Good bye Pro V1?

[Craig Sweet]

If Callaway is successful in their patent suit and ProV1's are no more, could you still play a ProV1 in a USGA event?  

Anyone stock piling them in anticipation of the upcoming court ruling?

[Mike Benham]

ProV1s are still a USGA legal golf ball and will remain so.

If the suit goes through, by an extra 10 dozen or so to last you beyond 2008.

[Mark Smolens]

Why would the fact that Titleist breached some patents held by TopFlite (now owned by Callaway) have any influence whatsoever on whether or not a ProV1 would remain on the USGA's conforming list  The fact that you, I and many others might so continue would certainly be an element of damages in the patent litigation, but I cannot see how that litigation could have anything whatsoever to do with the USGA and the legality of using the ball. . .

[JESII]

How significant would the ball have to change to not infringe on the patent? How easily will that change be explained with marketing?

[Bob_Huntley]

Craig,

They have been successful in their suit, the courts  determined that Titleist did in fact infringe on Callaway's (Top-Flite) patent. Some lawyers here can tell us what comes next but I think a bunch of money will change hands.


Bob

[Michael Powers]

Given the nature of the case, appeals, lawyers, etc, I think we are a long way from an injunction preventing the sale of PV1s.  TM, Callaway, and Nike are loving this stuff.  Even if they are permitted to keep selling PV1's, they can't keep cutting checks like the one they are going to give Callaway (in the over 200 million range from what I hear), not to mention the bad PR.

[Mike Benham]

Even if they are permitted to keep selling PV1's, they can't keep cutting checks like the one they are going to give Callaway (in the over 200 million range from what I hear), not to mention the bad PR.

You mean to say "keep selling PV1s manufacturered with the illegally obtained technology" ... (although Callaway would argue that the brand name ProV1 has market stature and intangible value because of the illegally obtained technology.

Unless the USGA or R&A rule the ball non-conforming, I suspect that most golfers who use the ProV1 will continue to do so, the bad PR won't bother them one bit.

Personally, I wish I would have bought about 20 dozen (about a 10 year supply for me) of the 2004 ProV1x as it is a better ball then the model produced today.  

[JESII]

Has anyone looked intot the price of a box of ProV's this year? Has it changed by any mentionable amount?

[Mark Pearce]

By coincidence I've been reading Callaway's motion for injunction this evening (I got a link from the IP Golf Guy - http://www.golf-patents.com/), the supporting brief, which is an interesting read (at least for a golf playing IP lawyer) is at here.

If (as would be likely in an English court, US lawyers will know how likely the award of an injunction is in the US court) Callaway are succesful then from the end of 2008 Titleist will not be able to manufacture, sell or otherwise supply Pro V1s in the US.  Of course that won't stop you or me playing balls we buy this year.

It's apparent that the USPTO is re-examining the patents, though, so nothing's cut and dried yet.

[ANTHONYPIOPPI]

Why would you want to hoard ProV1s? If the ball does violate patents, just purchase the ball that was ripped off.

Anthony

[JESII]

I don't think the infringement included every aspect of the engineering of the ball...

[J Sadowsky]

I don't think the infringement included every aspect of the engineering of the ball...

As someone who knows quiet a bit about patent law, let me tell you, that's almost irrelevant.  Absurd, I know.

[JESII]

JMS,

I was responding to Anthony who implied that the "ripped off" ball would be the same as the ProV1...I can see and understand why the patent might only include one of dozens of engineering processes to build the ball...

[Mike Benham]

Why would you want to hoard ProV1s? If the ball does violate patents, just purchase the ball that was ripped off.

Anthony

Anthony -

There isn't one ball that they ripped off and they also have licenses from Bridgestone that they use in the design of their golf balls.

They combined all these ingredients to make the #1 ball in golf and then market the hell out of it ...

And as many say, no other ball feels like a Titleist.

Mike

[J Sadowsky]

JMS,

I was responding to Anthony who implied that the "ripped off" ball would be the same as the ProV1...I can see and understand why the patent might only include one of dozens of engineering processes to build the ball...

Ah, okay, sorry.

[J Sadowsky]

By coincidence I've been reading Callaway's motion for injunction this evening (I got a link from the IP Golf Guy - http://www.golf-patents.com/), the supporting brief, which is an interesting read (at least for a golf playing IP lawyer) is at here.

If (as would be likely in an English court, US lawyers will know how likely the award of an injunction is in the US court) Callaway are succesful then from the end of 2008 Titleist will not be able to manufacture, sell or otherwise supply Pro V1s in the US.  Of course that won't stop you or me playing balls we buy this year.

It's apparent that the USPTO is re-examining the patents, though, so nothing's cut and dried yet.

Under the Ebay factors, an injunction would almost certainly follow.  But litigation can be slow, and the injunction (although it would be immediate, not just at the end of the year) might even be stayed on appeal to the CAFC (depending on other factors).

nb: I haven't read the briefs.

[wsmorrison]

I said goodbye to Titleist ProV1x last year when I dipped into my son's supply of Nike Power Distance Soft.  At $15-16 a dozen, they are hard to beat and great performers.  I am not fond of Nike but they do make a heck of a good ball at an incredible price.

[JESII]

Maybe, but "POWER DISTANCE SOFT" just sounds so packaged...

[Michael Powers]

Mike,
"the bad PR won't bother them a bit"?  While Titleist still dominates the market share (and it is all about market share) in golf balls, you cannot deny the gains that others have made, and the fact that the PV1 has been infringing on Callaways patents (which were actually old Spalding patents) does not bode well for Titleist in the eyes of the public.

You are correct in your praise for Titleist as the master ball marketers that they are.  In 1999 Titleist was at the top of the heap with the Professional, which was a complete dawg of a golf ball compared to Bridgestone's Tour Premium and the Maxfli Revolution.  Bridgestone had the money but it stayed in Japan, while Maxfli was ready to go gang busters, then everything burned down and they never recovered.  In my view, these two factors had as much to do with the almighty PV1 dominating the market as any.  In December I spoke to Robin English, who ran Maxfi's marketing dept. at the time.  To this day he feels that they would have given Titleist all they wanted, but, oh well, we'll never know.

[Craig Sweet]

Wayne, didn't Consumer Report rate that Nike ball #1?

[JESII]

One thing Titleist does very well is player development...when I played the mini-tours I was introduced to the department head for development and he took such great care of me that 5 years after the fact I don't really consider playing any other ball or wearing any other shoe or glove...they are very aggressive with college players now as well.

[Michael Powers]

Wayne,
Just an FYI, those Nike balls are actually made by Bridgestone.

[wsmorrison]

Craig,

I think the one's I stole off my son were rated a close #2



and the Nike One was rated #1.

Jim,

Yeah, it is a terrible name and an ugly package, but the ball is solid.  

Michael,

I thought I heard somewhere that there are really only a couple of manufacturers and they are contracted to make all the balls.  The Bridgestone 330 or whatever is a very solid ball as well.  Who knows?  I'm so cynical, they're probably all the same ball and they're just screwing with us.

[rchesnut]

It's not likely that they'd stop selling the Pro V1, at least in the short run -- it's more likely to be a money issue -- how much will Titleist have to pay Callaway in licensing fees for that patent.  It's certainly possible that Callaway will use the threat of an injuction to force a favorable financial arrangement, but it's not in Callaway's interest to stop the Pro V1 sales...if they can get a nice royalty on each Pro V1 ball sold, they'd be happy to see Titleist continue to sell them.    

In the long run, assuming that Titleist doesn't want to pay the large licensing fee, Titleist would have every incentive to change the Pro V1 so that it no longer infringed on the patent (which might be quite challenging for them to do).  That could reduce the performance of the ball, though.  Titleist is in a bind here...but it's not over, this could drag on for quite some time through the appeals process.

Rob

[Peter Pallotta]

This will sound funny coming from a hack like me, but until the Bridgestone 330s came along, nothing felt nearly as good to me coming off the clubface as the ProV1s. And, sorry to say, few golf balls felt worse to me than Callaways. So, I don't know what patents have been infringed upon etc, but Callaway doesn't seem to have done much with them.  

Peter