Dogleg Right Corporation Is At It Again, This Time With a Patent Infringement Lawsuit Against SIK Golf

No stranger to patent infringement litigation, this week Dogleg Right Corporation sued SIK Sports (dba SIK Golf) alleging infringement of 5 patents, namely USPN 7828672, 8177662, 8382604, 8616991, and 9149694. You may read the entire complaint HERE. The following excerpts illustrate a classic relationship gone bad scenario.

12. DOGLEG, principally through Mr. Billings, also offers consulting services throughout the industry to various companies engaged in the sale of golf equipment, and also provides Research and Development assistance to such companies.
13. In and around mid-May 2017, while attending the 2017 HP Byron Nelson Golfing Championship, Mr. Billings met Stephen Harrison, who is known to be the president of SIK.
14. Upon meeting Mr. Billings, SIK asked DOGLEG to provide it with DOGLEG’s consulting expertise to help SIK gain a foothold in the custom putter market and to provide SIK with technical expertise needed to succeed in the industry.
15. In furtherance of this request, DOGLEG and SIK executed a Letter of Intent on July 26, 2017, outlining the parties’ desires and intent of their relationship.
16. One such aspect of the parties’ intended relationship was for DOGLEG, through Mr. Billings, to provide SIK with expert consultation concerning the design of custom putters.
17. The July 26, 2017 Letter of Intent also contemplated incorporating the technology that is the subject of the DOGLEG RC Patents into SIK products for mutual gain and benefit, which would be governed by a license agreement.
18. Throughout every stage of the parties’ relationship, DOGLEG clearly and unequivocally advised and offered SIK its consulting services in exchange for payment of $200 per hour for consulting services, plus reimbursement of out-of-packet expenses (such as for meal and travel related expenses), and, where appropriate, a license fee for use of any of the technology contained within any of the DOGLEG RC Patents. SIK accepted such terms, and even paid DOGLEG a deposit to engage DOGLEG in such capacity.
19. DOGLEG was also requested to manufacture 500 SIK Gold Pro-C putter heads, and a deposit was made by SIK in connection with this request.
20. DOGLEG accepted such request, but SIK soon thereafter began to change the original contract requirements as to how the putter heads should be constructed and finished.
21. As such, DOGLEG revised and altered its manufacturing efforts, and requisted that SIK pay DOGLEG for added costs of the after-the-fact changes requested by SIK.
22. SIK, however, to date has failed and refused to pay for the added costs of the manufacturing job performed by DOGLEG at SIK’s request.
23. Upon information and belief, SIK never intended to pay the originally agreed upon price for the 500 SIK Golf Pro-C putter heads, and, instead, always intended to change the order requirements midstream on DOGLEG with the intent to not pay DOGLEG for the more expensive requirements added to the order.
24. Through information and belief, however, it is also believed that SIK always intended to retain the benefit of DOGLEG’s services, without fair and full payment to DOGLEG.
25. In similar fashion, SIK also consistently engaged DOGLEG to provide it with DOGLEG’s expert knowledge in the custom putter industry.
26. Such services included, but were not limited to, providing consulting services on the style and design of a putter, and in designing and building CAD CAM files for use by SIK.
27. Some of the design consultation work performed by DOGLEG on SIK’s behalf (and at SIK’s request) incorporated the technology of the DOGLEG RC Patents.
28. Without basis, however, SIK has refused to fully compensate DOGLEG for the expert consulting services performed on SIK’s behalf.
29. Instead, SIK has unjustly retained the benefits of the services performed and expert analysis and information conveyed by DOGLEG to SIK during the course of the parties’ relationship.
30. Worse, DOGLEG has recently uncovered that SIK is engaged in, at least, the making of golf putters that infringe on one or more claims of the DOGLEG RC Patents.
31. For example, DOGLEG has obtained photographs and brochures (some publicly available on SIK’s Instagram page, available at {{bad link}} and at https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0205/6246/files/2018_Brochure_revB.pdf) of a golf club make by SIK and referred to by SIK as its “BAD1 putter” (hereinafter the “Accused Infringing Technology”). A screenshot image of the Instagram post is attached hereto as Exhibit F, and the referenced SIK brochure is attached hereto as Exhibit G.
32. The images contained within said Exhibit F and Exhibit G show the Accused Infringing Technology as being formed of a hollow outer shell that has a front face that strikes the ball and an open rear side that accepts a varying number of weights within the hollow shell.
33. A rear cover on the Accused Infringing Technology couples the weight structure with the head and secures it in a recess in the rear of the head opposite the face.
34. The user of the Accused Infringing Technology can select the number and position of the weights and then secures/seals them in with the recessed rear plate/cover.
35. Two threaded machine screws on the Accused Infringing Technology allow the plate/cover to be removed and the weights changed and then the plate/cover can be reattached to the head with the new weight configuration.
36. Furthermore, the Accused Infringing Technology has the additional features of an interchangeable set of modular hosels, such that the shaft alignment configuration can be selected from a series of hosels and interchanged to alter the balance, center of gravity, and center of percussion of the golf club.
37. Based on the foregoing, DOGLEG confirmed that the Accused Infringing Technology manufactured by SIK includes each and every element of at least one (1) claim of each of the DOGLEG RC Patents.

Does SIK Golf sell enough BAD1 putters to make a patent lawsuit a fiscally responsible business decision? Absolutely not! Bad blood, hurt feelings, and revenge keep litigation afloat.

David Dawsey – The Golf Invention Attorney

PS – If you like what we are doing, please considering helping us out and make your online gear purchases through our Amazon affiliate link. Every little purchase helps us keep the site up and running! Thanks.