforcement signal. US Customs & Border Protection exclusion orders and ITC actions are logical next enforcement steps if infringing products continue to enter the market through alternative entities.
Heightened import risk for competitorsFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Noco, Co. | Company | Ohio-based portable power product manufacturer — holder of US9007015B1Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Nice Team Enterprise, Ltd. | Company | Chinese consumer electronics enterprises selling competing compact lithium jump startersSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Aaron M. Williams | Attorney | Counsel for Noco, Co.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Anne E. Hurst | Attorney | Counsel for Noco, Co.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | John Charles Evans | Attorney | Counsel for Noco, Co.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Meredith M. 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 W. Miller , II | Attorney | Counsel for Noco, Co.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Fennemore Craig – Devner | Law Firm | Representing Noco, Co.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Jones Day (Cleveland) | Law Firm | Representing Noco, Co.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Vorys, Sater, Seymour & Pease LLP (Cleveland) | Law Firm | Representing Noco, Co.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Vorys, Sater, Seymour & Pease – Columbus | Law Firm | Representing Noco, Co.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Solomon Oliver Jr | Judge | Ohio Northern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court’s verdict language — enjoining defendants ‘from infringing, in any manner, the ‘015 Patent’ — is deliberately broad. By not limiting the injunction to named product models, the court gave Noco a forward-looking enforcement instrument applicable to any future infringing conduct by the defendant entities. The simultaneous issuance of a default judgment on liability and a permanent injunction (typically reserved for cases establishing irreparable harm) suggests the court accepted Noco’s unrebutted submissions on both liability and equitable factors. No damages figure appears in the available record, which is consistent with some default proceedings where injunctive relief alone is sought or a separate damages motion is pending.
US9007015B1 — Compact Lithium Jump Starter Technology
US Patent No. 9,007,015 (application number US14/325938) protects innovations in compact lithium jump starter technology — the core enabling IP behind Noco’s Genius Boost® product line. The patent covers the design and functional architecture allowing a small lithium-ion battery pack to deliver the high peak current bursts required to jump-start automotive engines. This category represents a significant departure from traditional lead-acid battery boosters, enabling pocket-sized devices with substantially greater energy density and safety profiles.
The ‘015 Patent occupies a strategically important position in the portable automotive power market, a segment that expanded rapidly as lithium-ion costs fell and consumer demand for compact, multi-function jump starters grew. Noco’s willingness to litigate against multiple overseas defendants signals that the company views this patent as a meaningful competitive moat. For competitors developing or importing compact lithium jump starters into the US, the patent’s claim scope — now backed by an unopposed court record — represents a material freedom-to-operate consideration that cannot be dismissed as a paper risk.
Should you run an FTO analysis against US9007015B1?
Any company designing, importing, distributing, or retailing compact lithium jump starters in the US market should treat US9007015 as a priority FTO target. The patent is now backed by a permanent injunction — meaning Noco has demonstrated both the will and the legal mechanism to enforce it. Product teams developing next-generation portable jump starters, particularly those drawing on lithium-ion cell architectures with high-burst-current output circuits, face the greatest exposure. Sourcing teams procuring from Chinese OEMs selling similar devices should verify whether their suppliers are among the enjoined entities or their affiliates.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the claim landscape of US9007015B1 against your product specifications, flag overlapping claims, and surface design-around prior art in minutes. Eureka’s litigation monitoring layer also tracks whether Noco has filed further enforcement actions against related defendants — giving procurement and legal teams early warning before products reach distribution. For a patent with an active injunction and no validity challenge on record, proactive FTO analysis is the lowest-cost risk mitigation available.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US9007015B1 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Patent Disputes in Portable Power and Lithium Battery Technology
Explore comparable infringement actions involving lithium battery jump starters and portable power patents litigated in the Ohio Northern District and related US federal courts.
What this case signals for the portable power and jump starter IP landscape
Noco’s successful default judgment strategy demonstrates how US patent holders can neutralise foreign competitors through domestic court action, even without in-person defendant participation.
Default judgments against foreign defendants are a viable enforcement tool
Noco’s approach — filing in its home district, pursuing default when overseas defendants failed to appear — produced a permanent injunction without any merits fight. For US patent holders competing against Chinese manufacturers, this playbook is increasingly relevant. The key variable is service of process and demonstrating the court’s jurisdiction over the defendants.
Broad injunction language creates durable enforcement leverage
The injunction bars infringement ‘in any manner’ — not merely the specific Imazing models named in the complaint. This drafting choice gives Noco scope to pursue contempt against defendants who resurface under different product names or corporate entities, raising the cost of evasion significantly.
Noco v Nice — key questions answered
The Ohio Northern District Court entered a default judgment and permanent injunction in favour of The Noco Company on 13 December 2024. Defendants Nice Well Enterprise Limited and Smart Well International Development Limited were permanently enjoined from infringing US Patent No. 9,007,015 in any manner. No merits adjudication occurred; the judgment resulted from defendants’ failure to appear or defend.
US9007015B1 covers compact lithium-ion jump starter technology underlying Noco’s Genius Boost® product line. The patent protects innovations enabling small lithium battery packs to deliver the high peak current required for automotive engine starting — a key differentiator from traditional lead-acid battery boosters. The accused products were the Imazing IM21, IM23, IM25, IM27, IM29, and IM31 jump starter models.
The 1,660-day duration — nearly four and a half years — is unusually long for a default proceeding and likely reflects challenges inherent in litigating against overseas defendants. These typically include difficulties in effecting valid international service of process, establishing personal jurisdiction, and satisfying the court’s procedural requirements before default can be entered. The public record does not specify the precise cause of delay.
A defaulting defendant may seek to vacate a default judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), but the standard is demanding. The moving party must typically demonstrate good cause for the default, a meritorious defence, and absence of prejudice to the plaintiff. Given that neither defendant entity appeared to be represented by US counsel, mounting a successful Rule 60(b) motion would require significant procedural and substantive effort.
The permanent injunction covers infringement ‘in any manner’ by the named defendants and those in active concert with them, under FRCP 65(d). US importers and retailers carrying compact lithium jump starter products from Chinese OEMs should conduct FTO analysis against US9007015B1 to assess claim overlap. The injunction also signals Noco’s enforcement posture — making pre-market clearance analysis an essential step for any competitor product launch in the US portable automotive power segment.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.