The Saga Continues... Acushnet Files Motion and Brief Requesting Judgment as a Matter of Law Regarding the Invalidity of Callaway's Patents, OR a New Trial
Last week’s post titled “Callaway Seeks Permanent Injunction… Is There A Risk That Titleist ProV1’s Will No Longer Be Available?” has obtained the distinction of being the most widely read Golf-Patents blog post of all time! Well, this one should beat it.
This post is not related to Callaway’s Motion for a permanent injunction; because Acushnet has not yet filed their response. Rather, this post is directed to Acushnet’s requests for “post-trial” relief.
Back on January 7th Acushnet filed a document entitled “Acushnet Company’s Motion for Post-Trial Relief.” (Click HERE to read the actual document) In this motion Acushnet renewed its motion for “judgment as a matter of law” as to the invalidity of Callaway’s patents-in-suit, and moved, in the alternative, for a new trial (and/or to alter or amend the Court’s judgment as to such claims). In this motion Acushnet stated:
Basically the January 7th “Acushnet Company’s Motion for Post-Trial Relief” asserts that no reasonable jury could have come to the verdict that this particular jury came to, and it enumerates several alleged errors of the Court.
Now, this week Acushnet filed a brief in support of their January 7th motion. The brief is titled “Acushnet’s Opening Brief in Support of Its Motion for Post Trial Relief.” (Click HERE to read the entire brief in support)
While the Brief in Support is 59 pages, once you eliminate all the boilerplate legal requirements… it is very manageable to read the entire document, and well worth your time (although, I have to warn you that if you don’t love patents… it may put you to sleep; but who doesn’t love patents?). After all, any brief that leads with the statement “Acushnet will show that the evidence adduced at trial can support only one legal conclusion – that all the claims-in-suit are obvious and invalid,” has a lot to prove.
While the Brief in Support included 6 exhibits, one exhibit in particular is very interesting (click HERE to view Exhibit 4). Exhibit 4 contains almost 60 slides used during Callaway’s opening statement at trial. Any golfer will enjoy skimming through these slides. Check them out.
I am not going to summarize the Brief in Support because a lot of the content focuses on issues that only attorneys are interested in, but I will point out a few interesting things that I learned while reading it. One statement in particular jumped out at me (although I don’t feel that it is particularly significant to the case… just interesting), was “If Spalding and Callaway truly believed that practicing the claims of the Sullivan patents was the reason the ProV1 was successful, one wonders why Spalding never chose to use this claimed technology in its products, and why Callaway has since abandoned it completely.” I did not realize that! Another interesting fact… “For the past 25 years, Titleist has been played by the majority of the professional players on the U.S. PGA Tour and more than all other golf balls combined.”
I must admit, Acushnet’s Brief in Support is pretty darn good; but, when there is so much money at stake I wouldn’t expect anything less from either side. Can you imagine how much has been spent on legal fees so far?
Again, if nothing else… check out these slides from Callaway’s opening statement at trial.
David Dawsey – The Golf Patent Lawyer
PS – Other posts regarding this lawsuit include:
a) General post
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
j) Post re the verdict
k) Post re Callaway’s Motion for Permanent Injunction
This post is not related to Callaway’s Motion for a permanent injunction; because Acushnet has not yet filed their response. Rather, this post is directed to Acushnet’s requests for “post-trial” relief.
Back on January 7th Acushnet filed a document entitled “Acushnet Company’s Motion for Post-Trial Relief.” (Click HERE to read the actual document) In this motion Acushnet renewed its motion for “judgment as a matter of law” as to the invalidity of Callaway’s patents-in-suit, and moved, in the alternative, for a new trial (and/or to alter or amend the Court’s judgment as to such claims). In this motion Acushnet stated:
“As will be detailed in Acushnet’s supporting memorandum, the jury’s determination of the validity of those asserted claims is not supported by substantial record evidence and is legally unsound. Based on the evidence presented at trial, the jury could only have entered its verdict fully in Acushnet’s favor. No reasonable juror could find, for example, that secondary considerations demonstrate the asserted claims are valid, when, as here, each limitation is taught by the prior art and motivations to combine the references are provided repeatedly in the prior art references themselves. The Court should therefore enter judgment in favor of Acushnet on all questions of validity.”
“At a minimum, to prevent a miscarriage of justice, the validity of the claims found valid by jury [sic] should be retried.”
“At a minimum, to prevent a miscarriage of justice, the validity of the claims found valid by jury [sic] should be retried.”
Basically the January 7th “Acushnet Company’s Motion for Post-Trial Relief” asserts that no reasonable jury could have come to the verdict that this particular jury came to, and it enumerates several alleged errors of the Court.
Now, this week Acushnet filed a brief in support of their January 7th motion. The brief is titled “Acushnet’s Opening Brief in Support of Its Motion for Post Trial Relief.” (Click HERE to read the entire brief in support)
While the Brief in Support is 59 pages, once you eliminate all the boilerplate legal requirements… it is very manageable to read the entire document, and well worth your time (although, I have to warn you that if you don’t love patents… it may put you to sleep; but who doesn’t love patents?). After all, any brief that leads with the statement “Acushnet will show that the evidence adduced at trial can support only one legal conclusion – that all the claims-in-suit are obvious and invalid,” has a lot to prove.
While the Brief in Support included 6 exhibits, one exhibit in particular is very interesting (click HERE to view Exhibit 4). Exhibit 4 contains almost 60 slides used during Callaway’s opening statement at trial. Any golfer will enjoy skimming through these slides. Check them out.
I am not going to summarize the Brief in Support because a lot of the content focuses on issues that only attorneys are interested in, but I will point out a few interesting things that I learned while reading it. One statement in particular jumped out at me (although I don’t feel that it is particularly significant to the case… just interesting), was “If Spalding and Callaway truly believed that practicing the claims of the Sullivan patents was the reason the ProV1 was successful, one wonders why Spalding never chose to use this claimed technology in its products, and why Callaway has since abandoned it completely.” I did not realize that! Another interesting fact… “For the past 25 years, Titleist has been played by the majority of the professional players on the U.S. PGA Tour and more than all other golf balls combined.”
I must admit, Acushnet’s Brief in Support is pretty darn good; but, when there is so much money at stake I wouldn’t expect anything less from either side. Can you imagine how much has been spent on legal fees so far?
Again, if nothing else… check out these slides from Callaway’s opening statement at trial.
David Dawsey – The Golf Patent Lawyer
PS – Other posts regarding this lawsuit include:
a) General post
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
j) Post re the verdict
k) Post re Callaway’s Motion for Permanent Injunction
Comments