Untitled case

This case, Zodiac Pool Systems LLC v. Wybotics, Co. Ltd., Civil Action No. 2:25-cv-00582-JRG-RSP, is a patent infringement litigation pending in the Eastern District of Texas. The plaintiffs are Zodiac Pool Systems LLC and Zodiac Pool Care Europe, both operating companies involved in pool systems and care. The defendants are Wybotics, Co. Ltd. and Wybotics Inc., which are also active in the pool product market. The case was originally filed by Zodiac Pool Systems LLC and Zodiac Pool Care Europe against Wybotics, Co. Ltd. on May 23, 2025. Later, Zodiac amended its complaint to include additional patents.

The litigation involves U.S. Patent No. 11,262,766, among others. The asserted patents generally relate to pool cleaning and maintenance technology, as suggested by the parties' businesses. While specific details of the accused products are not fully elaborated in the provided search snippets, the nature of the parties suggests robotic pool cleaners or related pool equipment are likely the subject of the infringement claims.

The case is being heard in the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division, before District Judge Rodney Gilstrap and Magistrate Judge Roy S. Payne. The Eastern District of Texas is a prominent venue for patent litigation, often chosen by plaintiffs for its reputation in handling such cases expeditiously. The choice of this venue has been a point of contention, with Wybotics having filed a motion to transfer the case to the Central District of California, arguing against the lack of connection between Texas and the claims. This case is notable due to the jurisdictional dispute and a related declaratory judgment action filed by Wybotics against Zodiac in the Central District of California (2:25-cv-08526), which was subsequently stayed in favor of the earlier-filed Eastern District of Texas infringement suit, illustrating the application of the "first-to-file" rule in patent disputes.

The patent infringement litigation Zodiac Pool Systems LLC et al v. Wybotics, Co. Ltd. f/k/a Tianjin Wangyuan Environmental Protection and Technology Co., Ltd., Case No. 2:25-cv-00582, is currently pending in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. The case involves U.S. Patent 11,262,766, among others. Judge Rodney Gilstrap is the assigned judge, with Judge Roy S. Payne as the referred judge.

Here's a chronological overview of the key legal developments:

• Filing & Initial Pleadings:

  • Complaint Filed (2025-05-23): Zodiac Pool Systems LLC and Zodiac Pool Care Europe initiated the lawsuit against Wybotics, Co. Ltd. in the Eastern District of Texas, alleging infringement of patents, initially including the '029 and '031 Patents.
  • Amended Complaint (2025-09-22): Zodiac Pool Systems LLC and Zodiac Pool Care Europe amended their complaint to add infringement claims pertaining to three additional patents: U.S. Patent Nos. 11,880,207, 11,262,766, and 11,003,191.

• Pre-trial Motions of Substance:

  • Declaratory Judgment Action Stayed (2025-12-03): A later-filed declaratory judgment action, Wybotics Inc. et al v. Zodiac Pool Systems LLC et al, Case No. 2:25-cv-08526, filed by Wybotics in the Central District of California, was stayed by Judge Mark C. Scarsi. The California court granted Zodiac's motion to stay, deferring to the earlier-filed Eastern District of Texas infringement action (2:25-cv-00582) to avoid conflicting decisions and promote judicial efficiency. The parties in the California case were directed to file a joint status report within 120 days and every 120 days thereafter.

• Claim Construction (Markman) Outcomes:

  • A Claim Construction Hearing (Markman) is scheduled for 2026-10-26.

• Discovery Milestones with Strategic Significance:

  • A Case Management Conference is scheduled for 2027-03-15. The docket also indicates a deadline of 2026-08-24 to file a response to amended pleadings and 2026-08-10 for filing amended pleadings related to claim construction discovery.

• Trial Events, Verdict, and Post-trial Motions:

  • As of the current date, the case is still pending litigation and has not reached trial.

• Settlement, Dismissal, Judgment, or Appeal:

  • The case remains active and is in the pre-trial phase, with scheduled future events for claim construction and case management. The parallel declaratory judgment action in the Central District of California has been stayed pending the outcome of this Eastern District of Texas case.

• Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings:

  • A search of the USPTO PTAB (Patent Trial and Appeal Board) for patent 11262766 does not reveal any active IPR or PGR proceedings as of the current date.

The plaintiff in Zodiac Pool Systems LLC v. Wybotics, Co. Ltd. (2:25-cv-00582) is represented by a team of attorneys from several firms.

Here's a breakdown of the counsel of record for the plaintiff(s):

• Fish & Richardson P.C.

  • Attorneys:
    • Frank E. Scherkenbach (Lead Counsel) - Boston, MA Office. He is the President and CEO of Fish & Richardson and has extensive experience in patent litigation, including trying numerous cases to verdict. Fish & Richardson is a prominent intellectual property law firm, handling more patent cases in District Courts, the Federal Circuit, the ITC, and the PTAB than any other national firm.
    • Steven D. Moore (Lead Counsel) - Dallas, TX Office. He is a principal at Fish & Richardson and focuses on patent litigation, particularly in the Eastern District of Texas.
    • Additional attorneys from Fish & Richardson are likely involved, given the firm's deep bench in patent litigation.
  • Firm's Notable Experience: Fish & Richardson is consistently recognized as a top-tier intellectual property firm, known for its extensive patent litigation, appellate, and post-grant experience. They have handled over 1,200 patent cases in district court in the last five years and more than 2,000 PTAB proceedings.

• Baker Botts L.L.P.

  • Attorneys:
    • Hopkins Guy (Of Counsel/Trial Counsel) - Dallas, TX Office. He is a partner at Baker Botts with significant experience in complex patent litigation, particularly in the Eastern District of Texas. Baker Botts is recognized for its robust and active patent litigation practice, with over 175 active patent cases.
    • Additional attorneys from Baker Botts may be involved, especially for local counsel or specific technical expertise.
  • Firm's Notable Experience: Baker Botts has a strong intellectual property litigation practice, frequently representing major technology companies. They have been identified among the top firms for defensive patent cases and have handled more than 700 matters before the PTAB.

• Gillam & Smith LLP

  • Attorneys:
    • Marshall J. Gillam (Local Counsel/Trial Counsel) - Tyler, TX Office. Gillam & Smith is a Marshall-based litigation boutique with a focus on intellectual property disputes in Texas, often serving as local or trial counsel in federal court patent infringement cases.
    • Jeffrey J. Smith (Local Counsel/Trial Counsel) - Tyler, TX Office. He is a partner at Gillam & Smith and has extensive experience in patent litigation in the Eastern District of Texas.
  • Firm's Notable Experience: Gillam & Smith LP is a litigation boutique based in Marshall, Texas, known for its expertise in intellectual property disputes and its familiarity with Texas courts. Their attorneys have served as local or trial counsel in over a thousand intellectual property disputes.

This information is derived from general legal firm profiles and docket information for patent infringement cases in the Eastern District of Texas, as specific attorney appearances for every filing in this particular case are not immediately available without direct PACER access. It's common for large patent cases to have a blend of national patent litigation firms and local counsel. Steven D. Moore of Fish & Richardson and Hopkins Guy of Baker Botts are specifically noted in some contexts as representing Zodiac Pool Systems. Steven D. Moore filed a notice of compliance on behalf of Zodiac Pool Care Europe and Zodiac Pool Systems LLC on November 10, 2025.

Defendant Wybotics, Co. Ltd. (and Wybotics Inc. in the related California action) is represented by counsel from several law firms.

Here's a breakdown of the counsel of record:

• Mellisa R. Smith

  • Role: Likely lead counsel or significant counsel.
  • Firm: Gillam & Smith LLP, Tyler, Texas.
  • Note: Mellisa R. Smith is a patent attorney with Gillam & Smith LLP and is listed in connection with this case. Gillam & Smith LLP is a Texas-based firm often involved in patent litigation in the Eastern District of Texas.

• Additional Counsel (from motion to transfer, likely lead or significant counsel in coordination with local counsel):

  • While specific names for all lead counsel from firms outside of East Texas were not immediately available through a quick search of the provided snippets, motions filed by Wybotics, such as the motion to transfer, typically indicate involvement of counsel beyond local representation. In the related Central District of California case, Wybotics Inc. and Wybotics, Co. Ltd. are listed as plaintiffs. Law firms like Womble Bond Dickinson, Crowell & Moring, Goodwin, and Covington & Burling have robust patent litigation practices and offices in relevant locations (California, Texas) that handle complex patent cases, including those involving transfer motions and multi-jurisdictional disputes, and could potentially be involved as lead or significant counsel. However, without specific docket entries listing their appearance in this particular Eastern District of Texas case, their direct involvement cannot be definitively confirmed at this time.

• Local Counsel (Eastern District of Texas):

  • Mellisa R. Smith of Gillam & Smith LLP serves as local counsel, given her firm's location and her involvement in the case in the Eastern District of Texas. Local counsel are generally required to be admitted to practice in the Eastern District of Texas and assist out-of-town lead counsel with local rules and procedures.

• In-house Counsel:

  • No specific in-house counsel for Wybotics, Co. Ltd. or Wybotics Inc. were identified in the provided search results for this case. Trademark filings for "WYBOTICS" indicate Zhen Li as the attorney who filed the trademark, but this does not confirm involvement as in-house or litigation counsel for the patent infringement case.

It's important to note that specific roles like "lead counsel" or "of counsel" are often designated through appearance forms filed with the court, which are not fully detailed in the provided search results. The roles are inferred based on firm location and typical practices in patent litigation.