Pilot Inc. v. NOCO Company: Three-Patent Jump Starter Dispute Ends After 801 Days
Pilot Incorporated filed suit in Arizona federal court accusing NOCO Company of infringing three lithium jump starter patents across its GB70 Boost HD 2000A and Genius Boost product lines. After 801 days of litigation, the parties jointly stipulated to dismiss all claims with prejudice — each side absorbing its own legal costs.
Three-Patent Lithium Jump Starter War Ends in Mutual Walkaway
On 14 March 2022, Pilot Incorporated filed suit against NOCO Company Incorporated in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona before Judge Susan R. Bolton. Pilot alleged infringement of three patents — US11235673B2, US11104236B2, and US11124077B2 — each directed to lithium jump starter technology. The accused products were NOCO’s commercially prominent GB70 Boost HD 2000A UltraSafe Lithium Jump Starter and its Genius Boost lithium jump starter line, both widely sold in the automotive accessories market.
The case concluded on 23 May 2024 when Judge Bolton granted the parties’ Stipulation for Dismissal (Doc. 55). The action was dismissed in its entirety with prejudice, and the court ordered that each party bear its own costs and attorneys’ fees. A dismissal with prejudice is a final adjudication on the merits: Pilot cannot re-file these same patent claims against NOCO, and NOCO faces no ongoing liability exposure from this action. The mutual cost-bearing arrangement is consistent with a negotiated resolution rather than a capitulation by either side.
At 801 days, the case ran longer than typical district court patent matters resolved by stipulated dismissal, suggesting substantial pre-settlement litigation activity — potentially including claim construction briefing, fact discovery, or parallel IPR proceedings. The public record does not disclose whether a confidential licence, cross-licence, or product design change accompanied the stipulation. The combination of with-prejudice dismissal and no cost-shifting strongly suggests the parties reached a commercial resolution on undisclosed terms rather than litigating to judgment.
Filing to Dismissed with Prejudice in 801 days
801 days — above the ~650-day median for multi-patent infringement cases in D. Ariz.
Dismissed with prejudice by stipulation: what the ruling means for both parties
Stipulated dismissal with prejudice bars all future re-filing
A dismissal with prejudice under Rule 41 operates as a final judgment on the merits. Unlike a without-prejudice dismissal, Pilot cannot refile these three patent infringement claims against NOCO in any federal court. The stipulated form means both parties agreed — the court did not adjudicate the merits. This is the standard procedural vehicle used to close a case after a private settlement has been reached.
Rule 41 — final, no re-filingPilot’s patents survive — but litigation rights against NOCO are exhausted
A with-prejudice dismissal does not invalidate Pilot’s patents. US11235673B2, US11104236B2, and US11124077B2 remain in force and can be asserted against other parties. However, Pilot has permanently relinquished its ability to sue NOCO on these specific claims. If the dismissal accompanied a licence, Pilot may have secured ongoing royalty income. The public record is silent on commercial terms.
Patents intact — NOCO action closedNOCO escapes judgment — but obtains no invalidity ruling
NOCO secured closure of all infringement claims without a damages award or injunction. Critically, however, no court ruled on patent validity or non-infringement. NOCO cannot rely on this dismissal as a defence in any future infringement suit on these same patents by a different holder or if Pilot’s patents are assigned. NOCO’s GB70 and Genius Boost product lines remain on the market but carry residual IP exposure from the live patent portfolio.
No damages — no invalidity shieldUnresolved claim scope clouds the portable power accessories market
Because the case resolved without a merits ruling, the scope and validity of Pilot’s three lithium jump starter patents remain legally untested. Competitors operating in the portable power and automotive jump starter space — particularly those with UltraSafe or lithium-based jump starter products — face unresolved FTO risk. The 801-day litigation duration and with-prejudice outcome suggest these patents were commercially significant enough to warrant serious negotiation.
Claim scope unresolved — sector FTO riskFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Pilot Incorporated | Individual | Lithium jump starter IP licensor — holder of US11235673B2, US11104236B2, US11124077B2Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | NOCO Company Incorporated | Company | NOCO Company Inc. — manufacturer of GB70 Boost HD and Genius Boost lithium jump startersSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Aaron P Bradford | Attorney | Counsel for Pilot IncorporatedSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Alex W. Ruge | Attorney | Counsel for Pilot IncorporatedSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Sheridan Ross PC | Law Firm | Representing Pilot IncorporatedSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | David B Cochran | Attorney | Counsel for NOCO Company IncorporatedSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | David Gary Barker | Attorney | Counsel for NOCO Company IncorporatedSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Jacob Christensen Jones | Attorney | Counsel for NOCO Company IncorporatedSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Meredith Wilkes | Attorney | Counsel for NOCO Company IncorporatedSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Jones Day (Cleveland, OH) | Law Firm | Representing NOCO Company IncorporatedSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Snell & Wilmer LLP (Phoenix, AZ) | Law Firm | Representing NOCO Company IncorporatedSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Susan R. Bolton | Judge | Arizona District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court’s order adopts the parties’ stipulation verbatim, granting dismissal in its entirety with prejudice. The phrase ‘in its entirety’ confirms that all three patent claims — US11235673B2, US11104236B2, and US11124077B2 — are extinguished against NOCO simultaneously. The court made no finding on infringement, validity, or claim scope. The mutual cost-bearing provision is consistent with a negotiated compromise rather than a one-sided capitulation, and the absence of any fee-shifting language removes any suggestion that either party was found to have litigated in bad faith.
US11235673B2, US11104236B2 & US11124077B2 — Lithium Jump Starter Technology
The three asserted patents — US11235673B2, US11104236B2, and US11124077B2 — all trace to application filings in the US17/236xxx series, indicating a common or closely related priority family filed around April 2021. Each patent covers aspects of portable lithium-ion jump starter technology, likely encompassing protection circuitry, boost power delivery, and UltraSafe mechanisms that prevent reverse polarity or overcurrent events. The tight clustering of application numbers suggests Pilot pursued a deliberate continuation or divisional strategy to create overlapping claim coverage across the product architecture.
For the portable power accessories sector — which has seen explosive growth driven by EV infrastructure awareness and consumer demand for roadside safety products — a three-patent family covering UltraSafe lithium jump starters represents meaningful IP fortification. NOCO’s GB70 Boost HD 2000A and Genius Boost are premium-tier products competing in a market that includes Stanley, NEXPOW, and Antigravity. The fact that Pilot was willing to assert all three patents simultaneously signals confidence in coverage breadth. Companies developing competing lithium jump starter products should treat this family as a primary FTO checkpoint.
Should your team run an FTO against US11235673B2, US11104236B2 & US11124077B2?
Any company designing, importing, or distributing portable lithium jump starters — particularly those featuring protection circuitry, boost modes, or UltraSafe-type safety architecture — faces material risk from Pilot’s patent family. This case confirms Pilot actively enforces these patents against commercial products. Product and IP teams at OEMs, automotive accessory brands, and private-label importers should treat this family as requiring current FTO clearance before product launch or expansion.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent allows you to map your jump starter product’s feature set against the claim scope of US11235673B2, US11104236B2, and US11124077B2 in minutes. Eureka identifies literal and doctrine-of-equivalents risk zones, flags related continuations in Pilot’s prosecution history, and benchmarks your design against prior art already on record — giving your R&D and legal teams a defensible clearance position before litigation exposure materialises.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US11235673B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Lithium Jump Starter & Portable Power Patent Cases
Explore related patent infringement actions in the portable power and automotive accessories space litigated in Arizona and peer district courts.
What this case signals for the lithium jump starter IP landscape
Three commercially live patents, a market-leading accused product, and an 801-day fight: the resolution pattern here carries clear signals for the portable power sector.
With-prejudice stipulations often signal undisclosed licences
When a plaintiff voluntarily dismisses with prejudice and absorbs its own costs after 800+ days of litigation, the most commercially rational explanation is a private licence or settlement payment. Competitors in the lithium jump starter space should monitor Pilot’s patent portfolio for downstream licensing activity against other market participants.
No invalidity ruling leaves Pilot’s patents fully armed for future enforcement
US11235673B2, US11104236B2, and US11124077B2 emerged from this litigation with no adverse validity finding. Any company manufacturing or importing lithium jump starters with UltraSafe or comparable protection circuitry should conduct a current FTO analysis — these patents are demonstrably asserted and still enforceable.
Incorporated v NOCO — key questions answered
Pilot Incorporated sued NOCO Company in the District of Arizona alleging infringement of three lithium jump starter patents: US11235673B2, US11104236B2, and US11124077B2. The case was dismissed with prejudice by stipulation of both parties on 23 May 2024, after 801 days. Each side bore its own costs and attorneys’ fees. No court ruling was issued on infringement or patent validity.
The accused products were NOCO’s GB70 Boost HD 2000A UltraSafe Lithium Jump Starter and its Genius Boost lithium jump starter line. These are commercially sold portable lithium-ion jump starters used to start vehicles. The complaint alleged these products infringed three Pilot patents covering lithium jump starter technology, including protection and boost circuitry.
A dismissal with prejudice means the case is permanently closed and Pilot cannot refile these infringement claims against NOCO for the same patents in any federal court. It operates as a final adjudication on the merits, even though no court ruled on validity or infringement. NOCO obtains no invalidity finding, and Pilot’s three patents remain enforceable against other parties.
Yes. The stipulated dismissal with prejudice contains no invalidity finding. All three patents — US11235673B2, US11104236B2, and US11124077B2 — remain in force as granted. The case resolved without any court ruling on claim scope, validity, or infringement, meaning the patents carry full presumption of validity and can be asserted against other parties in the portable power and jump starter market.
The public record shows a stipulated dismissal with prejudice filed as Doc. 55, which the court granted on 23 May 2024. The order is silent on any financial terms, licences, or product design changes. The combination of a with-prejudice dismissal and mutual cost-bearing is commercially consistent with a private settlement, but no terms have been disclosed. The docket contains no publicly available licence or consent agreement.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.