Manufacturers Water Tech and Kokido are preparing to go to trial to settle a lawsuit and counter-suit.
East Brunswick, N.J.-based Water Tech initiated the action, filing a patent-infringement complaint against Kokido, headquartered in Hong Kong. Water Tech claimed that, approximately five years ago, it produced and sold to Kokido a hand-held rechargeable, battery-powered pool vacuum called Vektro. This product was only to be sold by the Hong Kong company outside the United States, Water Tech said.
In about 2015, Water Tech said, Kokido began making several products using the plaintiff’s technology and began selling it in the United States. Water Tech further asserted that the makeup of Kokido’s product line closely resembles that of Water Tech’s, with models similar to Catfish, Leak Vac/Leaf Demon, Aqua Broom and the Pulse.
“On information and belief, Kokido subsequently copied several Water Tech products, including the Vektro product that Kokido previously purchased from Water Tech, and designed, engineered and manufactured said products, which contained features covered by Water Tech’s patents without Water Tech’s permission,” the company accused in its court filing.
The New Jersey company said it notified Kokido of its patents. “Kokido willfully and intentionally proceeded to distribute and sell its infringing pool vacuums in the United States, despite the notice provided by Water Tech,” the producer alleged.
Water Tech said big-box retailer Menards stopped selling Water Tech cleaners after Kokido brought its products into the U.S.
The plaintiff is seeking damages and an injunction to prevent Kokido from making the named products.
Kokido denied the infringement claims. Not only does the company say it did not use Water Tech’s patented technology, but it additionally claimed that at least some of the Water Tech patents named in the suit are not enforceable and were not legally issued. Kokido said Water Tech failed to disclose or misrepresented certain details when filing for certain patents related to those name in the lawsuit.
Furthermore, it said that Water Tech did not provide the Vektro, but that a Hong Kong company called Hydrodynamics did. The Vektro cleaner, Kokido argued, included a pivoting head that it designed. Kokido said that Hydrodynamics actually owned patents named in the suit, then sold them to Water Tech.
When it created its line of automatic cleaners, Kokido said, it reviewed patents owned by both Water Tech and Hydrodynamics to avoid infringement. The defendant called the lawsuit frivolous. “Upon information and belief, Water Tech filed the original complaint for patent infringement with knowledge that one or more of the original patents-in-suit are not infringed by certain Kokido products,” the company said in its court filings.
Kokido has asked the court to declare Water Tech’s claims frivolous, to call the patents in question unenforceable, enjoin Water Tech from making such claims against Kokido in the future, and to compel Water Tech to pay Kokido damages and attorney’s fees.
