Acushnet files patent suit against a host of small ball manufacturers

[Aotearoa_Brad]

 

Titleist parent suing 10 independent ball makers (@3upgolf @lightning_golf @monstagolf 7 more) over dimples. via: http://t.co/P9tWjZADFj

— MyGolfSpy (@MyGolfSpy) April 10, 2015

 

 

 

[by Golf News Net]

 

Titleist’s parent company Acushnet filed suit on Monday against 10 independent ball makers in Massachusetts federal court, claiming the companies are illegally violating patents related to their shared dimple pattern.

 

The ball makers sued are 3 Up Golf, Ariva Golf, German newcomer Vice Golf, Dixon Golf, Lightning Golf, Monsta Golf, Rife Golf, the makers of I Need The Ball, a South Korean company called Nexen Corp. and Kick X Golf.

 

Three patents in question relate to the ProV1 golf ball. In 2003, the company released an improved ProV1 with 60 fewer dimples than the original. The company found that fewer dimples with variable sizes led to better performance. Two subsequent patents that came out of that additional refinement are in question, as well. The patents are used in a number of balls Acushnet currently sells under the Titleist brand.

 

Acushnet claims each of the 10 companies is using the same dimple pattern: a triangular dipyramid pattern with 318 dimples and three different dimple sizes. All of the balls are manufactured in Taiwan by the same company (not named in the suit) with a cast, aromatic urethane cover at the approximately same thickness and hardness.

 

The Massachusetts-based company is looking for a jury trial, seeking a verdict that will prohibit these ball makers from using this dimple pattern, as well compensatory damages.

 

 

 

----------

 

 

Very interesting - and confirmation that all of the balls named in this suit are manufactured in the same factory, with the same dimple pattern and basically the same construction... not sure if they're even the same price though lol

[furu]

Like I said on Facebook - the moon will soon file a lawsuit against Titleist. Dimples......

[GolfSpy Barbajo]

Some info is trickling in to the MyGolfSpy newsroom in drips and drabs...

 

It seems that all but one of the named companies have been officially served.  It would appear the lawsuit centers on three older patents involving lower dimple counts. Sources say the complaint isn't about a specific number of dimples, just the fact that balls marketed by the named companies have a lower dimple count.  

 

Oddly, the Taiwan factory makes balls for several other manufacturers, including Wilson, which was not named in the suit.  Wilson also has a ball with a 318 dimple count (Wilson does have its own R&D facility for balls at its Innovation Center in Chicago and, presumably, holds its own ball patents).

 

Snell was not named in the suit - and it's believed Snell's balls are manufactured in South Korea by Polymeister, Inc - which is also not named in the suit. The Snell ball does have a higher dimple count.

 

OPINION TIME:

 

Can't believe for a second that Titleist views any of these companies - individually or as a group - as a threat to their ball business.  I'm guessing if you totaled all of the annual sales from these companies up they wouldn't match 2 weeks worth of Titleist ball sales.  And since Titleist is insisting on a jury trial, one could presume they realize these companies financially couldn't survive a court battle, even if they wound up victorious.  

 

I can understand protecting intellectual property - but one can't help but wonder what else might be going on here, and why the factory in Taiwan isn't named in any kind of legal action?

 

Hope to have some more information Monday...

[markb]

My take is that the basis of the suit probably has to do with the arrangement of the dimples.   Those unique patterns are protectable IP, whereas a mere number of dimples or a size of a paticular plain dimple probably isn't.   It sounds to me as if the balls targeted may all have the same dimple pattern, and in that sense they could be virtual clones of an older model Titleist ball.   It would be interesting for some MGS'er to take a good hard look that these balls and see if the dimple patterns were the same.   There would be your answer as to why they are performing "well" (meaning like a ProV1).   As for the Wilson FG Tour, with which I'm very familiar, I can tell you it does NOT have a dimple pattern like the ProV1, which is probably why it isn't named.

 

I can think of two or three good reasons why the Taiwan factory wouldn't be named.   One, Acushnet would want to sue in US courts where their potential for success and reward are much greater.   If you leave the Taiwan factory out of it, that becomes easier to do.   Secondly, 3rd party manufacturing facilities making product to the spec's of their clients, aren't often held liable for their clients sins.   And in Golf, all brands sub out business all the time.   Not wise to alienate the guys who you may have used in the past and may want to use again in the future to churn out more NXT's etc.

[GolfSpy Barbajo]

My take is that the basis of the suit probably has to do with the arrangement of the dimples.   Those unique patterns are protectable IP, whereas a mere number of dimples or a size of a paticular plain dimple probably isn't.   It sounds to me as if the balls targeted may all have the same dimple pattern, and in that sense they could be virtual clones of an older model Titleist ball.   It would be interesting for some MGS'er to take a good hard look that these balls and see if the dimple patterns were the same.   There would be your answer as to why they are performing "well" (meaning like a ProV1).   As for the Wilson FG Tour, with which I'm very familiar, I can tell you it does NOT have a dimple pattern like the ProV1, which is probably why it isn't named.

 

I can think of two or three good reasons why the Taiwan factory wouldn't be named.   One, Acushnet would want to sue in US courts where their potential for success and reward are much greater.   If you leave the Taiwan factory out of it, that becomes easier to do.   Secondly, 3rd party manufacturing facilities making product to the spec's of their clients, aren't often held liable for their clients sins.   And in Golf, all brands sub out business all the time.   Not wise to alienate the guys who you may have used in the past and may want to use again in the future to churn out more NXT's etc.

 

Excellent observations!  

 

My wife is an attorney (which should give you some idea of how many arguments I win), and from what little information is out there, she's in agreement with your assessment.  Even if the clients didn't know the balls they were buying violated patents, it's their responsibility to know. That said, it's a pretty clear power play by Titleist to put these guys out of business.  Highly doubtful any of them could afford a jury trial. 

[Tony Covey MGS]

My guess is that the overseas manufacturer has a stock dimple pattern it sells to 3rd party clients looking to bring a ball to market. It certainly wouldn't be unusual for an overseas manufacturer to 'borrow' from an established brand. It's not out of the realm of possibility that once upon a time they took a mold of  a Titleist ball and boom...dimple pattern.

 

Let's get real...most of these smaller brands aren't designing or manufacturing their own product. They're looking to carve a unique brand niche with a product that's anything but unique. Is there a real performance proposition, or are we simply talking about a logo and a story?

 

Titleist probably has the resources to put them all out of business (or at least take a cut of the bottom line), and while that sounds like the big guy trampling on the little guy, if those small ball businesses are truly-based on unlicensed Titleist patents, then its action is reasonable.

 

Keep in mind, Titleist is gearing up for an IPO so any action that will positively impact the balance sheet is worth perusing.

 

Regarding Snell...we're talking about an entirely different situation. Dean Snell is co-inventor of the Pro V1 and is personally responsible for basically every TaylorMade design of consequence. In everyday terms, he's the brains of the operation. He's inarguably one of the top 2 or 3 guys in the world as far as ball design goes. He's not relying on anybody else for the design, just the manufacturing piece.

 

If anybody goes after Snell it will be TaylorMade. Safe to say it raised some eyebrows how quickly he was able to come to market after leaving the company.

[Tony Covey MGS]

 

Because my office is a home to all things obscure I happen to have both a Monsta and a Rife golf ball here. 

 

It's interesting that both balls have very pronounced seams. While the shaping of the dimples themselves vary (the Rife has more pronounced edges while the Monsta has a softer taper), the patterns do appear to be identical.

 

If anyone can track down the identifying marks on the Titleist ball in question, I'd be willing to bet I have one around here somewhere.

[The Dansome]

I should have most balls in question on hand as well as an old Titleist or 2.

[Mike Z]

Excellent observations!  

 

... (which should give you some idea of how many arguments I win) ...

Just as many as the rest of us. 

[GolfSpy Barbajo]

Latest update -- at least one of the companies named in the story has not officially been served with any papers yet. 

[hckymeyer]

I should have most balls in question on hand ...

hmmm...

[fozcycle]

I note that the MG golfballs were not named in the suit....and they are the least expensive that also beat the Pro V1's in a comparison test.

 

When the dust settles I wonder how many of the balls survive?

[markb]

Finding the dimple pattern symmetries isn't that hard.   Take about six sharpies of different colors.   Color in all dimples of the same size with the same marker, starting from smallest to largest and keep the same order of colors for each ball.  You will see the patterns emerge.  

 

Trouble is, Titleist ProV1's haven't had a visible seam for Many generations!   Right now we're in the 2015 gray broken arrow generation, before that we had the 2013 gray solid arrow, the 2011 black solid, the 2009 black broken, the 2007 black dot -- none with visible seams.   You have to go back to the generation before you find the visible seams.   And Titleist is very careful to align its balls before stamping the logo on them, many other manufacturers do not.

[xxio]

The article talks about the 2003 ball. When did Titleist follow the non seam pattern of Bridgestone?

[GolfSpy_X]

KICK-X RESPONSE:

 

Titleist filed a lawsuit against Kick X in Massachusetts federal court this month alleging that the Kick X Tour Z infringed on its patents. The Titleist lawsuit alleges that the dimple pattern on the Kick X Tour Z golf balls violates the pattern patented by Acushnet Company, part of the South Korean company Fila Korea, Ltd. The U.S.-based Kick X is due to respond in court in the coming weeks.

"We understand why they are targeting us as we are a longer premium ball and one of the fastest growing brands on the market," said Bob Koch, chief executive officer of Kick X Golf. 

The TourZ is Longest Premium Ball on the Market

In an independent comparison conducted last summer at the highly respected Golf Laboratories, Inc. testing site in San Diego, the Kick X TourZ outdistanced the best premium balls from Titleist including the Titleist Pro-V1 and the Titleist Pro-V1x golf balls.

The Kick X TourZ ball features a Metal Fuzion Coreâ„¢ that creates an exceptionally high coefficient of restitution-the spring effect found in premium golf balls-thanks to a fusion of three proprietary metals that concentrates mass in the center of its core, which allows the ball to rebound more quickly when compressed at impact, producing additional launch speed and distance. An aerodynamic cover provides unmatched accuracy on tee shots, exceptional spin control on approaches and triple-layered construction that's engineered to deliver a soft, superior feel around the green. 

For more information on Kick X Golf by Medicus, please visit KickXGolf.com.

Contact:
Mike Hoye 310.346.0845/[email protected]

[Hula Rock]

hmmm...

 

hahahahahahah.  thats funny right there.....

[fozcycle]

Good Response for Kick-X....I still have a dozen, waiting for the Summer.  I like the ball, especially since I am NOT a long ball hitter.

[RookieBlue7]

I note that the MG golfballs were not named in the suit....and they are the least expensive that also beat the Pro V1's in a comparison test.

 

When the dust settles I wonder how many of the balls survive?

MG wasn't named because they bought and use the old Hogan Tour Deep patent for the TourC4. There are 6 deeper dimples in strategic placements on the ball.

 

Here's the tour deep

 

http://www.golfballs.com/m/Golf-Balls/Ben-Hogan-Tour-Deep-Golf-Balls.htm?fullSite=0

 

I also have to believe since they used that patent they bought their E380 or whatever it's called is probably using another Hogan patent, maybe the Hawk? That one is a guess but the Tour C4 definitely uses the Tour Deep patent

[RookieBlue7]

RifeMonsta.jpg

 

Because my office is a home to all things obscure I happen to have both a Monsta and a Rife golf ball here.

 

It's interesting that both balls have very pronounced seams. While the shaping of the dimples themselves vary (the Rife has more pronounced edges while the Monsta has a softer taper), the patterns do appear to be identical.

 

If anyone can track down the identifying marks on the Titleist ball in question, I'd be willing to bet I have one around here somewhere.

From the description of a few of the balls it sounds like they may be using the original ProV1 pattern if there's a pronounced seam. You could seam those old balls. 2002/2003 proV1 and ProV1 star

[xxio]

Looks like it may just backfire, bringing attention to these smaller companies.

 

Free marketing provided by Titleist.

[RookieBlue7]

Not when they have the cash flow they do and are pushing for a jury trial these companies can't afford.

[Tony Covey MGS]

Looks like it may just backfire, bringing attention to these smaller companies.

 

Free marketing provided by Titleist.

 

Practically a no lose for Titleist. Assuming their claim is legit (and it probably is), it either ends with these smaller companies going out of business (less competition) or with these companies paying Titleist royalties. 

 

Isn't that the best case scenario for any company...when your competitors, no matter how small have to give you a cut of everything they make?

[Tony Covey MGS]

KICK-X RESPONSE:

 

Titleist filed a lawsuit against Kick X in Massachusetts federal court this month alleging that the Kick X Tour Z infringed on its patents. The Titleist lawsuit alleges that the dimple pattern on the Kick X Tour Z golf balls violates the pattern patented by Acushnet Company, part of the South Korean company Fila Korea, Ltd. The U.S.-based Kick X is due to respond in court in the coming weeks.

 

"We understand why they are targeting us as we are a longer premium ball and one of the fastest growing brands on the market," said Bob Koch, chief executive officer of Kick X Golf. 

 

The TourZ is Longest Premium Ball on the Market

 

In an independent comparison conducted last summer at the highly respected Golf Laboratories, Inc. testing site in San Diego, the Kick X TourZ outdistanced the best premium balls from Titleist including the Titleist Pro-V1 and the Titleist Pro-V1x golf balls.

 

The Kick X TourZ ball features a Metal Fuzion Coreâ„¢ that creates an exceptionally high coefficient of restitution-the spring effect found in premium golf balls-thanks to a fusion of three proprietary metals that concentrates mass in the center of its core, which allows the ball to rebound more quickly when compressed at impact, producing additional launch speed and distance. An aerodynamic cover provides unmatched accuracy on tee shots, exceptional spin control on approaches and triple-layered construction that's engineered to deliver a soft, superior feel around the green. 

 

For more information on Kick X Golf by Medicus, please visit KickXGolf.com.

Contact:

Mike Hoye 310.346.0845/[email protected]

 

What a textbook example of defensive marketing garbage.

 

They deny nothing as far as the claim goes, but basically assert that Titleist is only doing this because their tour quality complete golf ball isn't quite as long as Kick X's hard-as-rocks-totally-unplayable-around-the-greens golf ball.

 

Textbook golf industry stuff...even when your apparently caught with your pants down, it's a marketing opportunity. Also proves smaller companies can be just as deceptive in their techniques.

[fozcycle]

MG wasn't named because they bought and use the old Hogan Tour Deep patent for the TourC4. There are 6 deeper dimples in strategic placements on the ball.

 

Here's the tour deep

 

http://www.golfballs.com/m/Golf-Balls/Ben-Hogan-Tour-Deep-Golf-Balls.htm?fullSite=0

 

I also have to believe since they used that patent they bought their E380 or whatever it's called is probably using another Hogan patent, maybe the Hawk? That one is a guess but the Tour C4 definitely uses the Tour Deep patent

 

Thanks much Rookie.  I was not aware that the MG was the old Hogan.......either way, it's a pretty good ball....especially at $20/dozen.

[GolfSpy Barbajo]

During Watergate they called it a non-denial denial.

 

Agree that it's no lose for Titleist, even if their claim isn't legit. That almost doesn't matter. Either way I'm guessing some of these operations won't bother fighting, simply because their business is so small that Its not worth it.

[RookieBlue7]

During Watergate they called it a non-denial denial.

 

Agree that it's no lose for Titleist, even if their claim isn't legit. That almost doesn't matter. Either way I'm guessing some of these operations won't bother fighting, simply because their business is so small that Its not worth it.

How exactly is their claim not legit? If they're using their intellectual property ( their patent) it's 10000% legit.

[jaskanski]

Agree. Just because the claim for infringement is against some minnow in the big pond of golf ball sales and designs, it doesn't mean it is not worth filing a suit against. Patent infringement is patent infringement regardless - so  therefore any company must file a suit or what was the purpose of the patent in the first place? 

[GolfSpy Barbajo]

Read it again boys. Didn't say the claim was legit or not legit - how can anyone here say one way or the other?

 

All I said was even if the claim isn't legit, some of the small companies may not be able to, or want to, fight in court.

 

I have no idea if the claim is legit or not.

[xxio]

It will depend on what the decision is. If it is a slap on the wrist, then that is a lot of free marketing.

 

I doubt the award will be big enough to shut all these smaller companies down. 

 

Probably a fine and royalties for ball actually sold (it can't be that much). Then a cease and desist.

 

Kick X is now a known name and can market off that visibility despite having to change their ball.

[xxio]

Btw why do I think it will be a slap on the wrist? it is a patent that Titleist no longer uses on current product and has not been used for quite sometime.

 

Quite different from "seamless", which was still being used by Bridgestone when Titleist used it. Different from "mutli-layer", which Callaway (TopFlite) was still using when they filed suit.

 

The non-use implies a certain amount of "we've now use better tech". Not really a good legal stance but it should mitigate the consequences for the ones being sued..