Patent Case Watch

Patent opinions from the Eastern District of Texas and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

Weekly Digest
Fed. Cir.

Pentair Water Pool and SPA v. Hayward Industries, Inc., No. 15-1809 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 14, 2016)

Affirmed
Rule 36 Affirmance
Court
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Case No.
No. 15-1809
Decided
March 14, 2016
Judge
Per curiam (Rule 36)
Document
Rule 36 Judgment
Length
2 pages
Download Opinion (PDF)

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. United States Court of Appeals

for the Federal Circuit PENTAIR WATER POOL AND SPA, INC.,

Appellant

v.

HAYWARD INDUSTRIES, INC.,

Appellee

2015-1809

Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. 95/002,007.

JUDGMENT

MARK BOLAND, Sughrue Mion, PLLC, Washington, DC, argued for appellant. Also represented by RAJA N. SALIBA, GRANT SIMON SHACKELFORD.

MARK NIKOLSKY, McCarter & English, LLP, Newark, NJ, argued for appellee. Also represented by SCOTT S. CHRISTIE, STEVEN HALPERN, TIMOTHY PATRICK HOMLISH, MATTHEW ADAM SKLAR, ELINA SLAVIN.

THIS CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is

2ORDERED and ADJUDGED:

PER CURIAM (LOURIE, BRYSON, and REYNA, Circuit

Judges).

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT March 14, 2016 /s/ Daniel E. O’Toole Date Daniel E. O’Toole Clerk of Court

Text extracted from the official PDF and reflowed for reading. It is not a certified transcript — the PDF linked above is the authoritative document.

Analysis is coming soon.

A plain-English account of the issues, facts and holding, written by Patent Case Watch. The opinion itself — its full text, its PDF and everything else on this page — stays free to read for everyone, always.

Cite this opinion

Pentair Water Pool and SPA v. Hayward Industries, Inc., No. 15-1809 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 14, 2016).

Record ID
CAFC-15-1809-20160314
Permalink
https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/CAFC-15-1809-20160314

No reporter citation is shown because the official source does not supply one; none is inferred here. Check the opinion and a citator before relying on this form.

Source: Federal Circuit opinions and orders · retrieved August 15, 2026 · Report an error