Callaway Seeks Permanent Injunction… Is There A Risk That Titleist ProV1’s Will No Longer Be Available?
As you will recall from the prior post regarding the verdict in the Callaway v. Acushnet… last month a jury found that 8 of the 9 claims at issue are valid… and therefore infringed by Acushnet. Then, a Callaway spokeswoman said… "We have now established in court that our golf ball patents are valid, and that Titleist Pro V1 golf balls infringe those patents. We will immediately start the process of requesting an appropriate remedy, including injunctive relief and damages." Ouch!
Well, it has happened… Callaway has filed a motion for a PERMANENT injunction (motion, proposed order, and redacted supporting brief).
Check out these two paragraphs from Callaway’s proposed order!
Can you imagine if the court issued an Order containing those two paragraphs! I must admit, the redacted supporting brief is pretty compelling… any golfer that plays ProV1’s should read this brief, it is fascinating. Just consider Callaway’s statement “[r]ather than purchase another company or but a ball and re-label it, Callaway Golf developed the Rule 35 from scratch at a cost of over $150 million, tens of thousands of man hours, and several years of work.”
In the interest of fairness, I am sure Acushnet is currently working on a response to Callaway’s motion that will be equally compelling… and I will inform the readers of the Golf-Patents blog as soon as possible.
David Dawsey – The IP Golf Guy
PS – Other posts regarding this lawsuit include:
a) General post here
b) Post re Mickelson subpoena
c) Post re Greg Norman subpoena
d) Post re jury selection process
e) Post re proposed jury instructions
f) Post re proposed verdict form
g) Post re USPTO reexamination of one patent
h) Post re rulings on Motions for Summary Judgment
i) Post re Mickelson’s potential rebuttal testimony
Well, it has happened… Callaway has filed a motion for a PERMANENT injunction (motion, proposed order, and redacted supporting brief).
Check out these two paragraphs from Callaway’s proposed order!
1. Acushnet’s professional golfers currently under contract are permitted to play ProV1 products through the end of the 2008 calendar year. However, in addition to the notice required below in paragraph 4, Acushnet shall notify in writing all professional golfers affiliated with Acushnet that ProV1 products will no longer be available after December 31, 2008.
2. Distributors and retailers of Acushnet’s products, and Acushnet customers may dispose of remaining ProV1 product inventory in their physical possession by sale or otherwise, but Acushnet shall not further supply any distributors, retailers and/or customers with ProV1 products as of the date of this Order.
2. Distributors and retailers of Acushnet’s products, and Acushnet customers may dispose of remaining ProV1 product inventory in their physical possession by sale or otherwise, but Acushnet shall not further supply any distributors, retailers and/or customers with ProV1 products as of the date of this Order.
Can you imagine if the court issued an Order containing those two paragraphs! I must admit, the redacted supporting brief is pretty compelling… any golfer that plays ProV1’s should read this brief, it is fascinating. Just consider Callaway’s statement “[r]ather than purchase another company or but a ball and re-label it, Callaway Golf developed the Rule 35 from scratch at a cost of over $150 million, tens of thousands of man hours, and several years of work.”
In the interest of fairness, I am sure Acushnet is currently working on a response to Callaway’s motion that will be equally compelling… and I will inform the readers of the Golf-Patents blog as soon as possible.
David Dawsey – The IP Golf Guy
PS – Other posts regarding this lawsuit include:
a) General post here
b) Post re Mickelson subpoena
c) Post re Greg Norman subpoena
d) Post re jury selection process
e) Post re proposed jury instructions
f) Post re proposed verdict form
g) Post re USPTO reexamination of one patent
h) Post re rulings on Motions for Summary Judgment
i) Post re Mickelson’s potential rebuttal testimony
Comments