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
FRESH PRODUCTS, LLCvsSANASTAR INC.
Fresh Products, LLC has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 15 claims of Sanastar’s U.S. Patent 10,294,649 covering a urinal anti‑splash device, arguing obviousness over Fushimi, Brown ’098, Brown ’394, Valadez and Wise references.
Orca Security Ltd.vsWiz, Inc.
Orca Security and Wiz have jointly filed a request with the PTAB to keep their settlement agreement confidential, citing statutory protections. The request seeks to separate the settlement from the IPR file and limit disclosure to the parties and the Board.
Fortinet, Inc.vsCroga Innovations Ltd.
Fortinet has filed a petition for inter partes review of Croga Innovations' U.S. Patent 10,601,780, asserting that all 20 claims are obvious over prior‑art firewalls and virtualization systems. The petition argues that discretionary denial is inappropriate and seeks institution of the IPR.
Apple Inc.vsLS Cable & System Ltd. et al.
Apple has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all claims of LS Cable’s 8,013,568 patent covering contactless battery charging. The petition relies on multiple obviousness grounds using prior‑art references such as Baarman‑878, NCP1800, Horowitz, Veselic and Baarman‑267.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.vsCerence Operating Company
Samsung has filed a request for Director Review, arguing that the PTAB director improperly denied institution of its IPR against Cerence’s in‑car voice‑assistant patent. The petition cites misuse of Fintiv factors, unsupported settled‑expectations claims, and a failure to meet §314(c) notice requirements.
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.