I have been following the golf club patent battle between Callaway and TalyorMade since it was filed back in August. Check out these previous posts for a little background ( post 1, post 2, post 3). Well, apparently it is now officially over; which can only be good for golfers. Click HERE for the official press release. Not a lot of details. I will keep my eyes on the court filings to see if they offer any additional information. << MORE >>

If you strip all the logos off a golf club head, the typical avid golfer can usually identify the manufacturer of the popular drivers… often the popular irons… and sometimes the popular putters… but rarely the fairway woods of the large golf companies (unless they incorporate distinctive design features from the drivers of the product line). Can you identify the producer of this fairway wood?<< MORE >>

Click here to check out an interesting press release regarding a major golf club counterfeiting bust that occurred last week in North Carolina.<< MORE >>

The Callaway Golf versus Acushnet golf ball patent infringement trial is in full swing. In fact, Acushnet’s case-in-chief was completed today. In accordance with a Court order, Callaway has filed a “Proffer Regarding the Rebuttal Testimony of Phil Mickelson.” In other words, the Court essentially said that upon the close of Acushnet’s case, Callaway would have the opportunity to convince the Court that Callaway should be allowed to put Phil Mickelson on the stand to testify. Click here to view Callaway’s proffer. The proffer contains some good mudslinging, check it out! Did you know that Mickelson threatened to terminate his contract with Acushnet unless Acushnet came out with a solid ball to compete with Callaway Golf’s Rule 35 ball? I hope that this trial makes it all the way to a verdict! << MORE >>

Yesterday Dogleg Right sued TaylorMade Golf alleging infringement of two patents directed to CG customizable golf clubs. Talk about taking on the 800 pound gorilla! Click here to view the Complaint that was filed in the Eastern District of Texas on December 7th. The patents-in-suit are USPN 7004852 and USPN 7189169, both titled “Customizable Center-of-Gravity Golf Club Head.” It should be fun to watch this lawsuit play out. << MORE >>

Odds are that if you can identify this golf club then you are most likely a junior golfer. The figure below comes from a US golf club iron head design patent that issued this week to a major producer of clubs. Identifying the brand should be easy, but can you identify the product line?...(figure)... << MORE >>

Are you familiar with the GreenFix divot repair tool? I previously posted about the issuance of a patent (USPN 7238126) directed to the GreenFix tool back in July. Well, it did not take long for GreenFix to size up the imitators; in fact, GreenFix filed a patent infringement lawsuit within 3 months of the patent issuing. In a Complaint filed on September 28th, GreenFix alleges that Ahead, Inc. willfully infringed the patent. While the Complaint does not name a particular Ahead product, I suspect that it is the TurfDoc divot tool that GreenFix believes to be infringing the patent. Interestingly, the Complaint is only 5 pages yet contains a glaring error… can you identify it? (scroll way down in this post and I reveal the answer)<< MORE >>

The GolfTech that recently filed a patent infringement lawsuit probably isn’t the one that you are thinking of. The patent infringement plaintiff is not the golfTEC teaching franchise, but rather the owner of USPN 6821211 titled “Sport Swing Analysis System” and licensor of the technology for the P3ProSwing golf simulator and swing analyzer. The defendant in the case, Edens Technologies LLC, is accused of infringing the ‘211 patent with their Dancin’Dogg personal golf simulator. The Complaint even goes so far as to state “…defendant Edens Technologies, LLC, doing business as DancinDogg Golf (“DancinDogg”) is marketing a cheap knock-off of the P3ProSwing™ simulator which infringes the ‘211 patent.”..... << MORE >>

A recent Order by the Delaware District Court has dealt a significant blow to Acushnet, leading one to wonder whether Acushnet will be forced to settle a second golf ball patent infringement case this year. On November 20th the court issued a one page order stating the following...(list)... While the hotlinks above take you to the actual court order and the parties filings, the real interesting reading material is found in the court’s 30 page Memorandum Opinion. I encourage you to read through it because is does an excellent job of explaining the case, many of the key issues, and the court’s thoughts. (I knew that if I waited long enough the court would nicely summarize the case for me)... After reading the Memorandum Opinion ask yourself… does it seem as though the court feels that one side has a stronger case? It may be a good thing for Acushnet that golfers have been paying an arm and a leg for those Titleist ProV1’s.<< MORE >>

Have you seen a BirdieBall practice golf ball? You would know if you have seen one because they have a very distinctive look. Some people refer to them as the “napkin holder” practice balls. This week a US patent was granted directed to the BirdieBall. The patent is USPN 7300357 titled “Practice Sport Projectile Having a Through Hole.”...(figures)... Interesting patent, check it out. << MORE >>

The Golf-Patents blog has tested your knowledge of iron club head design in the past (here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here). Today, let’s see if you can identify another set of irons. For frequent readers of this blog, I rate the level of difficulty of this one as easy. Good luck. The figures below come from a iron head design patent that issued this week to a major producer of clubs. Can you identify the brand of irons? << MORE >>

Ever heard of basalt fiber? I had not until a Nike patent application published on Thanksgiving. The application published as US Publication No. 20070270237 titled “Golf Clubs Prepared with Basalt Fiber.” So, what is basalt fiber? According to the application, basalt is a hard, dense, dark volcanic rock composed chiefly of plagioclase, pyroxene, and olivine, and often has a glassy appearance. Basalt has been mainly used as a crushed rock in construction, industrial and highway engineering. Basalt also can be made into fine, superfine, and ultra fine fibers. Why basalt fiber? Apparently it is superior to fiber glass, approaching the performance of carbon fiber materials, but at a much lower cost. The application describes the invention as....<< MORE >>

The fact that Callaway Golf has filed several patent applications directed to liquid filled golf balls makes me think that this may be a concept that we actually see on the course in the future. I can’t quite put my finger on the reason, but this concept intrigues me! (see my prior posts here, here, and here). The invention discussed in the prior posts was directed to internal structures in the ball that divert liquid as the ball spins to control the spin of the ball. Last week another Callaway patent application published that is directed to liquid filled golf balls (US Pub. No. 20070270238), but with a new spin. The patent application describes the invention as:....<< MORE >>

Recently I have authored several posts about the Callaway v. Acushnet golf ball battle. For example, prior posts looked at the jury selection process, the proposed jury instructions, and the proposed verdict form. The case was progressing nicely toward trial, but a recent action by the USPTO has the potential of throwing a wrench in the works. A recent letter from Acushnet to the Judge (click HERE to view) outlines how a recent 178 page USPTO reexamination opinion has rejected all of the claims in one of the four patents-in-suit (USPN 6506130). The letter states that “… the PTO addressed and rejected many of the arguments Callaway makes in this case…” Logically, I immediately went to check out the USPTO file wrapper for the reexamination proceeding. Any guess as to how large the file wrapper is? Well, it is over 2200 pages… so you will not be finding a summary on the Golf-Patents blog anytime soon (or ever). The file wrapper does contain some fascinating information (if you are a hardcore golf ball technology geek)... << MORE >>

Yesterday I posted about the proposed Callaway v Acushnet jury instructions, and the day before I posted about the jury selection process. Now, let’s take a look at the proposed verdict form. Click HERE to review the jointly proposed verdict form. It actually provides a nice technical breakdown of the case, as well as itemizing the 20 claims of the 4 patents-in-suit that the jurors will know like the back of their hand by the end of the trial. Would you still be interested in sitting on the jury?<< MORE >>

Yesterday I posted about the jury selection process for the major golf ball patent infringement lawsuit between Callaway and Acushnet. Now, assuming that you managed to hide your bias toward one company or the other and you made it onto the jury… now you have to listen to over 150 pages of jury instructions. If you are interested in golf ball technology and/or patents, then you will enjoy scanning through the proposed jury instructions (Part 1, Part 2). Obviously there is a lot at stake for Callaway and Acushnet. So, do you still want to be on the jury?<< MORE >>

For the non-attorney readers… the term “voir dire” refers to the jury selection process of questioning prospective jurors. I am sure that you have seen movies or TV shows where the attorney is weeding out potential jurors by asking them questions regarding their prior relationships, family members, potential biases, etc.. Traditionally both the plaintiff and defendant(s) have to submit their “proposed” voir dire plan to the court for approval. Have you ever wondered what an attorney would ask you if you were a potential juror for a golf ball patent infringement trial? Click HERE to check out Callaway’s proposed voir dire; and click HERE to check out Acushnet’s proposed voir dire.... I bet most golfers wouldn’t mind jury duty if they could sit on this jury.<< MORE >>

OK, that title may be a little misleading… but if you do want to get rid of those wedges you can send them to me. Nonetheless, a very unique wedge was issued a patent this week. Words don’t do this design justice… check out these figures from the patent....(figures).... How would you like to have one of these in your bag? << MORE >>

OK golfers, how well do you know your drivers? These drawings come from a driver design patent that issued yesterday on a very popular driver. Do you recognize this club?<< MORE >>

As you may recall from a prior post, Callaway sued Acushnet for golf ball patent infringement back in February of 2006. The suit (1:06-cv-00091-SLR) alleges that Acushnet infringed 4 patents and has roots that extend all the way back to a previously settled 1996 lawsuit between Spalding and Acushnet. A prior post discussed the fact that Acushnet issued a subpoena to take the testimony of Phil Mickeson on October 25th in Irvine, California. Now Acushnet has their eyes on Greg Norman and plan to take his deposition on November 26th in Jupiter Florida. Check out this list of documents that Greg is supposed to bring to the deposition....(list).... Can you imagine Greg Norman lugging 200 pounds of documents into a deposition. << MORE >>

As you may recall from a prior post, and the subsequent update, in early August Callaway filed two patent infringement lawsuits against TaylorMade.... (history).... On October 31st the Court reported that TaylorMade and Callaway participated in an Early Neutral Evaluation Conference and that there is hope that a full settlement can be achieved within approximately 30 days. Click HERE to read the Court’s report. Darn, it would have been fun watching each side try to invalidate the other’s patents! Looks like we will never know how they worked it out ($$$), if indeed they do. << MORE >>

“Club head adjustability” does not receive quite as much marketing hype as “MOI,” but it sure gets a lot of attention. This week a patent application published that is directed to an interesting adjustable driver design (US Pub. No. 20070265108). Check out these drawings from the application........ I would like to take one of these to the range and watch the changing ball flight as the weight(s) is moved around the club head. << MORE >>

As if the agents and managers of celebrity athletes don’t have enough to do… an understanding of the trademark application and monitoring processes is essential (and not just in the US). So, what inspired this post? Recently a trademark application for the mark TIGER WOODS was filed in the US (serial number 79041026) directed to the following goods and services:..... Seems legitimate, right? Heck, the applicant is even listed as Tiger Woods Enterprises, SA. Well… the applicant is a Swiss company, not Tiger’s Florida company ETW Corporation; which is listed as the owner of all of Tiger’s other US trademarks. So, is the application legit or is someone trying to prey on Tiger’s good name? Perhaps, Tiger and his agent / manager are the only ones that know for sure, but a trusted source tells me that the Swiss law firm that filed the international application is very reputable, leading me to believe that the application is legitimate. Has Tiger been doing some sophisticated international tax planning? Legit or not… it is a good illustration of why celebrity agents and managers need to constantly monitor trademark filings. << MORE >>

Golf Magazine ranked the 50 biggest cities in terms of the “best place to live the golf life.” The rankings were based upon seven factors; weather, affordability, quality of courses, accessibility, number of courses designed by esteemed architects, availability, and crowdedness. Click here to read about golf in my town. Imagine where Columbus would rank if we had decent weather 12 months a year.<< MORE >>

Tired of always having to fish around in your pockets to retrieve your golf tees? If so, this shirt may be just what you need...(figure)... Click here to check out USPN D554828 titled “Golf Shirt.” I couldn't make this stuff up! << MORE >>

The Golf-Patents blog loves to test your knowledge of iron club head designs (just click here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here to brush-up). Today’s test borders on the impossible (unless you work for the company). The figure below comes from a golf club design patent that issued today. Can you identify the brand of irons?<< MORE >>

Regular readers of the Golf-Patents blog know all about the patent litigation in the golf GPS industry. Well, add another lawsuit to the mix. On November 1st ProLink sued GPS Industries (click here to view the Complaint). The lawsuit seeks a declaratory judgment that USPN 5685786 is invalid and not infringed by ProLink and alleges that GPS Industries is infringing ProLink’s USPN 6525690, USPN 6236940, and USPN 6470242..... << MORE >>

Update on the SkyCaddie injunction issue... As you may recall, GPS Industries singled out SkyHawke (maker of SkyCaddie) and filed a motion for a preliminary injunction in an attempt to stop sales of the SkyCaddie devices. In response, SkyHawke filed a pretty compelling response to the preliminary injunction motion. This week GPS Industries filed their reply brief in support of their motion for preliminary injunction, ending the chain of filings and leaving it to the court to now rule on the motion... and my prediction... plus what I will do if I am wrong.<< MORE >>

You may recall my prior post regarding IntelliGolf being accused of infringing a “Handheld Golf Reporting and Statistical Analysis Apparatus and Method” patent… well, an interesting twist in the case has occurred... << MORE >>

A properly branded athlete can often generate more revenue from endorsement deals then they can generate from actually playing the sport that made them famous. There is no doubt that professional golfer Bubba Watson has done his part in creating a unique persona....<< MORE >>

How would you like to be on the receiving end of a Complaint in which golf giant Callaway accuses you of (i) infringing one UTILITY patent, (ii) infringing three DESIGN patents, (3) infringing two trademarks, (4) trademark dilution, (5) breach of contract, (6) common law unfair competition, and (7) false advertising? This is exactly the position that King Sports, AT Golf, and M&M Golf are currently in. Fortunately, or unfortunately, for them… it is not the first time that the owners of these companies have been on the receiving end of legal ation by Callaway. You may wonder… “who the heck is King Sports, AT Golf, and M&M Golf?” Simply take a quick click-thru of the hyperlinks to visit their websites and you will immediately recognize the business that they are in... clone golf components........(more, more, figures)....... The most entertaining part of the Complaint has to do with the allegations of false advertising. As most avid golfers know, the rear portion of Callaway’s top-of-the-line drivers are constructed of a non-metallic composite material. Apparently the Defendants like that construction and ........<< MORE >>

The Callaway v. Acushnet golf ball patent infringement battle is still very active and today I was stunned to see that Acushnet issued a subpoena to take the testimony of Phil Mickeson. If you don’t already know… Phil plays a Callaway ball. The deposition was scheduled to take place on October 25th in Irvine, California. Now, I am sure that Phil is a bright guy, but what could a Psychology major have to say that would influence the outcome of a golf ball patent infringement lawsuit?<< MORE >>

Do you recall the Windage powder distribution system from the Fore Inventors Only show on The Golf Channel? You know… the environmentally friendly powder that you squirt in the air to get a read on the wind direction. This week the inventors received a design patent covering the ornamental design of the distribution container that resembles a golf ball. The patents is USPN D553996 titled “Promotional Product Resembling a Golf Ball.” Check out this figure from the patent.<< MORE >>

An interesting golf patent infringement lawsuit was filed back in February and flew under my radar screen until now. The lawsuit (6:07-cv-00065) was filed by L&H Concepts LLC in the Eastern District of Texas against the owners / operators of IntelliGolf. So, you may ask “who is L&H Concepts?” L&H is the owner of USPN 5779566 titled “Handheld Golf Reporting and Statistical Analysis Apparatus and Method.” The patent describes the invention as..... I encourage you to read the claims of this patent and really try to understand what they cover. If you can honestly say that you understand what is covered by the claims then you should be a patent lawyer. It will be interesting to see how this lawsuit plays out!<< MORE >>

The Golf-Patents blog has tested your knowledge of iron club head design in the past (here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here). Today, let’s see if you can identify a hybrid iron set. The figures below come from five US golf club design patents that issued today to a major producer of clubs. Can you identify the brand? << MORE >>

In light of the recent golf ball patent infringement settlement between Bridgestone and Acushnet, and in light of my recent post regarding ProV1 patents, I thought a look at the patents directed to Bridgestone’s top-of-the-line golf ball was in order. Do you think there are more patents listed on a box of Titleist ProV1’s or a box of Bridgestone Tour B330 golf balls? Can you guess the number of utility patents listed on a sleeve of Bridgestone Tour B330 golf balls? Is it (i) under 10; (ii) 10-20; (iii) 21-30; (iv) 31-40; or (v) over 40. The correct answer is... << MORE >>

Have you ever looked closely at the box sleeve containing Titleist Pro V1 golf balls? Even further, have you ever bothered to check out the tiny writing on the tongue of the sleeve when you open it? I am sure that most people never have… but if you did, can you guess the number of utility patents listed? Is it… A) under 10; B) 10-20; C) 21-30; D) 31-40; E) over 40 ? The correct answer is... PS – So, is there a typo in the list, or is the writing too small for me to read? Check out USPN 4710422. << MORE >>

The Golf-Patents blog has tested your knowledge of iron club head design in the past (here, here, here,here, here, here, and here). Today, let’s see if you can identify another set of irons. For frequent readers of this blog, I rate the level of difficulty of this one as easy. Good luck. The figures below come from a US golf club iron head design patent that issued this week to a major producer of clubs. Can you identify the brand of irons?... << MORE >>

Have you ever thought… “boy, I wish my grooves were narrow in the center of my club face and wider at the heel and toe?” Don’t worry… neither have I (which explains why we are not the ones designing golf clubs). Fortunately, the engineers over at TaylorMade have been studying the effects of variable width grooves and yesterday they were granted an interesting patent. The patent is USPN 7285057 titled “Variable Scoreline Golf Club Groove Configuration” and describes the invention as........ Ahh, so simple. The following figures illustrate the concept nicely...(figures)... So, does the future hold a set of clubs in which each club has a different degree of groove width variation to help produce the expected (desired) spin for that particular club? Sounds interesting!<< MORE >>

Ask most golfers about aerodynamics and they will immediately start spouting off buzz words pertaining to golf balls… dimples, drag, lift, etc… Well, have you ever thought about the aerodynamics of your golf clubs? Fortunately there have been many inventors over the years that have been fixated on the aerodynamics of the golf club head. I would love to interview a golf club design engineer regarding the significance, or lack thereof, of a golf club head’s aerodynamics. I suspect that at Tiger’s swing speed it may have minor significance, but virtually no significance for most golfers… but that is just a hunch. While the idea makes some sense, if it were a truly great idea then one of the major manufacturers would have been all over it a long time ago. Part 1 of this series focused on a handful of patents that disclose clubs which aim to channel airflow through the club head in a particular manner. This edition, part 2 of the series, will honor those inventors that think… “the only thing missing from a golf club head is fins!” Check out these interesting finned club heads... << MORE >>

The law firm of Fulbright & Jaworski has published the 2007 edition of "Litigation Trends Survey Findings." There were 253 U.S. corporate counsel and 50 U.K. corporate counsel that participated in this year's survey. The survey contains some interesting intellectual property information. The respondents to the survey indicated that patent infringement claims are rising. 68% of U.S. Companies have not had any patent infringement claims asserted against them over the last 3 years. 19% report 1 to 5 claims, 8% claim 6 to 10 claims, and 5% claims 11 to 20 claims. When surveyed on approaches in defending against patent infringement, the survey split the respondents into 3 groups: small (under $100M), medium ($100M-$999M) and large (over $1b). Here's how they explained some of their approaches in defending patent infringement... When surveyed on the approaches used for enforcing patents, the following responses were given... There is a lot of other information in the 53-page report. To download a free copy click here. << MORE >>

Club fitting is all the rage, so it is interesting to see what a major club manufacturer may have in store for the future. Callaway had an interesting patent issue this week that may provide us with a glimpse into what they view as the future of club fitting. The patent is USPN 7281985 titled “Golf Club Head,” and describes the invention as: The golf club head (20) of the present invention allows for the face angle, lie angle, loft angle and shaft diameter of the golf club to be customized to a golfer. The golf club head (20) of the present invention is able to accomplish this by providing a major body (22) and a minor body (23) having a crown section (24) and hosel section (25). The minor bodies (23) have different hosel section (25) orientations thereby allowing for different face angles, loft angle, lie angles and shaft diameters of the golf club (19). Check out these drawings from the patent..... << MORE >>

If you don’t recognize this driver then it is time to regroup and get your priorities in order! These drawings come from a driver design patent that issued today on a very popular driver. Do you recognize the club?...(figures)... You can click here for the answer, and click here to check out USPN D553206 titled “Golf Driver Head.” << MORE >>

As you may recall from a prior post, Callaway sued Acushnet for golf ball patent infringement back in February of 2006. The suit (1:06-cv-00091-SLR) alleges that Acushnet infringed 4 patents and has roots that extend all the way back to a previously settled 1996 lawsuit between Spalding and Acushnet. The case involves USPN's 6210293, 6503156, 6506130, and 6595873. The case is still very active and a letter from Acushnet’s attorneys to the Judge (The Honorable Sue L. Robinson) on October 10th alleges that Callaway’s attorneys confidently misstated the law to the Judge during a September 28th oral hearing. The letter explains that that during oral arguments Callaway’s attorney, in an effort to support their arguments, promised the Court that “We have a case for that. Mr. {Name Omitted} will find it and I will just tell you what it is, but it’s a Federal Circuit case.” I can just imagine Acushnet’s attorneys grinning ear to ear when they heard that statement and looked over to make sure the court reporter caught it. Apparently Acushnet advised the court at the oral argument that Callaway had incorrectly stated the law and promised to supply the Court with the appropriate case citations. Well, guess who supplied the Court with their citations first? Acushnet. Now to be fair (and not spend hours researching the issue), I am sure that Callaway’s attorneys will file a similar document explaining why they were correct and why Acushnet’s attorneys are incorrect. It will be interesting to see what the Judge has to say.<< MORE >>

The following drawing comes from a patent application that published yesterday as US Pub. No. 20070238540 titled “Golf Practice Assembly with Multi Target and Trajectory Analysis.” Do you see something that is a little out of the ordinary? (scroll way down in the post for the answer) << MORE >>

I love finding ridiculous golf club patents. Perhaps it is my fascination with the inventors. Do the really think their crazy club designs are going to be the next hot golf product resulting in fame and fortune? Fortunate for me, there seems to be an endless supply of crazy golf club patents. The Golf-Patents blog has profiled some bizarre clubs in the past (just look here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here). None of the previously profiled clubs have anything on the club covered by US design patent D551728 titled “Golf Club.” Check out these figures… << MORE >>

What is golf ball seam spew? Well, a recently issued Srixon (aka SRI Sports) patent provides a nice background explanation… As you may know, a golf ball is usually formed by upper and lower molds having hemispherical cavities. A molding method such as an injection molding method, a compression molding method or the like is employed. Regardless of the type of molding, the molding material slightly leaks out of a parting line of the upper and lower molds. Accordingly, a ring-shaped spew is generated along the seam, which must be removed (typically by a cutting tool, grindstone, sandpaper, etc.). Often the resin of the seam is unexpectedly removed when the seam abuts on a grinding tool. Obviously, such unexpected material removal is not ideal… after all, who wants to be able to see the seam, let alone be subjected to less than ideal ball flight characteristics? Therein lies the goal of the Srixon invention… producing a golf ball having a higher uniformity by processing the seam of the golf ball more smoothly. The invention is directed to a seam processing step of cutting or grinding the spew of the seam by means of a rotary processing tool having a processing direction inclined to the seam while rotating the golf ball in a circumferential direction of the seam. Sounds easy enough. The result should be a seam portion that is as small as possible with a smooth removal mark. The patent is USPN 7273574 titled “Golf Ball Manufacturing Method.” Srixon produces some great golf balls, so check out this patent. Congratulations Srixon.<< MORE >>

The Golf-Patents blog has tested your knowledge of driver and wood designs in the past (here, here, here, here, here, and here). Today a design patent issued on a popular driver. Do you recognize this club?...(drawing)... You can click here for the answer, and click here to check out USPN D552198 titled “Golf Driver Head,” which issued today. Good luck. << MORE >>

Don’t worry if you have never heard of “overlap saturation.” Marketers have not latched onto it as the hot marketing buzzword. Just ask yourself… five years ago did the average golfer know what MOI stood for? Acushnet penned the term “overlap saturation,” abbreviated OS, which is the ratio of the number of overlap instances on a ball to the maximum possible number for an ideal hypothetical ball with the same number of dimples. Overlap instances are tallied by summing the number of overlapping neighbor dimples for every dimple. So what does all this mean? Acushnet states that golf balls with overlapping dimples offer increased total yardage compared to an equivalent ball without overlapping dimples. Check out the following figure..... Why this topic? Recently Acushnet was granted USPN 7258632 titled “Golf Ball Dimple Pattern with Overlapping Dimples,” which is related to the previously issued patent USPN 6969327. If you enjoy golf technology, then you will enjoy reading the “Background of the Invention” of the ‘632 patent. The following are a few more of the figures from the patent.......<< MORE >>

Check out this putter patent application. The application recently published as US Pub. No. 20070191136 titled “Putter Type Golf Club and a Method of Using It.” The application describes the invention as..... So, do you think this putter would meet the USGA equipment rules for putters? << MORE >>