SkimDevil Pure L.L.C. v. Skimbot, L.L.C. et al

On September 13, 2021, Skimdevil Pure, L.L.C. (“Skimdevil Pure” or “Plaintiff”), represented by Jason E. Mueller of Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, filed an intellectual property lawsuit against Skimbot, L.L.C. (“Skimbot”), Miroslav Kremecek (“Kremecek”), and PoolZoom, L.L.C. (“PoolZoom”) (collectively, “Defendants”), seeking monetary damages, disgorgement of ill-gotten gains, as well as attorneys’ fees, costs and such other relief for the alleged infringement of the United States Patent owned by the Plaintiff. This case was filed in U.S. District Court in the Western District of Texas with Judge Alan D. Albright presiding.

This is a civil action for alleged patent infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271 et seq.; alleged misappropriation of trade secrets under both 18 U.S.C. § 1836 et seq. and under Texas Uniform Trade Secrets Act (“TUTSA”), Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 134A.001, et seq.; for alleged copyright infringement under 17 U.S.C. §§ 101 et. seq.; for alleged conversion; for alleged intentional interference with an economic advantage; for alleged unfair competition in violation of the Lanham Act arising under 15 U.S.C. §§ 1125 et. seq.; and for alleged breach of contract.

In the complaint, the Plaintiff alleged that, “Defendants obtained and wrongfully used Skimdevil’s proprietary information, including trade secrets and other confidential information, its copyright protected work and related products, for Defendants’ own benefit. Defendant Kremecek also breached agreements and violated contractual obligations.”

The Plaintiff also alleged that, “On information and belief, Skimbot intentionally designs, manufactures, markets and/or sells devices that resemble Skimdevil’s so closely that consumers are likely to be, and in fact have been, confused as to the source of Skimbot’s devices and have bought those devices on the assumption that they were made by Skimdevil.”

Further, the Plaintiff alleged that, “Skimbot knowingly and improperly used the Skimdevil Proprietary Information and trade secrets to unfairly compete with Skimdevil. Skimbot’s use of Skimdevil’s trade secrets to unfairly compete with Skimdevil in the nascent solar-powered robotic pool skimmer industry caused irreparable harm to Skimdevil (e.g., loss of market share caused by failure to successfully commercialize this nascent field and loss of reputation, and brand name recognition).”

The Plaintiff also alleged that, “Skimbot and Kremecek coordinated a scheme to misappropriate the Skimdevil Proprietary Information and trade secrets and use that Proprietary Information and those trade secrets to create solar-powered robotic pool skimmers that compete with Skimdevil’s Products and cause economic harm to Skimdevil.”

There are nine claims for relief laid down by the Plaintiff. The first claim is for alleged patent infringement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271, against all Defendants. The second claim is for alleged misappropriation of trade secrets pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1836 against Kremecek and Skimbot. The third claim is for alleged misappropriation of trade secrets pursuant to Texas Uniform Trade Secrets Act, against Kremecek and Skimbot. The fourth claim is for alleged conversion, against Kremecek and Skimbot. The fifth claim is for alleged trade dress infringement pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §1125(a)(3), against Kremecek, Skimbot and PoolZoom. The sixth claim is for alleged copyright infringement against Kremecek and Skimbot. The seventh claim is for alleged intentional interference with an economic advantage, against Kremecek and Skimbot. The eight claim is for alleged breach of contract, against Kremecek. The ninth claim is for alleged unfair competition under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a), against Skimbot.

In the prayer for relief, the Plaintiff has requested the Court to pass a judgment in favour of Plaintiff along with a permanent injunctive relief and an award of damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284, enhanced damages, exemplary damages, prejudgment interest, punitive damages and disgorgement of ill-gotten gains. The Plaintiff also requested the Court to declare this an exceptional case within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 285 and provide attorneys’ fees, expenses, and costs incurred in this action and such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper. 

This case summary may not reflect the current position of the parties to this litigation or the status of this case. Sign up to view the latest case updates and court documents.