Aquatron and Maytronix are competing Israeli companies that each make pool cleaning robots.
Maytronix was awarded Israel Patent IL 206154 titled “Pool Cleaning Robot”. Aquatronix filed to have the mark cancelled.
In the cancellation proceedings various issues came up such as whether Aquatronix had received permission from Maytronix to use the patent. However, in a procedural agreement between the parties, it was decided that the summation statements would not to relate to this issue.
In their summation, Maytronix, did, however relate to the alleged license to use the patent, and so Aquatronix filed to have the relevant passages deleted from the file. In their defense, Maytronix’s argued that Aquatronix had submitted emails that related to the agreement as part of their evidence, and this had voided the procedural agreement.
Ms Jacqueline Bracha used Contract Law (section25a) to rule that what was agreed between the sides is binding. Had they intended to state that evidence should be suppressed they could have done so. The disputed sections on the patentee’s summation were ordered deleted from the record, but the emails submitted by Aquatronix were allowed.