Topic: Callaway/Titleist Lawsuit over ProV1 and Patent Infringement (Read 2658 times)

Venno · « **on:** November 11, 2008, 11:42:17 pm »

Callaway Golf Wins Post Trial Motions in Lawsuit Against Acushnet
Federal Court Enjoins Sales of Pro V1 Effective January 1, 2009
Just Saw this....CRAZY

CARLSBAD, Calif., Nov 10, 2008 (BUSINESS WIRE) -- Callaway Golf (NYSE: ELY) today announced that the United States District Court in Wilmington, Delaware, has granted Callaway Golf's request for a permanent injunction to stop sales of Acushnet's current line of Titleist Pro V1 family of golf balls, effective no later than January 1, 2009. At Callaway Golf's request, professional golfers will be allowed to play Pro V1 golf balls through the end of this calendar year.

In its ruling today, the Court also rejected Acushnet's request to overturn the jury's December 2007 verdict which found that Callaway Golf's golf ball patents were valid and infringed by Acushnet's Titleist Pro V1 family of golf balls.

"Callaway Golf has invested millions of dollars in Research and Development to create innovative products for millions of golfers around the world, and has protected those products with one of the broadest patent portfolios in golf," said Steve McCracken, Senior Executive Vice President, Chief Administrative Officer, Callaway Golf. "We are very pleased with today's decision which will stop the sale of these infringing Pro V1 golf balls."

geogolf · « **Reply #1 on:** November 11, 2008, 11:47:08 pm »

It's for the existing Pro V. They will be able to sell out the current inventory..until Dec 31......and that's it.

But I believe Titleist has a new ball, all new patents etc.... which I believe was changed in September.

geogolf · « **Reply #2 on:** November 11, 2008, 11:49:48 pm »

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/golf/2008-11-11-calloway-patent_N.htm?csp=34

xxio · « **Reply #3 on:** November 11, 2008, 11:51:01 pm »

So any chance the current inventory will go down to $25/doz before January 1?

geogolf · « **Reply #4 on:** November 12, 2008, 12:21:23 am »

Quote from: xxio on November 11, 2008, 11:51:01 pm

So any chance the current inventory will go down to $25/doz before January 1?

That would be a "no" lol.

funkyfedora · « **Reply #5 on:** November 12, 2008, 12:37:16 am »

So what will happen to the unsold balls? Sure would be a waste to see them go unused...

funkyfedora · « **Reply #6 on:** November 12, 2008, 12:39:28 am »

http://golf-patents.com/2008/10/28/you-will-have-to-see-the-latest-published-acushnet-golf-ball-patent-application-to-believe-it.aspx

geogolf · « **Reply #7 on:** November 12, 2008, 12:53:49 am »

Quote from: funkyfedora on November 12, 2008, 12:37:16 am

So what will happen to the unsold balls? Sure would be a waste to see them go unused...

Landfill.

funkyfedora · « **Reply #8 on:** November 12, 2008, 12:57:54 am »

I wonder if there will be a titleist cult waiting there to snatch them up...

Venno · « **Reply #9 on:** November 12, 2008, 02:51:50 am »

spherical dimples....interesting

funkyfedora · « **Reply #10 on:** November 12, 2008, 07:46:02 am »

Would that affect the spin of the ball?

golfer4life · « **Reply #11 on:** November 12, 2008, 08:15:34 am »

Well, I guess that is pretty much settle! I will guess they have been testing the new ball on tour already.

I will try to get some before the go to the landfill, I really like that ball.

H

reflog74 · « **Reply #12 on:** November 12, 2008, 09:37:46 am »

Here's the Golf Week story.

http://www.golfweek.com/business/equipment/story/prov1-injunction-news-111108

John

CourtGolf · « **Reply #13 on:** November 12, 2008, 10:00:32 am »

Quote from: geogolf on November 12, 2008, 12:53:49 am

Quote from: funkyfedora on November 12, 2008, 12:37:16 am
So what will happen to the unsold balls? Sure would be a waste to see them go unused...

Landfill.

You think they'll just dump them ? I figured they would donate them to driving ranges or junior programs -- some sort of charity. Callaway would have a hard time complaining about donating to charity like that.

geogolf · « **Reply #14 on:** November 12, 2008, 10:08:43 am »

Actually....Ill take the landfill comment back. As noted before.

"Nauman said the ruling "will not have any impact on our ability to supply our customers with Pro V1 golf balls," because Acushnet in September converted production of existing Pro V1 models "so that they are outside of the patents in question."

So the Pro V changed in September... just didn't tell anyone :-)

reflog74 · « **Reply #15 on:** November 12, 2008, 10:11:51 am »

Remember, any of those infringing balls that are sold or disposed of in other ways (e.g. if given to charity = tax deduction), have "value" for calculation of the "damages" in the lawsuit. The injunction is step 2 in the lawsuit. Step 1 was a temporary restraining order. The trial is step 3 and is where damages can be awarded. Of course, appeals are possible thereafter.

The last big case against Acushnet was settled confidentially. This one will probably go the same way.

The rumor has always been that these companies have several generations of "future" balls all ready to go. They sell one generation until the market dictates that the next be "rolled out" -- pun intended! One question is whether the new generation ProV builds on prior patent infringements. If so, that would be a powerful reason to reach a settlement with Callaway.

Just some noodling and opinions.

John

JelUltra · « **Reply #16 on:** November 12, 2008, 10:48:27 am »

So for us laymen - would this be an accurate cliff notes version?

1.) Callaway won
2.) Titleist will still sell and play the infringing balls for the rest of the year
3.) Titleist will sell their already prepared 'new' ball starting in '09
4.) Fines/penalties/reparations TBD.

Apart from $$ going to callaway (TBD) this seems more of a win for Titleist. They still get to sell their best selling Pro V1 ball, and seem poised to roll out a new line. From an outsider's view point, it appears the the monies the Acushnet will be netting from the continued sale and playing/advertising of the new ball should help offset any penalties to be paid to Callaway.

Am I off the mark? I'm definetly NOT a legal analyst or a lawyer, so I could be WAAAAY off base!

geogolf · « **Reply #17 on:** November 12, 2008, 10:54:44 am »

Quote from: JelUltra on November 12, 2008, 10:48:27 am

So for us laymen - would this be an accurate cliff notes version?

1.) Callaway won
2.) Titleist will still sell and play the infringing balls for the rest of the year
3.) Titleist will sell their already prepared 'new' ball starting in '09
4.) Fines/penalties/reparations TBD.

Apart from $$ going to callaway (TBD) this seems more of a win for Titleist. They still get to sell their best selling Pro V1 ball, and seem poised to roll out a new line. From an outsider's view point, it appears the the monies the Acushnet will be netting from the continued sale and playing/advertising of the new ball should help offset any penalties to be paid to Callaway.

Am I off the mark? I'm definetly NOT a legal analyst or a lawyer, so I could be WAAAAY off base!

Well, if you consider possibly 150 million to 200 million in penalties a win...... :-)

That is basically 1 years sales worth of Pro V1 balls.

Titleist had been preparing for a new-non patent infringing ball for 09 in case it fall this way. So whatever R&D was needed is a cost.

JelUltra · « **Reply #18 on:** November 12, 2008, 10:56:54 am »

Is there a possibility for recovering damages for all the years that the Pro V1 was sold with the infringing patents?

I'm just curious - I've got no axe to grind with anyone, but I'm morbidly fascinated with the current events.

JelUltra · « **Reply #19 on:** November 12, 2008, 10:59:30 am »

Quote from: geogolf on November 12, 2008, 10:54:44 am

Quote from: JelUltra on November 12, 2008, 10:48:27 am
So for us laymen - would this be an accurate cliff notes version?

1.) Callaway won
2.) Titleist will still sell and play the infringing balls for the rest of the year
3.) Titleist will sell their already prepared 'new' ball starting in '09
4.) Fines/penalties/reparations TBD.

Apart from $$ going to callaway (TBD) this seems more of a win for Titleist. They still get to sell their best selling Pro V1 ball, and seem poised to roll out a new line. From an outsider's view point, it appears the the monies the Acushnet will be netting from the continued sale and playing/advertising of the new ball should help offset any penalties to be paid to Callaway.

Am I off the mark? I'm definetly NOT a legal analyst or a lawyer, so I could be WAAAAY off base!

Well, if you consider possibly 150 million to 200 million in penalties a win...... :-)

That is basically 1 years sales worth of Pro V1 balls.

Titleist had been preparing for a new-non patent infringing ball for 09 in case it fall this way. So whatever R&D was needed is a cost.

Good point! What do you think - is +/- 200 million is a slap on the wrist or a stiff penalty for a company like Acushnet?

CourtGolf · « **Reply #20 on:** November 12, 2008, 10:59:42 am »

History question - were these patents in the suit bought by Callaway when they picked up TopFlite ?

reflog74 · « **Reply #21 on:** November 12, 2008, 11:03:40 am »

Not exactly Doug. Sorry, I might have made things confusing by referring to the infringing balls being sold or otherwise disposed of.

Acushnet has been ordered, as of 11/10/08, to stop selling the infringing balls.

Acushnet converted its production to a new, and it says, non-infringing version of ProV's in September.

Damages TBD.

$100 million here; $100 million there; and pretty soon you're talking about real money! Don't kid yourself, this hurts Acushnet.

Another thing to think about. This tarnishes Titleist R&D and enhances Callaway's. Has to help Callaway ball sales, and most new buyers will be former Titleist loyalists.

Again, just my opinions.

John

John

JelUltra · « **Reply #22 on:** November 12, 2008, 11:18:40 am »

Quote from: CourtGolf on November 12, 2008, 10:59:42 am

History question - were these patents in the suit bought by Callaway when they picked up TopFlite ?

Yes - the patents were purchased by Callaway in takeover, IIRC.

John - thanks for the clarification! Who am I kidding - 100 million should hurt pretty much any company....

CourtGolf · « **Reply #23 on:** November 12, 2008, 11:27:17 am »

Do you really think that Joe Average Golfer cares about golf ball patents and would stop using their ProV's because of something like this ? Especially since they didn't infringe on something that Callaway actually developed ? I don't. Unless the new version doesn't perform, people will continue to buy them.

geogolf · « **Reply #24 on:** November 12, 2008, 11:29:22 am »

Quote from: JelUltra on November 12, 2008, 10:59:30 am

Quote from: geogolf on November 12, 2008, 10:54:44 am
Quote from: JelUltra on November 12, 2008, 10:48:27 am
So for us laymen - would this be an accurate cliff notes version?

1.) Callaway won
2.) Titleist will still sell and play the infringing balls for the rest of the year
3.) Titleist will sell their already prepared 'new' ball starting in '09
4.) Fines/penalties/reparations TBD.

Apart from $$ going to callaway (TBD) this seems more of a win for Titleist. They still get to sell their best selling Pro V1 ball, and seem poised to roll out a new line. From an outsider's view point, it appears the the monies the Acushnet will be netting from the continued sale and playing/advertising of the new ball should help offset any penalties to be paid to Callaway.

Am I off the mark? I'm definetly NOT a legal analyst or a lawyer, so I could be WAAAAY off base!

Well, if you consider possibly 150 million to 200 million in penalties a win...... :-)

That is basically 1 years sales worth of Pro V1 balls.

Titleist had been preparing for a new-non patent infringing ball for 09 in case it fall this way. So whatever R&D was needed is a cost.

Good point! What do you think - is +/- 200 million is a slap on the wrist or a stiff penalty for company like Acushnet?

In the Acushnet world- Golf Balls are King. Not shoes, clubs, bags etc. The 200 Million of Pro V sales is the largest chunk of their sales/income.

geogolf · « **Reply #25 on:** November 12, 2008, 11:31:37 am »

As of 2006. here was the status.

The intellectual property in question, referred to in the complaint as "the Sullivan patents," focuses primarily on the construction of a multilayer ball with a solid core and a polyurethane cover. The patents were acquired by Callaway in 2003 when it purchased Top-Flite Golf from bankruptcy.

The "Sullivan patents" is a reference to Michael J. Sullivan, former Top-Flite vice president of golf ball research and engineering and current Acushnet vice president of intellectual property. Sullivan, a chemist and polymer scientist, had his name listed on 133 patents through 2004. The Acushnet Company currently has 450 patents relating to golf-ball technology.

At issue is a series of patents referred to as the "Sullivan patents," a reference to Michael J. Sullivan. Sullivan is the former vice president of golf-ball research and development for Top-Flite who left that company in 1999 and is currently AcushnetÂ¹s vice president for intellectual property.

The patents in question were used to develop a multilayer golf ball under the Top-Flite brand in the mid 1990s called the Strata that became popular on the PGA Tour and was the precursor for the move away from wound balls among tour players. Those patents were subsequently acquired by Callaway in its purchase of Top-Flite in 2004.

reflog74 · « **Reply #26 on:** November 12, 2008, 11:39:25 am »

Court,

I don't think the average Joe buys ProV1's, or Callaway's top o' the line.

I do think that the average, up-to-now loyal ProV user -- a person likely to have heard only that ProV's infringe on a Callaway patent, NOT a Spalding patent -- will be less hesitant to switch, or at least give Callaway a try. I think this happened with Bridgestone after it won it's patent infringement case against Acushnet.

John

banistr · « **Reply #27 on:** November 12, 2008, 11:58:25 am »

I see the price of Titleist going up to make up for the little $200 million dollar fine.

CourtGolf · « **Reply #28 on:** November 12, 2008, 12:03:23 pm »

I don't know, John. You don't make $100 million a year from the golfers who don't lose balls - you make that kind of cash based on the guys who see the Titleist commercials and hear all the stories about how great the ProV's are - then go out and lose a sleeve or two every round.

Personally, I don't play Titleist - I'm using the Wilson Zips now, and used Callaway and Bridgestone the last two years.

tpariff · « **Reply #29 on:** November 12, 2008, 12:09:56 pm »

Quote from: reflog74 on November 12, 2008, 11:39:25 am

Court,

I don't think the average Joe buys ProV1's, or Callaway's top o' the line.

I do think that the average, up-to-now loyal ProV user -- a person likely to have heard only that ProV's infringe on a Callaway patent, NOT a Spalding patent -- will be less hesitant to switch, or at least give Callaway a try. I think this happened with Bridgestone after it won it's patent infringement case against Acushnet.

John

To your point, John, I think the Pro v1 was the dominant tour level ball for several years. Today there are so many good tour level golf balls. I haven't played a Titleist in 2 years or longer, but have played Callaway, Bridgestone and TaylorMade tour level balls. Many of the single digit handicappers I know have also switched to other brands. It may have absolutely nothing to do with these lawsuits, but it does show that Titleist no longer has a strangle hold on the #1 position. Is Titleist still the #1 ball on Tour? Sure. But from what I see every weekend, Titleist is lucky to be in the top 3.

Kevin

502 to Right · « **Reply #30 on:** November 12, 2008, 01:30:28 pm »

I found this comment by a Callaway executive to be hilarious given the fact that Callaway picked up the patents that were infringed from Spalding/Top Flite:

Quote

“Callaway Golf has invested millions of dollars in research and development to create innovative products for millions of golfers around the world, and has protected those products with one of the broadest patent portfolios in golf,” Steve McCracken, Callaway’s senior executive vice president and chief administrative officer, said in a written statement. “We are very pleased with today’s decision.”

Nevertheless, this is a clear defeat for Titleist and I have no doubt it is going to hurt their sales going forward. Personally, I switched from Titleist to Bridgestone or TaylorMade in the last year as a result of some of the patent issues (remember that Titleist settled a case with Bridgestone last year).

razaar · « **Reply #31 on:** November 12, 2008, 02:33:12 pm »

Quote from: geogolf on November 11, 2008, 11:49:48 pm

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/golf/2008-11-11-calloway-patent_N.htm?csp=34

"Callaway shares slipped 6 cents to $9.95 in morning trading Tuesday. Shares of Acushnet's owner, Fortune Brands Inc., fell 92 cents, or 2.5%, to $36.37."
Big difference there.

CourtGolf · « **Reply #32 on:** November 12, 2008, 02:44:09 pm »

hard to tell - who else is under the Fortune Brands umbrella ?

T.J. · « **Reply #33 on:** November 12, 2008, 02:46:23 pm »

I switched because I found other brands which suited my game as good as a Pro-V1 and at least half price.

I think if their new ball is not AS GOOD or better, they will slip in the sales, I think they lost ground being a brand which catered to the scratch to 9 handicap, with little for the 18+, meanwhile Callaway went the other way, catered to the 18+ then went after the 0-9 handicap.

razaar · « **Reply #34 on:** November 12, 2008, 02:49:00 pm »

Quote from: CourtGolf on November 12, 2008, 02:44:09 pm

hard to tell - who else is under the Fortune Brands umbrella ?

Fortune Brands, Inc. is a leading consumer brands company with annual sales exceeding $7 billion. Its operating companies have premier brands and leading market positions in home and hardware products, spirits and wine, and golf equipment. Home and hardware brands include Moen faucets, Aristokraft, Omega, Diamond and Schrock cabinets, Therma-Tru door systems, Master Lock padlocks and Waterloo tool storage sold by units of Fortune Brands Home & Hardware LLC. Beam Global Spirits & Wine, Inc. is the company's spirits and wine business. Major spirits and wine brands include Jim Beam and Maker's Mark bourbons, Sauza tequila, Canadian Club whisky, Courvoisier cognac, DeKuyper cordials, Starbucks™ Coffee Liqueur, Laphroaig single malt Scotch and Clos du Bois and Geyser Peak wines. Acushnet Company's golf brands include Titleist, Cobra and FootJoy. Fortune Brands, headquartered in Deerfield, Illinois, is traded on the New York Stock Exchange under the ticker symbol FO and is included in the S&P 500 Index and the MSCI World Index.

CourtGolf · « **Reply #35 on:** November 12, 2008, 02:51:31 pm »

Quote from: razaar on November 12, 2008, 02:49:00 pm

Quote from: CourtGolf on November 12, 2008, 02:44:09 pm
hard to tell - who else is under the Fortune Brands umbrella ?
Fortune Brands, Inc. is a leading consumer brands company with annual sales exceeding $7 billion. Its operating companies have premier brands and leading market positions in home and hardware products, spirits and wine, and golf equipment. Home and hardware brands include Moen faucets, Aristokraft, Omega, Diamond and Schrock cabinets, Therma-Tru door systems, Master Lock padlocks and Waterloo tool storage sold by units of Fortune Brands Home & Hardware LLC. Beam Global Spirits & Wine, Inc. is the company's spirits and wine business. Major spirits and wine brands include Jim Beam and Maker's Mark bourbons, Sauza tequila, Canadian Club whisky, Courvoisier cognac, DeKuyper cordials, Starbucks™ Coffee Liqueur, Laphroaig single malt Scotch and Clos du Bois and Geyser Peak wines. Acushnet Company's golf brands include Titleist, Cobra and FootJoy. Fortune Brands, headquartered in Deerfield, Illinois, is traded on the New York Stock Exchange under the ticker symbol FO and is included in the S&P 500 Index and the MSCI World Index.

That's a big lineup - hard to make a comparison between Callaway's drop and Titleist/Acushnet/Fortune Brands stock...but that's McNews.

razaar · « **Reply #36 on:** November 12, 2008, 02:55:12 pm »

Quote from: T.J. on November 12, 2008, 02:46:23 pm

I switched because I found other brands which suited my game as good as a Pro-V1 and at least half price.

I think if their new ball is not AS GOOD or better, they will slip in the sales, I think they lost ground being a brand which catered to the scratch to 9 handicap, with little for the 18+, meanwhile Callaway went the other way, catered to the 18+ then went after the 0-9 handicap.

H, Titleist make golf balls other than the ProVs.....check out their web site.

razaar · « **Reply #37 on:** November 12, 2008, 02:57:54 pm »

Court...shareholders are deserting not because of the golf ball issue but because of Starbucks.lol

tpariff · « **Reply #38 on:** November 12, 2008, 04:36:14 pm »

Quote from: razaar on November 12, 2008, 02:57:54 pm

Court...shareholders are deserting not because of the golf ball issue but because of Starbucks.lol

It's only the liqueur. I'm sure it's a licensing agreement since Fortune Brands has a big liquor subsidiary. Starbucks is a separate company traded under the symbol "SBUX", and it's been getting killed lately. I've been doing my part to make sure Starbucks stays in business, but the stock is near its 52-week low.

Kevin

CourtGolf · « **Reply #39 on:** November 12, 2008, 04:44:34 pm »

Quote from: tpariff on November 12, 2008, 04:36:14 pm

Quote from: razaar on November 12, 2008, 02:57:54 pm
Court...shareholders are deserting not because of the golf ball issue but because of Starbucks.lol

It's only the liqueur. I'm sure it's a licensing agreement since Fortune Brands has a big liquor subsidiary. Starbucks is a separate company traded under the symbol "SBUX", and it's been getting killed lately. I've been doing my part to make sure Starbucks stays in business, but the stock is near its 52-week low.

Kevin

The solution is pretty obvious - combine lines and add a "shot" to that latte - Jim Beam is right there.

tpariff · « **Reply #40 on:** November 12, 2008, 05:33:38 pm »

Quote from: CourtGolf on November 12, 2008, 04:44:34 pm

Quote from: tpariff on November 12, 2008, 04:36:14 pm
Quote from: razaar on November 12, 2008, 02:57:54 pm
Court...shareholders are deserting not because of the golf ball issue but because of Starbucks.lol

It's only the liqueur. I'm sure it's a licensing agreement since Fortune Brands has a big liquor subsidiary. Starbucks is a separate company traded under the symbol "SBUX", and it's been getting killed lately. I've been doing my part to make sure Starbucks stays in business, but the stock is near its 52-week low.

Kevin

The solution is pretty obvious - combine lines and add a "shot" to that latte - Jim Beam is right there.

Considering a latte is $4, I can't imagine what it would cost to add a "shot" of booze.

tiger-bailey · « **Reply #41 on:** November 12, 2008, 09:27:11 pm »

I wonder FB will keep Titleist or try and sell it off? The payout to Bridgestone was big bucks and now this. Titleist is is huge, but damn that is a lot of money.

peter · « **Reply #42 on:** November 13, 2008, 05:20:45 am »

Have I got this right? They got reamed by Bridgestone for the two-piece thing.
So they now pay Bridgestone a 'licence fee', and now they're getting reamed by Callaway?
And the head research guy (Sullivan) who's original patents they're walking on is actually working for them?

Outstanding.
Marketing department getting their bonuses, Legal... not.

peter

jick · « **Reply #43 on:** November 15, 2008, 11:11:35 am »

It will be interesting to see how Titleist's new ball will be since they cannot use those patents. This will be the true test of their R&D team (if that division even really exists). Ever since the three-piece solid ball came out, Titleist has just been borrowing ideas from other companies. The premium paid for a ProV1 included the addition production line for the balls they give to pros for free worldwide, the Bridgestone licensing fees, and all their legal fees for their lawsuits. How will Titleist do now that they cannot borrow ideas? I have a feeling they will just be as successful as a certain original putter called the Futura (or could be the Detour).

ashmarc · « **Reply #44 on:** November 15, 2008, 06:43:09 pm »

Jick,
It's been awhile. You like to read right?

When your #1, whether it's putters or golf balls, there will always be haters.

TITLEIST PRO V1 LITIGATION FACT SHEET
FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS

Many questions have arisen in connection with the ongoing litigation between Acushnet Company and Callaway Golf regarding certain patents and Titleist Pro V1 and Pro V1x golf balls. To avoid any misunderstandings, below are some Frequently Asked Questions and Acushnet Company's responses. Throughout this list, we refer to "Pro V1" golf balls. These responses apply equally to Pro V1x golf balls.

What is this litigation about?
Pro V1
Titleist introduced the Pro V1 golf ball, based on its own technological advancements and research, in 2000. Pro V1 golf balls incorporate the combination of many Titleist technologies developed and accumulated over the past 20 years. Acushnet Company is the golf ball industry technology leader, with over 650 active golf ball patents – more than any other manufacturer. Over 65 of these patents cover the Pro V1 family.

The patents
Spalding received 4 patents in 2001 and 2003, well after the Pro V1 was developed and introduced. Callaway acquired these patents when they purchased Spalding in 2003. We believe these patents are invalid and should never have been issued in the first place. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office agrees with Acushnet. It has reexamined the patents and issued final actions that all 4 of these patents are invalid and should never have been issued.

The trial
Callaway filed suit in 2006, claiming that our Pro V1 golf balls infringe these 4 patents. In 2007, a jury found partially in favor of Callaway and partially in favor of Acushnet.

The appeal
We disagree with the trial court's ruling, especially as the court did not permit the jury to consider very important evidence, including the fact that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has issued actions that all four patents are invalid. We believe that this resulted in the trial court coming to the wrong conclusion. We will appeal this case to the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals, who will consider this important evidence.

The injunction
Callaway asked the lower court for an order stopping Acushnet from selling golf balls covered by the patents. We believe that this was inappropriate for several reasons, including the jury's "split decision", the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office's actions that all 4 patents are invalid, Callaway's years' long delay in bringing suit, and the fact that Callaway does not use these patents. The lower court ruled that Acushnet may not sell Pro V1 golf balls covered by the patents after January 1, 2009.

Litigation next steps
Acushnet will ask the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals to put the injunction on hold while the appeal is decided. We believe we have a very strong basis for that request, including the fact that the appeals court will consider the patent office decisions rejecting the four patents. If our request is granted, the injunction will not come into effect.

Can golfers play and purchase Titleist Pro V1 golf balls now?
Yes. Golfers can play and purchase Titleist Pro V1 golf balls with confidence. All Pro V1 golf balls (those golfers might already own and any new purchases) conform to USGA rules and are legal for play and purchase.

Can Golf Shops sell Titleist Pro V1 golf balls between now and January 1, 2009?
Yes. Golf Shops can sell existing inventory of Pro V1 golf balls and order additional supplies.

Will golfers be able to play and purchase Titleist Pro V1 golf balls after January 1, 2009?
Yes. The recent court order will not impact our ability to supply Golf Shops with Pro V1 golf balls. In September 2008, we converted production of the existing Pro V1 models so that they are outside the scope of the patents in question. Golf Shops can continue to order and take delivery of Pro V1 golf balls now and after January 1, 2009 and golfers can continue to play with and purchase Pro V1 with confidence.

Is there a performance difference between the existing Pro V1 golf balls and the converted production models?
No. While a number of changes in the manufacturing process were required to address the patent issues, performance and quality are indistinguishable from the current products and the converted products have been Tour validated.

How can I distinguish between the existing Pro V1 golf balls and the converted models?
Converted Pro V1 models have the same packaging and sidestamps as the existing models. However, there is a small red or black circular sticker or marking on every Pro V1 dozen box and sleeve to identify the converted production.

Does the converted product conform to USGA Rules?
Yes. Titleist Pro V1 golf balls have always conformed to USGA Rules and these products are no exception.

Can Golf Shops sell Titleist Pro V1 golf balls after January 1, 2009?
Yes. Titleist will continue to offer converted Pro V1 products after January 1, 2009 and will introduce new Pro V1 products in the first quarter of 2009.

Callaway and Acushnet disagree with respect to the scope of the court's order <http://titleist.com/go/KI2BNXGXXWOIN/PDJT3TW41LKPM/?l=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.titleist.com%2Fimages%2Fenews%2Forder.pdf> regarding the Pro V1 golf balls that are covered by the Callaway patents and that remain in retail inventory after January 1, 2009. Callaway has expressed its position in a letter to the trade dated November 14, 2008. We disagree with Callaway's position. We believe that the court order <http://titleist.com/go/KI2BNXGXXWOIN/PDJT3TW41LKPM/?l=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.titleist.com%2Fimages%2Fenews%2Forder.pdf> does not require the removal of any Pro V1 products that may be on retail shelves on January 1, 2009. However, the order <http://titleist.com/go/KI2BNXGXXWOIN/PDJT3TW41LKPM/?l=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.titleist.com%2Fimages%2Fenews%2Forder.pdf> may be read to prevent Acushnet from providing advice to its customers on this issue. We are providing a copy of the order to our customers so that they can reach their own conclusion on this issue. This issue may get decided by the court. If the court determines that Golf Shops may not sell Pro V1 golf balls covered by the patents after January 1, 2009, Acushnet will accept returns of that existing inventory and will replace it with Pro V1 golf balls that are outside the claims of the patents.

Can Tour players play Titleist Pro V1 golf balls now and after January 1, 2009?
Yes. Tour players can play Titleist Pro V1 golf balls with confidence. Pro V1 is and will remain available to all Titleist golf ball players on the worldwide professional tours and can be played both before and after January 1, 2009. If the injunction is not put on hold, Tour events in the United States will be supplied with converted current product or 2009 product.

Will New 2009 Pro V1 and golf balls perform differently or be marked differently?
As Titleist has always done throughout its 75 year history, we introduce new and improved golf balls when we have a better performing product. We introduced new Pro V1 products in 2003, 2005, 2007 and will introduce new products in 2009. The New 2009 Pro V1 models will perform differently from and better than the current Pro V1 models. Titleist has tested prototypes extensively with Tour players this fall and player feedback has been extremely favorable. Players on the worldwide professional tours can put the New 2009 Pro V1 models into competitive play when the Tours resume their schedules in January 2009. The New 2009 models will feature different sidestamps and packaging and appear as different listings on the USGA Conforming Ball List.

When can golfers play New 2009 Pro V1 golf balls?
Titleist will launch New 2009 Pro V1 golf balls in the 1st quarter of 2009. The technology and construction of New 2009 Pro V1 golf balls are outside the scope of the patents. In Q1 2009, golfers can learn about the exciting new product improvements via their local golf shop, on Titleist.com <http://titleist.com/> and in other Titleist advertising and communications.

Does Callaway use the technology in these patents in its golf balls?
No.

Does the court ruling apply outside the United States?
No. The court ruling does not apply outside the United States.

Sincerely,

sig<http://www.titleist.com/images/enews/wrusigsmall.jpg>
Wally Uihlein
Chairman and CEO
Acushnet Company

golfer4life · « **Reply #45 on:** November 15, 2008, 07:13:31 pm »

Marc, that was very informative, thanks!

H

ashmarc · « **Reply #46 on:** November 15, 2008, 07:41:20 pm »

Your welcome, I thought so as well H.

geogolf · « **Reply #47 on:** November 15, 2008, 08:37:07 pm »

Callaway owned the patents- as as has been done before defended them. Here is the dry, non biased opinion:

http://golf-patents.com/files/22847-21779/20081110_Courts_Memo_Opinion_re_JMOL_Injunction_and_Stay.pdf

Lip Out · « **Reply #48 on:** November 15, 2008, 09:43:44 pm »

Geo, what about Titleist's claim that they had previous patents that superseded Callaways? And their claim that Callaways patents shouldn't have been issued? And their claim that "The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office agrees with Acushnet. It has reexamined the patents and issued final actions that all 4 of these patents are invalid and should never have been issued." ? That is a big claim to make publicly.

Stage1350 · « **Reply #49 on:** November 15, 2008, 10:16:56 pm »

Quote from: peter on November 13, 2008, 05:20:45 am

Have I got this right? They got reamed by Bridgestone for the two-piece thing.
So they now pay Bridgestone a 'licence fee', and now they're getting reamed by Callaway?
And the head research guy (Sullivan) who's original patents they're walking on is actually working for them?

Outstanding.
Marketing department getting their bonuses, Legal... not.

peter

The fact that Sullivan works for Titleist doesn't mean that he gets the patents. Most researchers in the employ of a company have to surrender all rights to any patents that they may file during their employment. Because the research was done on company time, the company owns the intellectual property. The research chemists at a company I used to work for fell under this same situation.

Author Topic: Callaway/Titleist Lawsuit over ProV1 and Patent Infringement (Read 2658 times)