Crystal Lagoons v. Cloward H2O — Federal Circuit Appeal Voluntarily Dismissed
Crystal Lagoons US Corp and Crystal Lagoons Technologies brought an infringement appeal at the Federal Circuit against Cloward H2O and Pacific Aquascape International, asserting four patents covering large recreational water body treatment and disinfection systems. The appeal was dismissed by agreement of the parties in just 49 days, with each side bearing its own costs.
Four water-body patents, one swift Federal Circuit exit
Crystal Lagoons US Corp and Crystal Lagoons Technologies filed an infringement appeal at the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on 20 June 2023 (Case No. 23-2044), asserting four US patents — US9708822B2, US8062514B2, US8753520B1, and US4640784A — covering localized disinfection systems, pool-cleaning methods, processes for maintaining large clean recreational bodies of water, and structures designed to contain water bodies of at least 15,000 m³. The defendants were Cloward H2O and Pacific Aquascape International, both active in large-scale aquatic design and construction.
The recorded Basis of Termination is Voluntary dismissal. The docket order states that, the parties having so agreed, the proceeding is DISMISSED under Fed. R. App. P. 42(b), with each side bearing its own costs. The specific terms underlying the parties' agreement are not disclosed in the available record.
The appeal closed on 8 August 2023 — just 49 days after filing, well before any merits briefing would ordinarily be complete at the Federal Circuit. The speed of resolution and the mutual cost-bearing arrangement are consistent with a negotiated agreement between the parties, though the nature of any such agreement is not disclosed in the public record. What drove the decision to dismiss at this early appellate stage, and what obligations if any persist between the parties, remains unknown from the available record.
See Complete Case & Patent Analysis →Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 49 days
49 days — notably fast resolution for a Federal Circuit appeal
US9708822B2, US8062514B2, US8753520B1 & US4640784A — large water body treatment systems
Any developer, contractor, or operator working on large recreational water facilities — particularly those involving bodies of 15,000 m³ or more, or deploying disinfection, cleaning, or water maintenance technologies — should assess freedom to operate against these four patents. The absence of a merits ruling in Case No. 23-2044 means no court has invalidated or limited the claims. Firms designing amenity lagoons, resort pools, or municipal aquatic facilities face direct exposure.
Official order — verbatim text
The dismissal order records that the parties agreed to terminate the appeal under Fed. R. App. P. 42(b), with each side bearing its own costs. No merits analysis of the four asserted patents was conducted by the Federal Circuit. The order does not characterise the dismissal as with or without prejudice, leaving the downstream enforcement implications of this resolution unaddressed in the public record.
Voluntarily dismissed: what the Fed. R. App. P. 42(b) order means for both parties
Fed. R. App. P. 42(b): dismissal by agreement of the parties
Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 42(b) allows an appeal to be dismissed on the motion of the appellant or by agreement of all parties. Here, the order records that 'the parties having so agreed' the proceeding is dismissed. No merits ruling was issued — the Federal Circuit did not examine the validity or infringement questions raised by the four asserted patents. The cost order (each side bears its own) is expressly stated in the dismissal order.
No merits adjudicationPublic record is silent on prejudice designation
The Basis of Termination is recorded as 'Voluntary dismissal' without specifying whether the dismissal is with or without prejudice. The docket order itself does not address this distinction. Whether Crystal Lagoons retains the right to reassert these patents or re-file related claims is therefore not determinable from the available public record. Practitioners advising on future enforcement or design-around decisions should treat this point as unresolved.
Prejudice designation not disclosedCloward H2O and Pacific Aquascape: no merits finding in their favour
The voluntary dismissal means neither Cloward H2O nor Pacific Aquascape obtained a court ruling on validity or non-infringement of the four asserted patents. They bear their own costs under the order. The patents remain in force on the public record, and without a merits determination, defendants in related or future disputes cannot rely on this dismissal as a precedent establishing invalidity or non-infringement.
No invalidity or non-infringement rulingFour patents remain active enforcement tools for Crystal Lagoons
US9708822B2, US8062514B2, US8753520B1, and US4640784A each survive the appeal without adverse judicial comment. Competitors and aquatic construction firms operating in the large recreational water body sector — particularly those developing disinfection or pool-maintenance systems at scale — face continued exposure to these patents. The absence of a merits ruling preserves Crystal Lagoons' full enforcement position, subject to any terms not disclosed in the public record.
Patents remain enforceableFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Crystal Lagoons US Corp | Company | /Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Plaintiff | Crystal Lagoons Technologies | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Cloward H2O | Individual | /Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Pacific Aquascape International | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Anthony Richard Zeuli | Attorney | Counsel for Crystal Lagoons US CorpSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Eric Chad | Attorney | Counsel for Crystal Lagoons US CorpSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Merchant & Gould PC | Law Firm | Representing Crystal Lagoons US CorpSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Jared J. Braithwaite | Attorney | Counsel for Cloward H2OSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Foley & Lardner, LLP | Law Firm | Representing Cloward H2OSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | Court of Appeals for the Federal CircuitSearch in Eureka ↗ |
R&D signals in the large recreational water body technology space
Forward-looking patent and innovation intelligence derived from Crystal Lagoons' enforcement of four water-body technology patents against Cloward H2O and Pacific Aquascape at the Federal Circuit.
Crystal Lagoons' layered IP strategy across aquatic facility operations
Crystal Lagoons has assembled patents spanning structural containment, disinfection, cleaning apparatus, and maintenance processes for large water bodies. This multi-layer portfolio suggests active R&D investment across the full facility lifecycle. Monitoring their filing activity in these sub-domains can signal where the company is extending its IP perimeter and where licensing risk may emerge next.
Multi-domain portfolioFiling trends in large-scale aquatic disinfection and water treatment technology
The four asserted patents address localized disinfection, pool cleaning, water maintenance, and large-volume containment — a cluster of technologies seeing growing demand as amenity lagoon developments expand globally. Understanding filing trends and assignee activity in this space can reveal which competitors are building defensive or offensive IP positions around similar large-water-body systems.
Growing technology clusterCloward H2O and Pacific Aquascape: patent positions in aquatic design
Cloward H2O and Pacific Aquascape International are active aquatic design and construction firms. Assessing their patent filings — or the absence of a defensive portfolio — can indicate how firms in the aquatic construction sector are positioning against IP-assertive technology licensors like Crystal Lagoons, and whether design-around activity is emerging in the field.
Defensive IP postureAdjacent R&D opportunities near large water body treatment claims
Crystal Lagoons' patents focus on disinfection systems, cleaning methods, maintenance processes, and structural containment for large water bodies. Adjacent areas — such as real-time water quality sensing, automated chemical dosing, energy-efficient recirculation, or modular lagoon construction systems — may represent R&D white space not yet densely covered by the asserted patent families.
Innovation white spaceSimilar Federal Circuit appeals in water treatment and aquatic technology patent disputes
Explore Federal Circuit appeals involving water treatment, aquatic facility, and large-scale water management patents that share procedural or technical features with Case No. 23-2044.
What this case signals for the large water body technology IP landscape
A swift Federal Circuit exit on four water-body patents leaves enforcement risk live for aquatic technology developers and construction firms.
No merits ruling keeps Crystal Lagoons' patent arsenal intact
The voluntary dismissal produced no finding on validity or infringement. All four asserted patents — covering disinfection, pool cleaning, water maintenance processes, and large-volume containment structures — remain active. Any firm competing in large recreational water body construction or operation should monitor Crystal Lagoons' enforcement activity closely.
Early exit at 49 days suggests the dispute did not require appellate resolution
A 49-day Federal Circuit appeal lifecycle, resolved before merits briefing, is consistent with a negotiated resolution between the parties. However, the terms are not in the public record. IP teams tracking this technology area should not read the dismissal as a concession by either side on the technical merits.
Crystal v Cloward — key questions answered
Crystal Lagoons US Corp and Crystal Lagoons Technologies asserted four US patents: US9708822B2 (localized disinfection system for large water bodies), US8062514B2 (method and apparatus for cleaning swimming pools), US8753520B1 (process to maintain large clean recreational bodies of water), and US4640784A (structure to contain a large water body of at least 15,000 m³).
The recorded Basis of Termination is Voluntary dismissal. The docket order states that the parties having so agreed, the proceeding is dismissed under Fed. R. App. P. 42(b), with each side bearing its own costs. The Federal Circuit issued no merits ruling on validity or infringement of the four asserted patents.
No. The appeal was voluntarily dismissed under Fed. R. App. P. 42(b) before any merits adjudication. The Federal Circuit did not examine, comment on, or rule on the validity or infringement of US9708822B2, US8062514B2, US8753520B1, or US4640784A. All four patents remain in force on the public record.
The Basis of Termination is recorded as Voluntary dismissal without specifying whether it is with or without prejudice. The docket order does not address this distinction. The specific terms of any agreement between the parties are not disclosed in the available public record.
Cloward H2O and Pacific Aquascape International are the named defendants in Federal Circuit Case No. 23-2044. Both are described as active in the large-scale aquatic design and construction sector. The underlying district court proceedings and the specific accused products or conduct are not detailed in the available appellate record for this case.
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.