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

The Perfect Driver for Golf Purists

David Dawsey PE Esq — Tue, 31 Aug 2010 05:00:00 GMT

Oh how the USGA would love the driver disclosed in this week’s “patent of the week,” namely USPN 7780535 titled “Method and Apparatus for Active Control of Golf Club Impact.” The patent describes the invention as:

A method and apparatus for actively controlling the impact between a club head and a golf ball. A golf club head has a face with an actuator material or device mechanically coupled to influence face motion. The face actuation controls impact parameters, impact properties, or resulting ball parameters such as speed, direction and spin rates resulting from the impact event between the face of the club and the golf ball. Further, the apparatus has a control device for determining the actuation of the face. Several embodiments are presented for controlling parameters such as ball speed and direction. The invention can use energy derived from the ball impact, converted into electrical energy, and then reapplied in a controlled fashion to influence an aspect of the face, such as position, velocity, deformation, stiffness, vibration, motion, temperature, or other physical parameter.

The patent goes on to explain:

2. Background Art

The present invention pertains to achieving an increase in the accuracy and distance of a golf club(e.g., a driver) through the application of controls techniques and actuation technology to the design of the club. There have been many improvements over the years which have had measurable impact on the accuracy and distance which a golfer can achieve. These have typically focused on the design of passive systems; those which do not have the ability to change any of their physical parameters under active control during the swing and in particular during the impact event with the golf ball. Typical passive performance improvements such as head shape and volume, weight distribution and resulting components of the inertia tensor, face thickness and thickness profile, face curvatures and CG locations, all pertain to the selection of optimum constant physical and material parameters for the golf club. The present invention pertains to the development of an active system where critical parameters of the golf club and head (for example surface position/shape/curvature or effective coefficient of friction, or face stiffness) can be selectively controlled in response to the actual state of the physical head-ball system. Such states can be head velocity, impact force, intensity, impact duration and timing, absolute location of the head or relative location of the ball on the face, orientation of the head relative to the ball and swing path or parameters, physical deformation of the face, or any of numerous physically or electrically measurable conditions.

The present invention relies on the field of controls technologies and in particular structural or elastic system actuation technologies and control algorithms for such systems. See for example: Fuller, C. R. et al., Active Control of Vibration Academic Press, San Diego, Calif. 1996. A particular embodiment of one controlled system relies on friction control using ultrasonic vibration (Katoh). An alternate embodiment of one controlled system relies on changing the effective stiffness of the face to control impact with the ball. The present invention also relies on the concept of piezoelectric energy harvesting and/or simultaneous energy harvesting from and actuation of mechanical systems. Piezoelectric energy harvesting is described in the following U.S. Pat. Nos. 4,504,761; 4,442,372; 5,512,795; 4,595,856, 4,387,318; 4,091,302; 3,819,963; 4,467,236; 5,552,657; and 5,703,474.

The impact between the ball and the head can be interpreted in terms of the idealized impact between two elastic bodies each having freedom to translate and rotate in space i.e. full 6 degrees of freedom (DOF) bodies, each having the ability to deform at impact, and each having fully populated mass and inertia tensors. The typical initial condition for this event is a stationary ball and high velocity head impacting the ball at a perhaps eccentric point substantially on or substantially off the face of the club head. The impact results in high forces both normal and tangential to the contact surfaces between the head and the ball. These forces integrate over time to determine the speed and direction, forming velocity vector and spin vectors of the ball after it leaves the face, hereafter called the impact resultants. These interface forces are determined by many properties including elasticity of the two bodies, material properties and dissipation, surface friction coefficients, body masses and inertia tensors.

Some of these properties and conditions of the face can be actively controlled during the impact resulting in some measure of control over the impact resultants. For example, in a specific embodiment, the surface can be ultrasonically vibrated under some predetermined condition so as to create an effectively lower friction coefficient between the ball and the face resulting in decreased spin rates and longer flight of the ball when a trigger condition is present. One such trigger condition might be high head ball impact forces (and large face deformation), indicating a high velocity impact where too much spin could create excess aerodynamic lift producing a decreased flight distance.

In another embodiment, the position and/or orientation of the face can be actively controlled relative to the ball and the body of the club under some predetermined condition so as to create a better presentation of the face to the ball for more accurate ball flight or to reduce side spin by counteracting club head rotation during eccentric impact events. One such triggering condition might be highly eccentric impact events (off center hits) that can be detected by deformation sensors on the face or angular acceleration sensors in the body. Such sensor signals could be processed to determine the necessary motion of the face to compensate and correct the resulting ball flight.

In another embodiment, the effective stiffness of the face during impact can be controlled so as to produce a more desirable impact event. For example, the system can be designed to make the face stiffer during a hard impact and make the face softer during a less intense impact so as to tailor the face behavior under the impact loads to the particular event. This can be accomplished by, for example, shorting or opening the leads of a piezoelectric transducer which has been surface bonded or otherwise mechanically coupled to a face. The piezoelectric is softer (low modulus) when it is electrically shorted and stiffer (high effective modulus) when it is open circuited. A sensor attached to the face can measure a quantity proportional to impact intensity (e.g., face deflection, face strain, head deceleration etc). In the "hard" hit case, the normally shorted piezoelectric can be open circuited to make the face stiffer, while softer hits result in the circuit leaving the piezoelectric in the short circuited condition and therefore less stiff.

The trigger can be provided by an external sensor or by the actual piezoelectric transducers bonded to the face itself by triggering off of the current or voltage level achieved on the transducer prior to the triggering event. As an example, circuitry for using the piezoelectric element as a charge sensor can be attached to the transducer leads. When the charge reaches a critical level a circuit can be triggered which disconnects the leads from the circuitry effectively enforcing the open circuit condition.

A critical element of the ability to control the ball-head impact is the ability to actuate the system in a beneficial manner. Since the head and ball are a mechanical system, this entails the application of some force or thermal energy to the system so as to create a change in some mechanical physical attribute. The present invention pertains principally to mechanical actuation techniques.

Crazy stuff, but it sure would be cool to see if it actually could solve a few of my many problems!

Dave Dawsey - Monitoring Golf Patent Applications

My Game is Not Ready for This Golf Glove

David Dawsey PE Esq — Mon, 30 Aug 2010 05:00:00 GMT

Interesting golf glove inventions do not come along everyday. In fact, the last interesting golf glove invention that I can remember was the Acushnet acupuncture based golf glove. Well, last week an interesting golf glove patent issued that may be a little too advanced for most golfers. After all, I have so many swing thoughts racing through my head that I can’t worry about what my golf glove is telling me. Are you ready for a glove like this?

The patent is USPN 7780541 titled “Golf Training Glove,” which describes the invention as:

The invention relates to a golf training glove with sensors for triggering a perceptible signal on an erroneous gripping technique of the golf club with glove fingers to accommodate the thumb, index finger, middle finger, ring finger and little finger. According to the invention, error signals with a correct gripping technique may be avoided, whereby the sensors are at least arranged on the glove fingers for accommodation of the index finger, middle finger and ring finger and the perceptible signal is triggered by an excessive gripping pressure. No sensor is arranged on the thumb of the golf training glove.

The patent goes on to explain:

FIG. 1 shows the force distribution at the upper reversal point of the swing, arrow 1 symbolizing the weight force of the club at the center of gravity, the arrows 2 symbolizing the supporting force of the thumbs and the arrows 3 symbolizing the force on the inner surface of the left hand.

FIG. 1 illustrates that, even in the case of a completely relaxed gripping pressure, the weight of the club must be downwardly supported by both thumbs at the upper reversal point of the swing. As a result of the fact that the center of gravity of the club is at a considerable distance from the grip, the force on the thumbs is intensified as a result of a lever effect. Therefore, arranging a sensor in the thumb results in incorrect signaling.

FIG. 1 also illustrates that a great force is exerted on the inner surface of the hand at the upper reversal point of the swing since the inner surface of the left hand upwardly supports the weight of the club. This force is even greater than the force on the thumbs since the only upwardly effective force occurs at this point when the forces are in equilibrium. Therefore, arranging a sensor on the inner surface of the hand likewise results in incorrect signaling at the reversal point of the swing.

However, the following disadvantages of a sensor 4 on the inner surface of the hand of a golf training glove, which are explained with reference to FIG. 2, are far more serious:

With a correct swinging technique, the club 5 should be pushed away with the left hand 6 at the beginning of the swing and not pulled away with the right hand 7. As a result of incorrectly pulling away with the right hand 7, the fingers automatically tense in order to counteract the inertia of the club 5, while the correct initiation of the swing with the left hand 6 does not build up any harmful stress since all of the fingers can remain relaxed. However, with the correct technique for initiating the swing, a force is exerted on the sensor 4 on the inner surface of the hand as a result of the inertia of the club counter to the direction of movement indicated by the arrows 8 during the upswing, with the result that the sensor 4 is triggered even with a completely relaxed, correct grip. If, in contrast, sensors 9 are installed in the glove fingers 11 of the right hand 7 according to the invention, the incorrect technique for initiating the swing triggers these sensors 9, while the correct swinging technique would not trigger the sensors.

The basic design of a golf training glove according to the invention is illustrated for different sensor technologies in FIGS. 3 and 4 for a left glove 12.

FIG. 3 shows a glove 12 according to the invention having electrical sensors 13 which are arranged on the inside of the glove fingers 11 over the entire length of the latter. The sensors 13 are situated in pockets whose outer skin 14 is indicated on the right of the figure. The connections 15 of the sensors 13 are connected to evaluation electronics 17 by means of connecting lines 16, said evaluation electronics being accommodated in a closure 18 for the glove 12 on the top side of the latter.

FIG. 4 shows a glove 19 in which air cushions 21 of pneumoelectrical sensors 21, 24 are situated only in the first two segments of the glove fingers 11. An elastic bead 25 surrounds the air cushions 21. The club 5 rests on the bead 25 and the air cushions 21. The air cushions 21 are connected to one another, such that they bridge the front two segments of each glove finger, by means of tubes 22. A respective further tube 23 respectively connects each pair of air cushions in a glove finger 11 to an electropneumatic converter 24, each converter 24 in turn being connected to the evaluation electronics 17 in the glove closure 18 by means of electrical connecting lines 16.

As regards the sensors of the glove 12 for the left hand 6, which is illustrated in FIG. 4, all fingers (apart from the thumb) uniformly enclose the grip and can thus be weighted equally.

If, for reasons of cost, only small sensors, that is to say those with only one air cushion for each sensor, are used, they should be in the upper segments of the glove fingers 11. As regards the sensors of the glove for the right hand 7, one sensor in the glove finger 11 for the little finger can be dispensed with for reasons of cost since, in the vast majority of gripping techniques, said finger does not rest on the club.

Irrespective of the technology used, the sensors 21, 24 for each finger provide an analog measured value which is processed further in the evaluation electronics 17 using a digital microcontroller following analog/digital conversion. The task of these evaluation electronics 17 is to use the pressure values determined for the individual fingers as a basis for deciding whether the gripping pressure has exceeded a critical value and to signal this using light, sound or vibration.

The question as to whether an alarm should be triggered depends on the threshold value and on the period of time for which this value is exceeded. It is possible to define a separate threshold value for each individual finger. In any case, at least one joint threshold value for all sensors 21, 24 in the glove fingers 11 can be set in a continuously variable manner or in stages in order to set particular degrees of difficulty (beginner, advanced player). In addition, a distinction may be made between the threshold value for the glove 12 for the left hand 6 and that for the right hand 7.

So that random measurement errors (pressure peaks) and situations in which the threshold value is exceeded only briefly but in a desirable manner (for example when contact is made with the ball or ground) do not trigger incorrect signaling, only situations in which the threshold value is exceeded for a longer period of time should initiate signaling. For this purpose, the sensor values measured can be filtered using a low-pass filter, for example.

FIG. 5 illustrates the basic block diagram of evaluation electronics 17. A microcontroller which is denoted overall using 27 is used to process the measured values and coordinate the input and output elements 26, 28. The inputs are made using buttons which can be seen in FIGS. 3, 4 and 6, while output is effected using optical and acoustic signaling means 28, for example a display or loudspeaker.

A user profile is input to a memory 29, for example a "look-up table", using the buttons of the evaluation electronics 17. The user profile comprises individual threshold values for the measured values recorded by each sensor 21, 24 as well as values for scaling and temporally smoothing the measured values from each sensor 21, 24. The threshold value comparison of the measured values from the sensors 21, 24 is carried out in comparators 32 for the signal path of each individual sensor. Low-pass filters 31 for the temporal smoothing as well as attenuation and amplification elements 33 for the scaling are also situated in the signal path. If one of the comparators 32 determines that the measured value exceeds the threshold value predefined for the respective user profile, this is indicated for each signal path using the signaling means 28. A voltage-controlled oscillator 34 is connected upstream of the acoustic signaling means 28. The voltage-controlled oscillator 34 generates output voltages at different frequencies on the basis of the output signal generated by the comparator 32, said output voltages generating sounds of different levels in a loudspeaker, for example. Therefore, different acoustic signals are generated depending on the extent to which the threshold value is exceeded.

In addition, the outputs of all comparators 32 are connected to an OR circuit 35. The latter likewise uses the further optical/acoustic signaling means 28 to trigger an alarm if only one of the comparators 32 determines that the threshold value has been exceeded.

On the input side, the evaluation electronics 17 have, for each measurement channel, an analog/digital converter A/D which converts the analog measurement signals from the pneumoelectrical converter 24 into digital signals downstream of signal conditioning 36.

The following factors are feasible, for example, as scaling factors X1-X4 for the attenuation and amplification elements 33, where X1 is assigned to the measured values from the sensor of the index finger, X2 is assigned to the measured values from the sensor of the middle finger, X3 is assigned to the measured values from the sensor of the ring finger, and X4 is assigned to the measured values from the sensor of the little finger: X1=1.0 X2=1.0-1.2 X3=1.0-1.25 X4=0.8-0.95

Attenuation of the little finger is expedient since the club grip exerts an intensified pressure on the little finger during initiation of the swing. So that this additional pressure on the little finger is not incorrectly detected as being an excessively high gripping pressure by the comparator 32, the measured value at the little finger is attenuated, while the measured values at the middle and ring fingers, which are weaker than the index finger, are amplified slightly in comparison with that at the index finger.

FIG. 6 shows a glove 37 in which the electropneumatic sensors 21, 24 are arranged in such a manner that the pressure exerted on the grip by the player can be detected in a manner largely independent of an ideal grip. The fingers 11 of the glove 37 are subdivided into three segments 38a-c, the air cushions 21 of the sensors 21, 24 being arranged in the first segment 38 a of the glove fingers for accommodating the little finger, the ring finger and the middle finger, and the air cushion 21 being arranged in the second segment 38b of the glove finger for accommodating the index finger. The individual air cushions 21 are connected to the converters 24 by means of tubes 23. The pneumoelectrical converters 24 provide analog signals which are processed further in the evaluation electronics 17 according to FIG. 5 following analog/digital conversion.

The air cushions 21 are filled with gas permeable foam 39 which keeps the air cushions 21 in a defined form. In the case of this glove 37 too, the evaluation electronics 17 are integrated in the closure 18 and accordingly have input and output elements 26, 28.

FIG. 7 finally shows a side view of evaluation electronics 17 which are releasably connected to the glove 12, 19 or 37. For this purpose, a base 44 which is adapted to the contour of the back of the hand is fastened to the top side of the glove 12, 19, 37. The housing 45 which accommodates the evaluation electronics 17 is releasably hooked to the base 44. For this purpose, at least one of the hooks 46 is designed such that it can be moved counter to the force of a spring 47. The movable hook 46 can be displaced by actuating a pin 48 which extends through the wall of the housing 45, with the result that the housing 45 is released.

The pneumoelectrical converters 24 are coupled to the tube lines 23 by virtue of the end sections of the tube lines engaging in corresponding receptacles of the converters 24. In the case of electrical sensors in the glove fingers, the electrical lines leading from the sensors open into contact areas on the surface of the base 44 which interact with corresponding contact areas on the underside of the housing 45.

The removable evaluation electronics 17 can continue to be used when the glove is worn out. Only the relatively inexpensive air cushions 21 including the tubes 23 welded to them are replaced.

I often see golfers seize up with paralysis by analysis, and this glove could only make things worse.

Dave Dawsey - Keeping an Eye on Golf Glove Inventions

PS – check out other golf glove related posts here

Now This Is a Tee That I Would Buy (at least once)

David Dawsey PE Esq — Fri, 27 Aug 2010 05:00:00 GMT

An interesting golf tee patent application published this week as US Pub. No. 20100216576 titled “Golf Tee.” The application describes the invention as:

A golf tee comprising parallel golf ball supporting fins extending from an elongated blade-like main body. The fins bend and flex with the rapid momentary expansion and compression of the golf ball due the impact from a golf club, thereby offering a clear and unimpeded exit channel for the golf ball. The elongated main body tapers to a point for easy insertion into the teeing ground and has large side surface areas for the clear display of logos and general indicia.

The application explains:

[0001] The sport of golf is well known and over many years has grown with international popularity. A sporting activity carried out by recreational enthusiasts to professional golfers alike; golf has been a physical and mental challenge since its debated creation in Scotland around 1456.

[0002] Golf has developed a huge industry shared by many companies and organizations, each keen on marking their presence, leadership and expertise in the sport. As such, the branding of equipment and the placement of general indicia, logos and messages throughout the game of golf has become commonplace.

[0003] Golf involves playing a ball with a club from the teeing ground into the hole by a stroke or successive strokes in accordance with the Rules.

[0004] A round of golf typically involves 9 to 18 holes each with an allocated teeing ground from which the golf ball is first struck over various terrains and obstacles towards a hole. It is standard practice amongst most golfers to use a golf tee to elevate the ball above the teeing ground to assist the golfer in striking the golf ball cleanly and efficiently with a golf club. A typical golf tee will be made from wood or resilient polymeric materials and consists of a cylindrical stem, tapering to a spike for insertion into the ground. On the other end is typically a circular head with a concave cup or dish surface to support the golf ball. Such tees are readily available and still in wide use.

[0005] However, golfers are very much aware of the performance issues surrounding all aspects of the game of golf, particularly where golf equipment is concerned. Over many years, there have been many improvements in the design and technology of golfing equipment in order to enhance the performance of the golfer. Improving the performance of a golf tee is no exception and golf tees are now receiving more focus and attention by the golf industry as a means to improve the golfer's first shot or "drive" from the teeing ground.

[0006] It can be demonstrated using high speed photography that when a golf ball is struck by a golf club, the golf ball will compress at the point of impact and rapidly expand outwards. This rapid distortion of the golf ball upon a standard rigid golf tee can contribute toward many unwanted dynamics and inefficiencies in the golf drive.

[0007] As such, issues relating to golf tee friction and golf ball resistance have been addressed in a variety of ways and solutions. Such solutions include tees with bristles or brushes to replace the traditional concave ball supporting dish. When the golf ball distorts, the bristles disperse allowing the ball to exit the tee with minimal friction and impedance. However, such tees are less durable and over time tend to become unusable. Additionally, such bristle or brush-tipped tees require several parts for manufacture, thereby increasing costs. As mentioned, the placement of logos and general indicia is also an important part of golf equipment. Such brush tees have no useful area upon which indicia can be placed and clearly displayed.

[0008] Other solutions include tees which claim to reduce the points of contact and coefficient of friction between the golf ball and the golf tee. However, such tees are often made from rigid materials and thereby do not accommodate or address the issue of rapid golf ball expansion during impact. Often being designed around the traditional narrow cylindrical golf tee, they again offer little or no useful surface area for adequate branding or indicia.

[0009] Accordingly, there exists a need for a golf tee that reduces contact with the golf ball and possesses a desirable level of flexibility and dispersion to accommodate the rapid expansion of the golf ball during impact. Furthermore, it would be desirable for such a tee to have adequate surfaces and areas onto which can be placed and displayed a variety of logos, messages and general indicia.

Pretty cool (at least as far as golf tees go).

Dave Dawsey - Monitoring Golf Tee Inventions

PS – check out other golf tee inventions HERE

Tired of those Purely Struck Approach Shots Flying 10 Yards Long (Directly Over The Pin)?

David Dawsey PE Esq — Wed, 25 Aug 2010 05:00:00 GMT

Doesn’t it always happen that way? You strike that perfect 6-iron and it is going directly at the pin only to watch is sail 10 yards long because you actually hit the club as it was intended to be hit. Well, one option would be to practice so that you always strike the ball right in the sweet spot; but a far easier option would be to deaden the sweet spot so that those purely struck shots (you know, the 10 percenters) only go as far as your normally struck shot when you are ½ inch toward the toe or the heel.

Well, that is the basic premise found in USPN 5,529,543 titled “Golf Irons with Increased Consistency.” The ‘543 patent, which issued in 1996, describes the invention as:

Each iron in a golf club set is made to have a more consistant distance spectrum across its club face. This is done by deadening its sweet spot area so that the distance achieved with an on center hit is less, thereby making a center hit and an off center hit more nearly the same. The consistency of the average golfer is thereby improved, leading to lower scores and more enjoyable sport. The "dead center" irons may have their face angles, or loft, reduced to increase overall distance in order to compensate for the reduced distance reaction of the center hit, in order that the irons of a specific type or number will retain their traditional distance reaction.

The patent goes on to explain:

As seen in FIG. 1, the striking face 21 of a known golf club 23 has a useful area defined by a center area 25, a high area 27, a low area 29, a toe area 31 and a heel area 33. These are general designations, the general areas do not have specific boundaries. Within the center area lies the sweet spot 35 which is the center of gravity of the head. A ball hit from this spot will travel farther than an off center hit, all other things being equal. The reader wishing to know more about the physics of golf will find voluminous literature available. As the point of contact with the ball moves away from the sweet spot 35 the distance reaction will decrease.

FIG. 2 illustrates this phenomenon by illustrating the distance reaction "face map" for typical numbers five and six golf irons. The distance reaction for each area of the club face is marked along the Y-axis with C being center, L low, HG high, HL heel, and T toe. Ball flight path variation is show as deviation on the X-axis. The typical iron has a substantially uniform stiffness over the striking face. It will be appreciated that, depending on where the striking face 21 contacts the ball, a distance reaction variation, or spectrum, of over fifteen yards may result. A ball may land over the green, on the green, or in a sand trap within this distance reaction spectrum.

Psychologically, a golfer will select his specific distance club assuming he will hit the ball on center and get maximum distance from his shot. Realistically, the average golfer would probably be better off assuming an off center hit and going down a club number, or "over clubbing", to get the same desired distance as from an on center hit with his higher numbered club. This is because the average nonprofessional golfer lacks the skill necessary to contact the sweet spot consistently. That is, he is more likely to hit off center than on center. However, his score still suffers when he hits the lower numbered club on center and the ball goes too far. This is why golf is always a challenge.
.
.
.
.

As seen in FIG. 12, the area behind the center of the striking face 21 and the plate 43 may be comprised of a plug or insert 61 of less stiff, or softer, material than the club head 39 extending midway through the thickness of the club head and with the plate 43 being affixed thereover

Sure beats hours on the range!

David Dawsey – The Golf Attorney

PS – check out interesting putter patents HERE

Looking for a Grip that Will Make a Statement?

David Dawsey PE Esq — Tue, 24 Aug 2010 05:00:00 GMT

If so, this grip may be for you (although the statement being made would be – “I don’t worry about the rules of golf”). The following drawings come from USPN D622,341 titled “Golf Club Handle,” which issued today.

I hear that Dustin Johnson is putting these grips in play this weekend. I kid. But seriously, I would give them a try on the simple basis that I don't think they could hurt my game.

Dave Dawsey - Keeping an Eye on Golf Grip Inventions

PS – Check out other golf grip patent related posts here.

PPS - Yes, I realize that it may be a training/practice grip (so save the snarky emails).

Who Wouldn’t Want a “Golf Chariot?” Well, In This Case – ME

David Dawsey PE Esq — Wed, 18 Aug 2010 05:00:00 GMT

The term “golf chariot” inspires visions of a majestic transportation device for cruising around a golf course like it is your kingdom. Unfortunately, the chariot described in a recently published patent application did not quite live up to what I had envisioned. The patent application recently published as US Pub. No. 20100176574 titled “Golf Chariot for Individual Transport on a Golf Course,” which explains:

The proposed invention is intended to provide Golf players with an easy to use, effective and economical solution that allow the player to decide at any time during the game, whether to walk or to ride; this flexibility is the main value of this idea. Basically the idea is to add a wheeled platform to an electric golf cart enabled to steer by varying the power to the wheel; the result will be a sort of modern "chariot ": a two-wheeled platform drawn by an electric golf cart. The player will be able to ride on the platform or to walk as usual, accordingly with his/her wish. The platform can be lifted at any time with just one hand.

Now, check out this marvel of modern transportation!

Interesting, I guess. Now, if it actually worked, I suppose it would be pretty fun, but I would still prefer to ride a Segway golf cart around the course.

David Dawsey - Monitoring Golf Cart Inventions

PS – check out other golf cart related posts here, here, here, here , and here

Halloween Costume or Innovative Golf Bag Design?

David Dawsey PE Esq — Sun, 15 Aug 2010 05:00:00 GMT

A recently published patent application reveals a pretty cool golf bag design. Check this out!

The drawings come from a patent application that recently published as US Pub. No. 20100176012 titled “Dual Golf Bag System.” The application describes the invention as:

[0004] Generally, there have been a variety of approaches to making golf bags which can be worn on a golfers lower back or buttock. More commonly, a plethora of golf bags have been seen that are made up of a simple mono compartment, which are generally worn in an asymmetrical fashion and situated on the arch of the lower back and buttock. These constructions of golf bags are commonly a contributing factor for strains on a golfer's back as well as cumbersome to carry for long distances over time during play. Moreover the construction and carrying format of these mono chamber golf back prove to be a hindrance when ambulating; they bounce or jerk with each stride, thereby promoting a counter force on the lower back, resulting in a nuisance-undesirable experience.

[0005] Further all golf bags to date feature a mono chamber (with the exception of Richardson U.S. Pat. No. 6,422,444) that holds all the clubs in one chamber as well as a featuring a dual stand mechanism for ground support in all examples of prior art, including Richardson. This construction is severely flawed and promotes the stress of carrying and well as the cumbersome nature of retrieving various clubs from the bag in all the examples here again, including as seen with Richardson.

[0006] The new invention disclosed here addresses the problem of relieving stress on the user's back, as well as providing a new method of construction and design to allow for the easy retrieval of various golf clubs from a golf bag using a combination of at least a dual chamber compartment and a mono stand technology.

SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION

[0007] It is an object of the invention to provide a golf bag which retains the general overall aesthetics of a conventional golf bag while incorporating advancements in the structure. It is a further object of the invention to provide a new configuration of a golf bag with two or more distinct chambers, suspended by a spring-loaded axle to allow movement in an opened "X" formation or a closed formation like the letter "I."

[0008] It is another object of the invention to provide a golf bag which maybe carried with general ease and symmetry on a golfer's back or worn like a conventional golf bag optionally.

[0009] Further, the golf bag may have an adjustable cushioned bag harness which maybe secured onto one or more of the bag compartment by a spring loaded geared axle.

[0010] Yet still a further object of the invention is to provide for a new arrangement of using a mono stand to display the golf bag on a surface in an "X" configuration while in the so called, opened position.

[0011] It is a further objective of the invention to provide a simplified approach to packing and retrieving different kinds of golf clubs in two or more separate and distinct compartments. Additionally, a new approach of inverting the golf clubs into the bag, thereby allowing the retrieval of same by the handle, instead of the club head. Numerical or alphabetical markers are provided to easily identify the clubs within the golf bags.

[0012] It is another object of the invention to redistribute the weight of a set of golf clubs about a golfer's back to promote greater symmetrical weight distribution. Rearranging clubs achieves this objective by separating clubs by weight, size or height according to a desirable preference into two or more bag compartments.

[0013] These objects and others are achieved in accordance with the invention with generally two distinct chambers golf bag compartments; a back harness spring loaded adjustable unit, mounted on a geared axle mechanism, which is further secured to a set of golf bags which are mounted and secured onto each other by a similar geared axle mechanism.

[0014] The geared mechanism may comprise of a fixed magnet as well as a compressible spring, along with a geared teeth mechanism, apposing the opposite ring to provide for greater friction to resist movement when the bag is in an opened or closed position. An external force such as pulling on designated handles will overcome the resistance of the geared mechanism to move the bags or back harness from a closed to an opened position or vice versa.

I like the individual sections, but I am not convinced that it looks comfortable to carry.

Dave Dawsey - Watching Golf Bag Patents

PS – click HERE to check out other golf club IP posts

The IP Golf Guy Discusses “Common Patent Myths” on the Small Business Advocate® Radio Program

David Dawsey PE Esq — Fri, 13 Aug 2010 05:00:00 GMT

I was honored to be a guest on the nationally syndicated Small Business Advocate® radio show this morning. Jim Blasingame and I discussed some of the most common patent myths. Feel free to listen to the interview HERE.

David Dawsey – The Small Business Patent Lawyer

TaylorMade’s “Secret” Driver Patent Application (Now Patent)

David Dawsey PE Esq — Tue, 10 Aug 2010 05:00:00 GMT

If you are like me then blog post titles that say “exclusive” or “secret” just make you roll your eyes and think “give me a break!” So, I am proud to say that after over 3.5 years of posts this is the first time I have used such overdramatic language in a title, but there is a reason.

As a regular reader of the Golf-Patents blog I am sure you know that US utility patent applications are published 18 months after they are filed, which is generally when we get to see behind the doors of the R&D departments. Of course an applicant can request that the USPTO publish an application early, or request that an application not be published at all (it is very rare in the world of golf IP to see either).

This morning, as with every Tuesday morning, I was browsing through the new golf patents that issued for the week and came across a TaylorMade patent illustrating a design that I did not recall seeing before. Hum, I am getting older, but I should have remembered this design from when the application was published. Fortunately, I am not getting forgetful; I just happened upon one of the rare situations in which the applicant (TaylorMade) specifically requested that the patent application not be published and made available for public consumption. So, now you see why I used the overdramatic “secret” language in the title; because until today the application was secret.

One can’t help but wonder why the secrecy? Let the speculation begin….

The patent issued as USPN 7771291 titled “Golf Club Head with Vertical Center of Gravity Adjustment,” which describes the invention as:

Golf club heads include at least one weight port situated to retain weights and positioned above an approximate club face geometric center with the club in a standard address position. One, two, or more weight ports can be located above the club face center in a club crown or other portion of a club body. Club head vertical center of gravity can be selected to compensate dynamic loft associated with locating the club head center of gravity well behind the club face. Three-dimensional adjustment of club head center of gravity is possible.

Check out these designs!

Place your bets; what is the likelihood that any of these designs ever show up in Golf Galaxy?

Dave Dawsey - The Golf Intellectual Property Attorney

PS – click here to check out other driver and wood design posts

Want to Estimate Your Golf Ball Launch Conditions? Brush Up on Your Math

David Dawsey PE Esq — Mon, 09 Aug 2010 05:00:00 GMT

Ever wonder what it actually takes to estimate golf ball launch conditions? Probably not, I know, but a recent Acushnet patent on the subject illustrates the importance of math and science education. The patent is USPN 7762911 titled “Method for Predicting Ball Launch Conditions,” which describes the invention as:

The present invention relates to a method and a numerical analysis for predicting golf ball launch conditions, e.g., velocity, launch angle and spin rate. By acquiring pre-impact swing conditions, e.g., club speed, rotational rate and ball hit location, along with pertinent club features, e.g., moment of inertia, and ball impact features, e.g., normal and transverse forces as well as time of contact, the method can predict the resulting trajectory and launch conditions of the golf ball. The predicted ball launch conditions and trajectories can also be used to modify one or more properties of the golf ball or golf club. The time of contact measurements can be corrected to account for drag force.

So, if you are just tooling around in the garage after a few beers and decide to MacGyver together a launch monitor, make sure you don't incorporate the following "Hertzian force deformation equation" into your device or Acushnet may come knocking!

True golf geeks can read the entire patent HERE.

Dave Dawsey - Keeping an Eye on Golf Ball Marker Inventions

PS – check out golf glove inventions here

Don’t Make Enough of an Impression Pulling in the Course Parking Lot with TruckNutz Hanging from Your Hitch?

David Dawsey PE Esq — Sat, 07 Aug 2010 05:00:00 GMT

TruckNutz novelties hanging from a trailer hitch definitely make a statement. If it is actually a statement that you want to make, and you want to make it on the course as well then you may want to consider the MySack golf ball holder. After all, nothing screams “I need attention” like a replica scrotum hanging from your golf bag. Nonetheless, a design patent was recently issued on the “accessory bag;” namely, USPN D620,253 titled “Golf Ball and Accessory Bag” and contains the following drawing:

It would be kind of fun to clip one of these on the bag of a competitor to throw them off their game. Can't you just imagine Phil clipping one on Tiger's bag in the middle of a round? Even funnier would be if Christina Kim could sneak one on the bag of Paula!

David Dawsey – Keeping an Eye on Golf Inventions

PS – click HERE to read interesting golf ball patent posts

Is this Golf Ball Technology Too Advanced, or are You Ready for It?

David Dawsey PE Esq — Wed, 04 Aug 2010 05:00:00 GMT

It is hard to believe that it has been almost 3 years since my first post directed to inventions for tracking errant golf shots (click HERE to read). Well, this week Radar Golf was granted the latest patent directed to eliminating the lost golf ball.

The patent is USPN 7766766 titled “methods and apparatuses relating to findable balls,” which describes the invention as:

Golf balls and methods and systems for manufacturing golf balls. In one exemplary embodiment, a portion of a golf ball comprises a core material having a void, a semiconductor component disposed at least partially in the void, and a filler material in the void and surrounding the semiconductor component, the filler material being placed in the void in a liquid state and occupying a first volume in the liquid state and the filler material transforming into a solid state which occupies substantially the first volume. Methods for manufacturing golf balls and fixtures and apparatuses for manufacturing golf balls are also described.

Frankly, it is amazing that a golf ball can be made with an elastic conductive antenna configured to transmit a RF signal. I don’t know about you but I am quite found of the satisfaction of completing an entire round without losing a golf ball, and would miss it!

Dave Dawsey - Tracking Golf Ball Inventions and Patents

I Know a Few Golfers that Would Benefit from this Training Aid

David Dawsey PE Esq — Mon, 02 Aug 2010 05:00:00 GMT

Sometimes the beauty of an invention is in the simplicity of it. Check out the training aid found in USPN 7758438 titled “Golf Aid Apparatus.”

The golf aid apparatus provides for instant fit and removal from either of a golfer's shoes, left or right. The apparatus fits the toe of the employed shoe and provides for a golfer to properly align feet, with the telescopic rod aimed toward an intended target of the golf swing. The apparatus is useful for proper alignment in any swing, including putting strokes. Fitting the toe provides for best visual alignment while also providing ease of fit and removal. The combined loop is slideably fitted around the telescopic rod so that a user has even more freedom in positioning the rod as desired. The rod is adjustable up to 20 inches in length.

I bet you would never have guessed that this device would be patentable!

David Dawsey – Keeping an Eye on Golf Practice Inventions

PS – click HERE to read interesting golf ball patent posts

More from Nike… the T-Bone (or Hollow Point) Driver

David Dawsey PE Esq — Thu, 29 Jul 2010 05:00:00 GMT

Earlier this week I posted (HERE ) about a new Nike design that I initially thought was a putter and turned out to be a driver. Well this week a related patent application published that throws a few more wild designs in the mix. Check them out!

The drawings come from US Pub. No. 20100190573, which explains:

[0078] FIGS. 11A-11C illustrate another alternate arrangement of a golf club head 314 according to aspects described herein. The golf club head 314 includes a golf club head body 316. The golf club head body 316 generally includes a toe portion 330, a heel portion 332, a front face 334 and a rear portion 336. As shown in FIG. 11A, a portion of the golf club head body 316 is removed and a void 323 is created within the remainder of the golf club head 314 and defined by the remainder of the golf club head 314. This removal of a portion of the golf club head body 316 aids in reducing weight associated with the golf club head 314. In addition, removing weight at or near a center of the club head body 316 aids in distributing weight to the rear and/or outer perimeter of the golf club head 314 in order to provide improved performance characteristics. It is understood that the golf club head body 316 of FIGS. 11A-11C may be a solid construction or a hollow construction as desired.

[0079] As shown in FIG. 11A, as well as the rear view shown in FIG. 11B and the top view of FIG. 11C, the rear portion 336 of the golf club head 314 includes an opening 325 extending through the golf club head body 316. In some arrangements, the opening 325 may be between 1 and 4 inches wide. The opening 325 may extend from the edge of the rear portion 336 and into a central region 327 of the golf club head body 316 in order to reduce weight associated with the central region 327 of the golf club head body 316. The opening 325 is thus in communication with and may be considered part of the void 323. In some arrangements, the void 323 formed in the golf club head body 316 may form a T-shape. That is, the opening 325 may extend into the central region 327 of the golf club head body 316 and then communicate with an opening that extends toward the toe portion 330 and heel portion 332 of the golf club head 314. In such a configuration as shown in FIG. 11A, the void 323 is generally T-shaped. As further shown in FIGS. 11A-11C, the golf club head 314 has a first arm 320 and a second arm 322 that extend rearwardly from the front face 334 of the club. At a distal end or free end of the first arm 320, the first arm 320 has a first inwardly extending member 350. Similarly, at a distal end or free end of the second arm 322, the second arm 322 has a second inwardly extending member 352. The first inwardly extending member 350 and the second inwardly extending member 352 are spaced from one another and positioned in confronting relation wherein the opening 325 is defined between the members 350, 352. This arrangement aids in distributing weight associated with the golf club head 314 to the perimeter of the golf club head 314 and, additionally, toward the rear and/or rear corners of the golf club head.

[0080] In some examples, the weight associated with the portion of the golf club head removed to form the void may be between 15 g and 50 g. In still other examples, the amount of material removed to form the void may comprise 5% to 30% of the area or mass of the club head.

I guess the old Bullet Golf “Hollow Point” from the 1990’s was ahead of its time!

Dave Dawsey - Monitoring Golf Patent Applications

It Was Only a Matter of Time; Acushnet, Bridgestone, and Callaway Hit with False Patent Marking Lawsuits Related to Golf Ball Patents

David Dawsey PE Esq — Mon, 26 Jul 2010 05:00:00 GMT

I suspect the in-house attorneys at the big golf companies have just been waiting to be named in a false patent marking lawsuit. Recently false patent marking lawsuits have become quite the rage based upon a plaintiff's hopes of a major payday due to the quantity of products sold containing false patent markings. The typical situation is that a plaintiff identifies products that sell huge quantities of products and then digs around until they identify some products that list patents that are either expired or don't actually cover the product. Since boatloads of golf balls are sold, I knew that the manufacturers would eventually become the target of the false patent marking plaintiffs. In this situation the plaintiff is Texas Data Co., L.L.C., which is likely a shell company established solely for the purpose of bringing these lawsuits.

So, what's behind these lawsuits? I will let the plaintiff explain:

13.   The marking and false marking statutes exist to give the public notice of patent rights. Congress intended the public to rely onmarking as a ready means of discerning the status of intellectual property embodied in an article of manufacture or design. Federalpatent policy recognizes an important public interest in permitting full and free competition in the use of ideas which are, in reality, apart of the public domain.

14. False patent marking is a serious problem. Acts of false marking deter innovation and stifle competition in the marketplace. If an article that is within the public domain is falsely marked, potential competitors may be dissuaded from entering the same market. False marks may also deter scientific research when an inventor sees a mark and decides to forgo continued research to avoid possible infringement. False marking can cause unnecessary investment in design around or costs incurred to analyze the validity or enforceability of a patent whose number has been marked upon a product with which a competitor would like to compete. Furthermore, false marking misleads the public into believing that a patentee controls the article in question (as well as like articles), externalizes the risk of error in the determination, placing it on the public rather than the manufacturer or seller of the article, and increases the cost to the public of ascertaining whether a patentee in fact controls the intellectual property embodied in an article. In each instance where it is represented that an article is patented, a member of the public desiring to participate in the market for the marked article must incur the cost of determining whether the involved patents are valid and enforceable. Failure to take on the costs of a reasonably competent search for information necessary to interpret each patent,investigation into prior art and other information bearing on thequality of the patents, and analysis thereof can result in a finding of willful infringement, which may treble the damages an infringer would otherwise have to pay. False markings may also create a misleading impression that the falsely marked product is technologically superior to previously available ones, as articles bearing the term “patent” maybe presumed to be novel, useful, and innovative.

15.   The false marking statute explicitly permits qui tam actions. By permitting members of the public to sue on behalf of the government, Congress allowed individuals to help control false marking.

16.   Plaintiff,on its own behalf and on behalf of the United States, seeks an award of monetary damages of not more than $500 for each of Defendant's violations of 35 U.S.C. § 292(a), one-half of which shall be paid to the United States pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 292(b).

Ahh, aren't we lucky to have such guardians of the public interest!

The following are some highlights of the allegations made against these three golf ball manufacturers.

Allegations Against Acushnet

BACKGROUND
10.   This is an action for false patent marking under Title 35, Section 292, of the United States Code, and for personal injuries arising from the use of Titleist Nxt Extreme branded and distributed by Defendant.
11.   The Titleist Nxt Extreme product is a product placed into the stream of interstate commerce by Defendant.
12.   Defendant has violated 35 U.S.C. § 292(a) by marking unpatented articles with the purpose of deceiving the public. More specifically, Defendant has, with the purpose of deceiving the public marked products with patents that have expired and, therefore, do not and cannot cover the marked products.

FACTS
17.   Plaintiff incorporates by reference the foregoing paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.
18.   Defendant is a large, sophisticated company.
19.   Defendant has, or regularly retains, legal counsel.
20.   Defendant has experience applying for patents, obtaining patents, and/or litigating in patent infringement lawsuits.
21.   Defendant knows that a patent expires; an expired patent cannot protect any product; a patent does not cover any product that is not within the scope of its claims.
22.   Each false marking on the products identified in this Complaint is likely to, or at least has the potential to, discourage or deter persons and companies from commercializing competing products.
23.   Defendant’s false marking of its products has wrongfully quelled competition with respect to such products thereby causing harm to Plaintiff, the United States, and the public.
24.   Defendant has wrongfully and illegally advertised patent monopolies which it does not possess and, as a result, has benefited by maintaining a substantial market share with respect to the products referenced in this Complaint.
25.   Defendant marked (or caused to be marked) at least the following products: Titleist Nxt Extreme with the following patent numbers: United States Patent No. 4,779,387 (“the ‘387 Patent”); No. 4,865,326 (“the ‘326 Patent”); No. 4,960,281 (“the ‘281 Patent”); No. 4,988,280 (“the ‘280 Patent”); No. 5,018,742 (“the ‘742 Patent”); No. 5,158,736; No. 5,160,536; No. 5,259,752; No. 5,368,800; No. 5,525,891; No. 5,634,399; No. 5,795,529; No. 6,103,787; No. 6,726,869; No. 6,729,976; No. 6,757,353; No. 6,809,822; No. 6,825,931; No. 6,839,138; and No. 7,156,757.
26.   The ‘387 Patent, titled “method and apparatus for automatically buffing a golf ball,” was issued by the United States Patent Office on October 25, 1988, and expired at the latest on February 5, 2008. A copy of the ’387 patent is attached as Exhibit “A”.
27.   The ‘326 Patent, titled “optical brightness in golf ball clear coatings,” was issued by the United States Patent Office on September 12, 1989, and expired at the latest on September 24, 2007. A copy of the ‘326 patent is attached as Exhibit “B”.
28.   The ‘281 Patent, titled “golf ball,” was issued by the United States Patent Office on October 2, 1990, and expired at the latest on October 17, 2009. A copy of the ‘281 patent is attached as Exhibit “C”.
29.   The ‘280 Patent, titled “apparatus for stripping a molded u-shaped article from an injection mold,” was issued by the United States Patent Office on January 29, 1991, and expired at latest on June 26, 2009. A copy of the ‘280 patent is attached as Exhibit “D”.
30.   The ‘742 Patent, titled “golf ball clear coating with optical brightness,” was issued by the United States Patent Office on May 28, 1991, and expired at latest on September 12, 2006 as a result of a terminal disclaimer noted on the face the patent. A copy of the ‘742 patent is attached as Exhibit “E”.
31.   Because the ‘387, ‘326, ‘281, ‘280, and ‘742 patents expired, at the latest, on October 17, 2009, any product or method once covered by the claims of the five patents are no longer protected by the patent laws of the United States. When the patents expired, their formerly protected property entered the public domain. When a patent expires, all monopoly rights in the patent terminate irrevocably and, therefore, a product marked with an expired patent is not “patented” by such expired patent.
32.   Defendant knows that, when a patent expires, all monopoly rights in the patent terminate irrevocably.
33.   Defendant knew that the ‘387 patent expired, at the latest, on February 5, 2008.
34.   Defendant knew that the ‘326 patent expired, at the latest, on September 24, 2007.
35.   Defendant knew that the ‘281 parent expired, at the latest, on October 17, 2009.
36.   Defendant knew that the ‘280 parent expired, at the latest, on June 26, 2009.
37.   Defendant knew that the ‘742 patent expired, at the latest, on September 12, 2006.
38.   Despite the fact that the claims of the five patents are no longer afforded patent protection, Defendant marked (or caused to be marked) at least its Titleist Nxt Extreme with the ’387, ‘326, ‘281, ‘280, and ‘742 patents following their expiration date.
39.   Alternatively, because all monopoly rights in the ‘387, ‘326, ‘281, ‘280, and ‘742 patents have terminated, Defendant cannot have any reasonable belief that its Titleist Nxt Extreme products are patented or covered by the five patents.
40.   Defendant intended to deceive the public by marking (or causing to be marked) its Titleist Nxt Extreme products with the ‘387, ‘326, ‘281, ‘280, and ‘742 patents.
41.   Defendant knew that its Titleist Nxt Extreme products are not covered by the ‘387, ‘326, ‘281, ‘280, nor ‘742 patents.
42.   Therefore, Defendant intentionally deceived the public by labeling the Titleist Nxt Extreme product packaging with the ‘387, ‘326, ‘281, ‘280, and ‘742 patents.
43.   Defendant intended to deceive the public by marking (or causing to be marked) the Titleist Nxt Extreme product with the ‘387, ‘326, ‘281, ‘280, and ‘742 patents.

Allegations Against Bridgestone

BACKGROUND

2.   This is an action for false patent marking under Title 35, Section 292, of the United States Code, and for personal injuries arising from the use of Tour B330, e5+, Tour B330-RX, and Precept Lady iQ Plus branded and distributed by Defendant.
3.   The Tour B330 product is a product placed into the stream of interstate commerce by Defendant.
4.   The e5+ product is a product placed into the stream of interstate commerce by Defendant.
5.   The Tour B330-RX product is a product placed into the stream of interstate commerce by Defendant.
6.   The Precept Lady iQ Plus product is a product placed into the stream of interstate commerce by Defendant.
7.   Defendant has violated 35 U.S.C. § 292(a) by marking unpatented articles with the purpose of deceiving the public. More specifically, Defendant has, with the purpose of deceiving the public marked products with patents that have expired and, therefore, do not and cannot cover the marked products.

FACTS
21.   Plaintiff incorporates by reference the foregoing paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.
22.   Defendant is a large, sophisticated company.
23.   Defendant has, or regularly retains, legal counsel.
24.   Defendant has experience applying for patents, obtaining patents, and/or litigating in patent infringement lawsuits.
25.   Defendant knows that a patent expires; an expired patent cannot protect any product; a patent does not cover any product that is not within the scope of its claims.
26.   Each false marking on the products identified in this Complaint is likely to, or at least has the potential to, discourage or deter persons and companies from commercializing competing products.
27.   Defendant’s false marking of its products has wrongfully quelled competition with respect to such products thereby causing harm to Plaintiff, the United States, and the public.
28.   Defendant has wrongfully and illegally advertised patent monopolies which it does not possess and, as a result, has benefited by maintaining a substantial market share with respect to the products referenced in this Complaint.
29.   Defendant marked (or caused to be marked) at least the following products: Tour B330 with the following patent numbers: United States Patent No. 4,915,389 (“the ‘389 Patent”); No. 5,024,444 (“the ‘444 Patent”); No. 5,252,652; No. 5,789,616; No. 5,857,924; No. 5,874,038; No. 5,902,193; No. 5,906,551; No. 5,908,359; No. 6,053,820; No. 6,123,534; No. 6,624,221; No. 6,634,961; No. 6,833,400; No. 7,278,932; No. 7,335,115; and No. 7,329,194.
30.   Defendant marked (or caused to be marked) at least the following products: e5 with the following patent numbers: United States Patent No. 4,915,389 (“the ‘389 Patent”); No. 5,024,444 (“the ‘444 Patent”); No. 5,252,652; No. 5,752,889; No. 5,789,616; No. 5,857,924; No. 5,874,038; No. 5,902,193; No. 5,906,551; No. 6,123,534; No. 6,747,100; No. 6,764,415; No. 6,806,323; No. 6,837,804; No. 5,908,359; No. 6,053,820; and No. 6,123,628.
31.   Defendant marked (or caused to be marked) at least the following products: Tour B330-RX with the following patent numbers: United States Patent No. 4,915,389 (“the ‘389 Patent”); No. 5,024,444 (“the ‘444 Patent”); No. 5,252,652; No. 5,789,616; No. 5,857,924; No. 5,874,038; No. 5,902,193; No. 5,906,551; No. 5,908,359; No. 6,053,820; No. 6,123,534; No. 6,592,470; No. 6,624,221; No. 6,634,961; No. 6,663,507; No. 6,786,836; No. 6,833,400; and No. 7,278,932.
32.   Defendant marked (or caused to be marked) at least the following products: Precept Lady iQ Plus with the following patent numbers: United States Patent No. 4,613,403 (“the ‘403 Patent”); No. 4,915,389 (“the ‘389 Patent”); No. 5,024,444 (“the ‘444 Patent”); No. 5,252,652; No. 5,695,413; No. 5,789,616; No. 5,874,038; No. 5,902,193; No. 5,906,551; and No. 6,123,534.
33.   The ‘403 Patent, titled “method for treating golf ball surface with glow discharge plasma and apparatus therefor,” was issued by the United States Patent Office on September 23, 1986, and expired at the latest on June 13, 2005. A copy of the ’403 patent is attached as Exhibit “A”.
34.   The ‘389 Patent, titled “golf balls,” was issued by the United States Patent Office on April 10, 1990, and expired at the latest on November 16, 2008. A copy of the ‘389 patent is attached as Exhibit “B”.
35.   The ‘444 Patent, titled “golf ball,” was issued by the United States Patent Office on June 18, 1991, and expired at the latest on November 9, 2009. A copy of the ‘444 patent is attached as Exhibit “C”.
36.   Because the ‘403 ‘389 and ‘444 patents expired, at the latest, on November 9, 2009, any product or method once covered by the claims of the three patents are no longer protected by the patent laws of the United States. When the patents expired, their formerly protected property entered the public domain. When a patent expires, all monopoly rights in the patent terminate irrevocably and, therefore, a product marked with an expired patent is not “patented” by such expired patent.
37.   Defendant knows that, when a patent expires, all monopoly rights in the patent terminate irrevocably.
38.   Defendant knew that the ‘403 patent expired, at the latest, on June 13, 2005.
39.   Defendant knew that the ‘389 patent expired, at the latest, on November 16, 2008.
40.   Defendant knew that the ‘444 patent expired, at the latest, on November 9, 2009.
41.   Despite the fact that the claims of the three patents are no longer afforded patent protection, Defendant marked (or caused to be marked) at least its Tour B330, e5+, Tour B330-RX and Precept Lady iQ Plus with the ‘403, ‘389 and/or ‘444 patents following their expiration date.
42.   Alternatively, because all monopoly rights in the ‘403, ‘389 and ‘444 patents have terminated, Defendant cannot have any reasonable belief that its Tour B330, e5+, Tour B330-RX and Precept Lady iQ Plus products are patented or covered by any of the three patents.
43.   Defendant intended to deceive the public by marking (or causing to be marked) its Tour B330, e5+, Tour B330 -RX and Precept Lady iQ Plus products with the ‘403, ‘389 and/or ‘444 patents.
44.   Defendant knew that its Tour B330, e5+, Tour B330-RX and Precept Lady iQ Plus products are not covered by the ‘403, ‘389 nor ‘444 patents.
45.   Therefore, Defendant intentionally deceived the public by labeling the Tour B330, e5+, Tour B330-RX and Precept Lady iQ Plus product packaging with the ‘403, ‘389 and/or ‘444 patents.
46.   Defendant intended to deceive the public by marking (or causing to be marked) the Tour B330, e5+, Tour B330-RX and Precept Lady iQ Plus product with the ‘403, ‘389 and/or ‘444 patents.

Allegations Against Callaway

BACKGROUND

2.   This is an action for false patent marking under Title 35, Section 292, of the United States Code, and for personal injuries arising from the use of Warbird, HX HOT Bite, Big Bertha Diablo, Tour iX, and Warbird Plus branded and distributed by Defendant.
3.   The Warbird product is a product placed into the stream of interstate commerce by Defendant.
4.   The HX HOT Bite product is a product placed into the stream of interstate commerce by Defendant.
5.   The Big Bertha Diablo product is a product placed into the stream of interstate commerce by Defendant.
6.   The Tour iX product is a product placed into the stream of interstate commerce by Defendant.
7.   The Warbird Plus product is a product placed into the stream of interstate commerce by Defendant.
8.   Defendant has violated 35 U.S.C. § 292(a) by marking unpatented articles with the purpose of deceiving the public. More specifically, Defendant has, with the purpose of deceiving the public:

a.   marked products with patents that have expired and, therefore, do not and cannot cover the marked products;
b.   marked products with patents having a scope which does not cover the marked products;
c.   marked products with language indicating that the products are the subject of pending patent applications when no relevant application is pending; and/or
d.   used in advertising in connection with unpatented products the word “patent” and/or any word or number importing that the product is patented.

FACTS
22.   Plaintiff incorporates by reference the foregoing paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.
23.   Defendant is a large, sophisticated company.
24.   Defendant has, or regularly retains, legal counsel.
25.   Defendant has experience applying for patents, obtaining patents, and/or litigating in patent infringement lawsuits.
26.   Defendant knows that a patent expires; an expired patent cannot protect any product; a patent does not cover any product that is not within the scope of its claims.
27. Each false marking on the products identified in this Complaint is likely to, or at least has the potential to, discourage or deter persons and companies from commercializing competing products.
28.   Defendant’s false marking of its products has wrongfully quelled competition with respect to such products thereby causing harm to Plaintiff, the United States, and the public.
29.   Defendant has wrongfully and illegally advertised patent monopolies which it does not possess and, as a result, has benefited by maintaining a substantial market share with respect to the products referenced in this Complaint.
30. Defendant marked (or caused to be marked) at least the following products: Warbird with the following patent numbers: United States Patent No. D434,814; No. D435,701; No. D449,359; No. 4,838,556 (“the ‘556 Patent”); No. 4,852,884 (“the ‘884 Patent”); No. 4,884,814 (“the ‘814 Patent”); No. 4,911,451 (“the ‘451 Patent”); No. 5,009,427; No. 5,018,741; No. 5,044,638; No. 5,060,953; No. 5,120,791; No. 5,273,287; No. 5,300,325; No. 5,306,760; No. 5,312,857; No. 5,324,783; No. 5,328,959; No. 5,360,314; No. 5,368,304; No. 5,397,840; No. 5,409,233; No. 5,409,974; No. 5,459,220; No. 5,470,075; No. 5,482,286; No. 5,494,291; No. 5,503,397; No. 5,507,493; No. 5,542,677; No. 5,569,100; No. 5,580,057; No. 5,580,323; No. 5,588,924; No. 5,591,803; No. 5,688,869; No. 5,722,543; No. 5,733,207; No. 5,770,325; No. 5,772,532; No. 5,827,134; No. 5,885,173; No. 5,902,855; No. 5,971,870; No. 5,971,872; No. 6,001,177; No. 6,033,724; No. 6,100,361; No. 6,149,983; No. 6,179,730; No. 6,191,185; No. 6,193,616; No. 6,224,499; No. 6,239,222; No. 6,245,858; No. 6,258,302; No. 6,267,693; No. 6,271,316; No. 6,277,920; No. 6,312,347; No. 6,315,684; No. 6,325,730; No. 6,331,150; No. 6,340,503; No. 6,350,114; No. 6,350,815; No. 6,368,236; No. 6,376,612; No. 6,394,915; No. 6,395,861; No. 6,407,176; No. 6,413,172; No. 6,441,056; No. 6,464,601; No. 6,485,377; No. 6,492,464; No. 6,494,792; No. 6,537,159; No. 6,551,203; No. 6,565,457; No. 6,573,335; No. 6,582,327; No. 6,602,153; No. 6,612,940; No. 6,639,024; No. 6,652,341; No. 6,736,736; No. 6,739,985; No. 6,743,847; No. 6,800,695; No. 6,814,677; No. 6,846,248; No. 6,881,049; No. 6,890,272; No. 6,939,253; No. 6,964,623; No. 6,979,271; No. 6,986,719; No. 6,991,562; No. 7,0410,11; No. 7,048,651; No. 7,160,211; No. 7,179,178; and No. 7,199,192..
31.   Defendant marked (or caused to be marked) at least the following products: HX HOT Bite with the following patent numbers: United States Patent No. D449,359; No. 4,911,451 (“the ‘451 Patent”); No. 5,120,791; No. 5,300,325; No. 5,306,760; No. 5,312,857; No. 5,324,783; No. 5,328,959; No. 5,368,304; No. 5,397,840; No. 5,409,233; No. 5,409,974; No. 5,459,220; No. 5,494,291; No. 5,516,847; No. 5,542,677; No. 5,580,057; No. 5,591,803; No. 5,645,497; No. 5,688,869; No. 5,770,325; No. 5,779,561; No. 5,803,831; No. 5,800,284; No. 5,820,489; No. 5,830,087; No. 5,885,173; No. 5,902,855; No. 5,971,870; No. 5,971,872; No. 6,015,356; No. 6,042,488; No. 6,100,336; No. 6,149,536; No. 6,152,835; No. 6,179,730; No. 6,193,616; No. 6,220,972; No. 6,245,858; No. 6,267,693; No. 6,271,316; No. 6,277,035; No. 6,290,615; No. 6,350,815; No. 6,368,237; No. 6,376,612; No. 6,409,614; No. 6,469,102; No. 6,478,697; No. 6,492,464; No. 6,494,792; No. 6,561,928; No. 6,595,872; No. 6,623,381; No. 6,648,775; No. 6,743,847; No. 6,793,593; No. 6,800,695; No. 6,913,549; No. 6,958,020; No. 6,979,272; No. 7,041,011; No. 7,048,651; No. 7,083,534; No. 7,118,497; No. 7,128,666; No. 7,156,755; No. 7,175,543; No. 7,198,577; No. 7,198,578; and No. 7,199,192.
32.   Defendant marked (or caused to be marked) at least the following products: Big Bertha Diablo with the following patent numbers: United States Patent No. D449,359; No. 4,911,451 (“the ‘451 Patent”); No. 5,120,791; No. 5,300,325; No. 5,306,760; No. 5,312,857; No. 5,324,783; No. 5,328,959; No. 5,360,314; No. 5,368,304; No. 5,397,840; No. 5,409,233; No. 5,409,974; No. 5,459,220; No. 5,470,075; No. 5,494,291; No. 5,542,677; No. 5,580,057; No. 5,580,323; No. 5,588,924; No. 5,591,803; No. 5,688,869; No. 5,722,543; No. 5,733,207; No. 5,770,325; No. 5,827,134; No. 5,885,173; No. 5,902,855; No. 5,971,870; No. 5,971,872; No. 6,001,177; No. 6,033,724; No. 6,100,336; No. 6,100,361; No. 6,149,983; No. 6,179,730; No. 6,191,185; No. 6,193,616; No. 6,239,222; No. 6,245,858; No. 6,258,302; No. 6,267,693; No. 6,271,316; No. 6,277,920; No. 6,290,615; No. 6,312,347; No. 6,315,684; No. 6,325,730; No. 6,340,503; No. 6,350,114; No. 6,350,815; No. 6,368,236; No. 6,376,612; No. 6,394,915; No. 6,395,861; No. 6,407,176; No. 6,413,172; No. 6,441,056; No. 6,461,253; No. 6,485,377; No. 6,492,464; No. 6,494,792; No. 6,565,457; No. 6,573,335; No. 6,612,940; No. 6,736,736; No. 6,739,985; No. 6,743,847; No. 6,800,695; No. 6,881,049; No. 6,958,020; No. 6,979,272; No. 7,048,651; No. 7,083,534; No. 7,118,497; No. 7,128,666; No. 7,160,211; No. 7,198,577; No. 7,198,578; and No. 7,199,192.
33. Defendant marked (or caused to be marked) at least the following products: Tour iX with the following patent numbers: United States Patent No. D449,359; No. 4,838,556 (“the ‘556 Patent”); No. 4,852,884 (“the ‘884 Patent”); No. 5,018,740; No. 5,116,060; No. 5,150,906; No. 5,409,233; No. 5,409,974; No. 5,459,220; No. 5,494,291; No. 5,770,325; No. 5,779,562; No. 5,803,831; No. 5,820,488; No. 5,885,173; No. 5,976,443; No. 5,984,806; No. 6,015,356; No. 6,057,403; No. 6,083,119; No. 6,100,361; No. 6,117,025; No. 6,120,393; No. 6,142,887; No. 6,149,983; No. 6,179,730; No. 6,191,185; No. 6,193,618; No. 6,210,293; No. 6,213,894; No. 6,213,895; No. 6,244,977; No. 6,245,859; No. 6,270,429; No. 6,277,034; No. 6,277,920; No. 6,287,217; No. 6,290,614; No. 6,290,615; No. 6,29,9550; No. 6,309,312; No. 6,319,153; No. 6,376,612; No. 6,379,266; No. 6,379,269; No. 6,394,913; No. 6,394,914; No. 6,394,915; No. 6,406,384; No. 6,413,172; No. 6,422,953; No. 6,422,954; No. 6,425,833; No. 6,431,999; No. 6,432,000; No. 6,435,983; No. 6,435,985; No. 6,435,987; No. 6,436,327; No. 6,440,012; No. 6,441,056; No. 6,443,858; No. 6,450,898; No. 6,458,047; No. 6,461,253; No. 6,468,168; No. 6,478,697; No. 6,482,109; No. 6,495,633; No. 6,503,156; No. 6,506,130; No. 6,520,871; No. 6,533,566; No. 6,548,618; No. 6,561,924; No. 6,561,927; No. 6,562,912; No. 6,569,034; No. 6,585,607; No. 6,585,608; No. 6,592,472; No. 6,595,872; No. 6,595,873; No. 6,612,939; No. 6,612,940; No. 6,612,941; No. 6,616,551; No. 6,623,381; No. 6,634,962; No. 8,838,184; No. 6,638,185; No. 6,639,024; No. 6,648,775; No. 6,648,777; No. 6,663,508; No. 6,663,509; No. 6,667,001; No. 6,716,954; No. 6,739,985; No. 6,755,634; No. 6,767,294; No. 6,769,900; No. 6,776,731; No. 6,787,626; No. 6,790,149; No. 6,793,593; No. 6,837,805; No. 6,855,073; No. 6,855,077; No. 6,872,154; No. 6,872,782; No. 6,8810,49; No. 6,896,629; No. 6,902,499; No. 6,905,424; No. 6,905,427; No. 6,905,648; No. 6,913,549; No. 6,929,568; No. 6,932,721; No. 6,951,519; No. 6,958,020; No. 6,969,477; No. 6,974,854; No. 6,979,272; No. 6,986,721; No. 6,991,562; No. 6,992,163; No. 7,026,430; No. 7,041,011; No. 7,048,651; No. 7,060,777; No. 7,066,843; No. 7,074,138; No. 7,083,534; No. 7,147,578; No. 7,118,497; No. 7,121,961; No. 7,128,666; No. 7,134,974; No. 7,160,207; No. 7,160,210; No. 7,182,701; No. 7,198,577; No. 7,198,578; No. 7,199,192; No. 7,208,562; and No. 7,244,196.
34. Defendant marked (or caused to be marked) at least the following products: Warbird Plus with the following patent numbers: United States Patent No. D449,358; No. 4,911,451 (“the ‘451 Patent”); No. 5,120,791; No. 5,300,325; No. 5,306,760; No. 5,312,857; No. 5,324,783; No. 5,328,959; No. 5,360,314; No. 5,368,304; No. 5,397,840; No. 5,409,233; No. 5,409,974; No. 5,459,220; No. 5,470,075; No. 5,494,291; No. 5,542,677; No. 5,580,057; No. 5,580,323; No. 5,588,924; No. 5,591,803; No. 5,688,869; No. 5,722,543; No. 5,733,207; No. 5,770,325; No. 5,827,134; No. 5,885,173; No. 5,902,855; No. 5,971,870; No. 5,971,872; No. 6,001,177; No. 6,033,724; No. 6,100,336; No. 6,100,361; No. 6,149,983; No. 6,179,730; No. 6,191,185; No. 6,193,616; No. 6,239,222; No. 6,245,858; No. 6,258,302; No. 6,267,693; No. 6,271,316; No. 6,277,920; No. 6,290,615; No. 6,312,347; No. 6,315,684; No. 6,325,730; No. 6,340,503; No. 6,350,114; No. 6,350,815; No. 6,368,236; No. 6,376,612; No. 6,394,915; No. 6,395,861; No. 6,407,176; No. 6,413,172; No. 6,441,056; No. 6,461,253; No. 6,485,377; No. 6,492,464; No. 6,494,792; No. 6,565,457; No. 6,573,335; No. 6,612,940; No. 6,639,024; No. 6,736,736; No. 6,739,985; No. 6,743,847; No. 6,800,695; No. 6,881,049; No. 6,958,020; No. 6,979,272; No. 7,048,651; No. 7,083,534; No. 7,118,497; No. 7,128,666; No. 7,160,211; No. 7,198,577; No. 7,198,578; andNo. 7,199,192.
35.   The ‘556 Patent, titled “golf ball core by addition of dispersing agents,” was issued by the United States Patent Office on June 13, 1989, and expired at the latest on December 24, 2007. A copy of the ’556 patent is attached as Exhibit A.
36.   The ‘884 Patent, titled “use of metal carbamate accelerator in peroxide-cured golf ball center formulation,” was issued by the United States Patent Office on August 1, 1989, and expired at the latest on December 24, 2007. A copy of the ‘884 patent is attached as Exhibit B.
37.   The ‘814 Patent, titled “golf ball,” was issued by the United States Patent Office on December 5, 1989, and expired at the latest on January 15, 2008. A copy of the ‘814 patent is attached as Exhibit C.
38.   The ‘451 Patent, titled “golf ball cover of neutralized poly(ethylene-acrylic acid) copolymer,” was issued by the United States Patent Office on March 27, 1990, and expired at the latest on March 29, 2009. A copy of the ‘451 patent is attached as Exhibit D.
39. Because the ‘556, ‘884, ‘814, and ‘451 patents expired, at the latest, on March 29, 2009, any product or method once covered by the claims of the three patents are no longer protected by the patent laws of the United States. When the patents expired, their formerly protected property entered the public domain. When a patent expires, all monopoly rights in the patent terminate irrevocably and, therefore, a product marked with an expired patent is not “patented” by such expired patent.
40.   Defendant knows that, when a patent expires, all monopoly rights in the patent terminate irrevocably.
41.   Defendant knew that the ‘556 patent expired, at the latest, on December 24, 2007.
42.   Defendant knew that the ‘884 patent expired, at the latest, on December 24, 2007.
43.   Defendant knew that the ‘814 patent expired, at the latest, on January 15, 2008.
44.   Defendant knew that the ‘451 patent expired, at the latest, on March 29, 2009.
45.   Despite the fact that the claims of the four patents are no longer afforded patent protection, Defendant marked (or caused to be marked) at least its Warbird, HX HOT Bite, Big Bertha Diablo, Tour iX, and Warbird Plus with the ‘556, ‘884, ‘814, and/or ‘451 patents following their expiration date.
46.   Alternatively, because all monopoly rights in the ‘556, ‘884, ‘814, and ‘451 patents have terminated, Defendant cannot have any reasonable belief that its Warbird, HX HOT Bite, Big Bertha Diablo, Tour iX, and Warbird Plus products are patented or covered by any of the four patents.
47.   Defendant intended to deceive the public by marking (or causing to be marked) its Warbird, HX HOT Bite, Big Bertha Diablo, Tour iX, and Warbird Plus products with the ‘556, ‘884, ‘814, and/or ‘451 patents.
48.   Defendant knew that its Warbird, HX HOT Bite, Big Bertha Diablo, Tour iX, and
Warbird Plus products are not covered by the ‘556, ‘884, ‘814, nor ‘451 patents.
49.   Therefore, Defendant intentionally deceived the public by labeling the Warbird, HX HOT Bite, Big Bertha Diablo, Tour iX, and Warbird Plus product packaging with the ‘556, ‘884, ‘814, and/or ‘451 patents.
50.   Defendant intended to deceive the public by marking (or causing to be marked) the Warbird, HX HOT Bite, Big Bertha Diablo, Tour iX, and Warbird Plus product with the ‘556, ‘884, ‘814, and/or ‘451 patents.

Well, I predict that Texas Data is going to be disappointed, and if they aren't then I am going to be disappointed that I didn't jump on board this treasure hunt months ago!

Dave Dawsey - The IP Golf Guy

I thought it was a Cool New Nike Putter, Turns Out it is a Driver or Wood

David Dawsey PE Esq — Sat, 24 Jul 2010 05:00:00 GMT

Nike R&D must be a pretty cool place to work because it doesn’t look like they rule out any club head designs as being too radical. In fact, just check out a few recent posts on some of their interesting designs (HERE, HERE, HERE, HERE, and HERE). Well, this week I opened up a Nike patent application that had just published and thought “interesting putter.” A few seconds later I realized that the application is not directed to a putter, but rather a driver or fairway wood. Now they had my attention!

The patent application published as US Pub. No. 20100184532 titled “Golf Club Assembly and Golf Club Head with Bar and Weighted Member.” Check out this design!

The patent application explains:

[0020] An illustrative embodiment of a golf club 10 is shown in FIG. 1 and includes a shaft 12 and a golf club head 14 attached to shaft 12. Golf club head 14 may be any driver, wood, or the like. Shaft 12 of golf club 10 may be made of various materials, such as steel, aluminum, titanium, graphite, or composite materials, as well as alloys and/or combinations thereof, including materials that are conventionally known and used in the art. Additionally, the shaft 12 may be attached to the club head 14 in any desired manner, including in conventional manners known and used in the art (e.g., via adhesives or cements at a hosel element, via fusing techniques (e.g., welding, brazing, soldering, etc.), via threads or other mechanical connectors, via friction fits, via retaining element structures, etc.). A grip or other handle element 16 is positioned on shaft 12 to provide a golfer with a slip resistant surface with which to grasp golf club shaft 12. Grip element 16 may be attached to shaft 12 in any desired manner, including in conventional manners known and used in the art (e.g., via adhesives or cements, via threads or other mechanical connectors, via fusing techniques, via friction fits, via retaining element structures, etc.).

[0021] Club head 14 includes a plurality of components. As illustrated, this example golf club head 14 includes a body member 16 and a face plate 18 positioned on a front surface of body member 16. A first arm 20 and a second arm 22, spaced from first arm 20, extend rearwardly from body member 16 defining between the arms a space 23 that extends through club head 14. In the illustrated embodiment, body member 16, first arm 20, and second arm 22 cooperate to form a substantially V-shaped club head 14.

[0022] A bar 24 has a first end 26 connected to a free end 28 of first arm 20, and a second end 30 connected to a free end 32 of second arm 22 such that bar 24 extends between first arm 20 and second arm 22. In certain embodiments, bar 24 is curved. In the embodiment illustrated in FIG. 1, bar 24 is curved outwardly away from free ends 28 and 32 of first and second arms 20, 22, respectively, in a direction extending away from body member 16 and face plate 18.

[0023] In the illustrated embodiment a first mounting member 34 is connected to first end 26 of bar 24. A first aperture 36 extends through first mounting member 34, and a fastener, such as first screw 38 extends through first aperture 36 and secures first mounting member 34 to first arm 20.

[0024] Similarly, a second mounting member 40 is connected to second end 30 of bar 24. A second aperture 42 extends through second mounting member 40, and a fastener, such as second screw 44 extends through second aperture 42 and secures second mounting member 40 to second arm 22.

[0025] In the illustrated embodiment, bar 24 has a substantially cylindrical cross-section. It is to be appreciated that bar 24 can have another cross-section such as rectangular, triangular, or any other desired cross-section. Bar 24 may be formed of various materials, such as steel, aluminum, titanium, graphite, or composite materials, as well as alloys and/or combinations thereof, including materials that are conventionally known and used in the art.

[0026] A weighted member 46 is positioned on and movable along bar 24. Weighted member 46 has a central aperture 48 extending therethrough. In the illustrated embodiment, with bar 24 having a substantially cylindrical cross-section, central aperture 48 is substantially cylindrical. It is to be appreciated that central aperture 48 would have a shape mating with that of the cross-section of bar 24.

[0027] In certain embodiments, a fastener such as a set screw 50 extends through an aperture 52 formed in weighted member 46 to secure weighted member 46 to bar 24. Thus, weighted member 46 can be moved to any desired position along bar 24 and secured in that desired position with set screw 50, or any other suitable fastener. By positioning weighted member 46 at different positions along bar 24, the performance of club head can be altered and optimized to accommodate the swing of a particular golfer, and can be changed for a particular golfer as their swing changes over time. By moving weighted member 46, the center of gravity of the club can be altered, provide a club head that is more toe-weighted or heel-weighted, as well as moving the center of gravity closer to or further away from face plate 18.

[0028] Weighted member 46 may be formed of various materials, such as steel, aluminum, titanium, graphite, or composite materials, as well as alloys and/or combinations thereof, including materials that are conventionally known and used in the art.

[0029] In certain embodiments, as illustrated in FIG. 2, bar 24 may be curved inwardly toward body member 16 and face plate 18. Additionally, a plurality of recesses 53 may be formed along bar 24, each of which is sized to accommodate set screw 50, thereby providing an improved registration of weighted member with respect to bar 24. Recesses 53 provide a limited number of positions at which weighted member 46 may be secured along bar 24. It is to be appreciated that other fasteners may be used to removably secure weighted member 46 to bar 24, such as pins, fasteners with a ball and mating recesses, or other detent mechanisms. Other suitable fasteners for removably securing weighted member 46 to bar 24 will become readily apparent to those skilled in the art, given the benefit of this disclosure.

[0030] In certain embodiments, as illustrated in FIG. 3, a sole plate 54 may be included in club head 14. Sole plate 54 is secured to a bottom surface of body 16 of club head 14, and extends laterally across club head 14 between first arm 20 and second arm 22. Sole plate 54 may be formed of the same material as body 16 or any other desired material.

[0031] Sole plate 54 may extend rearwardly from a front edge of club head 14 along only a portion of first arm 20 and second arm 22. In the illustrated example, sole plate 54 extends rearwardly to approximately a midpoint or central portion of each of first arm 20 and second arm 22. In such an embodiment, an upper surface 56 of sole plate 54 is exposed to an exterior of club head 14 through space 23 formed between first arm 20 and second arm 22. The remainder of space 23 rearwardly of sole plate 54 is unobstructed and provides a clear path vertically through club head 14. The inclusion of sole plate 54 provides a club head for a driver that conforms to the current requirements of the United States Golf Association.

[0032] Another embodiment is illustrated in FIG. 4 in which bar 24 is pivotable with respect to first arm 20 and second arm 22. In this embodiment, as shown by the solid lines, bar 24 can be pivoted to a point where it curves outwardly away from body 16. Bar 24 can also be pivoted, as shown in dashed lines, such that it curves inwardly toward body 16. In such an embodiment, first end 26 of bar 24 may be pivotally received in a first aperture 58 formed in first mounting member 34, and second end 30 of bar 24 may be pivotally received in a corresponding second aperture (not visible) in second mounting member 40. In other embodiments, first aperture 58 may be formed directly in free end 28 of first arm 20 and the corresponding second aperture. It is to be appreciated in certain embodiments, bar 24 may be temporarily fixed with respect to body 16 once it has been pivoted to a desired position by a detent mechanism or any other means, and other suitable means will become readily apparent to those skilled in the art, given the benefit of this disclosure. Providing bar 24 with the ability to pivot allows the center of gravity of club head 14 to be moved closer to, or further away from face plate 18.

[0033] Another embodiment is shown in FIG. 5, in which a movable indicator 60 is located on club head 14. In the illustrated embodiment indicator 60 is positioned on upper surface 56 of sole plate 54. In certain embodiments, an aperture 62 in indicator 60 receives and pivots about a pin or post 64 extending upwardly from upper surface 56 of sole plate 54. Movable indicator 60 can be pivoted by the user to a desired position to assist the user in aligning their golf shot. In the illustrated embodiment in FIG. 5 a first end 66 of indicator 60 is hemispherical in shape and contains aperture 62, with a second end 68 tapering to a point as it extends away from first end 66. It is to be appreciated that indicator 60 can be made of any desired material, and may be formed of the same material as that of body 16, or any other material.

[0034] Another embodiment is illustrated in FIG. 6 in which bar 24 extends straight between first arm 20 and second arm 22 rather than being curved between the arms. Such an embodiment allows the center of gravity of club head 14 to be moved laterally along club head 14 between a toe-weighted weighted position and a heel-weighted position, while maintaining the distance between the center of gravity and face plate 18.

[0035] Yet another embodiment is shown in FIG. 7, in which sole plate 56 extends rearwardly to the free ends 28 and 32 of first arm 20 and second arm 22, respectively. In this embodiment, bar 24 pivots with respect to first arm 20 and second arm 22, and retaining members are used to removably secure bar 24 to sole plate 56. In the illustrated example, a pair of first retaining members 70 in the form of first spring clips 70 are secured to upper surface 56 of sole plate 54, and serve to releasably receive bar 24 when bar 24 is in a forwardly rotated position, thereby releasably securing bar 24 to sole plate 54. A pair of second retaining members 72 in the form of second spring clips 72 are secured to upper surface 56 of sole plate 54, and serve to releasably receive bar 24 when bar 24 is in a rearwardly rotated position, thereby releasably securing bar 24 to sole plate 54. Releasably securing bar 24 to sole plate 54 with first and second retaining members 70, 72 may help enhance the rigidity of club head 14.

[0036] As noted above, in the illustrated embodiment a pair of first retaining members 70 and a pair of second retaining members 72 are used to releasably secure bar 24 to sole plate 54. However, it is to be appreciated that in other embodiments, a single first retaining member and single may be used to releasably secure bar 24 to sole plate 54. In yet other embodiments, more than two first retaining members and more than two second retaining members may be used to secure bar 24 to sole plate 54.

[0037] Although spring clips are illustrated here for first and second retaining members 70, 72, it is to be appreciated that any suitable retaining member may be used to releasably secure bar 24 to sole plate 54. Other suitable configurations and constructions for retaining members 70, 72 will become readily apparent to those skilled in the art, given the benefit of this disclosure.

I just wish some of these radical designs would make it to the market so we could see if they would sell. So, are you more like to game this Nike V-shaped golf club head or Callaway’s C-shaped golf club head?

Dave Dawsey - The IP Golf Guy

So What’s the Deal with Tiger’s New Putter; Whoops, I Mean His Old Putter

David Dawsey PE Esq — Tue, 20 Jul 2010 05:00:00 GMT

Ugh, I am so sick of hearing about Tiger’s new Nike putter, which seems to now be his old putter, and I am a guy that likes hearing the announcers talk about the equipment being used (and I actually do like the putter). Despite my disgust, I bet the Nike Golf website’s traffic blew-up this weekend and I am sure sales spiked. So what do I do…. talk more about it of course by looking into the intellectual property aspects of this putter design.

Well, there is no doubt that Nike values the intellectual property concerning the design because they have invested some change in protecting the design. So far they have no less than 2 issued utility patents directed to aspects of the face (USPN 7717801 & 7713139), at least one design patent on the face design (USPN D605242), and at least six pending utility patent applications, which is not unheard of for a popular putter.

The utility patent closest to the actual product is USPN 7717801 titled “putter heads and putters including polymeric material as part of the ball striking face,” which describes the invention as:

Putters include a putter body having a ball striking face member made of a material having a first hardness characteristic. A cavity is defined in the putter body behind the ball striking face member, and plural openings are defined in the ball striking face member extending rearward with respect to the ball striking face member and into the cavity. A polymeric material at least partially fills the openings and the cavity, wherein the polymeric material has a second hardness characteristic that is softer than the first hardness characteristic. The ball striking face member and the polymeric material exposed in at least some of the openings provide a ball striking surface of the putter. The ball striking surface may include grooves or scorelines to affect the launch angle, spin, and/or roll of the ball during a putt. Methods for making such putter devices also are described.

The design patent is USPN D605242 and is directed to the unique face layout seen below.

Lastly, one of the published applications (US Pub. No. 20100087269) discloses an interesting face plate design alternative and contains the following drawings and description:

[0084] Other club constructions are possible without departing from this invention, and FIGS. 17A and 17B illustrate another example golf club head 1700 for use with a golf club, such as a putter. Similar to the arrangements described above, the golf club head 1700 includes a front face 1704 including a ball striking surface 1706. In the arrangement of FIGS. 17A and 17B, at least a portion of the ball striking surface 1706 may be formed separately from the remainder of the front face 1704 and may comprise an insert 1707 configured to be received in a recess, such as recess 1709 shown in FIG. 17B, formed in the front face 1704 of the golf club head 1700.

[0085] In at least some examples, the insert 1707 may include a plate, such as a front plate portion 1720, into which grooves of various sizes, configurations, shapes, etc. may be machined or otherwise formed. In some examples, the plate 1720 may be between 1 mm and 4 mm thick and, in some examples, may be approximately 2 mm thick. As mentioned, the plate 1720 may include grooves 1715 formed therein. The grooves 1715 may, in some arrangements, extend completely through the plate 1720 (i.e., forming a through hole in the plate) or may extend partially through the plate 1720. Additionally or alternatively, the grooves 1715 may have a constant depth, width, height, etc. across the plate 1720. However, in some examples, the depth, width, height, etc. of one or more grooves 1715 may vary along the length of the groove 1715, along the plate 1720, and the like. Additionally or alternatively, the grooves 1715, or a portion thereof, may be arranged generally horizontally across the face of the golf club head 1700 when the club is in a ball address position. In other arrangements, the grooves 1715 may extend in a non-horizontal linear, circular, semi-circular, or other curved pattern on the face.

[0086] The plate 1720 may be formed of any suitable material, including metals such as aluminum, steel, titanium, nickel, beryllium, copper, combinations or alloys including these metals, and the like. Once the grooves 1715 are formed in the plate 1720, the plate 1720 may be pressed together ("co-molded") with a moldable, polymer material backing 1730, such as thermoplastic polyurethane or a thermoset material. In some examples, the polymer material 1730 may have a hardness range between 25 and 85 Shore D. In some specific examples, the polymer material backing 1730 may have a hardness range between 35 and 45 Shore D, 50 and 60 Shore D or 60 and 70 Shore D. Forcing the polymer material 1730 together with the front plate 1720 (for example, as indicated by arrows 1725) forms the insert 1707 (as shown in FIG. 17 having polymer material filling the grooves 1715 formed in the plate 1720 to provide a ball striking surface having both metal and polymer contacting the ball. The surface of the polymer backing material 1730 may be pre-formed with projections 1732 to fit into grooves 1715, and/or the polymer material 1730 may be forced into the grooves 1715 during the pressing operation. This combination of metal and polymer materials on the ball striking face may provide improved performance of the golf club including softer feel, increased spin rate, more true roll, a more metallic ball striking sound, etc.

[0087] In some examples, during the pressing or co-molding process, the front surface of the plate 1720 (which will correspond to the face plate of the putter) may be held against a mold surface so that scorelines may be formed in the polymer material. Optionally, if desired, some portion of the scorelines may be cut into the metal portion of the grooves either before or after the co-molding or pressing process. Alternatively, if desired, the score lines may be cut into the polymer and/or metal of the plate after the insert 1707 has been made.

[0088] The insert 1707 may be engaged with a recess 1709 formed in the front face 1704 of the golf club head 1700 (as indicated by arrow 1740) in any desired manner. For instance, the recess 1709 may be milled or otherwise machined into the front face 1704 during manufacture, or it may simply be formed into the desired shape, e.g., during a molding, casting, forging, or other fabrication operation. The insert 1707 may be shaped to correspond to the shape of the recess 1709 and may be configured to be received in the recess 1709. The insert 1707 may be engaged with or connected to the recess 1709 and/or the golf club head 1700 in any desired manner, such as via adhesives and cements; via fusing techniques (e.g., welding, soldering, brazing, etc.); via mechanical fasteners or connectors (including releasable mechanical connectors); and the like. If desired, the insert 1707 may rest on a ledge or other structure defined in the recess 1709 (e.g., along the side, top, and/or bottom edges of the recess 1709).

[0089] In some examples, the insert 1707 may be removable to allow for customization and/or personalization of the insert 1707 and/or golf club head 1700. For instance, the insert 1707 may be releasably connected to the golf club head 1700 using mechanical connectors to secure the insert 1707 in the recess 1709 (e.g., screws, bolts or other connectors may extend from a rear side of the golf club head toward a front region of the golf club head to engage threaded regions provided on the insert 1707, it may be engaged from the bottom surface of the putter upward, it may be engaged from the top surface of the putter downward, etc.). Personalization and customization features may include various characteristics such as polymer and/or metal color (e.g., team colors, color associated with a cause or promotion, player preference, etc.); polymer and/or metal hardness (e.g., harder or softer for different play conditions or swing types); graphics on the polymer and/or metal (e.g., logos, etc.); etc.

[0090] In some arrangements, the metal plate 1720 may be replaced by a plate formed of a polymer of a different hardness from the backing material polymer 1730, thereby forming an insert 1707 of all polymer. For instance, the metal plate 1720 may be replaced with a plate formed of a polymer material having a higher Shore hardness value than the polymer 1730 filling the grooves 1715 of the insert 1707. This all polymer insert may aid in further reducing weight associated with the golf club head 1700. Additionally or alternatively, the polymer material 1730 may be replaced with a metal of a different hardness from the original metal, thereby forming an insert of all metal.

[0091] If desired, the rear surface of recess 1709 may be formed to include a polymer or other material to provide a consistent backing or base against which insert 1707 is mounted. As another alternative, if desired, the material of the polymer backing layer 1730 may be included in the recess 1709 and the club head may be formed by pressing plate 1720 against the polymer backing material 1730 in the recess 1709 to force the polymer material 1730 into the grooves of the plate 1720. If necessary, one or more overflow holes may be provided to allow any excess polymer material 1730 to escape from the club head during the pressing operation.

[0092] In some example, the polymer included in the recess 1709 may be a material different from the polymer material filling the grooves 1715 of the insert 1707. For instance, polymers of different Shore hardness values may be used for the polymer in the recess 1709 and the polymer filling the grooves 1715. In some examples, the polymer filling the grooves 1715 may have a higher Shore hardness than the polymer in the recess 1709. The harder polymer in the grooves 1715 may aid in creating top spin on the ball while the softer polymer in the recess may aid in providing a soft "feel" for the putter.

[0134] FIGS. 26A and 26B illustrate some example effects of various features of this invention, particularly in the presence of the relatively soft polymer fill material in the club head body material (e.g., a thermoplastic polyurethane, which can somewhat grip the ball) and/or a relatively soft ball cover material. More specifically, various advantageous aspects of the invention may be provided by including sharp scorelines in the polymer and/or metal (to provide sharp edges on the putter face that can help grip the ball) and by providing a relatively low loft angle on the putter face (e.g., about 2 degrees as compared to 4 degrees for conventional putters).

[0135] First, as a ball sits on the green, its weight forces it down somewhat into the grass. When putting, the putter must first somewhat "pop" the ball out of this settled condition. Therefore, putter faces generally have some loft to help launch the ball at an upward angle (as mentioned in various arrangements above). This upward angle, however, propels the ball upward (in some instances the ball may actually leave the ground), which causes it to fly or skid across the green before it begins a true roll, as shown in FIG. 26A. This bounce or skid can present some inconsistency in speed, because the ball does not always "fly" or "skid" the same amount, and it can end up taking inconsistent amounts of energy off the ball during the transition between the flying and skidding mode to the rolling mode. In some instances, the loft of the club can actually put a small amount of backspin on the ball.

[0136] Putter structures in accordance with at least some examples of this invention, however, may provide quicker and truer roll as compared to conventional putters. As noted above, because of the soft polymer materials and the sharp edges in the polymer and metal (e.g., from the scorelines), the putter face tends to "grip" the ball a bit better during a putt. This helps "pop" the ball out of its settled condition somewhat more easily and tends to better induce top spin on the ball (which tends to keep the ball on the ground and get it rolling somewhat more quickly). Also, these features allow the putter head to have a less lofted face angle (e.g., 2 degrees vs. a conventional 4 degrees). Thus, the ball does not tend to launch as high out of the settled condition, causing it to more quickly contact the ground once out of the settled position, and the induced top spin gets it rolling more quickly. A schematic diagram of an example trajectory of the ball using an example putter according to this invention is shown in FIG. 26B.

[0137] The microgrooves, as described in conjunction with the arrangement illustrated in FIGS. 25A-25C can also enhance the ball grip and imparting top spin on the ball.

[0138] As shown in FIGS. 26A and 26B, putters in accordance with examples of this invention may get the ball rolling much earlier during the course of a putt (e.g., within about 2 inches or less for the putters according to the invention vs. at about 4 to 5 inches for conventional putters). Moreover, by getting the ball rolling earlier, with less bounce and skid (and the uncertainty introduced into the putt due to these undesired factors), putters in accordance with examples of this invention tend to provide more reliable and repeatable putting distances, putted ball speeds, and distance control.

[0139]Moreover, the combination of metal and polymer on the face of the putter provides a nice, soft and consistent feel (optionally controllable by selecting the hardnesses of the various parts) while still providing a more conventional "metal-on-ball" sound (or "click") of conventional putters. This sound feature also is an important part of the "feel" for many golfers, and maintaining this metallic sound helps prevent a more "dead" sound of putting a ball against a full polymer material on a putter face (e.g., as provided in many conventional putters that simply have a polymer insert).

Cool stuff, but I think it is time for the media to put a fork in it; after all, how much free exposure can one product get. Sure makes you appreciate the value of an endorsement from Tiger, even if he eventually switched back to his old putter.

Dave Dawsey - Watching Golf Putting Patents

PS – check out additional putter patents HERE

Thumbs Up to this Training Aid

David Dawsey PE Esq — Mon, 19 Jul 2010 05:00:00 GMT

I recently stumbled across a patent directed to a unique training device. The patent is USPN 7104897 titled “Golf Swing Training Device,” which describes the invention as:

A golf club for training golfers is disclosed. A specific club head shape encourages the golfer to envision impacting the golf ball with the back of their leading hand. A color system on the golf club handle helps with the release. The heel of the club head is heavier than the toe, promoting an inside-out swing. Additionally, the golf club head is heavier than an average golf club, improving the golfer's strength.

The patent goes on to explain:

2. Background Art

It is common for golfers to attempt to scoop the golf ball with their golf club. Instead, a golfer should swing their golf club as though they were impacting the golf ball with the back of their leading hand (left hand for a right handed golfer). Additionally, the toe of a golf club head should be rotated faster than the heel. Neither conventional golf clubs nor clubs specifically made for golf training are ideally suited to encourage a learning golfer to practice these three aspects properly.

A golf club swing training device was disclosed in U.S. Pat. No. 4,569,525 by Folger. The Folger invention is made to aid a golfer in the address position, and focuses on line of flight. Folger does not comment on a golfer envisioning striking the ball with the back of his or her leading hand, nor on rotating the toe of the club head faster than the heel.

Therefore, there is a need for an improved training golf club having features to aid a golf trainee in learning a proper swing by envisioning impacting the ball with the back of their leading hand, encouraging a proper release, and rotating the toe of the golf club head faster than the heel.

BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION

An object of the present invention is to provide a training golf club having features to encourage a golf trainee to envision impacting the ball with the back of their leading hand. The training golf club of the present invention meets this object by using a novel head shape. The shape is that of the trainee's leading hand: a left hand for a right handed golfer, and a right hand for a left handed golfer. The hand-shaped head is embellished with color coding for visual indications to the trainee when he or she is correctly swinging the club.

Another object is to provide color coding to help a golf trainee learn a proper release. On the handle of the training golf club, two different colors are applied. A first color is applied to the side of the grip corresponding to the "palm" side of the shaped head while a second, different color, easily distinguishable from the first is applied to the side of the grip corresponding to the back side of the hand-shaped training club head. The trainee observes the colors on the handle as well as the color indices on the hand-shaped head to determine the proper release.

Still another object is to utilize a specific weighting method to encourage the rotation of the toe of the golf club head faster than the rotation of the heel of the golf club head. A proper swing includes a rotation of the golf club in a counterclockwise direction for a right handed golfer and clockwise for a left handed golfer. By weighting the heel portion of the hand shaped training golf club head greater than the toe portion, the correct rotation is encouraged.

It doesn’t look like it could hurt my swing, so I would give it a try.

David Dawsey – Keeping an Eye on Golf Practice Inventions

PS – click HERE to read interesting golf ball patent posts

Are Fluid Filled Irons on the Horizon?

David Dawsey PE Esq — Sun, 18 Jul 2010 05:00:00 GMT

Almost two and a half years ago I posted about a Nike patent application directed to an iron design having a fluid-filled bladder. Well, the application made its way through the patent office and issued last week as USPN 7749100 titled “Golf Clubs and Golf Club Heads Having Fluid-Filled Bladders and/or Interior Chambers.” The fact that Nike saw the application all the way through the patent application prosecution process and paid to have the patent issue makes me wonder if we will actually see a commercial product with a fluid-filled bladder. Wouldn’t that be interesting! Click HERE to read the prior post and learn about this design.

If you can’t get enough of the subject then you can also click HERE to review a patent issued to Fu Sheng regarding a club head incorporating a “gas cushion.”

Enjoy!

David Dawsey – The Golf Attorney

Can't Get Enough of the British Open?

David Dawsey PE Esq — Sat, 17 Jul 2010 05:00:00 GMT

Today I get to recycle an old post regarding the trademark portfolio related to the British Open. Click HERE to find out who really owns the OPEN registered trademark!

Dave Dawsey - Monitoring Golf's Trademarks