“The court respectfully disagrees with the conclusion of the PTO…”; Callaway v. Acushnet Lawsuit Gets Interesting as Court Grants 2 of Callaway’s Motions for Summary Judgment and Denies 3 of Acushnet’s Motions for Summary Judgment

A recent Order by the Delaware District Court has dealt a significant blow to Acushnet, leading one to wonder whether Acushnet will be forced to settle a second golf ball patent infringement case this year.

On November 20th the court issued a one page /files/22847-21779/20071120_197.pdf”>197) is granted.
2. Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment of no anticipation (D.I. /files/22847-21779/20071120_201.pdf”>201) is denied.
4. Defendant’s motion for summary judgment of no breach of contract (D.I. /files/22847-21779/20071120_215.pdf”>215) is denied.

While the hotlinks above take you to the actual court order and the parties filings, the real interesting reading material is found in the court’s 30 page David Dawsey  – The IP Golf Guy

PS – Other posts regarding this lawsuit include:

a) General post here 
b) Post re Mickelson subpoena here 
c) Post re Greg Norman subpoena here 
d) Post re jury selection process here
e) Post re proposed jury instructions here
f) Post re proposed verdict form here
g) Post re USPTO reexamination here 

Advertisment ad adsense adlogger