The IP Golf Guy - The Golf Patent Lawyer (Golf Inventions, Patents, Litigation, Trademarks)

So What Facts Are Going To Be The Focus Of The ProV1 Patent Infringement Trial?

David Dawsey PE Esq — 2010-03-10T05:00:00Z

Facts are facts, right? Well, not necessarily. The following are issues of fact that will be litigated in the ProV1 dispute.

JOINT STATEMENT OF ISSUES OF FACT THAT REMAIN TO BE LITIGATED

The following factual issues remain to be litigated at trial. To the extent that any issues of law set forth in Exhibits 3 or 4 of the Joint Pre-Trial Order may be considered or include issues of fact, the parties incorporate those portions of Exhibits 3 and 4 herein by reference. The parties incorporate Exhibits 11 and 12 (Brief Statement of Intended Proofs) herein.

I.   INVALIDITY
A.   Obviousness

While obviousness is a legal issue, Acushnet intends to offer evidence on at least the following underlying issues of fact:
1.   The scope and content of the prior art.
2.   The level of ordinary skill in the art of the patents-in-suit in 1995.
3.   The differences, if any, between the claimed inventions of the patents-in-suit and the prior art.
4.   If Callaway Golf offers evidence of alleged secondary considerations of non-obviousness, Acushnet will offer evidence to rebut such secondary consideration evidence and to demonstrate that there is no nexus between any such alleged secondary considerations and the claimed inventions of the patents-in-suit.

B.   Anticipation
1.   Whether the asserted claims of the ‘293 patent are anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102.
2.   Whether the asserted claims of the ‘156 patent are anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102.
3.   Whether the asserted claims of the ‘130 patent are anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102.
4.   Whether the asserted claims of the ‘873 patent are anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102.
C.   Other
1.   Callaway Golf reserves the right to address in rebuttal all issues
relating to the validity of the patents-in-suit, including:
(a)   That none of the asserted claims of the patents-in-suit are invalid as anticipated or obvious;
(b)   whether any suggestion or motivation existed to combine and/or alter prior art to arrive at the inventions set forth in the asserted claims; and
(c) the extent of objective indicia of nonobviousness of the inventions set forth in the asserted claims, including: (i) commercial success of products covered by any of the asserted patent claims; (ii) a long felt, unmet need in the art that was satisfied by the invention; (iii) the failure by others to make the invention; (iv) copying of the invention by others; (v) initial skepticism of the invention by others; (vi) praise of the invention by others. Callaway Golf will also show that there is a nexus between the secondary considerations and the claimed inventions of the patents-in-suit.
II. DAMAGES
1.   The amount of damages, if any, in the form of lost profits due to Callaway Golf as a result of Acushnet Company’s infringement.

2.   The amount of damages, if any, in the form of a royalty due to Callaway Golf as a result of Acushnet Company’s infringement.

Sounds like an interesting trial!

David J. Dawsey - The Golf Patent Attorney

PS – stay tuned, there will be many posts this week leading up to the trial

PPS – you can view a PDF of the facts to be litigated HERE

Let’s Look at Some Facts that Callaway and Acushnet Agree Upon Regarding the Titleist ProV1 Golf Ball Patent Litigation

David Dawsey PE Esq — 2010-03-09T05:00:00Z

In patent litigation it is generally pretty hard for the parties to agree upon anything. Fortunately, a court can be pretty persuasive in forcing the parties to state the facts that they cannot fight about. Here are a few facts that Callaway and Acushnet have agreed upon in the ProV1 litigation.

STATEMENT OF FACTS WHICH ARE ADMITTED AND REQUIRE NO PROOF

Plaintiff and Defendant stipulate to the following admitted facts that require no proof:

1.   Plaintiff Callaway Golf Company (“Callaway Golf”) is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware, having a principal place of business in Carlsbad, California.

2.   Callaway Golf is the parent company of Callaway Golf Ball Operations, formerly known as The Top-Flite Golf Company (collectively, “Top-Flite”), which is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware, having a principal place of business in Chicopee, Massachusetts.

3.   Defendant Acushnet Company (“Acushnet”) is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware, having a principal place of business in Fairhaven, Massachusetts.

4.   Acushnet is a wholly-owned operating company of Fortune Brands, Inc. (“Fortune Brands”).

5.   Fortune Brands is a publicly-traded corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware.

6.   United States Patent No. 6,210,293 (“the ’293 patent”) entitled “Multi-Layer Golf Ball” issued on April 3, 2001.

7.   United States Patent No. 6,503,156 (“the ’156 patent”) entitled “Golf Ball Having Multi-Layer Cover With Unique Cover Characteristics” issued on January 7, 2003.

8.   United States Patent No. 6,506,130 (“the ’130 patent”) entitled “Multi-Layer Golf Ball” issued on January 14, 2003.

9.   United States Patent No. 6,595,873 (“the ’873 patent”) entitled “Multi-Layer Golf Ball” issued on July 22, 2003.

10.   Michael J. Sullivan is the sole named inventor on the ’293, ’156, ’130, and ’873 patents (collectively “the patents-in-suit”).

11.   United States Patent 4,274,637 (“Molitor ‘637”), entitled “Golf ball having cellular cover,” issued on June 23, 1981.

12.   United States Patent 4,431,193 (“Nesbitt”), entitled “Golf ball and method of making same,” issued on February 14, 1984.

13.   United States Patent 4,674,751 (“Molitor ‘751”), entitled “Golf ball having improved playability properties,” issued on June 23, 1987.

14.   United States Patent 5,314,187 (“Proudfit”), entitled “Golf ball with improved cover,” issued on May 24, 1994.

15.   United States Patent 5,334,673 (“Wu”), entitled “Polyurethane golf ball,” issued on August 2, 1994.

16.   The effective priority date of the ‘293, 156, and ‘873 patents is November 9, 1995.

17.   The effective priority date of the ‘130 patent is October 13, 1995.

18.   Callaway Golf currently owns U.S. Patent Nos. 6,210,293; 6,503,156; 6,506,130; and 6,595,873 (“the patents-in-suit”) and has owned them at all times pertinent to this case.

19.   Acushnet’ s Titleist ProV1 golf balls are covered by and infringe:
Claims 1, 4 and 5 of U.S. Patent No. 6,210,293; Claims 1, 2 and 3 of U.S. Patent No. 6,503,156; Claim 5 of U.S. Patent No. 6,506,130; and Claims 1 and 3 of U.S. Patent 6,595,873.

20.   Acushnet’s Titleist Pro V1x and Pro V1* golf balls are covered by and infringe:
Claims 4 and 5 of U.S. Patent No. 6,210,293; Claims 1, 2 and 3 of U.S. Patent No. 6,503,156; Claim 5 of U.S. Patent No. 6,506,130; and Claims 1 and 3 of U.S. Patent 6,595,873.

21. Due to manufacturing variations, some small percentage of these golf balls may fall outside the claimed hardness range for the outer cover layer, and therefore, as a compromise, the parties stipulate and agree that 95% of all golf balls of each three types are covered by and infringe the claims identified above.

David J. Dawsey - The IP Golf Guy

PS – stay tuned, there will be many posts this week leading up to the trial

PPS – you can view a PDF of the agreed upon facts HERE

The Proposed Jury Instructions for the ProV1 Patent Litigation Trial

David Dawsey PE Esq — 2010-03-08T05:00:00Z

Yesterday we looked at the jointly proposed voir dire for the ProV1 patent infringement trial; today let’s look at the jointly proposed jury instructions.

PRELIMINARY INSTRUCTIONS

Members of the jury:

Now that you have been sworn, I have the following preliminary instructions for guidance on your role as jurors in this case.

The Parties

This is a case arising under the patent laws of the United States. The plaintiff is Callaway Golf Company, which I will refer to as "Callaway." The defendant is Acushnet Company, which I will refer to as "Acushnet." Callaway and Acushnet are companies engaged in the design, development, marketing, and sale of golf balls.

Callaway is the owner of the United States patents at issue in this case. There are four patents at issue: U.S. Patent No. 6,506,130, which I will refer to as "the '130 patent"; U.S. Patent No. 6,503,156, which I will refer to as "the '156 patent"; U.S. Patent No. 6,210,293, which I will refer to as "the '293 patent"; and U.S. Patent No. 6,595,873, which I will refer to as "the '873 patent." I may refer to these patents collectively as "the patents in suit," or, alternatively, as "the Callaway patents." Copies of these patents have been given to you along with these preliminary instructions.

You will be given notebooks which have a copy of these instructions, copies of the patents, and have paper for you to take notes if you choose to during the trial.

The parties have stipulated that Acushnet infringes claims 1, 4, and 5 of the '293 patent, claims 1, 2, and 3 of the '156 patent, claim 5 of the '130 patent, and claims 1 and 3 of the '873 patent. Therefore, you will not be asked to determine the issue of infringement. However, Acushnet asserts that each of the patents in suit is invalid and, therefore, you will be asked to review the validity of each of these patents.

Callaway denies that the patents in suit are invalid and seeks damages for infringement of the patents by the following golf balls under Acushnet's Titleist brand: the Titleist Pro V1, the Titleist Pro V1 x, and the Titleist Pro V1*.

Burden Of Proof

[CALLAWAY'S PROPOSED INSTRUCTION]

This is a civil case in which Callaway is asking for damages for Acushnet's infringement. Callaway has the burden of establishing its entitlement to damages by what is called a preponderance of the evidence. That means Callaway has to produce evidence which, when considered in light of all of the facts, leads you to believe that what Callaway claims is more likely true than not. To put it differently, if you were to put Callaway and Acushnet's evidence on the opposite sides of a scale, the evidence supporting Callaway's claims would have to make the scales tip somewhat on its side.

Acushnet contends that the patents in suit are invalid. A patent, however, is presumed to be valid. Accordingly, Acushnet has the burden of proving that each of the patents in suit are invalid by clear and convincing evidence. Clear and convincing evidence is evidence that produces an abiding conviction that the truth of a factual contention is highly probable. Proof by clear and convincing evidence is thus a higher burden than proof by a preponderance of the evidence.

Those of you who are familiar with criminal cases will have heard the term "proof beyond a reasonable doubt." That burden does not apply in a civil case and you should, therefore, put it out of your mind in considering whether or not Callaway and Acushnet have met their respective burdens of proof in this case.

[ACUSHNET'S PROPOSED INSTRUCTION]

This is a civil case in which Acushnet contends that the patents in suit are invalid. Acushnet has the burden of proving that each of the patents in suit are invalid by clear and convincing evidence.[FN1] Clear and convincing evidence is evidence that produces an abiding conviction that the truth of a factual contention is highly probable.

Callaway has the burden of proving damages by what is called a preponderance of the evidence. A "preponderance of the evidence" means that the patent owner has to produce evidence which, when considered in the light of all the facts, leads you to believe that what the patent owner alleges is more likely true than not.

Those of you who are familiar with criminal cases will have heard the term "proof beyond a reasonable doubt." That burden does not apply in a civil case and you should, therefore, put it out of your mind in considering whether or not Callaway and Acushnet have met their respective burdens of proof in this case.

Duty Of Jury

It will be your duty to find what the facts are from the evidence as presented at trial. You, and you alone, are the judges of the facts. You will have to apply those facts to the law as I will instruct you at the close of evidence. You must follow that law whether you agree with it or not.

You are the judges of the facts. Iwill decide which rules of law apply to this case. Nothing I say or do during the course of the trial is intended to indicate what your verdict should be.

Evidence

The evidence from which you will find the facts will consist of the testimony of witnesses, and documents and other things admitted into evidence. In addition, the evidence may include certain facts as agreed to by the parties or as I instruct you.

Certain things are not evidence.

1. Statements, arguments and questions by lawyers are not evidence. Objections to questions are not evidence. Lawyers have an obligation to their clients to make an objection when they believe testimony or exhibits being offered into evidence are not admissible under the rules of evidence. You should not be influenced by a lawyer's objection or by my ruling on the objection. If I sustain or uphold the objection, and find the matter is not admissible, you should ignore the question or other item of evidence. If I overrule an objection and allow the matter in evidence, you should consider the testimony or other item of evidence as you would any evidence. If I instruct you during the trial that some item of evidence is admitted for a limited purpose, you must follow that instruction and consider the evidence for that purpose only. I will instruct you further during the trial if this happens.

2. Anything you see or hear outside the courtroom is not evidence and must be disregarded. You are to decide this case solely on the evidence presented here in the courtroom.

In judging the facts, it will be up to you to decide which witnesses to believe, which witnesses not to believe, and how much of any witness's testimony to accept or reject.

Conduct Of The Jury

Now, a few words about your conduct as jurors.

Although you are not to talk about the case with anyone else, you are permitted to talk to each other, when everyone is in the jury room, about the technology at issue in this case. You may write questions down and give them to Nicole, my courtroom deputy.

She will give the questions to me and I will pass them along to the attorneys, who may or may not try to incorporate your questions into their examinations.

Even though you may talk to each other about the technology, you should not reach any conclusions as to the issues presented until all the evidence is in and you have been given your final instructions.
Finally, you must only consider the evidence presented in the courtroom. Do not read or listen to anything touching on this case that is not admitted into evidence. By that I mean, if there may be a newspaper article or radio or television report relating to this case, do not read the article or watch or listen to the report. In addition, do not try to do any independent research or investigation on your own on matters relating to this case.

The proceedings during trial will be transcribed by court reporters; however, it is not the practice of this Court to make the trial transcripts available to jurors. You must rely on your own recollection of what testimony was presented and how credible that testimony was.

If you wish, you may take notes in the binders we have provided. The binders will be collected each time you leave the courtroom. Keep in mind that your notes are for your own personal use - they are not to be given or read by anyone else.

Finally, please wear your juror identification tags everyday, so that the parties can avoid engaging you in conversation, thereby bringing your impartiality into question.

Course Of The Trial

The trial will now begin. The attorneys have three opportunities to talk to you during the trial. The first opportunity is the opening statement. During the opening statements, the attorneys will introduce their respective stories to you. As I've already instructed, however, what the lawyers say is not evidence. It will be up to you to determine whether the evidence - the testimony of the witnesses and the admitted documents - supports what the lawyers say in their opening statements. The second opportunity that the lawyers have to talk to you is during transition statements. Lawyers are permitted to make transition statements whenever they call a witness to the stand, to introduce the witness and to briefly explain the relevance of the witness's anticipated testimony. Finally, after all the evidence is in, the lawyers will offer closing arguments to summarize and interpret the evidence for you, and to tie the evidence to their story. I will then give you instructions on the law and describe for you the matters you must resolve.

You will then retire to the jury room to deliberate on your verdict.

You should generally expect that we will start the trial each morning at 9:30 a.m. and finish at 4:30 p.m., with two 15-minute breaks (morning and afternoon), and one half-hour break for lunch. As I said earlier, I time my civil trials, meaning each party is given a certain number of hours in which to present its evidence. This assures that trials will be completed on a predictable basis. This system can only work, however, if you, as jurors, report to the courtroom on a punctual basis as well.

FN1 Acushnet submits that the jury should not be instructed as to the presumption of validity. The presumption underlies the requirement that invalidity be proven by clear and convincing evidence, hence reciting the presumption in addition to the burden of proof is confusing and redundant. Patent Case Management Judicial Guide § 8.1.2.2.2.1 at 8-15 (Fed. Jud. Ctr. 2009) ("[lIt is now generally agreed that juries should be instructed as to the higher burden of proof required to prove invalidity, but should not be told that there is a presumption of validity, which would be redundant and likely confusing."); Fed. Cir. Bar Ass'n Model Patent Jury Instructions, Note to 10.1 ("In light of the procedural role of the presumption of validity, instruction the jury on the presumption in addition to informing it of the clear and convincing burden of proof may cause jury confusion as to its role in deciding validity."); see also American Intellectual Prop. Law Ass'n Model Patent Jury Instructions (omitting any reference to presumption of validity); Chiron Corp. v. Genentech, Inc., 363 F.3d 1247, 1258-59 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (approving district court's omission of the presumption of validity instruction).

Callaway Golf respectfully responds that the presumption of validity is statutory, see 35 U.S.C. § 282, and merely instructing the jury on the burden of proof is insufficient because it does not instruct the jury why that burden is required - to overcome the statutory presumption that the Patent Office did its job. See American Hoist & Derrick Co. v. Sowa & Sons, Inc., 725 F.2d 1350, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 1984); Brooktree Corp. v. AMD, 977 F.2d 1555, 1574 (Fed. Cir. 1992). This Court routinely instructs juries on the presumption of validity, (see D. Del. Model Patent Jury Instruction 1.3), and no Federal Circuit opinion has ever shed any doubt on that practice. Further, Callaway Golf notes that this instruction was given during the first trial (see D.I. 394 at 3), and in fact Acushnet itself actually proposed instructing the jury on the presumption, (see D.I. 389 at p.26), waiving this argument. See Christianson v. Colt Indus. Operating Corp., 486 U.S. 800, 815-16 (1988); Amado v. Microsoft Corp., 517 F.3d 1353, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2008); EngelIndus., Inc. v. Lockformer Co., 166 F.3d 1379, 1382-84 (Fed. Cir. 1999).

Interesting stuff. I suspect that some of you, like me, would pay to be on the jury.

David J. Dawsey - The IP Golf Guy

PS – stay tuned, there will be many posts this week leading up to the trial

PPS – you can view a PDF of the jointly proposed ProV1 jury instructions HERE

Gearing Up for the Biggest Golf Patent Infringement Trial in History

David Dawsey PE Esq — 2010-03-07T05:00:00Z

Jury selection begins this Friday for the big ProV1 trial. This could be the jury that awards the largest amount of damages in golf history; but it could also be the jury that awards nada. In this case it isn’t very often that Callaway and Acushnet agree on anything, therefore let’s take a look at their jointly proposed voir dire designed to screen prospective jurors.

PROPOSED VOIR DIRE

Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. I am Judge Robinson, and I will be presiding over the trial for which a jury is about to be drawn in the case captioned Callaway Golf Co. v. Acushnet Co. Briefly stated, this is an action arising under the patent laws of the United States involving golf ball patents.

The trial may last up to 5 days. I time my trials, so the attorneys have to complete their trial presentations within these limits. However, jury deliberations may require you to be present longer than the scheduled 5 days. Our trial days will run approximately from 9:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.

In light of this brief summary, I will now ask you certain questions, the purpose of which is to: (1) enable the court to determine whether or not any prospective juror should be excused for cause; and (2) enable counsel for the parties to exercise their individual judgment with respect to peremptory challenges, that is, challenges for which no reason need be given by counsel. If any of you answer any question "yes," please stand up and, upon being recognized by the court, state your juror number. When I have concluded asking all the questions, we will call you individually to the bench to speak with you about your affirmative response or responses.

    HAVE CLERK ADMINISTER THE OATH TO THE PANEL

1. You have been given a list of companies and organizations.
a.   Have you, a family member or close friend, ever worked for any of these companies or organizations?
b.   Do you or any member of your households now own, or have you or any such member ever owned, any stocks or bonds in any of those companies or organizations?
c.   Have you, any family member, or anyone close to you had any dealings with, or relied financially in any way on, any of the companies or organizations?
d.   Have you, any family member, or anyone close to you had any experience with the products of any of those companies or otherwise have any strong feelings, positive or negative, toward any of those companies or organizations?
2. You have been given a list of the attorneys and law firms involved in this litigation. Are you related to, or personally acquainted with, any of those attorneys, or have you ever been represented by any of those attorneys or other attorneys or members of their law firms?

3. You have been given a list of the individuals who might appear as witnesses in this case. Are you familiar with the names any of those individuals?

4.   Do you have any personal knowledge of this case, or have you read or heard it discussed, or have an opinion regarding it?

5.   Have you ever been a plaintiff, a defendant, or a witness in a civil lawsuit?

6.   Have you ever served as a juror in a civil lawsuit?

7.   You have been given a list of subject areas. Have you, a close friend, or a family member ever been educated, employed, trained, or had any experience in any of the listed areas?

8.   Do you have any knowledge about or experience with patents, including applying for a patent?

9.   Have you ever worked for a company that had patented products or processes?

10.   Have you ever been involved in the development of a new product or process?

11.   Have you, any member of your immediate family, or anyone close to you ever had any dealings with the United States Patent and Trademark Office?

12.   Do you have any strong opinions about a patent granting exclusive rights to the inventors or their employer?

13.   [CALLAWAY PROPOSED QUESTION] Do you believe it would be wrong for someone to profit from his invention or discovery? FN1 – (Callaway Golf notes that this question was asked during the first voir dire, and respectfully requests that it be asked again. (See D.I. 377, Question 13). Acushnet objects to this question.

14.   Have you, any member of your immediate family, or anyone close to you ever worked for a golf equipment manufacturer, or been employed in the golf industry, such as golf courses or retail stores selling golf equipment?

15.   Have you ever used products relating to the sport of golf that you know to be made by Callaway Golf Company or Acushnet Company, including, but not limited to, golf products sold under the brand names Titleist, Cobra, FootJoy, Callaway, Top-Flite, Spalding, CTU 30, Ben Hogan, Strata, Tour Ace or Pro V1?

16.   Do you work for, or belong to the U.S. Golf Association (called the "USGA")?

17.   Does anyone play golf, consider yourself to be a golfer, have immediate family members who play golf, or regularly watch or attend golfing events? a. If yes, follow up question at the bench would include:
i.   How often do you golf or view golf?
ii.   Are you a member of any golf club?
iii.   Do you maintain a golf handicap? If yes, what is that handicap?
iv.   Is there any particular brands or product models of golf equipment, including golf balls, that own or you like to use? If yes, which brand(s) or particular product models do you own or use?
18.   Do you have any special disability or problem that would make it difficult or impossible for you to serve as a member of the jury in this case?

19.   Do you know of any other matter which you believe should be called to the Court's attention as having some bearing upon your qualifications or ability to sit as a juror, or which you think may prevent you from rendering a fair, unbiased and impartial verdict based solely upon the evidence and my instructions as to the law?

What are your thoughts? Are these questions good enough to identify the crazies or those with bias?

I wonder if one side or the other is better off having jurors that are golfers? Interesting question that Callaway and Acushnet have probably studied in detail. What about the USGA question? Would you want people associated with the USGA on the jury, or excluded from it?

David J. Dawsey - Keeping an Eye on Golf Ball Patent Litigation

PS – stay tuned, there will be many posts this week leading up to the trial

PPS – you can view a PDF of the jointly proposed document HERE

Is This Club Manufacturing Method Crazy or Beautifully Genius?

David Dawsey PE Esq — 2010-03-06T02:28:00Z

A patent issued this week directed to a golf club manufacturing technique that is rather interesting. The patent is USPN 7,670,532 titled “Golf Club Head and Method of Making the Same,” and describes the invention as:

A golf club head and a method of making a golf club head are disclosed. The method provides for winding a single continuous filament multiple times about a soluble core. The wound core is located in a mold and pressure coated with a pure or non-continuous fiber filled resin. The resin is allowed to cure to form a filament and resin shell about the core. The soluble core is removed leaving the continuous filament in the shell.

The patent explains:

It is an object of the present invention to overcome the disadvantages inherent to the above described and traditional methods and resulting structures of club heads, and to provide a new head design as well as a new method of manufacturing such head.

Thus, one of the more specific objects of the invention is to provide a manufacturing method enabling a more efficient new head structure to be obtained, especially as regards distribution of mass, durability, and finishing quality. The method according to the invention is particularly adapted to the large scale production of elements requiring a minimum number of operations to produce what might be considered a complex yet highly advantageous golf club head.

Thus, according to the invention, a method of manufacturing a golf club is disclosed. The method is comprised of the following steps. A single continuous filament is wound multiple times about a soluble core. The wound core is then located in a mold. The wound core is then pressure coated with a resin in the mold. The resin disperses among the filament windings. The resin is allowed to cure and form a filament and resin shell about the core. The soluble core is then removed from the shell while the continuous filament is retained within the shell.

The shell has an inside surface and an outside surface. The inside surface defines a substantially hollow interior portion and the inside surface has a plurality of ribs that extend into the interior portion. The ribs and the shell are substantially comprised of the resin and the single continuous filament located within the resin.

Check out the drawings, which illustrate the process:

So, it that crazy or genius?

Dave Dawsey - Monitoring Golf Club Design Intellectual Property

Acushnet Patent Application Publishes Directed to Golf Ball Recycling System

David Dawsey PE Esq — 2010-03-04T05:00:00Z

That’s right, green is in (and very PC). Still, I was surprised to see an Acushnet patent application publish today titled “Recyclable Golf Ball and Method Therefor.” (US Pub. No. 20100056305)

Just close your eyes and imagine golf ball recycling kiosks in every pro shop. Perhaps one at the local grocery store; you know, right next to the can recycling kiosk, the change counting kiosk, the DVD rental kiosk, and the game with the hanging claw and crappy stuffed animals. I think I just heard a tear fall and hit your keyboard. When you read the number of patent applications that I do, eventually you will start to believe that kiosks are about to take over the world.

So, what does Acushnet have in mind? Well, I will let the patent application explain the situation:

BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION

[0002] Golf balls typically contain materials that are difficult to recycle. In particular, golf balls contain thermoset polymers which, like rubber in tires, do not degrade and pose serious threats to the environment. In 1844, Charles Goodyear obtained U.S. Pat. No. 3,633 directed to sulfur vulcanization and further stated that "[n]o degree of heat, without blaze can melt it . . . . It resists the most powerful chemical reagents." Although Goodyear's sulfur vulcanization provided a significant breakthrough to the industrial revolution, he also created one of the most difficult materials to recycle.

[0003] There have been efforts to develop methods of recycling and reclaiming rubber, especially in view of the increasing amount of scrap rubber produced by used golf balls. For instance, commonly owned U.S. Pat. No. 5,609,535 to Morgan (herein "the Morgan patent"), which is incorporated herein by reference in its entirety, discloses a method for restoring used golf balls. In addition to the environmental benefits of reprocessing used golf balls, consumers benefit from the reprocessed balls' reduced price, which results from lower manufacturing costs.

[0004] To date, known golf ball recycling efforts merely consist of refurbishing recovered golf balls from golf course hazards. These recovered balls are inspected, cleaned, possibly repackaged, and then resold usually by entities not affiliated with the original golf ball manufacturer. Some recovered balls received a new clear coat to resemble new golf balls. However, such practices can negatively affect the aerodynamic properties of the balls, because the new coat can flood the dimples.

[0005] It is difficult for golf ball manufacturers to collect old golf balls for recycling because most golfers lose their golf balls while playing and very few golf balls actually become unplayable. Furthermore, there are no known distribution channels for millions of players to return used unplayable golf balls to the manufacturers.

[0006] There is also no known method that creates financial incentives for golf ball users to recycle used golf balls. Thus, a need exists for a system that can recycle unplayable golf balls and to remove them from the environment.

OK, I am all for recycling but do we need to give little kids and retired people an incentive to cruise along the OB stakes in hopes of capitalizing on some poor golfer’s misfortune? I mean they already seem to do it just for the thrill of the hunt.

The application goes on to explain:

[0019] The present invention is generally directed to a method for recycling golf balls. Forward distribution, or sale channels, from golf ball manufacturers to consumers are known. As illustrated in FIG. 1, golf ball manufacturers 100 use several forward distribution channels to convey golf balls to golfers, or other consumers, 300.

[0020] In one example, golf ball manufacturers 100 can sell golf balls directly to golfers 300 through direct distribution channels 10, direct mail orders, catalog orders, Internet orders or phone orders. In another example, golf ball manufacturers 100 sell or convey golf balls to golf facilities 200, such as golf courses, pro-shops, driving ranges, or professional golf tournaments, and these golf facilities would then sell the golf balls to golfers 300. In another example, golf ball manufacturers 100 sell or convey golf balls to sporting goods stores, or department stores with a sporting goods department, other retail stores 400, and golfers 300 or other consumers would then purchase golf balls at the sporting goods stores and department stores.

[0021] In an embodiment of the present invention, reverse distribution channels 40 and 50 are provided to golfers 300 and golf facilities 200 to return used golf balls back to golf ball manufacturers 100. Alternatively, in this embodiment, golf manufacturers 100 can use dynamic distribution channel 60 to convey golf balls to golf facilities 200 under a lease, buy-back, or service agreement. Subsequently, golf facilities 200 use dynamic distribution channel 60 to return used golf balls back to original manufacturers 100 for recycling.

[0022] In another embodiment, golf balls comprising 100% thermoplastic polymers are either returned to their original manufacturers 100 or third-party recyclers for complete recycling.

[0023] In each embodiment, the golf facilities 200 or golfers 300 receive a reward for golf balls returned.

[0024] FIG. 2 provides an overview of a golf ball's life-cycle 500. In a first stage 510, the raw materials used to produce golf balls are acquired by manufacturers 100. The raw materials typically include but are not limited to thermoset polymers, thermoplastic polymers, and additives. Significant amounts of fossil fuel energy must be expended in order to extract, transport, and process such raw materials. Similarly, in a second stage 520, manufacturers 100 transform the raw materials into golf balls using manufacturing processes that further expend fossil fuel energy. Because fossil fuel energy is required for raw material acquisition as well as manufacturing, both stage 510 and stage 520 emit greenhouse gases that adversely affect the environment.

[0025] In third stage 530, the golf balls are used by golfers 300, who directly or indirectly purchase the golf balls from golf manufacturer 100 as illustrated in FIG. 1, where golf ball manufacturers 100 use forward distribution channels 10-30 to convey golf balls to golf facilities 200 or golfers 300.

[0026] At the end of third stage 530, a golf ball can meet one of several fates. First, a golf ball can be discarded or become lost. A golf ball can become temporarily lost (e.g., within a golf course hazard), recovered, and re-used in life-cycle stage 535. However, a recovered hazard ball may exhibit poor performance due to its exposure to water, which can adversely affect the ball's compression, coefficient of restitution, weight, radius, and molecular structure. Moreover, hazard balls are also eventually discarded or lost. Such discarded or lost golf balls are handled, in a fourth stage 540, by a known waste management method such as depositing golf balls into a landfill. A golf ball's entry into fourth stage 540 can cause environmental concern because many golf balls contain thermoset polymers that do not degrade quickly. Moreover, for every discarded golf ball, golfers 300 or golf facilities 200 are likely to acquire a new golf ball produced by methods that deplete natural resources and emit greenhouse gases, as discussed above.

[0027] Alternatively, after the end of stage 530, stage 535 or stage 540, golf balls can advantageously enter into recycling stage 550. As illustrated in FIG. 3, which depicts the universal symbol of recycling, life-cycle stage 550 involves three distinct phases: collecting and processing the golf balls in phase 550a; recycling the golf balls in phase 550b; and selling recycled products in phase 550c. These phases 550a-550c generally use less natural resources and fossil fuel energy than stages 510 and 520, since in step 550b the core layer(s) and optionally at least some of the cover are saved and reused, as discussed in the Morgan patent. Phases 550a-550c produce balls that resemble newly manufactured golf balls.

[0028] Heretofore, there has been no effective method for the collection and processing of golf balls in phase 550a. More particularly, in phase 550a, there has been no effective channel for golfers 300 or golf facilities 200 to return worn or used golf balls back to manufacturers 100 for recycling. The present invention is advantageous because it provides reverse distribution channels 40-60 through which golf balls can be returned for recycling in phase 550b, wherein one recaptures as much of the used golf balls as possible. Thereby, golf facilities 200 and golfers 300 along with golf manufacturers 100 can effectively share in the environmental stewardship of golf balls. Because this shared environmental stewardship, also known as extended product responsibility, is facilitated by reverse distribution channels 40-60, the present invention represents a significant advance in the art of golf ball recycling.

[0029] In a first embodiment of the present invention, reverse distribution channels 40 and 50 are utilized by golfers 300 and golf facilities 200 to return used golf balls back to their original manufacturers 100. Generally, in reverse distribution channel 40, golfers 300 return used golf balls to golf facilities 200. Subsequently, as discussed in greater detail below, the golf facilities 200 sort the collected used golf balls according to the proper manufacturer 100. Next, in reverse distribution channel 50, golf facilities 200 return the sorted golf balls back to original manufacturers 100.

If you just can’t stop reading, check out the full published application HERE; and no, I did not make up the part about the kiosks. Check this out.

[0035] One way that individual golfers 300 can return used golf balls to original manufacturer 100 is through retail collecting stations, such as kiosks at golf facilities 200 or shopping malls or at selected locations in cities. Such kiosks would have an automatic sorter, such as the ones discussed above and described in the '592 patent. After the balls are sorted by original manufacturer and brands, and un-recyclable balls or balls belonging to other manufacturers may be rejected, the kiosks can provide the recyclers a receipt for the balls returned or a recycling credit. The amount of credit would depend on the quality of the brand and the quantity of balls returned. The kiosks may also provide the credit through emails or other electronic means. Alternatively, the kiosks may also carry newly manufactured or newly recycled balls and may exchange new balls for recycled balls. The kiosks may also represent points-of-sale for new golf balls with or without recycling.

I can’t wait to cash in a load of old beat-up balls for a Starbucks gift card! While my initial reaction is to shake my head and laugh, I have no doubt that the idea would work and undoubtedly would end up recycling tons of material that would otherwise be thrown away (or just roll back and forth in your trunk for years). For that reason I say, bring on the ball recycling kiosks (and install them right next to a swing training kiosk)!

David Dawsey – Keeping an Eye on Golf Ball Inventions

PS – click HERE to read more interesting golf ball patent posts

This is a Cavity Back Iron that I Could Use!

David Dawsey PE Esq — 2010-02-25T05:00:00Z

Check out these beautiful clubs!

The patent issued earlier this month as USPN 7,658,130 titled “Golf Club Bottle Opener Combination,” which describes the invention as:

A golf club suitable for use in driving or putting a golf ball comprising a club head attached to a shaft includes a bottle cap removal structure in a rear surface of the club head.

I am not sure many courses actually allow bottles on the course, but it would be a perfect accessory for the basement bar!

Dave Dawsey - The Golf Attorney

Check Out This New Nike Driver Design

David Dawsey PE Esq — 2010-02-22T05:00:00Z

Last week I posted about an interesting patent application filed by Dick’s Sporting Goods. Well, the very same day a Nike patent application was published that contains some similar design attributes. Whose design do you like better?

The Nike application describes the invention as:

A golf club head system and a golf club head for inclusion into a golf club are provided. The golf club head system includes two or more rear or secondary body members, each configured for interchangeable attachment to a front or main body member. Each rear body member may have a different external shape, and each rear body member may have a different combination of center-of-gravity and moment-of-inertia characteristics. The system further includes a detachable attachment element for interchangeably and detachably attaching the rear body members to the front body member. The system may further include the front body member, wherein the front body member has a striking surface.

Interesting stuff!

Dave Dawsey - Monitoring Golf Club Designs

Dick’s Sporting Goods Entry in the Golf Club Design Business – An Eagle or a Shank – You be the Judge

David Dawsey PE Esq — 2010-02-18T05:00:00Z

There is no doubt that Dick’s is a major force in golf equipment retailing, yet I was still surprised this week to see that they had a patent application publish that is directed to a club head design.

The patent application published as US Pub. No. 201000041495 titled “Golf Driver Head with Exchangeable Rear Sections,” which describes the invention as:

A golf driver kit includes a front portion and a plurality of rear portions exchangeably connectable to the front portion and being of different respective shapes for imparting different flight characteristics to a struck golf ball. The front portion includes a front face plate and a hosel for receiving a shaft, plus a rearwardly projecting base on which the rear portion is seated. The rear portion is removably attached to the front portion by screws.

Check out their club head invention:

Interesting, very interesting. Look’s like the OEM’s may soon have more competition.

It does make you wonder how long it will be before walking into a golf retailer will be like walking into a grocery store. Will each name brand product will have a very similar "house brand" product for sale right beside it (for 30% less)? Perhaps a little chart will even compare the ingredients.... yes, the house brand is all titanium; yes, the house brand has an MOI of 5000; yes, the house brand....

Dave Dawsey - Monitoring Golf Club Technology

PS - Yes, I will finish "The Week of Karsten" at some point; the posts are very time consuming and not many people were reading them, so I got burned-out and needed a break.

Day 5 - Karsten's Patents Directed to Woods

David Dawsey PE Esq — 2010-02-16T05:00:00Z

So far this week we have looked at Karsten's non-golf related patents, golf tool related patents, a golf ball patent, and his golf grip patents, therefore it is about time that we start looking at his golf club patents. Let's start with woods.

I was surprised to learn that Karsten is listed as an inventor on only two wood-related patents, however we all know that the PING brand made its name with putters and irons. Karsten's first wood related patent is USPN 3625518 titled "Golf Club Head with Complex Curvature for the Sole and/or the Striking Face." The patent, which issued in 1971, describes the invention as:

A golf club is provided with a uniquely curved sole for assisting the golfer in keeping the face of the club pointed in a line to the target when, as the ball is addressed, the lie of the club differs from the normal lie. The sole is curved upwardly from the central portion to the heel portion and further curved upwardly and away, at progressively greater rates, from the front face to the rear face. The sole may also be curved from the central portion to the toe portion and further curved downwardly and away at progressively greater rates, from the front face to the rear face. The face of a wood golf club is also provided with a bulge or convex curvature about an axis in a first plane parallel to a plane tangent to the center of the club face and lying in a second plane parallel to the club shaft and passing through a line between the center of the club face and the target at the time of addressing the ball, and a roll or convex curvature about an axis perpendicular to the bulge axis curvature. The radius of curvature for roll is less than for bulge. The rear of the wooden head is extended and tapered, and concentrated weights are placed as much in the toe and the extended rear portion of head as possible.

Interesting patent, especially the bold portion above about toe weighting. Definitely not something you see much today.

Karsten's only other wood-related patent issued in 1994 as USPN 5310186 titled "Golf Club Head with Weight Pad." The '186 patent is directed to a metal wood design with heel weighting and describes the invention as:

A golf club head made of a suitable metal such as stainless steel includes a hollow body and a hosel. The hollow body has a top wall, a bottom wall, a side wall, and a front wall with a face arranged for impacting golf balls. The hollow body has a weight pad which provides the golf club head with increased resistance to rotation or twisting upon impact with golf balls at off-center points on the face. The weight pad weighs between 5 and 15 grams and is located in the heel portion of the body. The weight pad is elongated in a direction extending along a length dimension of the body side wall.

Stay tuned, the best is yet to come with upcoming posts covering Karsten Solheim’s inventions directed to irons and putters.

Dave Dawsey - The IP Golf Guy

Day 4 - Karsten's Golf Grip Patents

David Dawsey PE Esq — 2010-02-13T05:00:00Z

We have looked at Karsten's non-golf related patents, golf tool related patents, and a golf ball patent, so now let's look at his golf grip patents. He has many golf grip design patents, but only one golf grip utility patent.

The 1992 utility patent is USPN 5087042 titled "Golf Club Grip," which describes the invention as:

A grip for use on the extending end of the shaft of a golf club is provided with an especially configured array of longitudinally extending grooves which are in direct opposition to the rotation of the golf club about the longitudinal axis of the golf club shaft to resist twisting of the golf club in the golfer's hand resulting from mis-hitting of a golf ball in an off center location toward the toe or heel of the golf club head. The grip may have a visual indicator by which the rotational position of the golf club when being held in a golfer's hands can be determined by visual alignement of the grip with the golfer's hands.

Karsten's first golf grip design patent is USPN D254926, as seen below, which incorporates the once famous PING logo.

His next golf grip design patent issue in 1985 as USPN D281991

The next design patent USPN D287527, which I like the looks of.

The next design patent is USPN D290730, which is design that most golfers will remember.

Yet another of his grip design patents is USPN D315006, seen below.

The next grip design patent, USPN D333333, is related to the utility patent previously discussed.

Next we have USPN D345192, seen below.

Lastly, we have USPN D357295.

I wonder how many of these grips have made it into golfers hands. One million? Ten million? Hundred million? Hard to guess.

Stay tuned, the best is yet to come with upcoming posts covering Karsten Solheim’s inventions directed to woods, irons, and, of course, putters.

Dave Dawsey - Monitoring the Golf Grip Inventions

The Week of Karsten Solheim - Day 3 - The Lone Golf Ball Patent

David Dawsey PE Esq — 2010-02-12T05:00:00Z

Over the past few days we have examined Karsten Solheim’s non-golf related patents, as well as his golf tool related patents; well, there is one other unusual invention and patent that most people would not typically associate with Karsten and the PING brand.... a golf ball patent.

Karsten’s one and only golf ball patent is USPN 4653758, which is appropriately titled “golf ball” and issued in 1987. The patent explains:

The usual golf ball manufacturing techniques includes the winding of an elastomeric band about a spherical elastomeric core to form the body of the golf ball. Another technique being employed by some manufacturers is to form a one-piece spherical body of a suitable elastomeric material. In either case, the golf ball body is moldingly encapsulated in a cover of synthetic resin, or plastic, such as the material known in the art as Surlyn which is a registered trademark of the Dupont Co.

The cover molding operation is accomplished by using a pair of hemispherical molds each of which has an array of protrusions machined or otherwise provided in its cavity, and those protrusions form the dimple pattern on the periphery of the golf ball during the cover molding operation. A pair of hemispherical cover blanks, of the above mentioned synthetic resin material, are placed in a diametrically opposed position on the golf ball body, and the body with the cover blanks thereon are placed in the hemispherical molds, and then subjected to a molding operation. The combination of heat and pressure applied during the molding operation results in the cover blanks being fused to the golf ball body and to each other to form a unitary one-piece cover structure which encapsulates the golf ball body. In addition, the cover blanks are simultaneously molded into conformity with the interior configuration of the hemispherical molds which results in the formation of the dimple pattern on the periphery of the golf ball cover.

As in all molding operations, when the golf ball is removed from the hemispherical molds subsequent to the molding operation, it will have molding flash, and possibly other projecting surface imperfections thereon. The molding flash will be located at the fused circular junction of the cover blanks and the parting line of the hemispherical molds. The molding flash will therefore be on a great circle of the spherical golf ball, and that great circle is sometimes referred to in the golf ball art as the "equator" of the golf ball.

The molding flash and possible other projecting surface imperfections, needs to be removed and this is normally accomplished by a grinding operation. Due to the need for grinding, the molding operation must be accomplished in such a manner that the molding flash is located solely on the surface of the golf ball and does not extend into any of the dimples. In other words, a grinding operation cannot reach into the dimples of the golf ball to remove the molding flash without ruining the golf ball cover.

Therefore, the prior art hemispherical molds are fabricated so that the protrusions formed therein are set back from the circular rims, or mouths of their cavities. This results in the equator of a molded golf ball being devoid of dimples and the molding flash being located solely on the smooth surface provided at the equator of the golf ball.

In addition to facilitating the grinding-off of molding flash, the protrusions formed in the cavities of the hemispherical molds are set back from the circular mouths of the molds to facilitate removal of the molds from the molded golf ball after completion of the molding operation. If projections were formed at the circular mouths of the molds, they would extend into dimples formed at the equator of the golf ball, and pulling the molds off of the golf ball in directions perpendicular to the plane of the equator would be difficult, if not impossible.

As is well known, the dimple pattern of a golf ball is a critical factor insofar as the flight characteristics of the ball are concerned. The dimples determine the lift and flight stability of the golf ball. When a golf ball is struck properly, it will spin about a horizontal axis and the air friction and air currents produced by the dimples of the spinning ball will act on the ball and thus determine the lift and flight stability thereof.

In order for a golf ball to achieve optimum flight stability, its dimples must be disposed symmetrically relative to a plane that is perpendicular to its horizontal axis of rotation. Any deviation from such symmetry will result in unequal air friction and air currents acting on the ball thus causing it to deviate from the intended flight path.

In that prior art golf balls are manufactured with a smooth surface along a great circle, or equator of the ball, the only possible symmetrical arrangement of the dimple patterns that can be provided on these balls is relative to the equator. In other words, the dimple arrays on the hemispherical portions on opposite sides of the equator can be symmetrically arranged with respect to each other. If such symmetry is achieved during manufacturing of a prior art golf ball, the dimple arrays will, of course, be symmetrical relative to the equator and possibly relative to a great circle which is perpendicular to the equator. The dimple pattern cannot possible be symmetrical relative to any other great circle on the spherical surface of the prior art golf balls in that the smooth surface of the equator will interrupt and thus destroy the symmetry.

Therefore, there are only two ways that a spinning golf ball of this prior art type of golf ball can possibly achieve optimum flight stability. The first condition wherein optimum flight stability could possibly be achieved is when the equator lies in the plane which is perpendicular to the horizontal axis of rotation, with the second being when the equator is oriented so that the horizontal axis of rotation passes diametrically through the equator.

Therefore, since the prior art golf balls are manufactured with a smooth surface equator, they are limited as to the symmetry of their dimple patterns and as a result, a very low percentage of golf ball flights will achieve optimum flight stability. In addition, in that the prior art golf balls are made by fusing the two hemispherical cover blanks along a great circle, that circular fused junction is a weak spot in the cover of such golf balls.

Therefore, a need exists for a new and improved golf ball, with a method and molds for making same, which overcome some of the problems and shortcomings of the prior art.

SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION

In accordance with the present invention, a new and improved golf ball is disclosed which is fabricated by a new method that includes the use of especially configured molds so that the golf ball is formed without a smooth surface lying on a great circle, or equator, as is the case in prior art golf balls. By eliminating the need for a smooth surface equator, the dimple pattern on the golf ball of the present invention need not be interrupted by the equator and therefore can be arranged so as to be symmetrical with respect to a plurality of different great circles of the golf ball and thereby significantly increase the chances of achieving flight stability of the ball.

The golf ball of the present invention is fabricated in the same basic manner as the hereinbefore described prior art technique. The golf ball body, either a one piece or a two piece structure, is placed in the above mentioned special molds with a pair of hemispherical cover blanks positioned on diametrically opposed sides of the golf ball body. Under the influence of the relatively high temperatures and pressures applied during the molding operation, the two cover blanks are fused into a unitary one-piece cover which conforms to the interior configuration of the molds and is encapsulatingly fused to the golf ball body.

The fused junction of the cover blanks of the prior art golf ball is, as hereinbefore described, of circular configuration which lies on a great circle of the golf ball. The fused junction of the golf ball of the present invention circumscribes the golf ball but is of a wave form configuration as opposed to circular. In other words, the fused wave form junction is alternately disposed on one side of a great circle and the other and thus repeatedly crosses but never extends on that great circle.

To achieve the wave form fused junction of the golf ball of the present invention, the generally hemispherical molds are formed with matching wave form mouths or rims which surround the openings of the cavities thereof. The wave form mouths, or rims, of the molds may be of substantially square wave, undulatory or equivalent form to provide an endless alternating series of land areas and recessed areas. When used to moldingly form the cover of the golf ball, the molds are aligningly positioned so that the land areas of one mold are nestingly disposed in the recessed areas of the other mold.

In that the fused junction of the golf ball of the present invention is of wave form configuration, a considerably larger extent of the fused surfaces of the cover blanks is provided which increases the strength of the fused junction in comparison to the circular junction of the prior art.

The special molds are further provided with protrusions in the cavities thereof which form the dimples on the golf ball cover during the molding operation. Due to the wave form configuration being formed on the mouths of the molds, protrusions may be provided on the inwardly facing surfaces of the land areas, and those protrusions result in dimples being formed in the fused junction area of the golf ball of the present invention where the prior art golf balls are devoid of dimples.

Since the dimples formed in the fused junction area of the golf ball are formed by protrusions located on the inner surfaces of the lands of the molds, the molds can be removed from a molded golf ball due to the land areas being radially deflected during removal.

In that the smooth surface equator of the prior art has been eliminated in the manner discussed above, the dimple pattern on the golf ball of the present invention can be arranged in an uninterrupted manner which heretofore could not be accomplished. As a result of this, the golf ball of this invention can be provided with virtually any dimple pattern,

For example, dimple pattern of the golf ball of the present invention may be arranged so that the dimples subdivide the spherical surface of the ball into a geodesic spherical configuration derived from a geometric solid known as a regular polygon, with the regular polygon being a regular dodechedron, a regular icosahedron or the like. To more fully appreciate the advantages of such dimple patterns, the following explanation is presented. A regular icosahedron is a solid whose surface is made up of twenty equilateral triangles. Therefore, a geodesic sphere derived from such a solid has its surface subdivided into twenty equilateral spherical triangles. The dimple pattern of this example is arranged on the surface of the golf ball so as to define the twenty equilateral spherical triangles and provide an identical number and array of dimples within the included area of each of those triangles. With the dimple pattern arranged in this manner, the dimple pattern is perfectly symmetrical with respect to fifteen different great circles of the spherical golf ball, and is very close, but not quite perfectly symmetrical, with respect to an additional multiplicity of great circles.

Therefore, the golf ball of the present invention with a dimple pattern arranged in that manner will significantly increase the chances of achieving flight stability in comparison to prior art golf balls. And, in addition, significantly reduces deviation of a golf ball from the intended flight path when none of the fifteen different great circles of perfect symmetry happens to lie in a plane that is perpendicular to the horizontal axis of rotation of a spinning golf ball.

It seems that this man of many talents also knew a thing or two about aerodynamics and golf ball manufacturing. Stay tuned, posts later this week will cover Karsten Solheim’s inventions directed to grips, woods, irons, and, of course, putters.

Dave Dawsey - Monitoring the Golf Ball IP

Day 2 of "The Week of Karsten" - His Golf Tool Patents

David Dawsey PE Esq — 2010-02-11T05:00:00Z

Yesterday you learned about Karsten's non-golf related patents. Today let's look at his inventions that are golf related, but aren't the type of inventions that you would typically associate with PING. You know, some behind the scenes tools.

The first of his patents in this category is USPN 3293762 titled "Gauge and Measuring Device for Golf Clubs," specifically for measuring the length, lie, and loft of clubs, which issued in 1966. The patent explains "it has been apparent that the golf profession and golf players at large have not been provided with a suitable standard for measuring the lie and loft angles of golf clubs and, further, the art has lacked a very simple and readily and easily useful tool or device for such purposes." A few drawings of the device are shown below.

Next, in 1971 a patent issued to Karsten titled "Swing-Weight and Static Weight Balance for Golf Clubs." The patent, USPN 3577771, describes the invention as:

Apparatus for measuring swing weight and static weight of golf clubs adapted to employ a table or counter top as a base is provided by an elongated rigid member having: a first upright section at one end thereof to support a golf club shaft; a second upright section at the other end to hold the grip end of the club; and two longitudinally displaced rockers functioning as fulcrums between the two end sections. The position of a balance weight is adjusted to balance the rigid member on one rocker with a golf club held by the upright sections with the shaft supported by the first upright section and extending away from the second upright section. For measuring the swing weight of clubs without grips, there is provision for adjusting the position of each club so held relative to the upright sections depending on the length of its shaft. For measuring static weight, the club is held with its shaft transverse the elongated rigid member at the one end thereof and balance is obtained on the second rocker by adjusting the position of the balance weight. Swing weight or static weight is then read on a scale from the position of the balance weight, depending upon which rocker is used.

By the mid-seventies it seems that Karsten recognized the need for a reliable way to test golf clubs and golf balls, and at the end of 1977 he was granted a patent for a "Golf Club Swinging Apparatus." The patent, USPN 4062222, describes the invention as:

A golf-club and golf-ball testing apparatus, having a crank arm driven by a main drive shaft, drives a club swinging arm through a secondary drive shaft supported by bearings on the end of the crank arm and turned by a planetary gear which meshes with teeth in a fixed gear concentric with the main drive shaft. The club swinging arm is connected to the secondary drive shaft by a short block, and the club is connected to the end of the swinging arm by a gripping member that is caused to rotate from an adjustable initial position so that the shaft is rolled through about 180 degrees during a full swing. The short block is coupled to the secondary drive shaft by resilient material to absorb shocks between the swinging arm and the crank arm.

Next, in 1984 Karsten was granted USPN 4453717 titled "Practice Putting Device," illustrating that he was a study of the game and not just an engineer cranking out clubs. There have been many putting aids developed since 1984 that build upon the premise of the '717 patent. The patent explains:

An apparatus for practicing golf putting strokes including a putting surface member for receiving a golf ball to be putted and a swing path defining member which extends angularly from the putting surface part and lies in a plane which defines a normal and desired putter swing path. The swing path defining part is laterally offset from the intended swing path of the putter to provide a person using the apparatus with a visual indication of a normal swing path to serve as a guide while making unfettered practice swings with the putter. The swing path defining member includes an unobstructed planar member and a flange which is mounted on the putting surface member and supports the unobstructed planar member at an angle of substantially 72.degree. with respect to the putting surface member.

Rounding out this category is USPN 4667716 titled "golf club head cover with detachable identification tag and method of making a golf club head cover," which issued in 1987. The patent describes the invention as:

A golf club head cover is made in accordance with a method having a minimal number of steps from a single sheet of fabric-like material which provides both an outer covering and a liner and inherently forms the head cover which closely fits the head of a wood type golf club and has an especially configured constricted bore in the head cover. The head cover is also provided with a detachably mounted golf identification tag which simplifies manufacturing and supply inventories.

Neat stuff! Stay tuned, the upcoming posts will delve into the patents that reveal Karsten's true genius, including posts covering his golf grip patents, a golf ball patent, patents on woods, iron patents, and, of course, putter patents.

Dave Dawsey - Becoming a Golf Technology Historian One Patent at a Time

The Week of Karsten Solheim - Day 1 - Karsten's Non-Golf Patents

David Dawsey PE Esq — 2010-02-10T05:00:00Z

As we approach the 10 year anniversary of the passing of one of the most prolific golf club design visionaries, a week long tribute to the inventiveness of Karsten Solheim seems appropriate. If you don’t know who Karsten is then you are probably on this site by mistake; however, you may want to check out this nice biography on the World Golf Hall of Fame website.

Diehard golf geeks know that Karsten did not even take up golf until he was in his forties, and that it was not until he was in his mid-fifties that he quit his day job as an engineer at General Electric to focus on Karsten Manufacturing and build the powerhouse PING brand. There was a great portion of his life in which he did not focus on the torture that a little white ball can inflict on a person. So, without golf what is a man to focus on? Good question, let’s look at some of Karsten’s earliest non-golf inventions.

First we have USPN 2870438 titled "Cabinet with Integral Tube Mounting Means." The application was filed by General Electric in 1955 and the patent issued in 1959, illustrating that the patent process has always been slow. The patent covers a cabinet in which a cathode-ray tube is mounted; an early TV perhaps? Check out these drawings.

Next, Karsten is listed as the sole inventor of USPN 2909803 titled "Snap-on Hinge for a Container Cover," which was also a General Electric patent. A few drawings of this wonderfully simple one-piece hinge are shown below.

Then Karsten's patent history turns back to the television with USPN 2992997 titled "Television Chassis" issuing in 1960. It appears that he was establishing himself as a successful inventor and an engineer that knew a thing or two about product development. A few drawings of this "television chassis" are seen below.

After moving from California to Phoenix is appears that his focus shifted from televisions to high-speed printers, as illustrated by USPN 3309989 titled "Print Hammer," which issued in 1967. It appears that the print hammer designed by Karsten was unique in that unlike prior print hammers his design had "a flexible portion to enable the face of the hammer to move to assure that the face is parallel to the surface of the character being printed." A few of the drawings of the Karsten print hammer are shown below.

Then, in 1973 Karsten had a patent issue on a "Sanding Apparatus." The patent is USPN 3760538 and some would argue that it is not a non-golf related patent because is was applied for and issued after his focus became Karsten Manufacturing and the golf business; however, since the invention has application in a wide variety of manufacturing environments, and not just golf, I have included it as one of Karsten's non-golf related patents. The patent is directed to a sanding apparatus that includes a thin-wall cabinet that includes a dust-settling chamber. An air passage connects the dust-settling chamber and a sander assembly so that exhaust air draws the sanding dust from the sanding assembly into the settling chamber. A drawing from the patent is reproduced below.

Well there you have it. Karsten was obviously an inventive person that probably learned a lot about the value of protecting intellectual property when he was at General Electric. Stay tuned, posts later this week will cover the following categories of Karsten’s inventions: golf tools, grips, balls, woods, irons, and, of course, putters.

Dave Dawsey - Monitoring the History of Golf Intellectual Property and Innovators

A Wild New PING Dynamically Variable MOI Driver

David Dawsey PE Esq — 2010-02-07T05:00:00Z

The Golf-Patents blog has revealed some pretty radical golf club designs in the past, but rarely do they originate from Karsten Manufacturing (aka PING). Therefore, when an unusual PING patent application is published it deserves a close look. This week PING had two related patent applications publish related to variable MOI driver designs, one of which is US Pub. No. 20100029402 titled “Golf Clubs With Variable Moment of Inertia And Methods Of Manufacture Thereof.” The application explains:

[0002] Some individuals who play golf may have a tendency to hit a golf ball with a hook or draw, or a slide or facie. These unintended trajectories can be the result of hitting the golf ball outside a central region of the golf club face. Hitting the golf ball outside this region can rotate the golf club head, which can cause an unintended spin on the golf ball, and this spin can exacerbate an individual's tendency to hook/draw or slide/fade the golf ball. Therefore, a need exists to minimize the club head rotation when an individual hits a golf ball outside the central region of the golf club face.

[0065] As illustrated in FIGS. 1-4, golf club head 1000 comprises a body 1100 having a front section 1110, a restrictor mechanism 1200, and a weight 1300. In some embodiments, front section 1110 can be referred to as a face, or can comprise a face of golf club head 1000. In the same or different embodiments, body 1100 can be referred to as a housing. In the same or a different embodiment, body 1100 can comprise at least one of a steel material, a titanium material, an aluminum material, a graphite material, and/or other suitable materials. Golf club head 1000 can form part of a golf club with a golf club shaft (not shown) coupled to a hosel 1600 and/or a bore of golf club head 1000.

[0066] Restrictor mechanism 1200 of golf club head 1000 comprises restrictor 1210, and is coupled to body portion 1120 of body 1100. Body 1100 can also be subdivided into other portions, such as body portions 1130, 1140, 1150, and/or 2160 (FIG. 2). In the same or a different embodiment, front section 1110 can be at or proximate to a front 2111 of golf club head 1000, body portion 1120 can be at or proximate to a toe 2121 of golf club head 1000, body portion 1130 can be at or proximate to a heel 2131 of golf club head 1000, body portion 1140 can be at or proximate to a top 1141 of golf club head 1000, body portion 1150 can be at or proximate to a bottom 1151 of golf club head 1000, and/or body portion 2160 can be at or proximate to a back 2161 of golf club head 1000. Some embodiments may refer to body portions 1120, 1130, 1140, 1150, and/or 1160 as sections.

[0067] Weight 1300 is coupled to body 1100 and comprises weight end 1310 coupled to restrictor mechanism 1200. In the present embodiment, weight 1300 also comprises weight end 1320. Restrictor 1210 comprises a stiffness correlated with a Young's modulus of a material from which restrictor 1210 is made. In one example, restrictor 1210 comprises at least one of a steel material, a titanium material, an aluminum material, and/or any other suitable materials. In the same or a different embodiment, weight 1300 can comprise a mass of approximately 20 to 40 grams. In the same or a different embodiment, weight 1300 can comprise approximately 10 to 20 percent of a mass of golf club head 1000. In some embodiments, weight 1300 can comprise at least one of a tungsten material, a tungsten-epoxy material, a steel material, a copper material, a titanium material, and/or a bronze material.

[0068] As shown in FIGS. 1-2, weight 1300 of golf club head 1000 further comprises post 1380. In the present embodiment, post 1380 is coupled to body portions 1140 and 1150 of body 1100. In some embodiments, post 1380 can also be referred to as a restrictor, and can comprise a stiffness which can be less than a stiffness of restrictor 1210. Weight 1300 is at least as stiff as restrictor 1210 and can be stiffer than post 1380.

[0069] Post 1380 is configured to couple weight 1300 to body 1100, and to align weight end 1310 with restrictor 1210. In turn, restrictor 1210 is positioned behind end 1310 of weight 1300 relative to front section 1110 of body 1100 in the present embodiment. In addition, face 2361 (FIG. 2) of weight 1300 is aligned substantially parallel to front section 1110 of body 1100.

[0070] As shown in FIGS. 3-4 for the present embodiment, center of gravity 3600 of weight 1300 can be proximate to front section 1110 of golf club head 1000. In the same or a different example, center of gravity 3600 of weight 1300 can be proximate to a center of gravity of golf club head 1000. In a different example, center of gravity 3600 of weight 1300 can be proximate to a geometric center of golf club head 1000. In the same or a different example, center of gravity 3600 is substantially collinear with a gravitational vector through the center of gravity of golf club head 1000.

[0071] As shown in FIG. 3, the stiffness of restrictor 1210 is configured to resist a deformation of restrictor 1210 by end 1310 of weight 1300 in response to an impact at zone 1111 of body 1100. Restrictor mechanism 1200 can thus interact with weight end 1310 by resisting deformation of restrictor 1210 due to its stiffness. In other embodiments, the stiffness can be configured to permit certain deformation of restrictor 1210 to interact with weight end 1310. In the same or a different embodiment, deformation of restrictor 1210 can be elastic but restrictor 1210 may return to its original shape after deformation. In some embodiments, a deformation of a restrictor such as restrictor 1210 can be referred to as a distortion.

[0072] In the present example of FIG. 3, face 3200 of golf club head 1000 impacts ball 3100 substantially square with respect to an intended direction of travel for golf ball 3100. The impact at zone 1111 is proximate to the heel of golf club head 1000 in this example, thus imparting a counterclockwise rotation upon golf club head 1000, as denoted by arrow 3500. In the current embodiment, and for simplicity of description and illustration, the counterclockwise rotation is about center of gravity 3600. In other embodiments, golf club head 1000 can rotate about a different point.

[0073] Continuing with the example of FIG. 3, the counterclockwise rotation of golf club head 1000 causes restrictor 1210 to also rotate counterclockwise along with body 1100 and, as a result, to interact with end 1310 of weight 1300. As restrictor 1210 is pressed against weight end 1310, restrictor 1210 resists deformation due to its stiffness. As a result, the moment of inertia of weight 1300 is transferred through restrictor 1210 onto body 1100. In some embodiments, restrictor 1210 also impedes a rotational tendency of weight 1300 relative to body 1100 when golf club head 1000 rotates counterclockwise in response to impact with golf ball 3100. Golf club head 1000 therefore exhibits a higher moment of inertia when weight 1300 interacts with restrictor 1210, decreasing the amount of corresponding rotation 3500 imparted onto golf club head 1000 upon impact with golf ball 3100.

[0092] FIGS. 11-14 illustrate embodiments where a face of weight 1300 is aligned substantially perpendicular to front section 1110 of body 1100 of golf club head 7000. Restrictor mechanisms 11200 and 13200 are accordingly positioned proximate to front section 1110 to align with weight end 1310. In a different embodiment, restrictor mechanisms 11200 and 13200 can be positioned proximate to a rear of the golf club heads, opposite front section 1110.

[0093] Despite the different alignments, the embodiments in FIGS. 11-14 can perform in a manner similar to the embodiments in FIGS. 7-10, respectively, upon impact with golf bail 3100. For example, the situations shown in FIGS. 11 and 13 are likely to generate an interaction between weight end 1310 and restrictors 11210 and 13210, respectively, similar to as previously described for the analogous situations shown in FIGS. 7 and 9. Similarly, the situations shown in FIGS. 12 and 14 are less likely to generate an interaction between weight end 1310 and restrictors 11210 and 13210, respectively, similar to as previously described for the analogous situations shown in FIGS. 5 and 10.

[0094] Continuing with the figures, FIG. 15 illustrates a perspective cross-sectional view of part of golf club head 15000 comprising one dual-restrictor mechanism FIG. 16 illustrates a top cross-sectional view of golf club bead 15000. Golf club head 15000 is similar to golf club head 1000, but comprises restrictor mechanism 15200 rather than 1200. Restrictor mechanism 15200 comprises restrictor 1210 similar to as described above for restrictor mechanism 1200 in FIGS. 1-2. However, restrictor mechanisms 15200 and 1200 (FIG. 1-2) differ in that restrictor mechanism 15200 is a dual-restrictor mechanism that further comprises restrictor 15220 located at an opposite side of weight 1300 than restrictor 1210. In addition, weight end 1310 of weight 1300 is configured to be positioned between restrictors 1210 and 15220. In the same or a different embodiment, weight end 1310 is within body 1100.

[0095] In the present embodiment of FIGS. 15-16, restrictor 15220 comprises a stiffness, where the stiffness of restrictor 1210 is greater than the stiffness of restrictor 15220. Here, the stiffness of restrictor 15220 is configured to permit a deformation of restrictor 15220 by weight end 1310 in response to an impact at zone 1112 of body 1100 of golf club head 15000. The impact at zone 1112 could be, for example, with golf ball 3100. In the same or a different embodiment, restrictor 15220 can comprise at least one of a silicon material, a polymer material, and an epoxy material. In a different embodiment, the relative stiffnesses of restrictors 1210 and 15220 could be inverted, such that stiffness 15221 could be greater than stiffness 1211. In the same or a different embodiment, weight end 1310 can be connected to at least one of restrictors 1210 and 15220, such as by welding, bonding, soldering, and/or gluing, among other techniques.

[0096] In the example of FIGS. 15-1.6, when golf club head 15000 rotates counterclockwise upon an impact at zone 1111, restrictor 1210 tends to interact with weight end 1310. Because the stiffness of restrictor 1210 is greater than the stiffness of restrictor 15220, restrictor 1210 tends to resist deformation due to the interaction, and thus may transfer a comparatively greater moment of inertia from weight 1300 to body 1100 of golf club head 15000. Conversely, when golf club head 15000 rotates clockwise upon an impact at zone 1112, restrictor 15220 may interact with weight end 1310. Because the stiffness of restrictor 15220 is less than the stiffness of restrictor 1210 in this example, restrictor 15220 tends to deform and/or compress due to the interaction, and thus may transfer a comparatively lesser moment of inertia from weight 1300 to body 1100 of golf club head 15000.

Wow, I suspect that design concept will surprise a lot of people; but will it ever make it to the market?

Dave Dawsey - Monitoring Golf Technology Inventions

Wrapping Up the Week Dedicated to Golf Course Patents – A Compact Design

David Dawsey PE Esq — 2010-02-06T05:00:00Z

What better way to get hit by a golf ball than playing on a compact golf course. Every golfer has played on one of those courses that squeezed 18 holes in the space that should house 14 holes. The type that has a net around at least one tee box; probably the result of a line drive to the forehead (and a lawsuit).

Can you appreciate a course that takes it a step further and fits 18 holes in the space of 7 holes? Well, check out the disaster waiting to happen in disclosed in USPN 4,157,831 titled “compact golf course.”

The patent describes the invention as:

Outdoor golf course layouts are described for providing a complete eighteen hole course in a minimum area. The golf course layouts are characterized by a substantially polygonal outside course perimeter utilizing straight lines from tee area to hole. The preferred embodiments are in the figure of a hexagon. Fairways of different holes will intersect other fairways in the embodiments. It is also contemplated that doglegs can be provided in the fairways for each or some of the holes rather than the straight line configuration from tee to hole, still substantially utilizing the hexagonal outer shape of the course. Each of the apices of the hexagon will include, in the general surrounding area, the holes or green and tee areas for a plurality of the holes in the course. In addition, there will be one area located in the interior of the hexagon which will provide in the general area thereof tee and hole or green locations for a plurality of the holes of the layouts.

This wraps up a rather uneventful week of crazy golf course designs! (thankfully)

Dave Dawsey - Monitoring Golf Course Architecture Patents

PS – Check out some of this week’s other golf course designs; a linear golf course layout, a circular layout, a shared fairway layout, a web pattern layout.

Day 4 of the Week Dedicated to Golf Course Patents – Finally a Web Pattern Layout

David Dawsey PE Esq — 2010-02-04T05:00:00Z

What happens when a statistics professor designs a golf course? The possibilities are endless. Actually, I don’t know if the inventor of the course of today is a statistics professor, but it wouldn’t surprise me.

So, what could possibly follow a linear golf course layout, a circular layout, and a shared fairway layout (with movable trees)? A web pattern layout, of course. Today’s course is found in USPN 6,036,606 titled “Golf Course with Multi-Sequential Arrangement of Golf Links,” which explains:

It is a feature of the present invention to provide a golf course which comprises a plurality of golf link sequential arrangements which are obtainable by orienting putting green areas and fairway areas in a predetermined web pattern and wherein there are more fairway areas than putting green areas with the putting green areas having a single associated one of the fairway areas in each of the sequential arrangements.

Another feature of the present invention is to provide a golf course comprising a plurality of putting green areas and a plurality of fairway areas and wherein the green areas and fairway areas are disposed in a predetermined web pattern to permit a plurality of sequential arrangements of golf links with the putting green areas having a single associated one of the fairway areas in each of the sequential arrangements.

Another feature of the present invention is to provide a method of constructing a golf course to permit a plurality of sequential arrangements of golf links within the golf course and wherein the putting green areas have a single associated one of the fairway areas.

With the present invention there is provided a golf course wherein the putting green areas are not shared with other golfers but are associated with a specific fairway area depending on the selected one of a plurality of sequential arrangements of the golf links so that many different orders of golf links may be played on the same course.

With the golf course of the present invention and by using, for example, nine putting green areas oriented in the predetermined web pattern, it is possible to obtain eighteen different golf link arrangements. Another web pattern of nine links may be easily adapted to an existing 9 golf hole web design to permit much greater sequential arrangements of the golf links.

According to a further broad aspect of the present invention, there is provided a golf course which comprises a plurality of putting green areas which are spaced apart from one another and each associated with two or more fairway areas to constitute a plurality of golf links. A tee area is associated with the fairway area of each of the golf links. Designation means is provided to identify individual ones of the golf links. The green areas and fairway areas are disposed in a predetermined web pattern to permit a plurality of sequential arrangements of the golf links with the putting green areas having a single associated one of the fairway areas in each of the sequential arrangements. At least one of the putting green areas is displaced to a different position in the plurality of sequential arrangements.

According to a further broad aspect of the present invention there is provided a method of constructing a golf course to obtain a plurality of sequential arrangements of golf links within the golf course. The method comprises the steps of disposing a plurality of putting green areas, spaced-apart, and oriented with respect to a web pattern having at least two substantially parallel spaced-apart axes and at least three substantially parallel transverse axes. Fairway areas are delineated between the putting green areas along the axes. Diagonal fairway areas are also delineated along diagonal axes between some of the putting green areas. Tee areas are provided for the fairway areas. Designation means are also provided to identify the golf links formed by individual ones of the fairway areas in association with one of the putting green areas. There are more fairway areas than putting green areas to constitute a plurality of sequential arrangements of the golf links. A specific sequential arrangement of the golf link is identified to direct a golf playing person through the golf course.

According to a further broad aspect of the present invention there is provided a Table on which the plurality of sequential arrangements of the golf links are identified whereby to select a specific one of the arrangements to direct a golf playing person along the golf course and wherein this arrangement may be changed from time to time so that the golf links of the golf course may be played several times but in a different arrangements.

You may ask, how many combinations are there? Good question. Check out the diagram below and read the subsequent paragraph.

FIG. 7 illustrates a still further web pattern constructed in accordance with the present invention and wherein the web pattern is comprised of a first group of four spaced-apart substantially parallel axes 25 and a second group of five spaced-apart substantially parallel transverse axes 26. The putting green areas are again oriented in relation to the crossings of each of the groups of axes. As herein shown the starting tee area 27 is disposed in alignment with an outside one of the first and second group of axes 25 and 26. A starting tee area can also be provided in the opposed corner of the groups of axes, as indicated by reference numeral 27'This 18 putting green area arrangement can produce 100 golf links with 52 fairways. It generates in excess of 8,000 different sequential arrangements of golf links.

I think I have spotted a trend; the more likely you are to receive a patent on a golf course layout, the less likely it is that most golfers will be interested in playing it!

Dave Dawsey - Monitoring Golf Course Architecture Intellectual Property

Day 3 of the Week Dedicated to Golf Course Patents

David Dawsey PE Esq — 2010-02-03T05:00:00Z

So far this week we have examined a linear golf course layout and a circular layout, therefore it must now be time to look at a design incorporated shared fairways. Today’s design is found in USPN 6,053,819 titled “Golf Course, Golf Park and Associated Method of Playing a Golf Game,” which describes the invention as:

A golf park including a golf course having a single fairway with multiple greens. At least two greens are provided, at opposite ends of the fairway. One or more additional greens may be provided between the first two greens and along the fairway. Also, multiple tees are provided for the one fairway. At least one tee is provided at each end of the fairway, the tee facing down the fairway towards the green at the opposite end of the fairway. Each green may be the target of two or more tees disposed at different locations on the fairway. The golf course is occupied for a predetermined limited period of time by an individual or a single group of golfers. The individual or single group of golfers plays back and forth along the fairway, for as long as they have reserved the course. They can play at their own pace, undisturbed by other golfers because there are no other golfers on the course. The only limitation is duration: eventually they will have to stop because their reserved interval of play has terminated.

What do you think of playing “back and forth along a fairway” for as long as you have reserved the course? While I love the movable tree, I think this concept might be a tough sell.

Dave Dawsey - Monitoring Golf Course Intellectual Property

Day 2 of the Week Dedicated to Golf Course Patents

David Dawsey PE Esq — 2010-02-02T05:00:00Z

Yesterday we explored a wonderfully linear golf course layout. Today, let’s take a look at a radically different design. The new design is disclosed in USPN 5,395,115 titled “Golfing Facility,” which describes the invention as:

A golfing facility comprises a rotatable central tee-off area and a plurality of sectors disposed around the tee-off area. Each sector contains a selection of targets to enable a player to simulate playing a hole of golf (with the exception of the final put). Various training aids and scoring apparatus are also described.

Check out this beauty!

I am surprised that we haven’t seen a circular TPC course, aren’t you?

Dave Dawsey - Monitoring Golf Course Patents

A Week Dedicated to Golf Course Patents - Day 1

David Dawsey PE Esq — 2010-02-01T05:00:00Z

Ever wonder if you can patent a golf course’s architecture? Well, this week I will provide you with some interesting golf course layout patents that you may find hard to believe. Additionally, if you are a golf course architecture aficionado then you should avoid these posts because they will bring tears to your eyes (or make you puke).

The first in the series of golf course patents is a patent titled “Select Pace Golf Course,” which issued this week. The patent is USPN 7651404, which describes the invention as:

A full-sized outdoor golf course is described with any number of holes, usually 18 or 36 holes. Each hole is made up of a tee, a fairway, and a green. The holes are laid out in a pattern that makes it practical for each group of players on the golf course to play the holes in random order. This is accomplished by organizing the holes in a pattern that greatly increases the number of tees that are available to pick from after leaving any green on the course. All tees and greens, and only tees and greens, but no fairways, are located along special cart paths (44, 46, 48, 49, 50), that run roughly perpendicular to the normal cart paths that usually run along each fairway, so that when finishing play on any green, several tees are reachable by golf cart in a relatively short predetermined time, preferably 1-1/2 minutes or less, using the special cart paths (44, 46, 48, 49, 50).

Check out this practical course design!

The patent explains:

Conventional golf courses are laid out with the holes following one another in sequential manner to more or less fit well into the terrain of the land on which they are built. They are designed to be played in sequential manner from hole 1 through hole 18 (on an 18 hole course). When players finish playing one hole, there is normally only one nearby tee to go to next, which is the next sequential hole number.

It is commonly known that the main complaint of golfers is the pace of play, which is usually the pace of the slowest group on the golf course. The pace is often 5 hours or more.

This complaint stems from the fact that the holes on conventional courses are designed for and played in sequential order and cannot practically be played in random order. This is because most tee areas are an entire fairway away from other tees or would necessitate crossing over other fairways, which may be in use, in order to reach them. This makes it too time consuming, confusing, dangerous, frustrating, and disruptive to other players, to allow playing the holes in random order. In other words, it would be chaotic. Someone skilled in the art would know that random order of play would not be allowed on a standard golf course on which most holes are occupied by players. Just the occasional nearness of more than one tee area, that may or may not be open, would not be enough to make it practical. Players that are stuck behind a slow group might have to travel the length of many fairways in order to hopefully find an open tee and fairway. That would defeat the purpose of trying to play a faster round of golf.
Most golf courses attempt to alleviate the pace of play problem by having rangers or marshals drive around the course. The rangers try to encourage slower groups to play faster. This has very limited success. Despite their best efforts, the pace of play is often still over 5 hours because of the inability of some groups to play any faster.

I am all for speeding up the pace of play, but I would prefer to play a slower round on a nice unique design rather than a blazing fast round on an, umm, less unique design.

Dave Dawsey - Monitoring Golf Course Intellectual Property

PS – click HERE to check out interesting putter patents