A First on the Golf-Patents Blog… Can You Identify the Maker of this Grip from the Design Patent?

Many golfers would be surprised to learn that majority of golf grips are patented. Some manufacturers apply for utility patents on their unique grip construction and manufacturing
methods, while others merely seek to protect the ornamental look of the grips via design patents. Recently a golf grip design patent issued on a fairly popular grip, can you identify it from the
design patent drawings?

Read more

The PuttingDisc Receives Patent

Familiar with the PuttingDisc? (the website is a little rough) I saw the figures below in a patent that issued this week and thought that I had seen it before, but there is hardly a reference to it on the web (so I must have been mistaken). Oh well, further proof that it is not easy to get a golf training aid to market. The patent is USPN 7347789 titled “golf putting practice device” and describes the invention as….

Read more

Can It Be? A Stocking Stuffer Type Golf Training Aide That Looks Pretty Good…

As a golfer whose game fluctuates from marginal, at best, to horrible (as my playing partners will attest from my first round of 2008 that I played on Thursday), I view most training aides with a skeptical eye. After all, I have tried a lot of things and the only thing that seems to help my game is a lot of time on the range and a lot of rounds. Therefore, I could not believe it when this week a golf training device patent issued and I found myself saying… “not a bad idea; good for use in the backyard, especially if your neighbors won’t put up with the sound of your driver blasting balls into a practice net.” The patent is USPN 7347790 titled “golf swing training device.” The patent describes the invention as…… I describe the invention as……

Read more

Another Golf GPS Range Finder Patent Infringement Lawsuit Update

Boy golfers are passionate about their golf gear! I have been blown away by the number of inquiries I receive regarding the patent litigation surrounding handheld golf GPS range finders. A lot of golfers must be concerned about the future of Natalie’s SkyCaddie endorsement deal.
As you may recall from these prior posts (initial, update 1, update 2, update 3, update 4, and update 5), on May 11th GPS Industries and Optimal IP Holdings filed a patent infringement lawsuit against several defendants (3:07CV0831-K, Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division). GPS Industries then singled out SkyHawke (maker of SkyCaddie) and filed a motion for a preliminary injunction. In response, SkyHawke filed a pretty compelling response to the preliminary injunction motion. The court then denied the preliminary injunction motion.
As I mentioned in my prior post, the case has now entered the slow-motion stage of the litigation, which involves the exchange of a ton of information between the parties that is not filed with the court (and therefore never seen by the readers of Golf-Patents.com). Fortunately we have been given a rare glimpse into the behind the scenes information exchange because the Plaintiffs recently had to request the approval of the court to supplement their initial “preliminary infringement contentions” against L1 Technologies (maker of the iGolf line of products).
The supplemental preliminary infringement contentions related to L1 Technologies contains some fascinating information related to how the Plaintiffs believe the L1 products to be infringing the patent-in-suit…….

Read more

Callaway Golf’s Reply in Support of Their Previous Motion for Permanent Injunction is In! Now the Motion is Fully Briefed and Ready for Action by the Court, PLUS My Prediction

Before delving into the latest filing and disclosing my prediction, a quick summary of the past few months in the Callaway v. Titleist (Acushnet) saga is in order. Back in December a jury found that 8 of the 9 claims in the 4 patents-in-suit were valid, and therefore infringed by Acushnet (click HERE to read the post on the verdict). Then, in mid-January Callaway filed a Motion for Permanent Injunction (click HERE to read the related post) seeking to bring a halt to the production and sale of ProV1’s. Next, Acushnet responded to Callaway’s motion at the end of February (click HERE to read the related post). NOW, Callaway has filed their “reply” in support of the motion for permanent injunction leaving the motion “fully briefed” and ready for action by the court. Pretty exciting!
Readers can view the complete redacted version of Callaway’s “Reply in Support of Callaway Golf Company’s Motion for Permanent Injunction” HERE. The “reply” should be fascinating reading for most golfers. I have to admit that prior to reading this “reply” my gut feeling was that there was a……

Read more

A Couple Tee Time Radio Show Interviews Are Available for Listening

The posts have slowed down in the past week, or so… life, work, and travel have caused the slowdown. Trust me, there are plenty of interesting intellectual property golf topics to report on and the posts should pick up soon. Enough of the excuses, right? OK, recently I noticed that a couple of previously unavailable Tee Time Radio program interviews have become available. You may listen to the December 29th show HERE and the September 22nd show HERE. Enjoy, it is a great show…….

Read more

Nice Patent Reexamination Example from the Golf Industry (A Polite Way of Saying… Here is a Good Example of Competitors Trying to Sink Each Others’ Golf Patents)

It is hard to believe that is has been over a year since I authored a post titled “Bust Your Competitors’ Patents” regarding the patent reexamination process. Since that post many of you have probably learned a little more about the process simply by following my coverage of the Callaway v. Titleist ProV1 golf ball patent dispute. Well, recently a Request for Ex Parte Reexamination was approved by the USPTO regarding a push golf cart design patent, so I thought it would be a good opportunity to share this golf patent reexamination example with the Golf-Patents readers. Back in November a Request for Ex Parte Reexamination was filed regarding USPN D502303 titled “Golf Cart.” The golf cart in question is shown below…….

Read more

Clone Golf Club Makers GigaGolf and KrookedStix Fold to Nike and Agree to Permanent Injunction… King Sports Decides to Fight

As you may recall, back in late December Nike filed a lawsuit taking on the clones (Illinois Northern District Court; 07-c-7108). Specifically, Nike’s December 18th complaint named King Sports, Inc. dba Turbo Power Golf, Hung Ying Chang, Krookedstix, Inc., and Gigagolf, Inc. as defendants. Click HERE to review the prior post. It didn’t take long for GigaGolf and KrookedStix to fold and agree to a Consent Judgment and Permanent Injunction with Nike. Click HERE to read the GigaGolf document; and click HERE to read the KroodedStix document. GigaGolf and KroodedStix agreed that they do in fact infringe the Nike design patents and agreed to stop manufacturing and selling the infringing clubs. Interestingly, KroodedStix sold a grand total of “no more than 49 clubs that infringe” the patents-in-suit! King Sports apparently has decided to fight it out and has filed an Answer to the Complaint. Click HERE to read the Answer. To no surprise, King Sports denies infringement and alleges that the patents are invalid. I am not sure I would want to be in the position of King Sports in this lawsuit, but you be the judge……

Read more

Acushnet Responds to Callaway’s Motion for Permanent Injunction… The Redacted Version Is In and It Even Contains a Reference to this Blog!

It took about a week, but the redacted version of Acushnet’s response to Callaway’s request for a permanent injunction is in! Apparently links to this blog have been pretty popular, as I have learned from Acushnet’s Brief in Opposition that “[a] Callaway sales representative has also circulated a link to Callaway’s brief, posted on a website, to Acushnet retailers.” Come on; throw me a bone, would it have killed you to say a “popular” website, or an “entertaining” website. Oh well, at least one of the exhibits (a Declaration of David Maher, the VP of US Titleist Sales) does mention the maliciously used website… see below….. Guys, come on… if you are going to use my links to talk trash about your competition, couldn’t you arrange for a sleeve of balls to show up in my mail, perhaps a set of last season’s clubs, maybe an FT-i driver? Kidding of course… (…right handed, stiff flex…)… Anyway, back to the important stuff. Acushnet’s Brief in Opposition is good. It seems to persuasively address all the issues required to oppose a permanent injunction. But, let’s face it… the only ones that are going to read the full Brief are probably attorneys that visit this site. Therefore, let me skip right to the informative and entertaining stuff, which I have conveniently formatted in a David Letterman style “Top 10” list, but with a unique “Top 6” twist. Number 6… Number 5… Number 4… Number 3… Number 2… Number 1: The best quote from the Brief probably has no legal value, but it contains some great mudslinging and I am sure that Acushnet loved to get some of Mickelson’s quotes out to the public. The following quote from the Brief refers to notes from one of Acushnet’s test sessions with Phil Mickelson in June of 2000…. Now, the teaser….. According to Acushnet, Mickelson’s quotes include reference to a “sh*tty ball” that “spins like crap.” Can you guess which ball he is referring to?

Read more

An Update on the Titleist ProV1 Patent Infringement Battle

Those that have been following the Callaway versus Acushnet golf ball litigation battle probably know that at this time there are really two key subjects that remain open. First, there are the issues associated with Callaway’s Motion for a Permanent Injunction (click here and here for the highlights). Secondly, there are the issues associated with Acushnet’s requests for “post-trial” relief (click here for the highlights).
This post deals with the second topic; namely Acushnet’s requests for “post-trial” relief. Back on January 7th Acushnet filed a document entitled “Acushnet Company’s Motion for Post-Trial Relief.” (Click HERE to read the actual document) In this motion Acushnet renewed its motion for “judgment as a matter of law” as to the invalidity of Callaway’s patents-in-suit, and moved, in the alternative, for a new trial (and/or to alter or amend the Court’s judgment as to such claims). In fact, “Acushnet Company’s Motion for Post-Trial Relief” asserts that no reasonable jury could have come to the verdict that this particular jury came to, and it enumerates several alleged errors of the Court. Yesterday Callaway filed their response to the Acushnet motion. The official title of the response is “Callaway Golf Company’s Opposition to Acushnet’s Rule 50(b) and 59 Post-Trial Motions to Reverse or Vacate the Jury’s Verdicts.” You can click HERE to read the entire response as filed. The document is 62 pages, but is manageable once you skim past the 10+ pages of Table of Contents. If you have been following the case then it is definitely worth your time to read. As with previous court filings, I am not going to summarize Callaway’s Opposition because a lot of it focuses on issues that only attorneys are interested in, but I will point out a few interesting things that I learned while reading it…….

Read more

Another Look at Patented Putting Strokes

Back in the fall I authored a post about a patented putting method. Judging from the number of page views and links to the post, I suspect a lot of golfers were surprised to learn that a putting method could be patented; although, let’s face it, the patented putting methods are a little on the unique side of things (to put it nicely). Needless to say, none of the top 10 players in the world took me up on my challenge from the last post:…….. Surprised? Me neither. Anyway, I thought that it was time to revisit the topic and take a look at another patented putting method… so here is USPN 7121954 titled “Putting Method and Putter.” Check out these figures from the patent:…….. So how do you describe it in words… easy, just check out this claim from the patent:…….. So, next time you are watching The Golf Channel see if you can spot any patent infringers (judging from the figures above… I doubt it).

Read more
Advertisment ad adsense adlogger