News:

This discussion group is best enjoyed using Google Chrome, Firefox or Safari.


ANTHONYPIOPPI

Way OT: Jury finds Pro VI infringes on Callaway patents
« on: December 18, 2007, 09:18:23 AM »
Bloomberg News
Published: Saturday, December 15

Callaway Golf Co., the maker of Big Bertha and Steelhead golf clubs, won a jury verdict against Fortune Brands Inc.'s Acushnet unit that three of its golf-ball patents are valid, clearing the way for another trial on damages.

Callaway sued last year in federal court in Delaware contending Acushnet infringed patents for multilayered golf balls.

Before trial, Acushnet agreed its Titleist Pro V1 balls infringed the patents and contended they were not valid.

The jury of four men and four women deliberated about two days following a six-day trial before affirming three of the patents on Friday. They ruled that two claims of another patent also were valid and one claim was invalid.

"We have now established in court that our golf ball patents are valid and that Titleist Pro V1 golf balls infringe those patents," Callaway spokeswoman Michele Szynal said in a statement.

"We will immediately start the process of requesting an appropriate remedy, including injunctive relief and damages."

Acushnet, based in Fairhaven, Mass., sells more than $200 million of the balls a year, according to court papers.

"The jury's mixed decision has created ambiguity," said Joseph Nauman, an Acushnet executive vice-president and legal counsel, in a statement.

"We continue to believe that we will ultimately prevail" based on reviews by the court and the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, he said.

Acushnet "was facing obsolescence" before using Callaway's patented technology to make a ball that was "monumentally successful," Callaway lawyer Frank Scherkenbach told jurors in the trial, supervised by U.S. District Judge Sue L. Robinson.

The three-layered design, with a core, an inner cover, and a dimpled polyurethane outer cover, was "obvious," and the patent "didn't advance the state of the art," Acushnet lawyer Joseph Lavelle alleged during the trial.

Callaway rose the most in two years on Oct. 18 after its full-year profit forecast increased.

The California-based company has lowered costs by improving manufacturing while sales of high-end drivers and irons have risen.

One of the originally scheduled trial witnesses had been champion U.S. golfer Phil Mickelson, who uses Callaway equipment, according to court papers. Mickelson is the world's No. 2 golfer after Tiger Woods.

Robinson excluded Mickelson, 37, after Acushnet protested Callaway's use of the celebrity, saying Mickelson was invited "for a beauty contest, for his sensational WOW effect."

Jerry Kluger

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Way OT: Jury finds Pro VI infringes on Callaway patents
« Reply #1 on: December 18, 2007, 09:26:31 AM »
Staying OT - I had heard there were also allegations of patent infringement brought against Acushnet by Birdgestone/Precept - does anyone know if that's true?

Garland Bayley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Way OT: Jury finds Pro VI infringes on Callaway patents
« Reply #2 on: December 18, 2007, 01:30:18 PM »
Good on Callaway. Acushnet was a Johnny come lately to this game.
"I enjoy a course where the challenges are contained WITHIN it, and recovery is part of the game  not a course where the challenge is to stay ON it." Jeff Warne

Ken Moum

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Way OT: Jury finds Pro VI infringes on Callaway patents
« Reply #3 on: December 18, 2007, 02:05:17 PM »
Staying OT - I had heard there were also allegations of patent infringement brought against Acushnet by Birdgestone/Precept - does anyone know if that's true?

Acushnet agreed to pay royalties to Bridgestone.

http://www.golfweek.com/business/equipment/story/bridgestonesettlement_news_
Over time, the guy in the ideal position derives an advantage, and delivering him further  advantage is not worth making the rest of the players suffer at the expense of fun, variety, and ultimately cost -- Jeff Warne, 12-08-2010

Greg Murphy

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Way OT: Jury finds Pro VI infringes on Callaway patents
« Reply #4 on: December 18, 2007, 05:35:57 PM »
Garland,

Titleist really was late to the game. I presume it was because it had so much invested in wound ball technology. The Titleist script might be one of the greatest examples of branding ever known, certainly nothing can come close in the golf world. I've never known a club pro to play anything else.

It amazes me how long club and touring pros alike stuck with the old wound balata Titleists when they were so clearly inferior to what other ball makers were producing. And the Titleist DT, man, that has to be one of the worst balls ever. Short. Hard. No spin. Crooked. But a ton of amateurs swore by it.

The switch to the ProV, which essentially copied what everyone else was doing, occurred overnight. The floodgates literally opened when the script could be found on a ball with the latest technology.

The power of the script lives on. Virtually everyone thinks the ProV is demonstrably superior to any other ball. I kid my playing partners that with everyone employing the same technology, it must be some sort of angel dust that makes the Titleists perform so much better than the other balls. But I have to admit, I'm not immune to the power of the script. I get a box of Prov's each Christmas, hide 'em from my kids (not always successfully), and usually don't break 'em out until the season is half over. That angel dust is powerful stuff.

Garland Bayley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Way OT: Jury finds Pro VI infringes on Callaway patents
« Reply #5 on: December 18, 2007, 05:58:25 PM »
Greg,

Not that powerful. I have yet to buy a Pro V. I do have tons of Strata Professionals that I got for less than $1 each that perform the same way.
"I enjoy a course where the challenges are contained WITHIN it, and recovery is part of the game  not a course where the challenge is to stay ON it." Jeff Warne

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back