Has Callaway’s Case Against Acushnet Been Weakened by a Recent Patent Office Action?
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 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).
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 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).
It will be interesting to see what effect this recent USPTO action has on the case.
David Dawsey – The IP Golf Guy
PS – Click here to view a prior post regarding the lawsuit; click here to review a post regarding Acushnet issuing a subpoena to take the testimony of Phil Mickelson; and click here to review a post regarding Acushnet issuing a subpoena to take the testimony of Greg Norman.