[Garland Bayley]

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.

I looked that up. Nike says it is a low spin two piece ball. Congratulations Wayne, you just fell in love with the old Top Flite technology, before the patent.
 

[Garland Bayley]

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

The patent that was infringed upon, was the patent that made the whole distance revolution happen. The USGA had a rule against greasing the clubface. TopFlite figured out how to grease the ball in effect and named the ball Strata (because it had an extra strata, my aren't they smart?)

[Peter Pallotta]

Garland - thanks. As I've told you before, when you explain something you explain it good. (I still don't understand the statistics you tried to explain to me once, but now at least I understand WHY I don't). Ah, the 3 piece ball.

By the way, do you remember that ball by TaylorMade, I think it was called the 'intergel' cause it was filled with gel. Man, I liked that ball.  

Peter

[Garland Bayley]

Peter,

I have played TopFlite all my life, so I don't know other balls much. What I get a kick out of is pysching out opponents that know I am playing TopFlite, but only know them for low spin balls. I throw a short iron into the green and get it to back up to the flag, and they begin to think I am some kind of magician.

[JohnV]

As long as Titleist submits balls to the USGA for testing, they will remain on the conforming ball list.  If they stop sending them to the USGA, they will disappear.  Then, even though they are no longer on the list, they will still be legal for any event where the requirement that the ball appear on the most recent "Conforming Ball List" is not in effect.

For example, the Titleist Tour Balata ball is not on the list anymore, but it certainly still conforms.

Obviously as long as Titleist makes the balls, they will send them to the USGA.

[J_ Crisham]

Bring back the Molitar! Had to have been the hardest rock ever sold. That and my Ghinty's.

[Paul Jones]

Didn't Titleist already loose a lawsuit to Bridgestone on how they make the new ProV 1 golf balls?  I thought they infringed on the seamless patent.

[Paul Jones]

Here is the article from WSJ on the infringement of the Bridgestone Patents - http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119162032229150556.html

"...Acushnet, a unit of Fortune Brands, agreed to pay royalties under several Bridgestone's patents, and the companies will share certain other patents without exchanging royalties."

[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.

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.

The injunction Callaway have asked for would not start until the end of the year.  I think to avoid an allegation that third parties (tour pros contracted to Titleist, retailers, Joe Public) would suffer as a result of an immediate injunction.

[Mark Pearce]

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

Don't think that's right.  Any royalty would be paid only on sales of Pro V1s.  Callaway's evidence (which sounds compelling) appears to have shown that premium ball sales lead what they call a "pyramid of influence".  Because so many tour pros play the Pro V1 that influences all golf ball sales.  Titeleist don't just get premium ball sales but their lesser models (DT etc) also sell better.  If the Pro V1 gets injuncted and Callaway, Taylor Made, Bridgestone et al get a significantly bigger share of tour ball usage then not only their premium balls but their other balls will also enjoy increased sales.  Also, the damage to Titleist's reputation if the Pro V1 gets withdrawn will greatly aid other ball manufacturers.  Callaway's brief makes much of the fact that the credit for inventing the three piece, thin elastomer layer ball goes to Titleist when in fact the breakthrough was made by Spalding, who Callaway bought.  I think it matters to Callaway to have that reputation as innovator and only an injunction will achieve that for them.

[Steve Kline]

Isn't it likely that there will be a settlement, Titleist will pay a bunch of money and continue to produce the ProV?

[BCrosby]

This is the perfect storm. It's too good to be true.

Since Titleist's margins on its flagship ball will be decimated or Titleist will be enjoined from manufacturing it at all, now is the time for Wally to do a 180 degree turn and ... wait for it ...

Come out in favor of a rollback of the ball. He can position Titleist as the good guy, pursuing only what is best for the game. He can feign outrage at how the new balls are rendering older courses obsolete. He can be the first to engineer and manufacture the new ball. He can be the first to have it on the shelf at your pro shop. And the real beauty part is that he will have effectively gutted Callaway's victory.

By my math that is a win, win, win and a win for Wally U.

Wally is a flat out genius. This couldn't be going any better for him.    (I'm not being entirely facetious. This case does mean that Titleist will need to re-examine its business plan. Maybe this time Wally will come down on the side of the angels. 'Cuz the devil has not been treating him very kindly.)

Bob

[wsmorrison]

Bob,

While amusing, there is a great deal of truth underlying what you say.  I like your analysis of the situation, a lot!

[BCrosby]

Wayne -

This is Wally U's world. We just live in it. He is the Chuck Norris of the golf world. Nothing happens to Wally U. Things only happen if Wally lets them happen.

[Insert here Wally U paraphrases of other Chuck Norris jokes.]
 
Bob

[Michael Powers]

Garland, I believe the name of the company is Spalding, and Top Flite was a line of products.

[TEPaul]

"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."

Wayne Morrison!

You did WHAT?

I don't know whether that constitutes some kind of patent infringement, petty or even grand larceny or just some very bad manners or etiquette, but I think your son David should either consider suing you, breaking one of your hands or perhaps "promoting" your entire golf bag to a spot which you are not aware but that kind of thing of dipping into his supply of NIKE golf balls really stinks!

I believe I might file a complaint or even a legal brief on this with Merion's Traditions Committee.

[ANTHONYPIOPPI]

I'd love to see a blind ball test with all these Pro V1 fanatics. It would be just like lite beer. The dirtly little secret that all the crap producers know is that in blind taste tests fans of Bud Lite (yuck), Miller Lite (awful) and Coors Lite (rotten) can't pick out their regular beer from the others.

The price is a joke. It's like the story Kraft not being able to sell its Dijon Mustard so they changed the name to Grey Poupon, raised the price and sales exploded.

Anthony

[JESII]

TEP,

You make a really good point...is this, by any chance, the same son Wayne had stand out in the freezing rain over at Merion in some sort of elevation/blindness experiment when MacWood and Moriarty were saying that is where the Alps hole was?

It's going to be a lonely life for this guy as he gets older and needs a son to change his pants...

[Garland Bayley]

Atta boy Anthony.

I think most of the "great feel" of hitting a ProV comes from reading the logo on the ball.

[rchesnut]

Mark, you're right, Titleist benefits from the Pro V1 indirectly, as well as directly.    But that just means that they should be willing to pay more for a license.  If you're Callaway, you can make Titleist pay dearly for the license, weakening Titleist net profits, and bank some big profits of your own for some time to come just by taking the licensing fees.  If the Pro V1 is enjoined, there's no guarantee that the Callaway ball is going to come out the winner in the new "post Pro V1" world -- it might be another Titleist ball, or Nike, or someone else...and Titleist devotees might blame Callaway for the  fact that they can't buy their ball of choice.  Why not take the big bucks from Titleist, and use some of that money to market your own ball...whether you succeed in toppling Titleist as the golf ball king or not, you win either way.

Callaway has some interesting choices ahead.  So does Titleist...Titleist might decide that it doesn't want to keep producing the Pro V1 as currently designed, and come out with a  new version that doesn't infringe, counting on its big name to bring golfers over to the new ball.  Lots of folks think that Titleist has some magical ability to build a superior ball, it's possible the company could pull it off.

Rob

[Garland Bayley]

Garland, I believe the name of the company is Spalding, and Top Flite was a line of products.

What is your point?

Callaway bought the Top-Flite Golf Company. Callaway did not buy Spalding Sporting Goods Company.

[Jim_Kennedy]

I've been away(still am) and don't know if this has been discussed elsewhere but it was interesting to see that the PRO V1 was found to be beneficial to most players, whether or not you put any stock in a GD ball test.

On topic, Titleist states:
This dispute relates to patents that were issued by the U. S. Patent and Trademark Office after the Pro V1 came into the market and became the best-selling ball in golf. At Acushnet’s request, in early 2007 the Patent Office re-examined these patents and issued initial decisions finding that all claims of all four patents were invalid. Over the last 90 days, the Patent Office issued second decisions on each of the four patents and again determined all claims of all four patents invalid. The last three second Patent Office decisions were issued after the jury trial ended on December 14, 2007. In this process, four separate patent examiners have reached the same conclusion – that it was a mistake to issue these patents in the first place.
Unfortunately, this pivotal information was not allowed as evidence at the trial in which the jury rendered an inconsistent and unsupportable verdict. As a result, Acushnet has asked the Court to come to the same conclusion as did the Patent Office and determine that all claims of all four patents are invalid, thereby reversing the jury verdict.
 

[David Lott]

Essentially Titleist is saying that the particular patents were for "obvious" elements, and thus not patentable.

This could be bet-the-company litigation for Acushnet (though not for Fortune Brands) since the value and integrity of the brand is at stake. A loss could damage the brand severely. I suppose that saying that your ball is made with "obvious" technology isn't as bad.

Tiger seems to do ok with a Nike

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()