This is a big patent case, but the product-business lesson is very concrete. NOCO had a real product area and a patent family around battery jump starters. The problem was the legal fit between the broad claims being asserted, the earlier priority document and what NOCO knew about the best way to make the invention work.
The Full Court upheld the core result against NOCO. Some claims were not entitled to the earlier priority date because the earlier PCT document did not disclose the invention at the breadth later claimed. The Court also accepted Brown and Watson's best-method point. By the time the later divisional applications were filed, NOCO knew about improvements to core features such as battery size and switching arrangements, but the specifications did not disclose the best method known to it for performing the invention.
For founders, manufacturers and product importers, this is a reminder that IP strategy is not just filing something early. Patent claims need to track what the original disclosure actually supports. If the business later learns a better way to make a core feature work, the patent filing strategy has to deal with that. On the other side, a business accused of infringement should check priority, obviousness, best method and the gap between the patent wording and the real product.