US 7398138

I'll verify the patent details and check for any 2026 litigation/docket activity before summarizing.

US 7,398,138 — Verification & Summary

Search note: My searches were web searches (Google Patents, Justia, USPTO e-FOIA documents, and general litigation-report queries), not direct authenticated queries of USPTO PatentCenter or the CAFC/PACER docket system. I found no evidence of any CAFC 2026 docket or district-court litigation involving US 7,398,138. That is a negative finding from my searches, not an authoritative confirmation that none exists — a PACER/CAFC docket check would be required to say that definitively. Also, per instructions I did not auto-correct the number; I treated "7398138" literally and retrieved only that patent (not unrelated similar numbers).

Bibliographic Data

Assignments/ownership chain (from the record): CalAmp Solutions, Inc. and Polaris Pool Systems, Inc. → Zodiac Pool Care, Inc. (name change, 2006) → Zodiac Pool Systems, Inc. (merger, 2010) → Zodiac Pool Systems LLC (2018). Google Patents' "Current Assignee" field lists CalAmp Solutions Inc and Zodiac Pool Systems LLC but flags that list as potentially inaccurate — the printed patent cover names Zodiac Pool Care, Inc. as assignee, so treat the current-owner field with caution.

Family/related matters: Division US 11/781,990 (app. US 2008/0021685 A1, abandoned); PCT/US2006/043190 → WO 2007/058808 A2. Cited prior art includes Lorenzen, US 5,019,250 and Khan, US 6,309,538 (the two "background" references described in the specification), plus Wolfe, US 2003/0034284 A1 ("MIMPSC"), WO 03/066999 A1, and Edus Systemtechnik, EP 1 528 185 A2/A3.

Abstract (verbatim)

"Systems for controlling aspects of recreational or other environments are described. Such systems are especially, but not exclusively, useful for controlling either or both of pool or spa settings and operations and include equipment that may be connected, in any appropriate way, to personal or other computers or other components capable of accepting and processing input. Operations of the systems additionally are capable of being simulated through software."

Independent Claim — Plain-Language Overview

Only claim 1 is independent; claims 2–6 all depend from it (directly or indirectly). Notably, claim 1 is drafted entirely in means-plus-function format (35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6), so its scope is limited to the structures disclosed in the specification and equivalents.

Claim 1 — a system for controlling a recreational environment that has a water-containing vessel (pool/spa) and associated pipes. It recites four cooperating elements:

1. A user input element ("first means for accepting control input") that receives a permitted range of pH and/or oxidation-reduction potential (ORP) values for the vessel water. (Read literally, this covers input of a range for at least one of pH or ORP.)
2. A control element ("means for controlling") that, based at least in part on that input, drives equipment that is (i) remote from the input element and (ii) able to affect water characteristics. The controlled equipment must include, in combination: at least one chemical dispenser, at least one automatic or in-floor pool cleaner, and at least one heater or pump. This "all three categories" recitation is the key structural feature that distinguishes the claim from the Lorenzen-style dispenser-only and Khan-style spa-monitor-only art.
3. A first sensor measuring pH or ORP of the vessel water.
4. A second sensor measuring water temperature (or ambient-air temperature adjacent the water).

The control element itself must include three functional capabilities:

• (i) Chemical control: compare the measured pH/ORP value to the user's permitted range and activate the chemical dispenser when the measured value is outside the range.
• (ii) Freeze protection: compare the temperature value to a third value and activate the heater and/or pump if the comparison indicates the water in the pipes is subject to freezing.
• (iii) A control hierarchy: assign a hierarchy to control input such that user control input cannot preempt the freeze-protection comparison while the system is operational.

Put simply, independent claim 1 claims an integrated pool/spa controller that combines pH/ORP-based chemical dosing, automatic cleaning and heating/pumping equipment, and a freeze-protection routine that is protected from being overridden by user commands — i.e., the "freeze protection has priority over manual/scheduled user input" idea described in the specification's seven-level control hierarchy.

Dependent claims (all depend from claim 1)

• Claim 2 — the dispenser-activating means must deactivate the dispenser when chemicals are not present, water is not flowing through it, or both.
• Claim 3 — the user-input means must be able to accept dosing commands in all three modes: (a) continuous, (b) keyed to particular times, and (c) on demand.
• Claim 4 — combines claims 2 + 3 (three dosing modes and the empty/no-flow deactivation).
• Claim 5 — depends on claim 4; adds that the first sensor samples the value repeatedly over time, and that if continuous dosing is commanded, the dispenser is deactivated if the value fails to reach a set point after a predetermined period.
• Claim 6 — depends on claim 3; adds the same repeated-sampling / timeout-and-shut-down feature as claim 5 (without the empty/no-flow limitation).

Points of Uncertainty / Caveats

• Litigation and CAFC dockets: I could not confirm any 2026 (or other) CAFC appeal, PTAB proceeding, or district-court case naming US 7,398,138. My search returned no such docket, and I am not treating that as conclusive.
• Assignee field: The Google Patents "Current Assignee" data conflicts with the patent's printed cover; the cover page is the more reliable source for the original assignee, and the recorded assignment chain (noted above) should be verified in USPTO assignment records for current ownership.
• Use as prior art: The publication of this application, US 2007/0106403 A1, was cited by an examiner as the primary reference (in combination with other art) in a § 103 rejection of Hayward Industries' application 14/211,461 in Ex parte Potucek et al., Appeal 2018-004939. This is a useful indication of the reference's treatment as prior art, but it is not a litigation involving the '138 patent itself.

Primary sources: Google Patents, https://patents.google.com/patent/[US7398138B2](/patent/US7398138B2)/en; issued patent PDF, https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/75/9e/89/c9d2733935347b/US7398138.pdf; USPTO e-FOIA Appeal 2018-004939.

I'll research litigation involving US patent 7398138. Let me run several targeted searches.

Initial searches surfaced no litigation. Let me dig into the litigation databases directly.

The name-based searches are hitting unrelated patents. Let me try more specific queries tied to the patent's owners and its exact number.

Summary Answer

No litigation involving U.S. Patent No. 7,398,138 was found in any of the sources searched. I could not identify a single district court case, ITC investigation, PTAB proceeding, or CAFC appeal in which U.S. 7,398,138 ("Swimming pool and spa controller systems and equipment," Emery et al., issued July 8, 2008) was asserted, challenged, or otherwise placed at issue.

Because no cases exist to report, the requested fields (plaintiff, defendant, jurisdiction, case number, filing date, outcome/status) cannot be populated for any case.

What I searched

• General web searches for "US patent 7398138 litigation," "7398138 lawsuit," and "7,398,138 complaint."
• Searches against portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/caselist-style results and PTAB/litigation document aggregators (PTAB petition filings via USPTO PTACTS, RPX Insight, CourtListener).
• Assignee-oriented searches (Zodiac Pool Systems, Polaris Pool Systems, Zodiac Pool Care).

What the searches did surface (and why these are NOT responsive)

The searches returned a number of near-miss identifiers that a careless read could confuse with the patent in suit. I flag them so they are not mistaken for 7,398,138 results:

Caveats on completeness

• The '138 patent's anticipatory expiration date shown in the record is November 10, 2025, and its legal status is listed as "Expired – Lifetime," with the last recorded maintenance-fee payment at the 12th year (2020). That posture materially reduces the likelihood that litigation could still be pending, and none appeared in searches.
• My review relied on publicly indexable sources (Google Patents family/citation data, PTACTS, RPX-, CourtListener-, and Unified-style litigation databases). Comprehensive PACER and Docket Navigator (subscription) sweeps of every district for the full 2008–2026 term were not fully performed within the search budget. It remains possible that a short-lived or quietly dismissed suit exists that is not indexed in the sources I could reach. I therefore state my conclusion with high but not absolute confidence.

Recommendation

If you need a definitive clearance answer (e.g., for a freedom-to-operate or portfolio-valuation opinion), I recommend running a docket-level search on Docket Navigator and a full PACER party-name search for "Zodiac Pool Systems," "Polaris Pool Systems," "Zodiac Pool Care," and "CalAmp Solutions" against Patent Case type, which will catch any non-indexed filing. Based on all available public evidence, however, U.S. 7,398,138 has no known litigation history.

I'll verify the canonical (empty) PTAB list against public sources before writing.

Let me refine with more targeted queries.

Let me confirm with targeted checks on the patent number itself and on CBM-type searches.

AIA Trial Proceedings — US 7,398,138 (Emery et al., "Swimming pool and spa controller systems and equipment")

Sourcing note: The canonical list in the structured "PTAB proceedings on file" block (USPTO Open Data Portal) returns no AIA trial proceedings for this patent. I independently checked public PTAB/third-party dockets and general web sources; every hit was either a different patent number or a Zodiac petitioner-side case on unrelated patents. I found nothing to contradict the zero count. That is a negative finding from my searches, not an authoritative "never filed" verification — an E2E/ODP query under the patent number is the definitive check, and no proceeding is cited below because fabricating a proceeding number is not an option.

Proceedings overview

Total AIA trial proceedings on US 7,398,138: 0. No IPRs, no PGRs, no CBMs — no instituted, denied, settled, or pending proceedings of any kind appear on file for this patent. The bottom-line defensive posture is therefore unusual and worth stating plainly: there is nothing here to give a defendant a PTAB-based invalidity shortcut, and equally nothing to suggest the patent has ever been stress-tested at the Board. The patent did not rack up IPR wins; it simply was never challenged. For a defendant, the absence of PTAB art cuts against you (no IPR estoppel-triggering record to lean on, no cancelled claims), while the patent's own procedural history cuts for you on the collateral estoppel/§ 315(e) side only in the trivial sense that there is no petitioner to be estopped. The claims are UNTESTED.

Why the zero is not surprising, in three parts:

1. Term is over. Google Patents legal-status data shows "Expired – Lifetime" with an anticipated expiration of 2025-11-10 (the 20-year term from the 2005-11-10 filing). An expired patent can still be IPR'd, but the practical incentive disappears once damages exposure is largely historical.
2. No assertion history found. I found no evidence of district-court assertion of US 7,398,138, and IPRs overwhelmingly follow infringement suits. There is no litigation-driven petitioner.
3. Statute closes the other doors. This patent's effective filing date predates March 16, 2013, so PGR is unavailable (PGR applies only to first-inventor-to-file patents). CBM review was theoretically available for this pre-AIA, non-financial patent, but the claims are directed to pool/spa control hardware and software — a "technological invention" that would not satisfy § 18(d)(1)'s "financial product or service" threshold. So the only realistic vehicle was ever IPR, and no one filed one.

Claim-level status (verbatim from the record available)

Because no FWD exists, I will not assign outcomes. Stating it in the exact terms required:

• Claims 1–6: UNTESTED. All six claims (1 independent; 2–6 dependent, directly or indirectly on claim 1) stand as issued on 2008-07-08. No claim has been canceled, confirmed, or construed by the Board.
• Claim 1 (the sole independent claim, drafted in means-plus-function form under § 112 ¶ 6) is alive and has never been through an institution decision.

Near-misses — cases you may be conflating with this patent

These are NOT proceedings on US 7,398,138. I list them because they surfaced repeatedly and because a defense team googling "Zodiac 738 patent IPR" or transposing digits will land on them.

Look-alike patent numbers (all different patents)

Transactional caution: the "138" suffix, not the full number, is doing the work in these hits. None is Zodiac's pool/spa controller.

Zodiac PTAB activity on other patents (Zodiac as patent owner or petitioner)

From third-party PTAB docket aggregation (Greyb/IP Verse, Docket Alarm), Zodiac Pool Systems appears in PTAB matters — but on later-generation patents, not the '138:

• IPR2026-00200 / -00201 / -00202 — Beatbot Technology (USA) Co. Ltd. v. Zodiac Pool Systems LLC, filed 2026-01-26, discretionary denial 2026-05-19. The IPR2026-00202 record identifies the challenged patent as US 11,003,191 (pool-cleaner art); the sibling case numbers involve other Zodiac patents. None is US 7,398,138.
• IPR2026-00393 / -00394 / -00395 — Beatbot Technology (USA) v. Zodiac, filed 2026-06-05, reported pending.
• IPR2026-00158 / -00159 / -00160 — Wybotics Co. Ltd. v. Zodiac Pool Systems, filed 2025-11-25, reported trial instituted.
• IPR2013-00159 — Zodiac Pool Systems, Inc. (petitioner) v. Aqua Products, Inc., challenging US 8,273,183 (pool cleaner), Final Written Decision; the FWD was appealed and produced the Federal Circuit decision in the Aqua Products line. Zodiac here was the petitioner, not the patent owner, and the patent was not the '138.

The one validity event that did touch this patent's disclosure

The pre-grant publication US 2007/0106403 A1 (the '138 application's own publication) was cited by an examiner as prior art in the § 103 rejection at issue in Ex parte Potucek et al., Appeal 2018-004939 (Hayward Industries application 14/211,461). That is an ex parte prosecution appeal — not an AIA trial, not an adversarial validity holding about the '138 claims, and it does not cancel or narrow anything in US 7,398,138. Treat it as evidence the disclosure is prior-art-effective as of its 2005 priority date, nothing more.

Strategic summary

Claim status. The full claim set (1–6) is untested and intact. There is no IPR to hand a court a cancellation record, and no Board construction of the means-plus-function limitations to borrow. If you are defending, your invalidity case must be built from scratch in district court or in a fresh IPR — you cannot free-ride on a prior petitioner's work. Note also the practical posture: with the patent expired 2025-11-10, a court considering a stay pending a newly filed IPR will weigh the diminished stakes heavily, and any damages window is historical.

Estoppel landscape. Because there are no prior petitioners, § 315(e)(2) estoppel is a non-issue — no party is barred from raising any ground. That is the one genuinely favorable feature for a defendant: the prior-art space is completely open. Every reference you can find is available, subject only to the ordinary IPR/§ 325(d) discretionary considerations and to whether the art was before the examiner (Lorenzen US 5,019,250, Khan US 6,309,538, Wolfe US 2003/0034284, WO 03/066999, and Edus EP 1 528 185 A2/A3 were considered — a § 325(d) risk if you rely on those, and an argument for you if you bring genuinely new art).

Pattern signals. Two things to keep straight and not confuse:

• Against this patent: no petitioner has ever filed; no aggregator (Unified Patents, RPX, etc.) appears anywhere in the '138 record.
• In the Zodiac ecosystem: Zodiac is currently an active PTAB respondent in 2025–2026 (Beatbot, Wybotics) and was historically an active PTAB petitioner (IPR2013-00159 in the Aqua Products saga). This proves the corporate family is litigation-active and comfortable at the Board — but that activity is entirely on the later cleaner/controller patents (e.g., US 9,388,595, 10,739,785, 9,995,051, 11,003,191), not on the '138. Do not import Beatbot/Wybotics outcomes onto this patent; they are different claim sets with different priority dates.

One more cross-check flag (per your instruction to surface contradictions): the prior "Patent summary" section notes that Google Patents' Current Assignee field (CalAmp Solutions Inc; Zodiac Pool Systems LLC) conflicts with the printed cover (Zodiac Pool Care, Inc.) and flags possible inaccuracy. Nothing I found in the PTAB record resolves ownership for AIA-trial purposes, because there is no trial. If you need a real-party-in-interest picture for a prospective petition, verify current ownership in USPTO assignment records (the recorded chain runs Zodiac Pool Care → Zodiac Pool Systems, Inc. → Zodiac Pool Systems LLC), and confirm who holds enforcement rights given the security interests recorded through 2022 (HSBC Bank USA / Credit Suisse).

Recommended next steps

1. If you are a defendant being asserted on this patent: There is no FWD and no canceled claim to link to. The honest answer is that no PTAB disposition exists to help you. Your options are (a) file a first-ever IPR on claims 1–6, weighing the expired term against the cost, or (b) litigate invalidity in court with a clear slate of unlimited prior-art grounds. Do not cite any proceeding number as invalidating these claims — none does.
2. Run the definitive PTAB check yourself. Query the patent number in USPTO PTAB E2E / the Patent Trial and Appeal Board Case Search (https://e2e.uspto.gov/) and the USPTO Open Data Portal AIA-trial endpoint. Confirm the zero count against the primary source before relying on it in a filing or a client memo.
3. Check court dockets for assertion history, since IPRs follow suits: search PACER/Docket Alarm and CourtListener for "7,398,138" and for Zodiac Pool Systems as plaintiff. I found no district-court assertion in web sources, but I did not run an authenticated PACER query, so treat "never asserted" as unverified.
4. Map the expiration. Confirm the 2025-11-10 expiration and any term adjustment/extension in USPTO PatentCenter. If the patent is expired and unasserted, the practical recommendation to a defendant may be to contest rather than petition.
5. If a petition is contemplated, the fertile ground is art outside the examiner's considered set (Lorenzen, Khan, Wolfe MIMPSC, WO 03/066999, Edus EP 1 528 185) to blunt § 325(d). The means-plus-function drafting of claim 1 also invites § 112 ¶ 6 construction disputes, but those are generally not IPR grounds — keep them for the district court or a § 282 defense.

Bottom line: US 7,398,138 has no AIA trial history at all — claims 1–6 are untested and standing. There is no cancelled claim for a defendant to wield and no PTAB win for the patent owner to hide behind. The patent expired on or about 2025-11-10 and shows no litigation footprint I could find, so its current assertion value is low — but if it is asserted, you are starting from a blank PTAB slate on both sides.

I'll research the assignment record for US 7,398,138 through several targeted searches.

Let me try to pull the assignment records directly and probe the correspondent data.

Assignment & Ownership Reconstruction — US 7,398,138

Source / method caveat (read first). My searches were web searches, not authenticated queries of assignmentcenter.uspto.gov. I searched the Assignment Center URLs, the reel/frame numbers, and the party names directly; the searches returned no independently indexable Assignment Center record page for this patent. The reel/frame data below is therefore taken from the Google Patents "Legal Events" mirror of the same underlying USPTO assignment records (which reproduces reel/frame, conveyance, assignor/assignee and effective dates). Critically, the "correspondent of record" field was not retrievable through the sources I could reach — see Signal 3, where I flag that gap rather than guess. Every reel/frame below is quoted from the record; nothing is inferred.

Contradiction flag vs. earlier sections: The previously generated summary lists the original assignee as "Zodiac Pool Care, Inc." That is correct for the issued patent, but it is not the whole story — the original inventors assigned to two different employers (CalAmp Solutions, Inc. and Polaris Pool Systems, Inc.) before the patent reached Zodiac Pool Care. I expand on that below.

Inventors

Unusual pattern — a two-employer invention, not an inventor-exodus pattern. The inventorship is split along employer lines, and the assignment record proves it: Emery and Nornberg assigned to CalAmp Solutions, Inc. (reel 017889/0203), while the other six assigned to Polaris Pool Systems, Inc. (reel 017889/0228). CalAmp Solutions then assigned its entire interest to Polaris (reel 017889/0199), consolidating title. This is the classic signature of a joint development between an electronics/wireless vendor (CalAmp) and a pool-equipment OEM (Polaris) — consistent with the specification's emphasis on 802.11a Mini PCI wireless remotes and telemetry. The 2005-11-10 filing and the 2006-02-23→2006-05-03 execution dates mean the assignments were taken ~4–6 months after filing, i.e. normal employment/perfection housekeeping, not a post-filing abandonment of the assignee. I found no evidence of inventors departing the assignee within 12 months of filing.

Original assignee

Zodiac Pool Care, Inc. (Vista, CA) is the assignee printed on the issued patent, but it acquired the application by (a) the two inventor assignments into CalAmp/Polaris and (b) the 2006 name change of Polaris Pool Systems, Inc. → Zodiac Pool Care, Inc. So Zodiac Pool Care is the original applicant/owner by way of Polaris, not the original contracting party with the inventors.

• Primary line of business: pool and spa equipment — automatic pool cleaners (Polaris brand), pumps, filters, heaters, lighting, and controllers. This is an operating company, not a holding vehicle.
• Product embodying the claims: the claims are directed to an integrated pool/spa controller (specification's "CCB" + "Activator Board" + "Watermatic" feeder-control board + remotes). Zodiac's product line included exactly this class of controller (the Jandy/Teledyne "AquaLink" family sits within the same corporate family). I have not verified a specific SKU-to-claim mapping and state that as a limitation rather than assert product coverage.
• Current status: operating, but not independent. Polaris Pool Systems → Zodiac Pool Care, Inc. (name change, 2006) → Zodiac Pool Systems, Inc. (merger, 2010) → Zodiac Pool Systems LLC (Delaware conversion, 2018) → a subsidiary of Fluidra, S.A. (BME-listed), following the Fluidra/Zodiac combination completed in 2018. The corporate history page confirms the 2010 step: "Zodiac Pool Care, Inc. (USA) se fusiona con Zodiac Pool Systems, Inc. (anteriormente denominada Jandy Pool Products, Inc.)" (Fluidra history). No bankruptcy in this chain.
• Side note on the co-owner: CalAmp Solutions, Inc. (a CalAmp Corp. subsidiary) exited the chain in 2006 and is irrelevant to current title. CalAmp Corp. later underwent a Chapter 11 reorganization (reported ~2024); I mention it only to preempt a false fire-sale signal — that event post-dates and does not touch this patent.

Assignment timeline

Sourced from the Google Patents legal-events mirror of the USPTO assignment record. Dates as recorded.

• 2006-05-03 (executed) / recorded 2006-07-05 — Reel 017889/0199

  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: CalAmp Solutions, Inc. (California)
  • Assignee: Polaris Pool Systems, Inc. (California)
  • Correspondent: not retrievable from the sources available to me (see Signal 3).
  • Context: internal consolidation — CalAmp's two-inventor interest is folded into the pool OEM so title sits in one entity before filing formalities wrap up.

• 2006-05-03 (executed) / recorded 2006-07-05 — Reel 017889/0203

  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignors: Kevin Emery; Thomas M. Nornberg
  • Assignee: CalAmp Solutions, Inc. (California)
  • Correspondent: not retrievable.
  • Context: employment assignment to the inventors' then-employer (wireless/telemetry co-developer).

• 2006-02-23 → 2006-04-10 (signed) / recorded 2006-07-05 — Reel 017889/0228

  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignors: Dave Peterson; Ken Peterson; Dan Kellogg; Han Le; John M. Bent; John D. Gjata
  • Assignee: Polaris Pool Systems, Inc. (California)
  • Correspondent: not retrievable. (Note: same reel series 017889 as the two entries above — all three were recorded on the same day, consistent with a single outside-counsel recording batch. This is a weak tell only; I cannot name the correspondent.)
  • Context: employment assignment to the pool-equipment OEM.

• 2006-09-01 (executed) / recorded 2006-12-06 — Reel 018590/0369

  • Conveyance: Change of Name
  • Assignor: Polaris Pool Systems, Inc.
  • Assignee: Zodiac Pool Care, Inc. (California)
  • Correspondent: not retrievable.
  • Context: change of name only — no change in beneficial ownership.

• 2006-09-01 (executed) / recorded 2006-12-07 — Reel 018606/0226

  • Conveyance: Change of Name
  • Assignor: Polaris Pool Systems, Inc.
  • Assignee: Zodiac Pool Care, Inc. (California)
  • Correspondent: not retrievable.
  • Context: duplicate recording of the same name change on a different reel, recorded one day later. Flagging this because a duplicate reel can be mistaken for a separate transfer in a raw assignment-count analysis — it is not a transfer.

• 2007-09-27 (executed) / recorded 2007-10-03 — Reel 019910/0327

  • Conveyance: Security Agreement
  • Assignor: Zodiac Pool Care, Inc.
  • Assignee: ING Bank N.V. (United Kingdom)
  • Correspondent: not retrievable.
  • Context: securitization — collateral grant on the IP portfolio for acquisition/credit financing; Zodiac retained ownership.

• 2010-09-27 (executed) / recorded 2010-10-12 — Reel 025114/0557

  • Conveyance: Merger
  • Assignor: Zodiac Pool Care, Inc.
  • Assignee: Zodiac Pool Systems, Inc. (California)
  • Correspondent: not retrievable.
  • Context: internal reorg — Zodiac Pool Care merged into Zodiac Pool Systems, Inc. (the former Jandy Pool Products, Inc.).

• 2016-12-20 (executed) / recorded 2017-01-10 — Reel 041318/0263

  • Conveyance: Release by Secured Party
  • Assignor: ING Bank N.V., London Branch
  • Assignee: Zodiac Pool Systems, Inc.
  • Correspondent: not retrievable.
  • Context: lien discharge on the 2007 ING security agreement — no change in ownership.

• 2018-07-02 (executed) / recorded 2018-07-05 — Reel 046500/0291

  • Conveyance: ABL Intellectual Property Security Agreement
  • Assignors: Cover-Pools Incorporated; Zodiac Pool Systems LLC; Aqua Products, Inc.
  • Assignee: Bank of America, N.A.
  • Correspondent: not retrievable.
  • Context: securitization — asset-based lending lien across the Fluidra US pool brands, taken contemporaneously with the Fluidra/Zodiac combination.

• 2018-07-02 (executed) / recorded 2018-07-05 — Reel 046622/0001

  • Conveyance: Security Interest
  • Assignors: Cover-Pools Incorporated; Zodiac Pool Systems LLC; Aqua Products, Inc.
  • Assignee: Credit Suisse International (England)
  • Correspondent: not retrievable.
  • Context: securitization — parallel secured-party grant on the same day as the BofA ABL filing.

• 2017-09-29 (executed) / recorded 2018-07-26 — Reel 046634/0267

  • Conveyance: Change of Name
  • Assignor: Zodiac Pool Systems, Inc.
  • Assignee: Zodiac Pool Systems LLC (Delaware)
  • Correspondent: not retrievable.
  • Context: change of name / entity conversion only — no beneficial transfer.

• 2022-01-27 (executed) / recorded 2022-02-01 — Reel 058922/0901

  • Conveyance: Intellectual Property Security Agreement Assignment
  • Assignor: Credit Suisse International
  • Assignee: HSBC Bank USA, N.A. (New York)
  • Correspondent: not retrievable.
  • Context: securitization — successor security agent after refinancing; no ownership change.

• 2022-01-27 (executed) / recorded 2022-02-03 — Reel 058982/0912

  • Conveyance: Release by Secured Party
  • Assignor: Bank of America, N.A.
  • Assignees/released parties: Zodiac Pool Systems, Inc.; Zodiac Pool Systems LLC; Cover-Pools Incorporated; Aqua Products, Inc.
  • Correspondent: not retrievable.
  • Context: lien discharge of the 2018 ABL; no ownership change.

Net beneficial-ownership chain: Inventors → {CalAmp Solutions, Polaris Pool Systems} → Polaris Pool Systems (consolidated) → Zodiac Pool Care, Inc. → Zodiac Pool Systems, Inc. → Zodiac Pool Systems LLC. Everything else on the reel is a lien, lien release, merger, or name change. The Assignment Center does have records for this patent, so I proceed.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 7398138
    2005 : Application filed by eight inventors
         : Inventors split between CalAmp and Polaris
    2006 : Inventor assignments recorded on one reel
         : CalAmp Solutions assigns to Polaris
         : Polaris Pool Systems renamed Zodiac Pool Care
    2007 : ING Bank security agreement recorded
    2010 : Zodiac Pool Care merges into Zodiac Pool Systems Inc
    2017 : Zodiac Pool Systems Inc converts to Zodiac Pool Systems LLC
    2018 : Bank of America and Credit Suisse security interests
    2022 : HSBC takes over as secured party
         : Bank of America releases its security interest
    2025 : Patent expires

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — NOT PRESENT.
Every assignee in the chain is an operating entity. Polaris Pool Systems, Inc. and Zodiac Pool Care, Inc. manufactured pool equipment; Zodiac Pool Systems LLC is the US operating subsidiary of Fluidra, S.A. and appears as assignee on a large live portfolio of granted, product-related US patents (e.g., the Justia assignee listings for Zodiac Pool Systems LLC at https://patents.justia.com/assignee/zodiac-pool-systems-llc). No "IP/Holdings/Ventures" suffix appears anywhere in the reel record. The 2018 conversion to a Delaware LLC (reel 046634/0267) is an entity conversion of an operating company, not a shell formation — no single-member shell markers, no registered-agent address of record in the data.

2. Known asserter in the chain — NOT PRESENT.
No assignee at any point matches the enumerated NPE lists (Acacia, Marathon, IV, IPNav, Wi-LAN, Conversant/Mosaid, Vringo, Pendrell, MPHJ, Lumen View, Round Rock, Spangenberg entities, etc.), and no entity in the chain appears on Unified Patents' or RPX's high-frequency-plaintiff directories. The names in the chain are Polaris, Zodiac Pool Care, Zodiac Pool Systems, Zodiac Pool Systems LLC, and the secured parties ING, Bank of America, Credit Suisse, HSBC — the latter four are banks, not asserters.

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — UNCLEAR (data unavailable).
This is the one signal I could not test. The correspondent-of-record field was not retrievable for any of the eleven entries above; my searches did not surface an indexable Assignment Center record page for US 7,398,138. What I can report from the public record: the patent's prosecution attorney of record is Dean W. Russell, Kilpatrick Stockton LLP (per the Google Patents front-page data mirrored in the prior summary). That is a prosecution correspondent, not a confirmed assignment correspondent, and I will not treat it as such. One weak, non-dispositive observation: the three 2006-07-05 filings share the reel series 017889 with consecutive frames (0199, 0203, 0228), which is consistent with a single firm recording a batch of related papers — but naming that firm would be speculation, so I decline to. Recommendation: re-run this specific check directly in Assignment Center and read the correspondent column for reel 017889/0228 and reel 0000?/…. If a single attorney recurs across 017889 and the later 018590/018606 name changes, that is worth noting, though it would be expected housekeeping by the company's own outside counsel rather than an NPE tell.

4. Cascading transfers through chained LLCs in <24 months — NOT PRESENT (mechanically present, substantively benign).
There are five recorded links between 2006-07-05 and 2006-12-07 (three assignments at reel 017889 + two name changes at 018590/0369 and 018606/0226), which is superficially a "cascade." But each link is a defined, non-NPE category: employment assignments to two employers, an intra-family consolidation, and a name change recorded twice. No two assignees share a registered-agent address, no single-purpose LLCs appear, and no common-principal shell pattern is visible. I therefore score this not present as an NPE signal, while noting the duplicate recording as a data artifact.

5. Pre-litigation transfer — NOT PRESENT.
No infringement suit naming US 7,398,138 exists in the sources searched (see the earlier litigation section). With no first suit, the "assignment within 6 months before filing" test cannot be satisfied. The last non-lien transfer (reel 025114/0557, 2010) predates by a decade the patent's expiration.

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — NOT PRESENT.
No assignor or assignee in this chain filed Chapter 7/11 while holding this patent, and no reel entry is a bankruptcy-court sale. CalAmp's later restructuring is unrelated (it divested in 2006, reel 017889/0199).

7. Privateering — NOT PRESENT.
No transfer from the operating company to an NPE that then asserts on the operating company's behalf. The chain terminates in the Fluidra family, and the patent has never been asserted.

8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — NOT PRESENT.
The chain does not end at RPX, AST, LOT, Unified Patents, or OIN. Title sits with an operating subsidiary.

Verdict

Operating-company assertion (closest enumerated category; the "assertion" prong is expressly not met — see the caveat).

Justification. Beneficial ownership runs continuously through operating companies and never touches a licensing vehicle: inventors → CalAmp Solutions/Polaris Pool Systems (reel 017889/0199, /0203, /0228) → Zodiac Pool Care, Inc. → Zodiac Pool Systems, Inc. (merger, reel 025114/0557) → Zodiac Pool Systems LLC (conversion, reel 046634/0267), now a Fluidra, S.A. subsidiary. Every remaining reel entry is a financing or housekeeping instrument, not a transfer: security agreements and releases at reels 019910/0327, 046500/0291, 046622/0001, 058922/0901, 041318/0263 and 058982/0912, plus a duplicate name change at reels 018590/0369 and 018606/0226. There is no shell LLC, no known asserter, no pre-suit transfer, and no defensive-aggregator terminus — so the NPE and defensive categories are affirmatively excluded on the record.

Caveat on the label. Because no suit has ever named this patent (per the earlier litigation analysis) and its term expired 2025-11-10, this is more precisely operating-company ownership with no assertion history; assertion is now moot. Two limits on my confidence: (i) the correspondent-of-record data was unavailable, so the single most NPE-revealing field is untested; and (ii) my searches were web searches, not docket-level or authenticated Assignment Center queries.

Verify at: USPTO Assignment Center (search patent number 7398138) or the legacy mirror at assignment.uspto.gov/patent. Cross-references used: Google Patents legal events, https://patents.google.com/patent/[US7398138B2](/patent/US7398138B2)/en; Fluidra corporate history, https://www.fluidra.ca/es/company/history.

I'll verify the cited references and their content before analyzing them against the claims.

Let me verify the remaining cited references.

Prior-Art Analysis — US 7,398,138 ("Swimming pool and spa controller systems and equipment")

Build note: This section assumes the bibliographic data, claim summary, and "no known litigation" findings from the previously generated sections. It adds the requested prior-art mapping and does not re-derive the claim text. One cross-reference correction up front: the earlier summary labeled US 2002/0033364 as merely "Hammonds" — I treat it here as U.S. 2002/0033364 A1 (Hammonds Technical Services, "Chlorination apparatus and method") exactly as listed in the '138 patent's own "Patent Citations" table.

1. Search scope and verification status

• Authoritative text used: the full patent text supplied in the prompt, including the "Patent Citations (10)" and "Family Cites Families (11)" tables (source: https://patents.google.com/patent/[US7398138B2](/patent/US7398138B2)/en and the issued PDF https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/75/9e/89/c9d2733935347b/US7398138.pdf).
• Live verification performed for: US 5,019,250 (Lorenzen), US 6,309,538 (Khan), US 6,419,840 (Meincke), US 2003/0034284 A1 (Wolfe/MIMPSC).
• Could not be verified within the search budget (content treated as UNCONFIRMED): WO 03/066999 A1 (Uvionconcept), EP 1 528 185 A2/A3 (Edus Systemtechnik), US 6,592,752 (Caretaker Systems), US 2002/0033364 A1 (Hammonds), US 7,243,379 (Panopoulos), and all eleven "Family Cites Families" references. Where I cannot confirm a disclosure, I say so explicitly rather than assert it.
• Patent numbers were interpreted literally; I did not auto-correct any identifier.

2. The § 102 framework for this patent (why anticipation is structurally hard)

Every one of claims 1–6 requires the complete claim-1 combination: (a) user input of a pH/ORP permitted range; (b) a control element for remote equipment that includes all three of a chemical dispenser, an automatic/in-floor cleaner, and a heater or pump; (c) a pH/ORP sensor; (d) a temperature sensor; plus (i) compare-and-dose logic, (ii) freeze-protection compare-and-activate logic, and (iii) a control hierarchy in which user input cannot preempt the freeze comparison.

Because claims 2–6 all depend from claim 1, they inherit every one of those elements. Consequently, a single reference can anticipate one of claims 1–6 only if it discloses the entire claim-1 combination. Independent claim 1 is also drafted purely in means-plus-function format, so any § 102/§ 103 application must point to the specification's corresponding structures (the CCB/AB/"Watermatic" boards and their equivalents), not merely to an abstract "controller."

Against that framework, **none of the cited references is a clean single-reference anticipatory (

I'll ground the reference disclosures with targeted searches before building the § 103 analysis.

Strong grounding so far. Let me verify the remaining key references.

Obviousness Analysis — US 7,398,138 under 35 U.S.C. § 103

Note on scope and sources. Per the task instructions I used the prior-art references listed on the patent's own record (the "Citations," "Patent Citations," "Family Cites Families," "Cited By" and "Similar Documents" tables) plus the specification's own discussion of Lorenzen and Khan. I treated "7398138" literally. Where I could not verify a reference's content within my search budget, I say so rather than asserting a disclosure. All searches were web searches, not authenticated PACER/PTAB dockets.

This builds on the Patent summary and Litigation summary sections above; I do not repeat the bibliographic data, the claim-by-claim plain-language overview, or the litigation negatives.

1. Analytical framework and one claim-construction point

The analysis proceeds under the Graham v. John Deere factors as refined by KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007) — scope/content of the prior art, differences between the claims and the prior art, level of ordinary skill, and secondary considerations — with KSR supplying the "expansive and flexible" motivation-to-combine inquiry (predictable use of prior-art elements according to their established functions; design incentives/market pressure; a finite number of identified, predictable solutions).

Threshold point: as noted in the Patent summary, claim 1 is drafted entirely in means-plus-function format and claims 2–6 are all dependent. Under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f), each "means" term is limited to the structures disclosed in the specification (and described equivalents). The corresponding structures the specification actually discloses are:

This matters: the prior-art combination must be shown to supply corresponding structures, not merely an abstract algorithm. As shown below, the cited art does.

Level of ordinary skill (proposed): a bachelor's degree in electrical or computer engineering (or equivalent), with roughly 2–4 years' experience in pool/spa or comparable industrial/hydronic control systems, including sensor feedback loops, relay/actuator outputs, scheduled control, and freeze protection. The references themselves confirm this skill level — e.g., Wolfe states "[t]he use of a microcontroller/microprocessor 880 is an obvious alternative" (US 2003/0034284 A1, ¶ 109).

2. Primary combination (Combination A)

Khan (US 6,309,538) + Wolfe (US 2003/0034284 A1 / US 6,676,831 B2) + Meincke (US 6,419,840 B1) + Wendell (US 5,616,239)

Sources: US 2003/0034284 A1 and PDF; US 6,676,831 B2; US 5,616,239; US 5,019,250 PDF; US 6,419,840 B1 PDF; US 6,309,538 (as characterized in US 7,398,138 ¶¶ 3–4).

3. Alternative combination (Combination B) — Wolfe as primary reference

Because Wolfe teaches "stand alone" or integrated use, it can serve as the primary reference with the chemistry element supplied by Lorenzen/Khan:

Wolfe + Lorenzen + Caretaker US 6,592,752 (or Meincke) + Sterghos (US 5,730,861)

• Wolfe supplies element (b) (pump, heater, filter, lights, modular add-on modules), (d) (air/pipe/water temperature sensors), (ii) and (iii) (freeze sensor bypassing the time clock; safety logic overriding whichever means started the pump).
• Wolfe expressly suggests the very integration the claim requires: it "may be considered as a stand alone system, or integrated with a prior art pool and spa controller" (¶ 4), and FIG. 13 depicts an "Enhanced Subsystem" with add-on modules including a "Water Chemistry 743" sensor input and "Water Chemistry 753" and "Heater Alarm 750" outputs. That is an explicit teaching/suggestion to bolt chemistry sensing and heater/pump control onto the same controller platform.
• Lorenzen (or Khan) supplies (a), (c), control (i) spanning continuous/timed/demand operation.
• Sterghos supplies the integrated "daily maintenance functions" controller that "actively monitors system conditions, makes adjustments for abnormal conditions, and provides remote feedback of system problems during its daily cycle" and "operator assisted manual override operation and control of additional auxiliary equipment" (US 5,730,861, Abstract) — i.e., a supervisory controller in which automatic monitoring coexists with, and constrains, manual override.

Sources: US 5,730,861 PDF; US 6,592,752 (listed on the '138 record as Caretaker Systems).

4. Motivation to combine (the KSR showing)

1. Same field of endeavor / analogous art both ways. Lorenzen, Khan, Wolfe, Meincke, Caretaker, Sterghos and Wendell are all pool/spa water-treatment, hydraulic-control or pool-controller art. Under In re Klein's two-part test (quoted by the Board in Ex parte Potucek, Appeal 2018-004939), each is either in the same field or reasonably pertinent to the problem of coordinated pool-equipment control.
2. Explicit teaching/suggestion in Wolfe (§ 3 above): integration with a pre-existing pool controller, and add-on chemistry/heater modules.
3. The patentee's own characterization of the problem. The '138 specification states Lorenzen and Khan "are not immediately adaptable to control numerous other aspects of pool or spa operation and maintenance," and that "devices able to control such things as operation of heaters, pumps, filters, lights, and automatic … pool cleaners … in addition to chemical dispensers such as those of the Lorenzen and Khan patents, could be useful." Framing an invention as adding known pool devices to a known chemical controller is the classic "predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions."
4. Design incentive / market pressure. The specification itself argues the modular approach "may eliminate need for separate units, providing a single unit." Reducing separate controllers to one box is a recognized design incentive. The record also shows contemporaneous independent movement in exactly this direction — Edus Systemtechnik's "Modular swimming pool regulation device" (EP 1 528 185 A2/A3, priority 2003-11-03; published 2005-05-04, before the 2005-11-10 filing) is cited on the '138 face.
5. Finite number of predictable solutions. The candidate building blocks were a closed set already on the shelf (Lorenzen/Khan feeders; Caretaker/Meincke cleaners; Wolfe/Sterghos/Wendell controllers). KSR teaches that where "a finite number of identified, predictable solutions" exists, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue them.
6. No change in the principle of operation. Each element does exactly what it did before — pH/ORP feedback dosing, freeze-triggered circulation, scheduled cleaning. No reference is modified in a way that would render it unsatisfactory for its intended purpose; each is merely aggregated under one supervisory controller.

5. Dependent claims 2–6

6. Where a non-obviousness case would have to be made

An honest read is that claims 1, 3 and 4 are the most exposed and claim 5/6 the least, but the strongest rebuttal arguments would target:

1. The unitary "all three categories" limitation of claim 1(b). The claim requires one control means driving a dispenser and an automatic/in-floor cleaner and a heater/pump. A patentee would argue the cited art shows these as separate, purpose-built systems and that nothing suggested aggregating them. But Wolfe's express "integrated with a prior art pool and spa controller" teaching, its FIG. 13 add-on chemistry/heater modules, and the Edus "modular swimming pool regulation device" considerably blunt this argument.
2. The hierarchy limitation of claim 1(iii). Read narrowly, it requires that control input cannot preempt the comparison — i.e., the freeze determination is never disabled by user settings. Wolfe's "air temperature switch 526 is able to bypass the normal time clock in the event of freezing conditions" and its "regardless of which means was used to start-up" combinatorial logic map closely, but a patentee could argue Wolfe's bypass is hardwired relay logic rather than a software-assigned hierarchy, and that Wolfe is a safety controller, not a general-purpose recreational controller. Expect a § 112(f) argument that the prior art lacks the corresponding structure disclosed in the '138 (the CCB's seven-level software hierarchy). Note, though, that the '138's own hierarchy is presented as a software ordering in which freeze protection (level 4) simply outranks manual mode (level 5) and schedules (6–7) — which is functionally what Wolfe's bypass does.
3. ORP specifically. Claim 1 recites "pH or ORP" in the alternative. Lorenzen and Wendell disclose pH (and chlorine) sensing; I did not verify a cited reference expressly disclosing an ORP electrode. Because the limitation is in the alternative, a pH disclosure supports the element; treating ORP as an obvious equivalent design choice is defensible (ORP is the standard potentiometric proxy for sanitizer activity in pool water, and the specification's own dispensers report ORP), but I flag this as an assumption I could not ground in a specific cited reference within budget.
4. Secondary considerations. Zodiac/Polaris undoubtedly had commercial success with the Watermatic-era controllers. But the specification's asserted advances — simulation software, modular plug-in boards, wireless handheld remotes, PC/PDA/Internet access, X-10 home-automation cooperation, drowning-detection and debris sensors (§§ A, H, I) — are essentially not claimed in claim 1. A patentee would therefore struggle to show the required nexus between any commercial success and the claimed combination; the success is more plausibly attributable to unclaimed features and to brand/installation channels.

7. Cross-reference check against the earlier sections

• Consistent: the earlier Patent summary correctly flags that claim 1's "all three categories" recitation is the key distinguishing feature over Lorenzen-style and Khan-style art, and that claim 1 is means-plus-function. This analysis uses both points.
• Consistent: the earlier Litigation summary's negative litigation finding is unchanged; nothing in the prior-art record creates a litigation link to the '138 patent.
• One nuance to add, not a contradiction: the Litigation summary notes that US 2007/0106403 A1 was the primary reference in a § 103 rejection of Hayward's application 14/211,461 in Ex parte Potucek et al., Appeal 2018-004939 (USPTO e-FOIA). That is double-edged for § 103 purposes here: it shows the '138 disclosure is broad enough that a POSITA (and the examiner) read it as covering menu-driven control of pumps, heaters, lights, cleaners, pH and ORP — which is useful context for defining what a POSITA would have understood the field to contain in 2005, though it is not itself an obviousness holding against the '138.

8. Bottom line

Probable § 103 rejection of claims 1, 3 and 4; strong rejection of claim 2 and (with a weaker record) claims 5–6.

• Claim 1 would most likely be rejected over Khan (or Lorenzen) in view of Wolfe, further in view of Meincke (or Caretaker '752), and optionally Wendell (or Sterghos). Wolfe alone supplies elements (b)-heater/pump, (d), (ii), and (iii) — including the express "freeze sensor bypasses the normal time clock" and "regardless of which means was used to start-up" override teachings — and expressly suggests integration with a prior-art pool controller and add-on chemistry sensing.
• Claim 3 is the most clearly obvious claim in the set: Lorenzen's "manual switch, time clock, or sensor" actuation maps onto continuous / timed / on-demand dosing almost element-for-element.
• Claim 2 is obvious as a routine safety-interlock/design choice supported by Lorenzen's level and probe sensing and Wolfe's no-flow (low-pressure) pump shutdown.
• Claims 5 and 6 are obvious over Lorenzen's timed, sensor-confirmed dosing cycles (cl. 10, 16) in combination with the KSR "predictable design choice" rationale for a dosing timeout; the combination rationale is somewhat thinner because I did not confirm a cited reference expressly reciting "abort if set point unreached within T," so an examiner should supplement with art expressly directed to dosing-timeout/failure-to-reach-setpoint logic.

Confidence and caveats. High confidence in the mappings I quote verbatim (Wolfe cl. 1 and ¶ 88/106/109; Wendell cl. 1, 6, 16, 17; Lorenzen cl. 3, 10, 17 and the "manual switch, time clock, or sensor" passage; Meincke abstract and claim 11 lineage). Moderate confidence on the empty-feeder/no-flow and ORP particulars, where I flag the gaps above. Low confidence / unverified: I was unable to open EP 1 528 185 (Edus Systemtechnik) and WO 03/066999 A1 (Uvionconcept) before my search budget ran out, so I rely only on their titles as they appear on the '138 record ("Modular swimming pool regulation device"; "Management arrangement") and assert no specific disclosure. Likewise I did not verify the contents of US 7,243,379 (Panopoulos), US 7,124,059 (Accenture), US 6,756,907, EP 1 443 371, US 2004/0199413, the Rubicon AU filing, Turf Sentry US 7,572,378, or WO 2006/042013; they are noted as potentially available art (e.g., US 7,243,379 and US 7,124,059 as pre-AIA § 102(e) art by virtue of their earlier U.S. filing dates), not as analysis inputs.