California Robotics Company Sues Business Partner Over AI Ocean Vehicle
Apium alleges that Aquabotix Technology Corp. refuses to pay royalties on a swarming ocean vehicle the companies developed together.
January 22, 2020 at 06:49 PM
3 minute read
Los Angeles County robotics company Apium sued a maritime vehicles manufacturer for breach of contract and trade secret misappropriation in federal court Wednesday.
Apium partnered with Aquabotix Technology Corp. in the competitive and fast-moving artificial intelligence space to develop robots that could swarm in the ocean, according to a complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.
Apium owns patents for a swarm autopilot and water drone, and in 2018 agreed to license some of its intellectual property to Aquabotix to bring the swarming ocean robots to the market, according to the filing signed by Venable's Thomas Wallerstein in San Francisco.
Almost immediately after signing the contract, Apium contends it had "no choice" but to terminate the agreement after discovering Aquabotix would no longer pay its share of royalties as a result of "fatal engineering and management shortcomings with limited prospective customer contacts."
The devices could be used to dispose of naval mines and replace human divers in data collection activities. Despite selling the vehicles to the U.S. Navy for $30,500; other U.S. armed forces for $150,000; and a military agency of a major Asian country for $350,000, Aquabotix has said the sales are exempt from royalties because they are for "testing," the complaint alleges.
"Aquabotix has refused and implicitly has confirmed that it intends to continue to withhold royalties for any future sales which it chooses to characterize as supporting test and evaluation activities for future sales," Apium's lawyers wrote.
In addition to its claims of breach of contract and violation of the Defend Trade Secrets Act, Apium is asking the court for a declaratory judgment that it did not breach the agreement, as Aquabotix has alleged on a handful of occasions.
Apium contends the allegations related to 2017 projects with the U.S. Office of Naval Research and the Electric Power Research Institute are unfounded, because they predate the agreement.
The complaint also asserts that Aquabotix continues to access and use Apium's trade secrets, including compiled swarm source code, software for swarm behaviors and design, and manufacturing information.
"As a direct and proximate cause of Aquabotix's breaches, Apium has suffered economic losses and general, specific, direct, indirect and consequential damages in an amount to be determined at trial," Apium alleges.
Apium's legal team, which also includes Christopher Waldon and Whitney Tolar of Venable, did not respond to a request for comment late Wednesday afternoon. Apium and Aquabotix also did not respond to media inquiries.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllSo You Want to Be a Tech Lawyer? Consider Product Counseling
New Class Action Points to Fears Over Privacy, Abortions and Fertility
Stock Trading App Robinhood Hit With Privacy Class Action 1 Month After Alleged Data Breach
'Water Cooler Discussions': US Judge Questions DOJ Request in Google Search Case
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Friday Newspaper
- 2Judge Denies Sean Combs Third Bail Bid, Citing Community Safety
- 3Republican FTC Commissioner: 'The Time for Rulemaking by the Biden-Harris FTC Is Over'
- 4NY Appellate Panel Cites Student's Disciplinary History While Sending Negligence Claim Against School District to Trial
- 5A Meta DIG and Its Nvidia Implications
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250