In January 2021, the NOCO company in the U.S. filed a complaint at the U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC) in Washington DC requesting for a Section 337 investigation on the jump starter industry for patent infringement of NOCO patents.The investigation, ITC-337-TA-1256, involves two NOCO patents of the same patent family, U.S. 9,007,015 ("the '015 patent") and 10,604,024 ("the '024 patent"). NOCO initially sued 110 companies involved in emergency car jump starter products, but later withdrawal the charge against 65 companies before the ITC instituted the investigation in March of 2021. The ITC investigation proceeded with 45 accused companies, including Shenzhen Carku Technology Co., Ltd. and 12 other Chinese companies.
It is reported that before the institution of the 337 investigation, Shenzhen Carku launched an inter partes review (IPR) administrative trial proceeding challenging the validity of NOCO's 015 patent in the US Patent Office Court PTAB in May 2020. In November of 2021, Shenzhen Carku successfully obtained the final written decision from the PTAB that 22 claims of the 015 patent are invalid. NOCO subsequently withdrew its assertion of patent infringement of the 015 patent in the 337 case.
In the ITC Section 337 investigation, Shenzhen Carku, represented by a litigation beam from U.S. law firm of Perkins Coie LLP, was the leading respondent of the 45 respondents in the ITC trial and provided abundant evidence, expert testimonies and other significant materials refuting NOCO's allegations.After exchange of motions and evidence and a 4-day hearing in court, the ITC judge made an Initial determination on April 29, 2022 finding that accused CARKU emergency car jump starter products do not infringe NOCO's 024 patent.In addition, based on analyses and evidence solely presented to the ITC court by Shenzhen Carku, the ITC judge ruled that NOCO failed to establish the technical prong of the domestic industry requirement under Section 337, resulting in a ruling of no violation for multiple other respondents, including defaulting respondents and other respondents found to infringe the remaining 024 patent. Based on the above two independent grounds, the ITC judge ruled that the accused jump starter products by Shenzhen Carku and its U.S. partners do not violate Section 337. Shenzhen Carku has set an example for Chinese and international emergency car jump starter companies to independently develop advanced technology products and lawfully compete in the international marketplace.
For the 337 victory link, please check:
Company Name: Shenzhen Carku Technology Co.,Ltd
Contact Person: Jony Chan
Disclaimer: There is no offer to sell, no solicitation of an offer to buy, and no recommendation of any security or any other product or service in this article. Moreover, nothing contained in this PR should be construed as a recommendation to buy, sell, or hold any investment or security, or to engage in any investment strategy or transaction. It is your responsibility to determine whether any investment, investment strategy, security, or related transaction is appropriate for you based on your investment objectives, financial circumstances, and risk tolerance. Consult your business advisor, attorney, or tax advisor regarding your specific business, legal, or tax situation. For more info, please contact firstname.lastname@example.org.
This content is published on behalf of the above source. Please contact them directly for any concern related to the above.