What Are The Odds of Two Golf Cleat Patent Infringement Lawsuits on the Same Day? This Time Softspikes Takes on the Makers of Champ Spikes
Amazing, I just got done posting about Trisport, Ltd. suing Greenkeepers concerning USPN 6810608 titled “Shoe Cleats.” Now, it turns out that Softspikes sued MacNeill Engineering (a.k.a. Champ Spikes) on the same day in the same court, also for golf cleat patent infringement! What are the odds?
On Tuesday Softspikes sued the makers of Champ Spikes for infringement of USPN 6052923 titled “Golf Cleat” and USPN 6167641 titled “Athletic Shoe Cleat.” Click HERE to read the actual Complaint.
The ‘923 patent describes its invention as:
The ‘641 patent describes its invention as:
David Dawsey - Monitoring Golf Shoe Patent Infringement
PS – click HERE to read about more golf patent litigation
On Tuesday Softspikes sued the makers of Champ Spikes for infringement of USPN 6052923 titled “Golf Cleat” and USPN 6167641 titled “Athletic Shoe Cleat.” Click HERE to read the actual Complaint.
The ‘923 patent describes its invention as:
A cleat for providing traction in golf shoes (and shoes for other turf sports) that does not adversely affect turf, but provides a desired level of traction under as many different conditions as possible, and is resistant to being worn down on hard surfaces. The cleat has a flange with an attachment stud for attaching to a receptacle in a shoe sole, a plurality of traction protrusions on the flange to engage grass blades to provide traction without damaging turf, and a bearing portion that bears the wearer's weight, particularly when the wearer walks on a hard surface. The protrusions are thereby less affected by the abrading effects of the hard surface, and last longer before they are worn to the point that they are no longer able to provide traction.
The ‘641 patent describes its invention as:
A cleat provides traction in golf shoes (and shoes for other turf sports) without adversely affecting turf, while providing a desired level of traction under as many different conditions as possible, is resistant to being worn down on hard surfaces. The cleat has a hub with an attachment stud for attaching to a receptacle in a shoe sole, and at least one traction element extending substantially laterally from the flange to engage grass blades to provide traction without damaging turf. The traction element is deflectably attached to the hub, preferably by a resilient arm having a turf-engaging portion at the end thereof. The traction element is preferably cantilevered out of the plane of the hub, and in any event preferably deflects when a hard surface is encountered, to protect the turf-engaging portion from abrasion.
As I mentioned yesterday…. would you ever have guessed that the golf shoe spike / cleat market would be so competitive and litigious?David Dawsey - Monitoring Golf Shoe Patent Infringement
PS – click HERE to read about more golf patent litigation
Posted by David Dawsey PE Esq at 7/31/2008 12:00 AM 
Categories: Misc Golf Products, Litigation, Golf Shoes
Categories: Misc Golf Products, Litigation, Golf Shoes
Comments