Author: admin

Those following the contentious Titleist ProV1 golf ball patent infringement lawsuit may have known that yesterday was Acushnet’s deadline to file their “Answering Brief” in response to Callaway’s Motion for a Permanent Injunction (click here to review). Boy, I was looking forward to some good reading material; unfortunately, 9 of the 10 filings made with the court yesterday have been filed under “seal” with the label “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – OUTSIDE COUNSELS’ EYES ONLY.” In other words, not only can the public not see the documents, Acushnet does not want Callaway’s in-house lawyers to have access to the documents! In the big picture, this is not unusual; just disappointing because the filings probably contain from fascinating information. I am not familiar with Judge Robinson’s local rules regarding the filing of “redacted” versions of “sealed” documents, but it appears that most of the documents filed under “seal” in this case have been supplemented with a “redacted” version of the “sealed” document within 7-10 days. I will let you know if “redacted” documents are filed. Callaway now has until March 6th to file their Reply Brief (which hopefully will not be filed under seal).

I like to collect odd golf clubs. Not necessarily ones that perform particularly well; just unique clubs, most commonly odd looking clubs (shape and material). I am looking for the following clubs… right handed… condition is not critical, but they have to be able to be hit. If you have any of the clubs on my list, please shoot me an email with a photo of the club and the price. Thanks. (perhaps some day I can auction off my collection, but my auction will most likely be in the form of a garage sale rather than one at a fancy auction house)
Pre-1950: a) any metal woods, any condition, but under $150; Early 1960’s:
a) PING 1 Iron; Late 1960’s: a) Centurion Driver (the triangular or rectangular versions); Early 1990’s: a) GolfWorks Super Jumbo Straight Shooter Driver (I have found memories of seeing one of these and thinking “no one will ever buy a club with a head that big”), b) Spalding Thunder Heat Driver, c) Wilson Killer Whale Driver with Graphite Face, d) Yonex ADX 300 Driver, e) Bullet Golf Ball Company Hollow Point Driver (horseshoe shaped); Late 1990’s:
a) Accuform Golf’s “Whistler” Driver (apparently one of the earlier “geometric” drivers). Thanks.

Golfers, are you a golf bag patent infringer? If you use the Callaway Warbird XTT, Warbird HOT, Terra Firma X, Terra Firma XI, or the Hyper-X, then you just might be a patent infringer (but that is for a court to decide). On Tuesday……

High surface friction golf balls… more spin or less spin? Would it make any difference whether you hit the ball with a wedge or a driver? Interesting questions, right? Well a recently published Acushnet patent application provides us with the answer. The published patent application is US Pub. No. 20080015055 titled “Golf Ball Having High Surface Friction.” Before I give you the answer, here is an interesting little bit of trivia disclosed in the patent application……. Now, for the real analytical type of golfer that may want to know more about what is meant by coefficient of friction (COF), the application explains……. And now, the answer to the questions asked above……

Last week’s post titled “Callaway Seeks Permanent Injunction… Is There A Risk That Titleist ProV1’s Will No Longer Be Available?” has obtained the distinction of being the most widely read Golf-Patents blog post of all time! Well, this one should beat it. This post is not related to Callaway’s Motion for a permanent injunction; because Acushnet has not yet filed their response. Rather, this post is directed to 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 this motion Acushnet stated:……. Basically the January 7th “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.
Now, this week Acushnet filed a brief in support of their January 7th motion. The brief is titled “Acushnet’s Opening Brief in Support of Its Motion for Post Trial Relief.” (Click HERE to read the entire brief in support)…….. While the Brief in Support included 6 exhibits, one exhibit in particular is very interesting (click HERE to view Exhibit 4). Exhibit 4 contains almost 60 slides used during Callaway’s opening statement at trial. Any golfer will enjoy skimming through these slides. Check them out………

As you will recall, last month Dogleg Right sued TaylorMade Golf alleging infringement of two of patents directed to CG customizable golf clubs. Click HERE to read a prior post on the subject. Today TaylorMade filed their Answer (click HERE to read) to the Dogleg Right Complaint (click HERE to read). TaylorMade’s Answer states that they do not infringe the Dogleg Right patents and allege that the patents are invalid. Frankly, the Answer is pretty boring and doesn’t contain any interesting tidbits of information. Essentially a boilerplate answer in response to a boilerplate complaint. Come on guys… where is the passion, the disgust, the outrage, the mudslinging… you know, the stuff that keeps a golf blog interesting?…

I often think… “man, serving as an agent to a few of the guys out on the PGA Tour must be a sweet life.” Negotiate some contracts, arrange some cool endorsement deals, travel to the best courses, and perhaps arrange for a cab ride home after a client has a late night performing ” Knockin’ on Heaven’s Door.” The real fun starts when you ask yourself… if I could represent 5 of the top 150 players in the world, who would it be? Now, forget about Tiger or Phil… in fact, assume that the top 5 players aren’t eligible for your selection; it makes the selection process much more interesting.
A starting point in the selection process should be a review of the Golf Digest 50. Obviously you want golfers that can play, but let’s face it… players that have a little personality generally make more money off the course than they do from tournament earnings. In fact, I would go as far as saying that there is some sort of problem if a golfer’s on-course earnings exceed their off-course earnings.
Scrolling down the Golf Digest 50 the first time a player’s on-course revenues exceed their off-course revenues occurs with KJ Choi ($5.8 mill on-course versus $3.7 mill off-course). Still, not a bad off-course number. The next occurrence of off-course revenues being less than on-course revenues occurs with Rory Sabbatini ($6.3 mill on-course versus $2.85 off-course). Rory’s discrepancy is worse than KJ’s, but is nothing compared Steve Stricker ($7.6 mill on-course versus $1.5 mill off-course). Heck, I would be honored to represent any of these guys; but they did not make my top 5 wish list.
The lazy man would simply pick good golfers that already have a high off-course income stream. Not me. I would actually want to make a difference. How great would it be to say to a golfer… “look, I increased your off-course revenues by $1.5 million this past year, heck… you would have to win the Masters to increase your on-course revenues by that much.” So, who is on my dream team? … drum roll please… (list)… Who is in your top 5 dream team?

I have received several emails recently inquiring as to the status of the GPS patent infringement litigation against SkyHawke (maker of SkyCaddie), and others. As you may recall from these prior posts (initial, update 1, update 2, update 3, and update 4), on May 11th GPS Industries and Optimal IP Holdings filed a patent infringement lawsuit against 10 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. Now the case will enter the slow-motion stage of the litigation, and we have the schedule to prove it. On January 14th the parties filed a Joint Status Report (click here to read) laying out a proposed litigation schedule from now until a November 2, 2009 jury trial date. That’s not a typo… November 2, 2009! Don’t worry….

Regular readers of the Golf-Patents blog know that Callaway and Acushnet are slugging it out regarding golf balls and golf clubs. Click here to brush up on the background of the golf club patent infringement lawsuit. The most recent interesting event in the club lawsuit involves a subpoena being served on the USGA by Acushnet (click here to read the original subpoena). The key points from the subpoena are: …. (complete list requesting tons of information)…. I don’t know if the USGA has been in this position before, although I suspect that they have. If not, I hope they handle this issue very carefully or every golf equipment patent infringement lawsuit will include a subpoena to the USGA for every test performed by the USGA, and all data gathered, since the beginning of time. Further, if the USGA turned over all the information requested above they would essentially be giving Acushnet and Callaway leads as to which other club makers may be infringing their patents. From a golfer’s perspective, this subpoena makes me mad… after all, why should my USGA membership dollars be wasted helping any golf equipment manufacturer’s legal actions! From a lawyer’s perspective, I can appreciate that the USGA has a treasure trove of information that any equipment company would love to get their hands on. A cynic could take this further and say… “why should a manufacturer spend millions on an R&D department gathering critical performance data on every club ever made… just orchestrate a lawsuit every few years so you can subpoena the USGA and see what type of information they have gathered.” Unfortunately for the USGA, I suspect that they will end up flushing tens of thousands of dollars down the drain just formulating a plan and responding to the subpoena. It will take a lot of $15 memberships to offset the costs associated with this one subpoena!….

As you will recall from the prior post regarding the verdict in the Callaway v. Acushnet… last month a jury found that 8 of the 9 claims at issue are valid… and therefore infringed by Acushnet. Then, a Callaway spokeswoman said… “We have now established in court that our golf ball patents are valid, and that Titleist Pro V1 golf balls infringe those patents. We will immediately start the process of requesting an appropriate remedy, including injunctive relief and damages.” Ouch! Well, it has happened… Callaway has filed a motion for a PERMANENT injunction (motion, proposed order, and redacted supporting brief). Check out these two paragraphs from Callaway’s proposed order!…… Can you imagine if the court issued an Order containing those two paragraphs! I must admit, the “redacted supporting brief” is pretty compelling… any golfer that plays ProV1’s should read this brief, it is fascinating…

The title of the post instructs you to read this week’s Golfweek magazine very carefully for a very important reason… because if you don’t, you will miss a short comment by me regarding patents and USGA club adjustability (page 78), as well as a reference to the Golf-Patents blog. Check it out. The edition contains several great articles by Adam Schupak regarding various issues associated with the loosening of USGA adjustability rules.

Was it Cisco, Nokia, Texas Instruments, Toshiba, IBM, or Intel? Additionally, how many patents do you think this company was granted in 2007? (under 500, 501-1000, 1001-2000, 2001-3000, or more than 3000)….. (list) ….. Interestingly, U.S. companies only hold 7 of the top 25 spots in the list.
Don’t worry… I will have several similar posts directed specifically to companies in the golf industry very soon!…

As you may recall from this prior post, Callaway recently accused a handful of clone club makers of (1) infringing one UTILITY patent, (2) infringing three DESIGN patents, (3) infringing two trademarks, (4) trademark dilution, (5) breach of contract, (6) common law unfair competition, and (7) false advertising!
One of the defendants has responded to the Complaint. The following affirmative defenses are included in King Sports’ Answer (click here to review the complete Answer):…. (list)…. Check out King Sports’ website and see if you agree with their affirmative defenses!

One year ago today I posted my first real blog entry. Check it out here. What a year! Hopefully the Golf-Patents blog has provided golfers with a better understanding of just how important intellectual property is to the golf industry. As always… I like to hear from readers regarding the topics and content that they enjoy most, so don’t hesitate to email me your thoughts. I am looking forward to a great second year in 2008!

IPLaw360 has reported that patent litigation increased by 6% in 2007, despite overall intellectual property litigation decreasing 8% in 2007. There were 2942 patent infringement cases filed in 2007 (up 6% from 2006, 9% from 2005, and 2% from 2004)! While it would be easy to say that the only segment of the population that benefits from this litigation are attorneys; that would simply be incorrect. I have observed that most intellectual property naysayers have never contributed anything innovative to society. Everyone should ask themselves… “why is the United States the most innovative country in the world?” Few experts would disagree that one of the key reasons is that innovation can be protected in the US (which includes enforcement). Hooray for the U.S.A… but how am I going to buy those ProV1’s if the price goes any higher due to patent litigation ( post 1, post 2)?….

Remember those shrink-wrap decorative sleeves from the Fore Inventors Only show on The Golf Channel? The sleeves were referred to as ShaftSkinz and were designed to slide over your club’s shaft and shrink tight when exposed to the heat of a high-output hair dryer. While I don’t ever see myself using such a product, I can imagine that they may be popular with the youngsters and golf teams. Yesterday a patent application published with a title that got my attention; namely “Protective Barrier for a Golf Course Flag Stick.” A what? Why would a flag stick need a protective barrier? Well, the patent application explains that the flag stick needs protection from ambient environmental damage and damage that may occur from workers or golfers handling of such poles or flag sticks. I would have never guessed. Check out this claim from the patent application…

You may recall from one of my prior posts titled “I Don’t Perform My Own Dentistry… “The Perfect Golf Tee” Patent Application Illustrates Why Most People Should Not Attempt to Draft Their Own Patent Applications” that some people are under the impression that applying for a patent is like applying for a drivers license. Guess what… it is not! As I have previously mentioned, not a week goes by in which I don’t receive a call from an inventor that believes that filing a patent application is similar to completing a driver’s license application (i.e. just a matter of completing some forms). Such inventors are often disgusted and mad that preparing a patent application is a lot of work, and therefore not inexpensive. I frequently direct them to self-help legal books on patent application drafting and tell them that if they read it from cover-to-cover at least twice, and follow the directions step-by-step, then they should be able to draft their own patent application. I have yet to see someone actually do it (let alone do it well). Since patent law is a pretty dry complex subject, one must find comic relief whenever possible. A recently published patent application provides just such comic relief. The published patent application is US Pub. No. 20070287559 titled “EcoSmart Golf Tee.” Experienced inventors know …

Yesterday I authored a post regarding irons with a nanocrystalline plating on their nonmetallic face. Keeping with the theme… an interesting “nano” related golf ball patent issued to Acushnet on January 1st. The patent is USPN 7314896 titled “Nano-Particulate Blends with Fully-Neutralized Ionomeric Polymers for Golf Ball Layers” and describes the invention as… Wow, that is a mouthful… and explains why I don’t do too many golf ball patent posts… because they would put most of the Golf-Patents readers to sleep! Still pretty interesting….

A second counterfeit golf club bust in less than a month! (click here to read about a prior bust) The latest bust included a raid on December 14th in Plano Texas. Click here to check out the press release…….. PS – Just my luck… I was actually playing golf in Plano Texas on December 14th and no one tipped me off so that I could ride along for the bust. No respect!

‘Tis the season of New Year resolutions. As we all know, New Year resolutions are rarely successfully carried out past March or April. Therefore, successful companies have New Year goals, not resolutions. Such goals are infinitely more likely to be successfully implemented if they are written down in a specific quantifiable fashion. If you have specific quantifiable goals directed toward intellectual property (IP) then congratulations, you are in the minority. We have identified 10 New Year goals relating to intellectual property that each and every company should consider annually, regardless of size or industry….

Last month I reported on Callaway taking on the clones (click here to review); this week Nike filed a lawsuit taking on the clones (Illinois Northern District Court; 07-c-7108). On December 18th Nike sued King Sports, Inc. dba Turbo Power Golf, Hung Ying Chang, Krookedstix, Inc., and Gigagolf, Inc.. Thus, King Sports is now defending itself against Callaway and Nike! How would you like to be in that position? Click HERE to read the Complaint. I encourage you to check it out because it includes lots of drawings and photographs showing the allegedly infringing products next to the design patent drawings. The 15 design patents involved in the lawsuit include….
Could the lawsuits by Callaway and Nike be the demise of the clone golf club industry?

Are you familiar with the Wolf Creek Golf Club in Mesquite Nevada? I had the pleasure of playing Wolf Creek a few years ago and it truly is an amazing course. That said, on Tuesday the owners of Wolf Creek filed a trademark infringement lawsuit against the owners and developers of a 750 acre planned residential community that is adjacent to Wolf Creek. The problem is that the development is named “Hidden Wolf.” (District Court of Nevada, 2:07-cv-01701)
Click HERE to view the Complaint, and click HERE to view the associated exhibits.
Apparently this is not the first lawsuit involving these two parties. Originally the developers planned to call the community “Wolf Creek Estates,” which resulted in a lawsuit ending with two Temporary Restraining Orders and a Stipulated Permanent Injunction. The current lawsuit alleges Unfair Competition (False Advertising), Unfair Competition (False Designation of Origin), Trademark Infringement (federal, state, and common law), and Deceptive Trade Practices.
Looks like a nice place to live …

The Court has ruled on GPS Industries’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction … DENIED! (Click HERE to read the Order)…… I gave GPS Industries a 25% chance (at best) of success on the preliminary injunction and stated that I would purchase a handheld GPS unit from a licensee of GPS Industries if I were wrong. Needless to say, I will not have to make that purchase. Now, don’t read too much into this ruling… it is very difficult to obtain a preliminary injunction….

I have been following the golf club patent battle between Callaway and TalyorMade since it was filed back in August. Check out these previous posts for a little background ( post 1, post 2, post 3). Well, apparently it is now officially over; which can only be good for golfers. Click HERE for the official press release. Not a lot of details. I will keep my eyes on the court filings to see if they offer any additional information.

After 7 days of trial the verdict is in and the jury has ruled that 8 out of 9 of Callaway’s patent claims are valid! Acushnet already stipulated that it did infringe the claims of the patents; therefore the issue for the jury was whether or
not the claims are valid. Unfortunately for Acushnet, patents are presumed valid and the burden of proof required to establish
invalidity is high. In fact, the jury was instructed that Acushnet has the burden of proving that each one of the asserted claims of the patents-in-suit …

The Callaway Golf versus Acushnet golf ball patent infringement trial is in full swing. In fact, Acushnet’s case-in-chief was completed today. In accordance with a Court order, Callaway has filed a “Proffer Regarding the Rebuttal Testimony of Phil Mickelson.” In other words, the Court essentially said that upon the close of Acushnet’s case, Callaway would have the opportunity to convince the Court that Callaway should be allowed to put Phil Mickelson on the stand to testify. Click here to view Callaway’s proffer. The proffer contains some good mudslinging, check it out! Did you know that Mickelson threatened to terminate his contract with Acushnet unless Acushnet came out with a solid ball to compete with Callaway Golf’s Rule 35 ball? I hope that this trial makes it all the way to a verdict!

Yesterday Dogleg Right sued TaylorMade Golf alleging infringement of two patents directed to CG customizable golf clubs. Talk about taking on the 800 pound gorilla! Click here to view the Complaint that was filed in the Eastern District of Texas on December 7th. The patents-in-suit are USPN 7004852 and USPN 7189169, both titled “Customizable Center-of-Gravity Golf Club Head.” It should be fun to watch this lawsuit play out.

Odds are that if you can identify this golf club then you are most likely a junior golfer. The figure below comes from a US golf club iron head design patent that issued this week to a major producer of clubs. Identifying the brand should be easy, but can you identify the product line?…(figure)…

Are you familiar with the GreenFix divot repair tool? I previously posted about the issuance of a patent (USPN 7238126) directed to the GreenFix tool back in July. Well, it did not take long for GreenFix to size up the imitators; in fact, GreenFix filed a patent infringement lawsuit within 3 months of the patent issuing. In a Complaint filed on September 28th, GreenFix alleges that Ahead, Inc. willfully infringed the patent. While the Complaint does not name a particular Ahead product, I suspect that it is the TurfDoc divot tool that GreenFix believes to be infringing the patent. Interestingly, the Complaint is only 5 pages yet contains a glaring error… can you identify it? (scroll way down in this post and I reveal the answer)

The GolfTech that recently filed a patent infringement lawsuit probably isn’t the one that you are thinking of. The patent infringement plaintiff is not the golfTEC teaching franchise, but rather the owner of USPN 6821211 titled “Sport Swing Analysis System” and licensor of the technology for the P3ProSwing golf simulator and swing analyzer. The defendant in the case, Edens Technologies LLC, is accused of infringing the ‘211 patent with their Dancin’Dogg personal golf simulator. The Complaint even goes so far as to state “…defendant Edens Technologies, LLC, doing business as DancinDogg Golf (“DancinDogg”) is marketing a cheap knock-off of the P3ProSwing™ simulator which infringes the ‘211 patent.”…..

A recent Order by the Delaware District Court has dealt a significant blow to Acushnet, leading one to wonder whether Acushnet will be forced to settle a second golf ball patent infringement case this year. On November 20th the court issued a one page order stating the following…(list)… While the hotlinks above take you to the actual court order and the parties filings, the real interesting reading material is found in the court’s 30 page Memorandum Opinion. I encourage you to read through it because is does an excellent job of explaining the case, many of the key issues, and the court’s thoughts. (I knew that if I waited long enough the court would nicely summarize the case for me)… After reading the Memorandum Opinion ask yourself… does it seem as though the court feels that one side has a stronger case? It may be a good thing for Acushnet that golfers have been paying an arm and a leg for those Titleist ProV1’s.

Have you seen a BirdieBall practice golf ball? You would know if you have seen one because they have a very distinctive look. Some people refer to them as the “napkin holder” practice balls. This week a US patent was granted directed to the BirdieBall. The patent is USPN 7300357 titled “Practice Sport Projectile Having a Through Hole.”…(figures)… Interesting patent, check it out.

The Golf-Patents blog has tested your knowledge of iron club head design in the past (here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here). Today, let’s see if you can identify another set of irons. For frequent readers of this blog, I rate the level of difficulty of this one as easy. Good luck. The figures below come from a iron head design patent that issued this week to a major producer of clubs. Can you identify the brand of irons?

Ever heard of basalt fiber? I had not until a Nike patent application published on Thanksgiving. The application published as US Publication No. 20070270237 titled “Golf Clubs Prepared with Basalt Fiber.” So, what is basalt fiber? According to the application, basalt is a hard, dense, dark volcanic rock composed chiefly of plagioclase, pyroxene, and olivine, and often has a glassy appearance. Basalt has been mainly used as a crushed rock in construction, industrial and highway engineering. Basalt also can be made into fine, superfine, and ultra fine fibers. Why basalt fiber? Apparently it is superior to fiber glass, approaching the performance of carbon fiber materials, but at a much lower cost. The application describes the invention as….

Recently I have authored several posts about the Callaway v. Acushnet golf ball battle. For example, prior posts looked at the jury selection process, the proposed jury instructions, and the proposed verdict form.
The case was progressing nicely toward trial, but a recent action by the USPTO has the potential of throwing a wrench in the works. A recent letter from Acushnet to the Judge (click HERE to view) outlines how a recent 178 page USPTO reexamination opinion has rejected all of the claims in one of the four patents-in-suit (USPN 6506130). The letter states that “… the PTO addressed and rejected many of the arguments Callaway makes in this case…” Logically, I immediately went to check out the USPTO file wrapper for the reexamination proceeding. Any guess as to how large the file wrapper is? Well, it is over 2200 pages… so you will not be finding a summary on the Golf-Patents blog anytime soon (or ever). The file wrapper does contain some fascinating information (if you are a hardcore golf ball technology geek)…

Yesterday I posted about the proposed Callaway v Acushnet jury instructions, and the day before I posted about the jury selection process. Now, let’s take a look at the proposed verdict form. Click HERE to review the jointly proposed verdict form. It actually provides a nice technical breakdown of the case, as well as itemizing the 20 claims of the 4 patents-in-suit that the jurors will know like the back of their hand by the end of the trial. Would you still be interested in sitting on the jury?

Yesterday I posted about the jury selection process for the major golf ball patent infringement lawsuit between Callaway and Acushnet. Now, assuming that you managed to hide your bias toward one company or the other and you made it onto the jury… now you have to listen to over 150 pages of jury instructions. If you are interested in golf ball technology and/or patents, then you will enjoy scanning through the proposed jury instructions (Part 1, Part 2). Obviously there is a lot at stake for Callaway and Acushnet. So, do you still want to be on the jury?

For the non-attorney readers… the term “voir dire” refers to the jury selection process of questioning prospective jurors. I am sure that you have seen movies or TV shows where the attorney is
weeding out potential jurors by asking them questions regarding their prior relationships, family members, potential biases, etc.. Traditionally both the plaintiff and defendant(s) have to submit
their “proposed” voir dire plan to the court for approval. Have you ever wondered what an attorney would ask you if you were a potential juror for a golf ball patent infringement trial? Click HERE to check out Callaway’s proposed voir dire; and click HERE to check out Acushnet’s proposed voir dire….
I bet most golfers wouldn’t mind jury duty if they could sit on this jury.

OK, that title may be a little misleading… but if you do want to get rid of those wedges you can send them to me. Nonetheless, a very unique wedge was issued a patent this week. Words don’t do
this design justice… check out these figures from the patent….(figures)…. How would you like to have one of these in your bag?

OK golfers, how well do you know your drivers? These drawings come from a driver design patent that issued yesterday on a very popular driver. Do you recognize this club?

As you may recall from a prior post, Callaway sued Acushnet for golf ball patent infringement back in February of 2006. The suit (1:06-cv-00091-SLR) alleges that Acushnet infringed 4 patents and has roots that extend all the way back to a previously settled 1996 lawsuit between Spalding and Acushnet. A prior post discussed the fact that Acushnet issued a subpoena to take the testimony of Phil Mickeson on October 25th in Irvine, California. Now Acushnet has their eyes on Greg Norman and plan to take his deposition on November 26th in Jupiter Florida. Check out this list of documents that Greg is supposed to bring to the deposition….(list)…. Can you imagine Greg Norman lugging 200 pounds of documents into a deposition.

As you may recall from a prior post, and the subsequent update, in early August Callaway filed two patent infringement lawsuits against TaylorMade…. (history)…. On October 31st the Court reported that TaylorMade and Callaway participated in an Early Neutral Evaluation Conference and that there is hope that a full settlement can be achieved within approximately 30 days. Click HERE to read the Court’s report. Darn, it would have been fun watching each side try to invalidate the other’s patents! Looks like we will never know how they worked it out ($$$), if indeed they do.

“Club head adjustability” does not receive quite as much marketing hype as “MOI,” but it sure gets a lot of attention. This week a patent application published that is directed to an interesting adjustable driver design (US Pub. No. 20070265108). Check out these drawings from the application…….. I would like to take one of these to the range and watch the changing ball flight as the weight(s) is moved around the club head.

Golf Magazine ranked the 50 biggest cities in terms of the “best place to live the golf life.” The rankings were based upon seven factors; weather, affordability, quality of courses, accessibility, number of courses designed by esteemed architects, availability, and crowdedness. Click here to read about golf in my town. Imagine where Columbus would rank if we had decent weather 12 months a year.

Tired of always having to fish around in your pockets to retrieve your golf tees? If so, this shirt may be just what you need…(figure)… Click here to check out USPN D554828 titled “Golf Shirt.” I couldn’t make this stuff up!

The Golf-Patents blog loves to test your knowledge of iron club head designs (just click here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here to brush-up). Today’s test borders on the impossible (unless you work for the company). The figure below comes from a golf club design patent that issued today. Can you identify the brand of irons?

Regular readers of the Golf-Patents blog know all about the patent litigation in the golf GPS industry. Well, add another lawsuit to the mix. On November 1st ProLink sued GPS Industries (click here to view the Complaint). The lawsuit seeks a declaratory judgment that USPN 5685786 is invalid and not infringed by ProLink and alleges that GPS Industries is infringing ProLink’s USPN 6525690, USPN 6236940, and USPN 6470242…..

Update on the SkyCaddie injunction issue… As you may recall, GPS Industries singled out SkyHawke (maker of SkyCaddie) and filed a motion for a preliminary injunction in an attempt to stop sales of the SkyCaddie devices. In response, SkyHawke filed a pretty compelling response to the preliminary injunction motion.
This week GPS Industries filed their reply brief in support of their motion for preliminary injunction, ending the chain of filings and leaving it to the court to now rule on the motion… and my prediction… plus what I will do if I am wrong.

You may recall my prior post regarding IntelliGolf being accused of infringing a “Handheld Golf Reporting and Statistical Analysis Apparatus and Method” patent… well, an interesting twist in the case has occurred…

A properly branded athlete can often generate more revenue from endorsement deals then they can generate from actually playing the sport that made them famous. There is no doubt that professional golfer Bubba Watson has done his part in creating a unique persona….

How would you like to be on the receiving end of a Complaint in which golf giant Callaway accuses you of (i) infringing one UTILITY patent, (ii) infringing three DESIGN patents, (3) infringing two trademarks, (4) trademark dilution, (5) breach of contract, (6) common law unfair competition, and (7) false advertising? This is exactly the position that King Sports, AT Golf, and M&M Golf are currently in. Fortunately, or unfortunately, for them… it is not the first time that the owners of these companies have been on the receiving end of legal ation by Callaway. You may wonder… “who the heck is King Sports, AT Golf, and M&M Golf?” Simply take a quick click-thru of the hyperlinks to visit their websites and you will immediately recognize the business that they are in… clone golf components……..(more, more, figures)……. The most entertaining part of the Complaint has to do with the allegations of false advertising. As most avid golfers know, the rear portion of Callaway’s top-of-the-line drivers are constructed of a non-metallic composite material. Apparently the Defendants like that construction and
……..

The Callaway v. Acushnet golf ball patent infringement battle is still very active and today I was stunned to see that Acushnet issued a subpoena to take the testimony of Phil Mickeson. If you don’t already know… Phil plays a Callaway ball. The deposition was scheduled to take place on October 25th in Irvine, California. Now, I am sure that Phil is a bright guy, but what could a Psychology major have to say that would influence the outcome of a golf ball patent infringement lawsuit?

An interesting golf patent infringement lawsuit was filed back in February and flew under my radar screen until now. The lawsuit (6:07-cv-00065) was filed by L&H Concepts LLC in the Eastern
District of Texas against the owners / operators of IntelliGolf. So, you may ask “who is L&H Concepts?” L&H is the owner of USPN 5779566 titled “Handheld Golf Reporting and Statistical Analysis Apparatus and Method.”
The patent describes the invention as….. I encourage you to read the claims of this patent and really try to understand what they cover. If you can honestly say that you understand what is covered by the claims then you should be a patent lawyer. It will be interesting to see how this lawsuit plays out!

The Golf-Patents blog has tested your knowledge of iron club head design in the past (here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here). Today, let’s see if you can identify a hybrid iron set. The figures below come from five US golf club design patents that issued today to a major producer of clubs. Can you identify the brand?

In light of the recent golf ball patent infringement settlement between Bridgestone and Acushnet, and in light of my recent post regarding ProV1 patents, I thought a look at the patents directed to Bridgestone’s top-of-the-line golf ball was in order. Do you think there are more patents listed on a box of Titleist ProV1’s or a box of Bridgestone Tour B330 golf balls? Can you guess the number of utility patents listed on a sleeve of Bridgestone Tour B330 golf balls? Is it (i) under 10; (ii) 10-20; (iii) 21-30; (iv) 31-40; or (v) over 40.
The correct answer is…

Have you ever looked closely at the box sleeve containing Titleist Pro V1 golf balls? Even further, have you ever bothered to check out the tiny writing on the tongue of the sleeve when you open it? I am sure that most people never have… but if you did, can you guess the number of utility patents listed? Is it…
A) under 10; B) 10-20; C) 21-30; D) 31-40; E) over 40 ? The correct answer is… PS – So, is there a typo in the list, or is the writing too small for me to read? Check out USPN 4710422.

The Golf-Patents blog has tested your knowledge of iron club head design in the past (here, here, here,here, here, here, and here). Today, let’s see if you can identify another set of irons. For frequent readers of this blog, I rate the level of difficulty of this one as easy. Good luck. The figures below come from a US golf club iron head design patent that issued this week to a major producer of clubs. Can you identify the brand of irons?…

Have you ever thought… “boy, I wish my grooves were narrow in the center of my club face and wider at the heel and toe?” Don’t worry… neither have I (which explains why we are not the ones designing golf clubs).
Fortunately, the engineers over at TaylorMade have been studying the effects of variable width grooves and yesterday they were granted an interesting patent. The patent is USPN 7285057 titled “Variable Scoreline Golf Club Groove Configuration” and describes the invention as…….. Ahh, so simple. The following figures illustrate the concept nicely…(figures)… So, does the future hold a set of clubs in which each club has a different degree of groove width variation to help produce the expected (desired) spin for that particular club? Sounds interesting!

Ask most golfers about aerodynamics and they will immediately start spouting off buzz words pertaining to golf balls… dimples, drag, lift, etc…
Well, have you ever thought about the aerodynamics of your golf clubs? Fortunately there have been many inventors over the years that have been fixated on the aerodynamics of the golf club head.
I would love to interview a golf club design engineer regarding the significance, or lack thereof, of a golf club head’s aerodynamics. I suspect that at Tiger’s swing speed it may have minor significance, but virtually no significance for most golfers… but that is just a hunch. While the idea makes some sense, if it were a truly great idea then one of the major manufacturers would have been all over it a long time ago.
Part 1 of this series focused on a handful of patents that disclose clubs which aim to channel airflow through the club head in a particular manner.
This edition, part 2 of the series, will honor those inventors that think… “the only thing missing from a golf club head is fins!” Check out these interesting finned club heads…

The law firm of Fulbright & Jaworski has published the 2007 edition of “Litigation Trends Survey Findings.” There were 253 U.S. corporate counsel and 50 U.K. corporate counsel that participated in this year’s survey. The survey contains some interesting intellectual property information. The respondents to the survey indicated that patent infringement claims are rising.
68% of U.S. Companies have not had any patent infringement claims asserted against them over the last 3 years. 19% report 1 to 5 claims, 8% claim 6 to 10 claims, and 5% claims 11 to 20 claims. When surveyed on approaches in defending against patent infringement, the survey split the respondents into 3 groups: small (under $100M), medium ($100M-$999M) and large (over $1b). Here’s how they explained some of their approaches in defending patent infringement…
When surveyed on the approaches used for enforcing patents, the following responses were given…
There is a lot of other information in the 53-page report. To download a free copy click here.

As you may recall from a prior post, Callaway sued Acushnet for golf ball patent infringement back in February of 2006. The suit (1:06-cv-00091-SLR) alleges that Acushnet infringed 4 patents and has roots that extend all the way back to a previously settled 1996 lawsuit between Spalding and Acushnet. The case involves USPN’s 6210293, 6503156, 6506130, and 6595873.
The case is still very active and a letter from Acushnet’s attorneys to the Judge (The Honorable Sue L. Robinson) on October 10th alleges that Callaway’s attorneys confidently misstated the law to the Judge during a September 28th oral hearing. The letter explains that that during oral arguments Callaway’s attorney, in an effort to support their arguments, promised the Court that “We have a case for that. Mr. {Name Omitted} will find it and I will just tell you what it is, but it’s a Federal Circuit case.” I can just imagine Acushnet’s attorneys grinning ear to ear when they heard that statement and looked over to make sure the court reporter caught it. Apparently Acushnet advised the court at the oral argument that Callaway had incorrectly stated the law and promised to supply the Court with the appropriate case citations. Well, guess who supplied the Court with their citations first? Acushnet. Now to be fair (and not spend hours researching the issue), I am sure that Callaway’s attorneys will file a similar document explaining why they were correct and why Acushnet’s attorneys are incorrect. It will be interesting to see what the Judge has to say.

Don’t worry if you have never heard of “overlap saturation.” Marketers have not latched onto it as the hot marketing buzzword. Just ask yourself… five years ago did the average golfer know what MOI stood for? Acushnet penned the term “overlap saturation,” abbreviated OS, which is the ratio of the number of overlap instances on a ball to the maximum possible number for an ideal hypothetical ball with the same number of dimples. Overlap instances are tallied by summing the number of overlapping neighbor dimples for every dimple. So what does all this mean? Acushnet states that golf balls with overlapping dimples offer increased total yardage compared to an equivalent ball without overlapping dimples. Check out the following figure….. Why this topic? Recently Acushnet was granted USPN 7258632 titled “Golf Ball Dimple Pattern with Overlapping Dimples,” which is related to the previously issued patent USPN 6969327. If you enjoy golf technology, then you will enjoy reading the “Background of the Invention” of the ‘632 patent. The following are a few more of the figures from the patent…….