North Star Technology v. Latham Pool Products: Federal Circuit Affirms Design Patent Ruling
North Star Technology International and North Star Technology Limited pursued design patent infringement claims against Latham Pool Products over the Corinthian 16 fiberglass swimming pool, asserting two ornamental design patents. The Federal Circuit affirmed the lower court’s ruling after 653 days of litigation, leaving Latham’s design challenge exhausted at the appellate level.
Design patent showdown: pool aesthetics reach the Federal Circuit
North Star Technology International Limited and North Star Technology Limited filed this appeal-level infringement action against Latham Pool Products, Inc., asserting two ornamental design patents — USD791966S (Application No. US29/553069) and USD794213S (Application No. US29/553476) — directed to the aesthetic appearance of fiberglass swimming pools. The accused product is Latham’s Corinthian 16 fiberglass swimming pool. The case proceeded before the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit under Case No. 23-2138, filed on 11 July 2023.
The Federal Circuit issued a terse but definitive order: ‘AFFIRMED.’ This outcome means the appellate court found no reversible error in the lower tribunal’s decision, leaving that ruling intact. For North Star, the affirmance validates the lower court’s analysis of the asserted design patents. For Latham, the appellate avenue is now exhausted at the Federal Circuit level, and the prior ruling — whatever its terms — stands as the controlling disposition of the infringement claims.
The 653-day duration from filing to closure is consistent with a substantive Federal Circuit design patent appeal rather than a procedural dismissal, suggesting that the panel engaged with the merits of ornamental similarity and claim scope. The public record does not disclose the precise damages or injunctive relief terms from the underlying proceeding, nor does it reveal whether Latham intends to seek en banc review or certiorari. What is clear is that both design patents survived appellate scrutiny at this level.
Filing to Appeal Dismissed in 653 days
653 days — above typical Federal Circuit appeal resolution, suggesting substantive design patent analysis
Federal Circuit affirms: what the ruling means for both parties
Affirmance: no reversible error found in the design patent ruling below
When the Federal Circuit issues an ‘AFFIRMED’ order, it signals that a majority of the panel found no reversible error — legal or factual — in the lower tribunal’s decision. The appellate court does not retry the case; it reviews whether the lower court correctly applied design patent law, including the ordinary-observer test for infringement and claim construction of ornamental features. An affirmance gives the underlying ruling full legal force.
Appellate standard metNorth Star’s design patents survive Federal Circuit challenge
For North Star Technology, the affirmance is a meaningful enforcement win. Both asserted design patents — USD791966S and USD794213S — have now withstood appellate scrutiny, strengthening their presumption of validity and enforceability. This outcome makes it materially harder for Latham or any other party to re-litigate the same infringement questions in subsequent proceedings, and signals robust protection for North Star’s ornamental pool designs going forward.
Patents enforced and upheldLatham’s Federal Circuit route is closed; limited options remain
Latham Pool Products has exhausted its appellate options at the Federal Circuit level. Remaining avenues are narrow: a petition for en banc rehearing (rarely granted) or a petition for certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court (even less common in design patent cases). Absent those long-shot paths, Latham must now operate under the affirmed ruling, which may carry injunctive, monetary, or design-change obligations from the proceedings below.
Appellate options exhaustedAffirmed design patents raise the bar for fiberglass pool competitors
The Federal Circuit’s affirmance strengthens North Star’s ability to enforce its ornamental pool designs against the broader market, not just Latham. Competitors in the fiberglass swimming pool sector should treat these validated design patents as active enforcement risks. Product teams designing pool shapes and surface aesthetics should conduct freedom-to-operate analysis against USD791966S and USD794213S, as the ordinary-observer infringement standard is highly fact-specific and can capture visually similar designs.
Elevated enforcement riskFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | North Star Technology International Limited | Individual | Fiberglass swimming pool design IP holder — asserting USD791966S and USD794213SSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Plaintiff | North Star Technology Limited | Individual | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Latham Pool Products, Inc. | Company | Latham Pool Products, Inc. — major U.S. fiberglass swimming pool manufacturerSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Matthew James Dowd | Attorney | Counsel for North Star Technology International LimitedSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Michael J. Bradford | Attorney | Counsel for North Star Technology International LimitedSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Perry Saidman | Attorney | Counsel for North Star Technology International LimitedSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Robert James Scheffel | Attorney | Counsel for North Star Technology International LimitedSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Wade R. Orr | Attorney | Counsel for North Star Technology International LimitedSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Dowd Scheffel PLLC | Law Firm | Representing North Star Technology International LimitedSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Luedeka Neely, P.C. | Law Firm | Representing North Star Technology International LimitedSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Perry Saidman, LLC | Law Firm | Representing North Star Technology International LimitedSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Courtney Dabbiere | Attorney | Counsel for Latham Pool Products, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Megan Elizabeth Bussey | Attorney | Counsel for Latham Pool Products, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Michael A. Bertelson | Attorney | Counsel for Latham Pool Products, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Russell Korn | Attorney | Counsel for Latham Pool Products, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton, LLP | Law Firm | Representing Latham Pool Products, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | Court of Appeals for the Federal CircuitSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The Federal Circuit’s order — ‘AFFIRMED’ — is a merits disposition confirming the lower tribunal’s infringement ruling stands without modification. At the appellate level, the court applies a deferential standard to factual findings (clear error) and reviews legal conclusions de novo. The brevity of the order is itself informative: summary affirmances typically indicate the panel found the lower court’s application of the ordinary-observer test and claim construction well-supported. For North Star, the affirmed decision is fully enforceable. For Latham, no further factual re-litigation of these design patent claims is available through this court.
USD791966S & USD794213S — ornamental fiberglass swimming pool designs
USD791966S (App. No. US29/553069) and USD794213S (App. No. US29/553476) are U.S. design patents protecting the ornamental appearance of fiberglass swimming pools. Design patents under 35 U.S.C. § 171 protect the visual, non-functional characteristics of a manufactured article — in this case, the specific shape, contour, and aesthetic profile of a fiberglass pool form. The ‘D’ prefix classification and application numbers in the ’29/’ series confirm these are design — not utility — patents, with a standard 15-year term from grant.
Fiberglass pool design patents are strategically significant because the ordinary-observer infringement test — drawn from Egyptian Goddess v. Swisa — means that any pool whose overall visual impression is substantially similar to the patented design may infringe, even if individual features differ. In a market where pool shapes are a key consumer differentiator, controlling the ornamental rights to a widely adopted form can fence out competitors manufacturing visually similar models. The Federal Circuit affirmance of these two patents elevates their commercial value and litigation utility across the fiberglass pool manufacturing sector.
Should your fiberglass pool designs clear USD791966S and USD794213S?
Any company manufacturing, importing, or marketing fiberglass swimming pools — particularly those with oval, elongated, or classically proportioned forms similar to the Corinthian 16 — faces meaningful infringement exposure against these two now-affirmed design patents. The ordinary-observer test does not require element-by-element copying; visual similarity in the eye of an ordinary purchaser is sufficient. R&D and product teams should conduct a freedom-to-operate review before finalising mold designs or launching new pool models.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent enables product teams to map ornamental design patent landscapes in minutes. Search USD791966S and USD794213S to retrieve the full claim scope, prosecution history, prior art, and a visualised landscape of related design patents in the fiberglass pool category. Eureka’s AI-powered similarity scoring can flag design-arounds and identify white-space opportunities, helping your team make evidence-based decisions before committing to tooling or market launch.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on USD0791966S to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Federal Circuit design patent infringement appeals
Explore Federal Circuit appeals involving ornamental design patent infringement claims in the swimming pool and consumer outdoor products sector, with comparable ordinary-observer test analyses.
What this case signals for the fiberglass pool design IP landscape
A Federal Circuit affirmance in a design patent infringement case carries lasting market consequences beyond the two named parties.
Design patents on pool aesthetics are now Federal Circuit-tested
This affirmance confirms that ornamental design protections for fiberglass swimming pools can withstand full appellate review. For IP teams at pool manufacturers, this is a signal to audit your own design portfolio and assess exposure against similar granted designs. A validated design patent is a substantially stronger enforcement asset than an untested one.
Latham must comply with the underlying ruling — watch for product redesigns
With all Federal Circuit options now closed, Latham Pool Products faces direct compliance obligations from the lower court’s affirmed decision. Industry observers and competitors should monitor whether Latham modifies the Corinthian 16’s ornamental features, exits the product line, or negotiates a license — each outcome signals different dynamics in the fiberglass pool market.
Limited v Latham — key questions answered
The Federal Circuit affirmed the lower court’s ruling in Case No. 23-2138. The order — ‘AFFIRMED’ — means the appellate court found no reversible error in the infringement decision below, leaving it fully in force against Latham Pool Products with respect to design patents USD791966S and USD794213S.
Two U.S. design patents were asserted: USD791966S (Application No. US29/553069) and USD794213S (Application No. US29/553476). Both protect the ornamental appearance of fiberglass swimming pools. The accused product was Latham’s Corinthian 16 fiberglass swimming pool.
Latham has exhausted its appellate options at the Federal Circuit level. The affirmed ruling — including any injunctive, damages, or compliance obligations imposed by the lower court — is now final at this appellate stage. Latham’s remaining options are limited to an en banc petition or Supreme Court certiorari, both of which are rarely granted.
Under the ordinary-observer test established in Egyptian Goddess v. Swisa, a design patent is infringed if an ordinary purchaser, familiar with the prior art, would be deceived into thinking the accused design is the same as the patented design. Applied to fiberglass pools, this means overall visual similarity — not feature-by-feature copying — is the standard. The Federal Circuit’s affirmance here suggests the lower court correctly applied this test to the Corinthian 16.
The appeal was filed on 11 July 2023 and closed on 24 April 2025, a duration of 653 days. This is consistent with a substantive design patent merits appeal at the Federal Circuit, where contested ordinary-observer and claim construction issues typically extend briefing and consideration timelines beyond summary procedural dispositions.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.