On May 10, 2017, Aqua Shield, Inc. of West Babylon, New York (“Aqua Shield”) filed a complaint requesting that the ITC commence an investigation pursuant to Section 337.
The complaint alleges that Inter Pool Cover Team of the Czech Republic, Alukov HZ Spol. S.R.O. of the Czech Republic, Alukov, Spol. S.R.O. of Slovakia, Pool & Spa Enclosures, LLC of Monroe Township, New Jersey, and PoolAndSpa.com of Las Vegas, Nevada (collectively, the “Proposed Respondents”) unlawfully import into the U.S., sell for importation, and/or sell within the U.S. after importation certain pool and spa enclosures that infringe one or more claims of U.S. Patent No. 6,637,160 (the ’160 patent).
According to the complaint, the ’160 patent relates to an arched pool enclosure wherein the arched sections are secured on each end of the arch and can roll on a track. The arched sections are of slightly decreasing sizes, allowing for a slightly smaller arch to roll under a larger arch. When extended, the series of arched sections define an enclosure extending over the pool (or patio or spa) to shield it and its users from adverse weather or temperature conditions.
In the complaint, Aqua Shield states that the Proposed Respondents import and sell products that infringe the ’160 patent. The complaint specifically refers to enclosures with the designations Universe, Laguna, Tropea, Combi, Style, Veranda, Corso Entry, Spa, and Orient as infringing products.
Regarding domestic industry, Aqua Shield states that its own pool enclosures practice claims of the ’160 patent. Aqua Shield further states that it operates a facility in New York where it manufactures its domestic industry products. Aqua Shield also states that it has invested resources in the U.S. relating to marketing, promotion, trade show participation, sales, billing, management, customer relations, product service, and distribution in connection with the domestic industry products.
As to related litigation, Aqua Shield states that it previously sued the Proposed Respondents in the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah and received a final judgment of infringement and a permanent injunction enjoining further infringement. Aqua Shield explains that infringement and validity have thus already been adjudicated by a federal court and Aqua Shield now merely seeks ITC remedial orders consistent with the existing permanent injunction.
With respect to potential remedy, Aqua Shield requests that the Commission issue an immediate temporary cease and desist order, a preliminary cease and desist order, a permanent cease and desist order, and a permanent limited exclusion order.