After nearly three years of litigation, a judge ruled against claims that Kokido infringed on a patent by fellow manufacturer Water Tech.
In a 2017 patent-infringement lawsuit, Water Tech of East Brunswick, N.J., said that Hong Kong-based Kokido copied its technology when designing the Vektro battery-powered pool vacuum. Water Tech further accused Kokido of modeling its cleaner line after Water Tech’s. According to the plaintiff, this came after a business relationship whereby Kokido would purchase Water Tech products, agreeing to only resell them outside the United States.
Water Tech said it suffered a loss in sales and clients when Kokido eventually brought its own line to the U.S. Lost clients included big-box retailer Menards, which also was named in the action.
In all, Water Tech said Kokido infringed on five of its patents and requested damages and an injunction.
Kokido denied the allegations and said some of Water Tech’s patents were unforceable, accusing the U.S. producer of making false claims when filing for some of its patents. Kokido further said that a Hong Kong company called Hydrodynamics designed the Vektro.
Kokido filed a counterclaim, asking for the original lawsuit to be declared frivolous, the patents unenforceable, and to enjoin Water Tech from making future claims and require it to pay damages and attorney’s fees.
Multiple patents were named in both parties’ filings. But after a series of filings and hearings, claims against all patents but one were dropped from the litigation, either voluntarily or by court decision. Regarding four of the five patents, Water Tech entered into covenants not to sue in the future.
Only one patent named in the original lawsuit against Kokido — a utility patent for a hand-held, battery-powered, submersible pool cleaner — remained.
In the final exchanges, Kokido sought summary judgment regarding the remaining patent based on two arguments. First, Kokido said the overall shape of the product did not exactly match what was described in Water Tech’s patent. Kokido’s second argument concerned the handles. Where Water Tech claimed that Kokido’s handles were similar enough to constitute infringement, Kokido said Water Tech was applying a broader definition than the law allows.
The judge did not grant summary judgment on the first argument, but did on the handle issue, putting an end to the case. In February, the judge said Kokido’s products do not infringe the final Water Tech patents.
“For many years Water Tech had been threatening Kokido, its customers and potential customers through strategic litigation in order to maintain its hold on the market,” said Kokido Founder and Managing Director Jean Bruneel in a press release. “After the court’s decision vindicating Kokido, it is clear for all that Water Tech’s threats were wholly unfounded, and customers are now free to choose what is best for them.”
However, Water Tech did not see the outcome as a definitive victory for Kokido, stating, among other things, the fact that the court did not find in favor of any of Kokido’s claims against Water Tech.
“Water Tech’s patents were not invalidated as Kokido had hoped, and Water Tech fended off all of Kokido’s attempts to end the litigation without a trial,” said Water Tech President Guy Erlich. “As the case developed, for strategic reasons, Water Tech dropped several of its patents [from the case] to focus attention on the strongest, non-redundant claims.”
Erlich further stated: “Water Tech patents remain validated, and our diligence and perseverance throughout this process underscores the fortitude to defend our patent portfolio.”
After the decision, Kokido filed a motion to be compensated for attorneys’ fees and costs. However, that request was rescinded after Water Tech agreed not to appeal the final decision.
