Five Odyssey Putters Come Under Fire in an IP Infringement Lawsuit
Ever heard of EZ Line Putters? Me neither, although I have to admit…. they look pretty nice. Plus, EZ Line Putter owns USPN 4962927 titled “Putter Head.”
So, which Odyssey putters have come under fire? Well, the Odyssey White Hot XG #7 putter, the Odyssey White Hot XG #7 Long putter, the Odyssey Black Series I #7 putter, and the Odyssey White Hot Sabertooth putter have been accused of infringing the ‘927 patent. Plus, the White Hot XG Marxman Blade putter is the subject of trade dress infringement and unfair competition claims.
The ‘927 patent describes the putter as:
And the ‘927 patent includes the following drawings:
You have to keep in mind that the ‘927 patent issued in 1990, long before the radical putter designs common today. The patent has 2 claims including the following independent claim:
The claim has some obvious limitations that are easy to design around, but that requires knowledge of the patent before launching a product and is of little comfort if you have unintentionally designed and produced putters that read upon the claim.
This should be another interesting golf club patent infringement lawsuit to monitor.
David Dawsey – Keeping an Eye on Putter Patent Infringement Lawsuits
PS - click HERE to read the actual Complaint that was filed on July 10th.
So, which Odyssey putters have come under fire? Well, the Odyssey White Hot XG #7 putter, the Odyssey White Hot XG #7 Long putter, the Odyssey Black Series I #7 putter, and the Odyssey White Hot Sabertooth putter have been accused of infringing the ‘927 patent. Plus, the White Hot XG Marxman Blade putter is the subject of trade dress infringement and unfair competition claims.
The ‘927 patent describes the putter as:
A golf putter includes a horizontal flange extending rearward from the upper edge of a blade having a front face for striking golf balls. A pair of spaced apart narrow walls also extend rearward from the rear surface of the striking face and define an open space into which a golf ball may be wedged and retrieved. The flange and narrow walls provide weight centered on the blade's sweet spot. The upper surface of the flange may be provided with a sighting line to line up the putt with a target. The lower edges of the blade and vertical walls provide reduced resistance from grass during putting.
And the ‘927 patent includes the following drawings:
You have to keep in mind that the ‘927 patent issued in 1990, long before the radical putter designs common today. The patent has 2 claims including the following independent claim:
1. A putter head comprising a blade having a front face including a sweet spot for striking a golf ball, a rear surface, a sole and weight distribution means including means for retrieving a golf ball, said retrieving means being defined by two substantially vertical, narrow walls, generally coextensive in height with that of said blade, on opposite sides of said sweet spot and extending rearward from said rear surface of said blade, the spaced apart distance between said walls being such that a golf ball to be retrieved can become wedged therebetween when the putter head is placed over a golf ball and pressure is applied downward, the bottom edges of said walls providing reduced resistance from grass while putting, said weight distribution means including a horizontal flange extending rearward from said blade, substantially perpendicular thereto, and generally coextensive with the upper edges of said blade and said parallel walls, whereby said flange and said walls provide weight centered directly behind the sweet spot to provide a solid feel and directional control in putting.
The claim has some obvious limitations that are easy to design around, but that requires knowledge of the patent before launching a product and is of little comfort if you have unintentionally designed and produced putters that read upon the claim.
This should be another interesting golf club patent infringement lawsuit to monitor.
David Dawsey – Keeping an Eye on Putter Patent Infringement Lawsuits
PS - click HERE to read the actual Complaint that was filed on July 10th.
Comments