Pentair Water Pool and Spa, Inc. et al v. Hayward Industries, Inc. et al
Danfoss Drives A/S and Pentair Water Pool and Spa, Inc. |
Hayward Industries, Inc. and Hayward Pool Products, Inc. |
Danfoss Drives A/S and Pentair Water Pool and Spa, Inc. |
Jonathan R. Harkavy |
Hayward Industries, Inc. and Hayward Pool Products, Inc. |
2:2012cv01535 |
February 23, 2012 |
US District Court for the Central District of California |
Fernando M. Olguin |
George H Wu |
Patent |
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
Document Text |
---|
Filing 166 JUDGMENT by Judge George H. Wu. IT HEREBY IS ADJUDGED THAT: (a) claims 43, 44, 45 and 47 of the '804 patent are invalid for failure to meet the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph for the reasons set forth in D.I. 272; questions of fact remain as to whether each of claims 43-47 is invalid for failure to meet the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph based on additional grounds asserted by Pentair, but those questions of fact do not impact the Court's conclusion that claims 43, 44, 45 and 47 are invalid. Accordingly, IT IS FURTHER ADJUDGED THAT Pentair is the prevailing party in this action, that Hayward takes nothing from Pentair and that any and all remaining claims and counterclaims are dismissed as moot or dismissed as per the proposed Order Dismissing Plaintiff's Invalidity Cause of Action re Claim 46 filed on February 13, 2015. (See attached document for details.) (MD JS-6, Case Terminated). (lom) |
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the California Central District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.