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. 15-1488 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 8, 2016)

Affirmed
Rule 36 Affirmance
Court
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Case No.
No. 15-1488
Decided
February 8, 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NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.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.,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

HAYWARD INDUSTRIES, INC., HAYWARD POOL

PRODUCTS, INC.,

Defendants-Appellants

2015-1488

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California in No. 2:11-cv-10280-GW-MRW, Judge George H. Wu.

JUDGMENT

MARK BOLAND, Sughrue Mion, PLLC, Washington, DC, argued for plaintiff-appellee. Also represented by KENNETH J. BURCHFIEL, RAJA N. SALIBA, GRANT SIMON SHACKELFORD.

LEE CARL BROMBERG, McCarter & English, LLP, Boston, MA, argued for defendants-appellants. Also represented by LORI JAYNE SHYAVITZ, AMY JOY TINDELL,

2KEITH E. TOMS; SCOTT S. CHRISTIE, MATTHEW ADAM SKLAR, Newark, NJ. THIS CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED:

PER CURIAM (MOORE, O’MALLEY, and HUGHES, Circuit

Judges).

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT February 8, 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. 15-1488 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 8, 2016).

govinfo ID
USCOURTS-ca13-15-01488-0
Permalink
https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/USCOURTS-ca13-15-01488-0

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: govinfo.gov USCOURTS collection · retrieved July 25, 2026 · Report an error