Pilot, Inc. v. Noco Co. — Federal Circuit Appeal Voluntarily Dismissed
Pilot, Inc. appealed a patentability ruling against Noco Co. at the Federal Circuit over US10046653B2, a patent covering automobile charger technology. After 531 days of proceedings, the parties jointly agreed to dismiss the appeal under Fed. R. App. P. 42(b), with each side absorbing its own costs — leaving the underlying validity question unresolved on the merits.
Automobile charger patent appeal ends without Federal Circuit merits ruling
Pilot, Inc. initiated this Federal Circuit appeal in December 2022, case No. 23-1234, challenging a lower-level patentability determination concerning US10046653B2 — a patent directed at automobile charger technology and assigned application number US15/355409. The opposing party, Noco Co., a competitor in the vehicle battery charging space, was represented by Jones Day, while Pilot relied on Sheridan Ross PC. The underlying cause of action was an invalidity or cancellation action, making this a patent validity dispute rather than a straightforward infringement claim.
The appeal closed on 23 May 2024 following a joint agreement by both parties to dismiss under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 42(b). The Federal Circuit’s order reflects a consensual, procedural exit: no substantive ruling on patentability was issued, and the court directed each side to bear its own costs. Rule 42(b) dismissals at the appellate level are entirely voluntary and do not constitute a judgment on the merits, meaning the underlying validity questions technically remain unresolved by this court.
A 531-day duration before a consensual dismissal is consistent with appeals that reach a late-stage settlement or strategic realignment — possibly following developments in parallel proceedings, a licensing arrangement, or a shift in commercial priorities. The public record is silent on what drove the withdrawal. Notably, the mutual cost-bearing arrangement suggests a negotiated resolution rather than one side conceding defeat, though the precise terms of any underlying agreement remain unknown from publicly available filings.
Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 531 days
531 days from filing to closure — typical Federal Circuit appeal resolves in 12–24 months
Appeal voluntarily dismissed: what the Rule 42(b) order means for both parties
Rule 42(b) dismissal: a procedural exit, not a verdict
Fed. R. App. P. 42(b) allows parties to jointly stipulate to dismiss an appeal at any time. The Federal Circuit issues no ruling on the merits, no precedent is set, and neither party is adjudged right or wrong on the patentability question. The lower-level decision that prompted the appeal is not formally affirmed or reversed — it simply stands without appellate endorsement or rejection.
No merits adjudicationPublic record is silent on prejudice status
A voluntary dismissal under Rule 42(b) does not automatically specify with-prejudice or without-prejudice status in the same manner as district court Rule 41 dismissals. The order here states only that the appeal is dismissed with each side bearing its own costs. Whether either party retains rights to re-raise these validity arguments in future proceedings — such as a new IPR, district court action, or ITC proceeding — cannot be determined from the public record alone.
Prejudice status unclearPilot withdraws appeal — patent status left in prior posture
As appellant, Pilot, Inc. chose to abandon its challenge at the Federal Circuit. The patent US10046653B2 therefore remains in whatever validity posture was established by the lower proceeding — without appellate vindication of Pilot’s position. The mutual cost arrangement may suggest a negotiated outcome, but Pilot does not walk away with a Federal Circuit ruling in its favour.
Appeal withdrawn by patenteeUncertainty persists in automobile charger patent landscape
Without a Federal Circuit ruling on the merits, competitors and market participants in the automobile charger space cannot rely on this appeal as definitive guidance on the validity of US10046653B2. The patent’s enforceability posture is shaped solely by the prior proceeding. Companies developing or commercialising vehicle battery charging products should monitor any future filings involving this patent, as the underlying dispute may resurface in a different forum.
Validity question unresolvedFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Pilot, Inc. | Company | Vehicle charging technology company — holder of US10046653B2Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Noco, Co. | Company | Noco Co. — competitor in the automobile and vehicle battery charger marketSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Briana Diane Long | Attorney | Counsel for Pilot, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Jason H. Vick | Attorney | Counsel for Pilot, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Robert R. Brunelli | Attorney | Counsel for Pilot, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Sheridan Ross PC | Law Firm | Representing Pilot, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | David B. Cochran | Attorney | Counsel for Noco, Co.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Gregory A. Castanias | Attorney | Counsel for Noco, Co.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Joseph M. Sauer | Attorney | Counsel for Noco, Co.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Robert Breetz | Attorney | Counsel for Noco, Co.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Stephen Bradley | Attorney | Counsel for Noco, Co.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Jones Day | Law Firm | Representing Noco, Co.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | Court of Appeals for the Federal CircuitSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The Federal Circuit’s order reflects a purely consensual, administrative close: both parties agreed to dismiss under Fed. R. App. P. 42(b), and the court imposed no cost award on either side. The phrasing ‘having so agreed’ confirms this was a joint stipulation rather than a court-initiated termination. No standard of review was applied, no claim construction was reviewed, and no patentability holding was issued. The underlying determination from the lower proceeding therefore stands without Federal Circuit endorsement, and the order creates no precedential authority on the validity of US10046653B2.
US10046653B2 — Automobile charger technology patent
US10046653B2, filed under application number US15/355409, protects technology in the automobile charger domain — covering vehicle battery charging systems and associated apparatus. The patent is held by Pilot, Inc. and was the subject of an invalidity or cancellation action at the proceeding below, which Pilot subsequently appealed to the Federal Circuit. The application date provides context for its priority position relative to competing filings in the rapidly evolving EV and vehicle power management space.
Automobile charger technology has become increasingly contested as the automotive electrification market expands. A patent covering core charger functionality — whether for traditional 12V systems or emerging EV-adjacent applications — can represent a meaningful competitive barrier. The fact that Noco Co., a recognised player in vehicle battery charging, engaged Jones Day for Federal Circuit-level defence suggests the patent’s scope was commercially significant enough to warrant substantial litigation investment. The unresolved validity question means this patent remains a live risk factor for competitors.
Should you run an FTO analysis against US10046653B2?
Any company designing, manufacturing, or commercialising automobile chargers — including portable jump starters, smart battery maintainers, or EV charging accessories — should assess exposure to US10046653B2. Because the Federal Circuit issued no merits ruling, the patent has not been judicially invalidated at the appellate level. Its claim scope, as shaped by the lower proceeding, may still cover competing products in the vehicle battery charging category. R&D teams launching new charger products should not assume this dispute resolved the patent’s enforceability.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent enables IP and product teams to map claim language from US10046653B2 against their own automobile charger designs, identify prior art that was or was not raised in the invalidity proceedings, and flag any continuation or divisional applications in the same family. Running a targeted FTO now — before a product launch — is materially less costly than responding to an enforcement action from a patent holder whose appellate position remains untested.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US10046653B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Federal Circuit appeals in automobile charger and vehicle power IP
Explore comparable Federal Circuit patentability appeals involving automobile charger and vehicle power technology — including voluntary dismissals, PTAB reviews, and invalidity challenges.
What this case signals for the automobile charger IP landscape
A consensual Federal Circuit exit in a patentability dispute rarely signals the end of the commercial conflict — it often signals a pivot.
Rule 42(b) dismissals are rarely the end of the underlying dispute
When parties voluntarily dismiss a Federal Circuit appeal after 531 days, it typically signals a negotiated resolution, licensing event, or parallel proceeding that made the appeal redundant. Competitors in the automobile charger space should treat this as a strategic pause, not a final resolution. Monitor both parties for new filings at the PTAB or district court level.
No Federal Circuit precedent created — validity remains a live question
Because no merits ruling was issued, US10046653B2 has not received appellate validation or invalidation. Any company relying on this appeal as clearing the path for a competing automobile charger product should exercise caution — the patent’s validity has not been confirmed as settled by a higher court.
Pilot v Noco — key questions answered
The Federal Circuit dismissed the appeal under Fed. R. App. P. 42(b) by joint agreement of the parties. This is a procedural, consensual exit — no merits ruling was issued on the patentability of US10046653B2. The patent’s validity status is determined solely by the lower proceeding, not by any Federal Circuit holding.
The voluntary dismissal of the Federal Circuit appeal means no appellate court has ruled on the patent’s validity. The patent was neither confirmed nor invalidated at the appellate level. Its enforceability depends on the outcome of the underlying lower proceeding, which was not reviewed on the merits by the Federal Circuit in this case.
US10046653B2 (application no. US15/355409), held by Pilot, Inc., covers automobile charger technology — relating to vehicle battery charging systems and apparatus. The patent was the subject of an invalidity or cancellation action brought at the lower level before Pilot appealed to the Federal Circuit.
The public record does not disclose the reason for the joint dismissal. A Rule 42(b) voluntary dismissal after 531 days of appellate proceedings is consistent with a negotiated settlement, licensing arrangement, or strategic decision to resolve the dispute outside the court system. The mutual cost-bearing order suggests agreement rather than unilateral concession.
Pilot, Inc. was represented by Sheridan Ross PC, with attorneys Briana Diane Long, Jason H. Vick, and Robert R. Brunelli on record. Noco Co. was represented by Jones Day, with attorneys David B. Cochran, Gregory A. Castanias, Joseph M. Sauer, Robert Breetz, and Stephen Bradley appearing for the defence.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.