One need only look at the list of golf ball patent applications that published last week to get a feel for the competitiveness of the golf ball industry. Last week alone Acushnet had 15 golf ball patent applications publish, SRI Sports (aka Srixon) had 5 golf ball patent applications publish, and Bridgestone had 4 golf ball patent applications publish. All told, these patent applications represent millions of dollars in R&D (and a pretty penny in legal expenses).

Check out this breakdown and see if you can spot any trends.

Acushnet

1     20090124432     GOLF BALL DIMPLES (Acushnet)
2     20090124428     HIGH PERFORMANCE GOLF BALL HAVING A REDUCED-DISTANCE (Acushnet)
3     20090124427     THERMOPLASTIC CORE HAVING A NEGATIVE HARDNESS GRADIENT FORMED FROM A PLASTICIZER-BASED GRADIENT-INITIATING SOLUTION (Acushnet)
4     20090124426     THERMOPLASTIC CORE HAVING A NEGATIVE HARDNESS GRADIENT FORMED FROM A PLASTICIZER-BASED GRADIENT-INITIATING SOLUTION (Acushnet)
5     20090124425     HIGH PERFORMANCE GOLF BALL HAVING A REDUCED-DISTANCE (Acushnet)
6     20090124424     HIGH PERFORMANCE GOLF BALL HAVING A REDUCED-DISTANCE (Acushnet)
7     20090124423     HIGH PERFORMANCE GOLF BALL HAVING A REDUCED-DISTANCE (Acushnet)
8     20090124422     HIGH PERFORMANCE GOLF BALL HAVING A REDUCED-DISTANCE (Acushnet)
9     20090124419     SILANE-BASED GRADIENT INITIATING SOLUTION FOR THERMOPLASTIC CORE HAVING A POSITIVE HARDNESS GRADIENT (Acushnet)
10     20090124418     HIGH-ENERGY RADIATION POSITIVE HARDNESS GRADIENT IN A THERMOPLASTIC GOLF BALL CORE (Acushnet)
11     20090124417     DUAL CORE GOLF BALL HAVING NEGATIVE-HARDNESS-GRADIENT THERMOPLASTIC INNER CORE AND SHALLOW POSITIVE-HARDNESS-GRADIENT THERMOSET OUTER CORE LAYER (Acushnet)
12     20090124416     DUAL CORE GOLF BALL HAVING NEGATIVE-HARDNESS-GRADIENT THERMOPLASTIC INNER CORE AND STEEP POSITIVE-HARDNESS-GRADIENT THERMOSET OUTER CORE LAYER (Acushnet)
13     20090124415     DUAL CORE GOLF BALL HAVING NEGATIVE-HARDNESS-GRADIENT THERMOPLASTIC INNER CORE AND SHALLOW NEGATIVE-HARDNESS-GRADIENT OUTER CORE LAYER (Acushnet)
14     20090124414     DUAL CORE GOLF BALL HAVING NEGATIVE-HARDNESS-GRADIENT THERMOPLASTIC INNER CORE AND STEEP NEGATIVE-HARDNESS-GRADIENT OUTER CORE LAYER (Acushnet)
15     20090124413     THERMOPLASTIC CORE HAVING A HARDNESS GRADIENT FORMED FROM A GRADIENT-INITIATING SOLUTION (Acushnet)

SRI Sports (aka Srixon)

1     20090124431     GOLF BALL (SRI Sports Ltd.)
2     20090124430     GOLF BALL (SRI Sports Ltd.)
3     20090124429     GOLF BALL (SRI Sports Ltd.)
4     20090124421     GOLF BALL (SRI Sports Ltd.)
5     20090124420     GOLF BALL (SRI Sports Ltd.)

Bridgestone

1     20090124412     GOLF BALL (Bridgestone)
2     20090124761     METHOD OF MANUFACTURING A GOLF BALL (Bridgestone)
3     20090124758     GOLF BALL (Bridgestone)
4     20090124757     METHOD OF MANUFACTURING A GOLF BALL (Bridgestone)

First, it is pretty clear that Acushnet believes there is something to be said for hardness gradients in the core of a ball; positive or negative, shallow or steep, they would like to own it all.

Second, it seems that Acushnet is betting that the USGA may be placing more performance restrictions on golf balls in the future. Heck, just last week they had 5 patent applications publish related to “high performance golf balls having reduced-distance.” One of the applications explains:

[0010] Advances in golf ball compositions and dimple designs have caused some high performance golf balls to exceed the maximum distance allowed by the United States Golf Associates (USGA), when hit by a professional golfer. The maximum distance allowed by the USGA is 317 yards.+-.3 yards, when impacted by a standard driver at 176 feet per second and at a calibrated swing condition of 10.degree., 2520 RPM, and 175 MPH with a calibrated ball. According to the USGA, there are at least five factors that contribute to this increase in distance, including: clubhead composition and design, increased athleticism of elite players, balls with low spin rates and enhanced aerodynamics, optimization in matching balls, shafts, and clubheads to a golfer's individual swing characteristics, and improved golf course agronomy. Even though numerous factors influence the increase in distance, golf traditionalists have been demanding that the USGA roll back the distance standard for golf balls to preserve the game. The USGA has recently instituted a research project to design and make a prototype golf ball that would reduce the maximum ball distance by 15 or 25 yards. (See "USGA letter to manufactures takes ball debate to new level," by D. Seanor, Golfweek, pp. 4, 26, Apr. 23, 2005).

[0011] The patent literature contains a number of references that discuss reduction of the distance that golf balls fly. As disclosed in U.S. Pat. No. 5,209,485 to Nesbitt, a reduction in the distance that a range ball will travel may be obtained by a combination of inefficient dimple patterns on the ball cover and low resilient polymeric compositions for the ball core. Low resilient compositions are disclosed to include a blend of a commonly used diene rubber, such as high cis-polybutadiene, and a low resilient halogenated butyl rubber. Inefficient dimple patterns are disclosed to include an octahedral pattern with a dimple free equator and a dimple coverage of less than 50%. As disclosed in the '485 patent, the resulting range ball travels about 50 yards less than comparative balls and has a lower coefficient of restitution than the coefficient of restitution of comparative balls. The '485 patent theorizes that about 40% of the reduction in distance is attributable to the inefficient design, and about 60% is attributable to the low resilient ball composition. Range balls, however, do not have the desirable feel or trajectory of high performance balls. Further, the art does not suggest a way to fine-tune the distance of high performance golf balls to adhere to a shorter USGA maximum distance, while maintaining the appearance of a high performance trajectory.

[0012] As such, there remains a need in the art to achieve a golf ball that flies shorter than the current performance balls and maintains the appearance of a high performance trajectory without adversely affecting the ball's other desired qualities, such as durability, spin, and "feel."

Fascinating stuff!

David Dawsey – The IP Golf (ball) Guy

PS – click HERE to read more interesting golf ball intellectual property posts