B&S Plastics v. Custom Molded Products: Spa Lighting Patent Dispute Settled After 1,183 Days
B&S Plastics, Inc., trading as Waterway Plastics, brought a patent infringement action against Custom Molded Products, LLC in the Central District of California, asserting two patents covering spa fixture lighting systems. After over three years of litigation, the parties announced a settlement in principle, with a stipulated dismissal with prejudice to follow.
Waterway Plastics pursues spa lighting IP against Custom Molded Products
B&S Plastics, Inc., doing business as Waterway Plastics, filed this infringement action on 26 November 2019 in the Central District of California against Custom Molded Products, LLC and unnamed Doe defendants. The dispute centred on two patents — US10378707B2 and US10145523B2 — both directed to spa fixture lighting systems. Plaintiff was represented by Cislo & Thomas LLP and Scheef & Stone LLP; defendant retained Morrison & Foerster LLP and Stradling Yocca Carlson & Rauth PC.
The recorded basis of termination is 'Case Settled.' The docket notice filed by the parties states that they reached a settlement in principle of all matters in the action and requested that all pending deadlines be vacated, with a stipulation of dismissal with prejudice expected to be filed within 30 days of that filing. The specific financial or licensing terms of the settlement are not disclosed in the available public record.
The case ran for 1,183 days before settlement was announced — a duration that suggests substantive contested proceedings rather than an early resolution. What drove the parties to settle at that stage, and whether any ongoing commercial arrangements form part of the resolution, is not determinable from the public record.
See Complete Case & Patent Analysis →Filing to Case Settled in 1183 days
1,183 days — over three years from filing to settlement, longer than the median patent case in C.D. Cal.
US10378707B2 & US10145523B2 — Spa Fixture Lighting Systems
If your company designs, manufactures, imports, or distributes spa fixture lighting systems or illuminated pool and spa fittings, both patents asserted in this case are directly relevant to your freedom-to-operate position. Because the litigation settled without any court ruling on claim scope or validity, the patents carry their full presumption of validity and an unconstricted claim breadth. No prior art was publicly adjudicated to limit the claims.
Official order — verbatim text
The joint settlement notice states the parties reached a settlement in principle and anticipated filing a stipulation of dismissal with prejudice within 30 days. The filing is procedural in nature — it does not adjudicate infringement or validity and does not disclose any terms of the underlying settlement agreement. The recorded basis of termination is 'Case Settled.'
Settlement reached: what the resolution means for both parties
Settlement in principle followed by stipulated dismissal with prejudice
The parties jointly notified the court that they had reached a settlement in principle and requested vacatur of all pending deadlines. The docket record indicates a stipulation of dismissal with prejudice was expected within 30 days. A dismissal with prejudice is a final termination — the same claims cannot be re-filed. The specific terms of the underlying settlement agreement are not disclosed in the available public record.
Dismissal with prejudice anticipatedWaterway Plastics ends litigation on agreed terms
As the plaintiff and patent holder, B&S Plastics / Waterway Plastics initiated this action to enforce its spa fixture lighting patents. A settlement in principle, with dismissal with prejudice to follow, indicates the dispute was resolved on mutually agreed terms. Whether that resolution included compensation, a licence, or other commercial arrangements is not stated in the public record.
Agreed resolutionCustom Molded Products avoids adjudicated infringement finding
Custom Molded Products avoided a court-determined finding of infringement by settling before trial. The anticipated dismissal with prejudice means B&S Plastics cannot bring the same patent claims again on the same basis. The terms that Custom Molded Products agreed to — including any design changes, payments, or licences — are not available in the public record.
No merits adjudicationSpa lighting IP enforcement signals active portfolio management
The willingness of Waterway Plastics to pursue litigation across 1,183 days signals that it actively enforces its spa fixture lighting patent portfolio. Competitors in the pool and spa components sector should treat US10378707B2 and US10145523B2 as live enforcement risks. The settlement outcome leaves claim scope uncontested by a court ruling, meaning the patents retain their full presumption of validity.
Active enforcement postureFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | B & S Plastics, Inc. | Company | Spa equipment manufacturer (Waterway Plastics) — holder of US10378707B2 and US10145523B2Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Custom Molded Products, LLC | Company | Custom Molded Products, LLC — manufacturer of pool and spa componentsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Does | Individual | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Chong Wook Pak | Attorney | Counsel for B & S Plastics, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Daniel Miles Cislo | Attorney | Counsel for B & S Plastics, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Mark D. Nielsen | Attorney | Counsel for B & S Plastics, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Cislo & Thomas LLP | Law Firm | Representing B & S Plastics, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Scheef & Stone LLP | Law Firm | Representing B & S Plastics, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Matthew Robert Stephens | Attorney | Counsel for Custom Molded Products, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Steven M. Hanle | Attorney | Counsel for Custom Molded Products, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Morrison & Foerster LLP | Law Firm | Representing Custom Molded Products, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Stradling Yocca Carlson & Rauth PC | Law Firm | Representing Custom Molded Products, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | California Central District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
R&D signals in the spa fixture lighting patent space
Forward-looking patent and innovation intelligence derived from Waterway Plastics' enforcement of its spa lighting IP against Custom Molded Products.
Waterway Plastics' spa lighting patent footprint
B&S Plastics / Waterway Plastics asserted two application-linked patents in this action, suggesting a deliberate prosecution strategy in spa fixture lighting. Monitoring their broader filing activity — including continuation applications from US14/666159 and US16/160662 — may reveal additional claims covering adjacent lighting assembly configurations that competitors have not yet mapped.
Portfolio monitoringFiling trends in illuminated spa and pool fixture technology
The spa and pool equipment sector has seen increased patent activity around LED-integrated and colour-changing fixture technologies. Understanding the broader filing landscape around spa fixture lighting — including international family members — helps R&D teams identify crowded claim areas and plan differentiated innovation strategies that reduce FTO risk.
Sector filing trendsCustom Molded Products' patent and design position in spa components
Custom Molded Products is an established pool and spa component manufacturer. Assessing their own patent filings — including any design patents or utility applications in lighting or fixture assemblies — provides intelligence on whether they have developed proprietary design-arounds or alternative technology positions following this dispute.
Competitor analysisAdjacent innovation opportunities in spa lighting integration
With Waterway Plastics' claims concentrated on spa fixture lighting assemblies, adjacent areas — such as wireless control integration, smart-home connectivity for spa lighting, or novel installation methods for LED fixtures — may represent lower-density claim space. R&D teams can use patent landscape analysis to identify these white-space areas for differentiated product development.
White-space analysisSimilar patent cases in spa & pool equipment lighting systems
Browse patent infringement cases in the pool and spa fixture sector litigated in the Central District of California and comparable district courts.
What this case signals for the pool and spa IP landscape
A multi-year patent dispute over spa fixture lighting resolved privately, leaving key questions open for the sector.
Patents US10378707B2 and US10145523B2 remain valid and enforceable
Because the case settled without a court ruling on infringement or validity, both patents exit the litigation with their presumption of validity intact. Any competitor designing or selling spa fixture lighting systems should conduct freedom-to-operate analysis against these patents before commercialisation.
Waterway Plastics demonstrates willingness to litigate for over three years
The 1,183-day duration before settlement indicates this was not a quick enforcement letter campaign — Waterway Plastics engaged seriously through extended contested proceedings. Parties entering the spa lighting market should anticipate determined patent enforcement from this plaintiff.
B v Custom — key questions answered
B&S Plastics, Inc. dba Waterway Plastics asserted two patents: US10378707B2 (application no. US16/160662) and US10145523B2 (application no. US14/666159). Both are directed to spa fixture lighting systems. The case was filed in the Central District of California on 26 November 2019.
The recorded basis of termination is 'Case Settled.' The parties filed a joint notice informing the court they had reached a settlement in principle and requested vacatur of pending deadlines. The notice indicated a stipulation of dismissal with prejudice would be filed within 30 days. The specific terms of the settlement are not disclosed in the available public record.
No. The case settled before any court ruling on infringement or claim validity. There is no publicly recorded Markman claim construction order or dispositive ruling on the merits in the available docket record. Both patents exit the litigation with their presumption of validity intact.
The case ran for 1,183 days — filed on 26 November 2019 and closed on 21 February 2023. That duration is consistent with extended contested proceedings in a patent infringement case in the Central District of California, rather than an early or pre-trial resolution.
The settlement without a merits ruling means both patents remain valid and fully enforceable at their filed claim scope. Waterway Plastics demonstrated willingness to litigate for over three years, indicating an active enforcement posture. Manufacturers, importers, or distributors of spa fixture lighting systems should conduct FTO analysis against both patents before commercialisation.
This page is compiled from public court dockets and third-party patent and litigation data via PatSnap Eureka, and is provided for general informational purposes only. The information shown — including party names, patent and application numbers, dates, case status, outcomes, and any analysis — may be incomplete, may not reflect the most recent filings or legal status, and may contain errors or omissions. Verify all details against official court records (for example, PACER) and the relevant patent office before relying on them.
Nothing on this page constitutes legal advice or a legal opinion on the validity, infringement, enforceability, or scope of any patent or case, and no attorney‑client relationship is created by its use. Any description of an outcome (such as a dismissal, settlement, or consent judgment) is a general summary, not a legal determination. All patents, trademarks, and company or law‑firm names are the property of their respective owners. PatSnap makes no warranty as to the accuracy or completeness of this content and disclaims, to the fullest extent permitted by law, all liability for reliance on it. For advice on a specific matter, consult qualified legal counsel.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.