Short Summary
ADC Solutions Auto LLC challenges The Noco Company's jump starter patent (US 11,447,023) on grounds of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petition argues that the USB charging features are predictable combinations of known DC-DC boosting and jump starter technology.
Detailed Summary
ADC Solutions Auto LLC has filed a Petition challenging seven claims of US Patent No. 11,447,023 owned by The Noco Company. The core argument is that these claims are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 because the USB charging functionality, which was added during prosecution, represents an obvious combination of prior art. Specifically, Ground 1 asserts invalidity over Richardson in view of Zhao, while Ground 2 argues for obviousness over Yu in view of Paparrizos. The petitioner contends that a Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art (PHOSITA) would have been motivated to combine existing jump starter components with known DC-DC boosting technology to achieve the claimed USB charging capability.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before local courts. Understanding the court's reasoning in ADC Solutions Auto LLC et al. vs The Noco Company is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.vsStaton Techiya, LLC
Samsung Electronics and Staton Techiya have reached a settlement and jointly moved to terminate the IPR over U.S. Patent 11,750,965. The Board is asked to end the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. § 317(a).
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.vsEmpire Technology Development LLC
Samsung files a reply supporting its IPR petition against Empire Technology’s 8,798,120 patent, arguing that the claim term “idle power consumption of the mobile station” is correctly construed and that claims 25‑29 are obvious over a combination of prior‑art references covering power‑control techniques.
Samsara Inc.vsMotive Technologies, Inc.
The USPTO Board issued a Notice of Decisions on Institution for several IPRs, denying institution in some cases because the petitioner failed to show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing.
Imperative Care, Inc.vsInari Medical, Inc. et al.
The PTAB instituted an inter partes review of Inari Medical’s 11,554,005 patent covering intravascular embolism treatment devices after finding Imperative Care’s likelihood of success on at least one claim. The decision centers on claim constructions of the “filament” element and obviousness over multiple prior‑art references.
iRhythm, Inc.vsWelch Allyn, Inc. et al.
iRhythm Technologies seeks a Director Review to overturn the PTAB Acting Director's discretionary denial of its IPR petitions against Welch Allyn’s wearable cardiac‑monitor patents. The petitioner argues the new "settled expectations" rule was applied retroactively, violates precedent, and harms patent quality.
Dealing with a patent challenge?
Whether it's a Section 3(d) rejection, a post-grant opposition, or a FRAND dispute, Arctic's patent litigation team has handled it. Get a strategy call.
Disclaimer: This page contains an automated summary based on publicly available judicial records. The content is generated for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Always verify details against the original source judgment before relying on this information for any legal purpose. If you believe any information is inaccurate, please contact us.