A United States federal judge has told Dometic Corporation it must face Seakeeper Inc.’s patent-infringement allegations over Dometic’s yacht-roll stabilisers.
Seakeeper Inc alleges that Dometic Corp’s DG3 gyrostabiliser infringes US Patent Nos. 7,546,782 and 8,117,930.
Dometic Corp. moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing it is not liable as Dometic Marine Canada, Inc. handles the manufacture and distribution of the stabiliser.
However, Judge John Campbell Barker sitting in the US District Court for the District of Delaware rejected Dometic Corp’s argument that a Canadian affiliate of its parent company is responsible for the device and denied Dometic’s bid to dismiss Seakeeper’s suit.
Product promotion
The court found sufficient allegations against Dometic Corp. including its marketing efforts and actions that suggest involvement in the accused product’s promotion.
And the judge said Dometic Corp’s claims of non-liability due to the involvement of its subsidiaries do not negate the plausibility of Seakeeper’s claims.
The judge found that Dometic Corp issued a press release in February 2025 announcing the product which was also showcased at a boat show.
And Judge Campbell also found that the product was installed into boats to demonstrate its performance to potential customers.
Infringement
In addition, the judge said that Dometic Corp. persuaded Seakeeper’s former customer to discontinue purchasing the plaintiff’s products in favour of the DG3 gyrostabiliser.
Dometic Corp. contests that Seakeeper failed to plausibly allege that Dometic Corp. is liable for the alleged infringement.
The Corporation states that Dometic Marine Canada is ‘responsible for the manufacture and distribution of the’ product and Sierra International LLC is responsible for the press release.
Dometic trademark
However the judge said Dometic Corp. admits that both separate entities are members of the Dometic corporate family and the presentations and press release bear a Dometic trademark.
“Dometic Corp. previously represented that it ‘advertises, distributes, and sells its products to consumers’ using that mark,” said Judge Campbell.
“In addition, the marks ‘have become associated exclusively with’ defendant in the United States, and ‘develops, manufactures, and sells marine products’ bearing those marks in the United States.”
The judge denied the motion to dismiss, allowing Dometic Corp. 14 days to respond to the complaint.
