Really, More Golf Shoe Cleat Patent Infringement Litigation?

On Monday Trisport, Ltd. and Pride Manufacturing Company, LLC, maker of Softspikes brand golf shoe cleats, sued MacNeill Engineering Company, Inc., maker of Champ brand golf shoe spikes, alleging infringement of three patents (USPN’s /files/22847-21779/6272744_trisport_pride_mfg_golf_shoe_spike_patent.pdf”>6272774, and /files/22847-21779/5036606_golf_cleat_locking_patent.pdf”>5036606.

Amazing, even more patent litigation surrounding golf spikes. Maybe I need to start a golf spike company because it seems that patents and patent litigation are critical elements of the industry. As I have said many times in the past, many golfers would be surprised by the amount of litigation concerning patents on golf shoe spikes; just check out these prior posts (post 1, post 2, post 3, post 4).

So, what’s behind the “false marking” claim?

FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF – FALSE MARKING
 
43.    Plaintiffs incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 42.

44.    Defendants have and continue to mark the cleats, holders and packaging of at least their “Tri-Lok” products with the ‘606 Patent.

45.    On information and belief, Defendants’ “Tri-Lok” cleats and holders were designed to be interchangeable with Plaintiffs’ “FastTwist” cleats and holders.

46.    In 1998, defendant MacNeill Engineering filed suit against Trisport in the District of Massachusetts, C.A. No. 98-12019, (“the FastTwist litigation”) alleging that Trisport’s “FastTwist” cleats and holders infringed the ‘606 patent.

47.    The court in the FastTwist litigation granted summary judgment of non-infringement of the FastTwist holder.

48.    The jury in the FastTwist litigation returned a verdict of non-infringement of all claims.

49.    Defendants’ “Tri-Lok” holders and cleats are similarly not covered by the `606 patent.

50.    Defendants are aware that the ‘606 patent does not cover “Tri-Lok” holders or cleats, but marks, affixes, and/or advertises the holders, cleats, and packaging with the `606 patent number in order to deceive members of the public in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 292.

51.    The ‘606 patent has expired.

52. Defendants are aware that the ‘606 patent has expired, but have continued to marks, affixes, and/or advertises “Tri-Lok” holders, cleats, and packaging with the ‘606 patent number in order to deceive members of the public in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 292.

Click David Dawsey  – Monitoring Golf Industry Patent Infringement Litigation

PS – click HERE to read about more golf patent litigation