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 order stating the following:

1. Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment of breach of contract (D.I. 197) is granted.
2. Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment of no anticipation (D.I. 200) is granted.
3. Defendant’s motion for partial summary judgment regarding incorporation by reference (D.I. 201) is denied.
4. Defendant’s motion for summary judgment of no breach of contract (D.I. 213) is denied.
5. Defendant’s motion for summary judgment of invalidity (D.I. 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 Memorandum Opinion. I encourage you to read through it because is does an excellent job of explaining the case, many of the key issues, and the court’s thoughts. (I knew that if I waited long enough the court would nicely summarize the case for me)

After reading the Memorandum Opinion ask yourself… does it seem as though the court feels that one side has a stronger case?

It may be a good thing for Acushnet that golfers have been paying an arm and a leg for those Titleist ProV1’s.

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