A judge dismissed a counter-claim against pool cleaner and accessories manufacturer Water Tech.
In 2017, the East Brunswick, N.J.-based producer filed a patent-infringement lawsuit against Hong Kong-based manufacturer Kokido. Water Tech accused the other firm of copying technology for a battery-powered pool vacuum, Vektro. Before that, the plaintiff said, Kokido would purchase the products from Water Tech, with the understanding that it would only sell the goods outside the United States, according to court documents.
Eventually, Water Tech said, Kokido started making products using its technology and even assembled a line whose combination of models closely resembled that of a Water Tech line that included the Catfish, Leak Vac/Leaf Demon, Aqua Broom and Pulse.
The Hong Kong company then began marketing its products in the U.S., the plaintiff claimed. Water Tech said it lost U.S. sales to Kokido’s products. It specifically cited the big-box retailer Menards, which used to purchase from Water Tech until Kokido’s products entered the U.S., the plaintiff claimed.
Water Tech requested damages and an injunction to keep Kokido from making the products.
The Hong Kong firm denied that the products in question were based on Water Tech designs and, further, accused the U.S. company of making false claims when filing for some of its patents, saying the patents were therefore unenforceable. The defendant also claimed the Vektro design originated from a Hong Kong company called Hydrodynamics, which sold its patents to Water Tech.
Kokido filed a counterclaim, asking for the lawsuit to be declared frivolous, the patents unenforceable, to enjoin Water Tech from making future claims and require it to pay damages and attorney’s fees.
During the course of the case, the parties agreed to drop all claims but one from the countersuit. Kokido still claimed that one of Water Tech’s patents should be rendered unenforceable, saying its opponent knowingly deceived the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office in an attempt to differentiate its design from another. Specifically, Kokido said, Water Tech said its product was toroidal, or donut-shaped, where the other product was not, while knowing that the other product’s cylindrical design counted as toroidal. Water Tech denied that it willfully mislead the USPTO.
Water Tech filed a motion to dismiss the last claim.
The judge granted Water Tech’s request, saying that Kokido did not provide a strong enough case to show intentional deception. While Water Tech’s claim of distinction may not have been technically true, the judge said, the patent official likely understood the difference to which the U.S. producer was referring and so allowed the patent. “The PTO examiner clearly was not deceived by Water Tech’s usage,” the judge said.
Further: “… the court finds Kokido’s allegations of deception entirely speculative and insufficient to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.”
Water Tech’s initial case against Kokido will continue to move forward.
