TITLEIST WINS DECISION IN PRO V1 PATENT DISPUTE WITH CALLAWAY

[GolfSpy_X]

TITLEIST WINS DECISION IN PRO V1 PATENT DISPUTE WITH CALLAWAY

 

Fairhaven, MA (March 29, 2010)– Acushnet Company, the golf business of Fortune Brands, Inc. (NYSE: FO), and manufacturer of Titleist, the #1 ball in golf, announced that it won a jury verdict in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware in its golf ball patent dispute with Callaway Golf Co.. Callaway asserted that previous generation Titleist Pro V1 golf balls had infringed on four patents originally owned by Spalding and subsequently purchased by Callaway Golf. The jury agreed with Acushnet's position that the patents in question are invalid.

 

“We are extremely pleased with the court's decision, and we hope that this finally brings this long standing dispute to a close,” said Joe Nauman, Executive Vice President, Corporate and Legal, Acushnet Company. “We have explained throughout this process that Acushnet independently developed the technology in question. The Titleist Pro V1 family utilizes technology from 74 Acushnet patents and was first introduced to our PGA TOUR players in October 2000, well before any of the Spalding patents were issued in 2001 and 2003. We appreciate the jury's careful consideration of the facts and the time they devoted to these proceedings. This verdict affirms our view that all claims in these patents are invalid – just as the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office (PTO) has repeatedly found.”

 

In January 2006, before Callaway filed this litigation, Acushnet petitioned the PTO to reexamine the four patents in the suit. Since then, the PTO has repeatedly found that all claims of all four patents are invalid. During this process, seven separate PTO examiners were involved in evaluating the validity of these patents and all seven concluded that they are invalid.

 

Acushnet Company has a comprehensive product and process Research and Development staff and the Pro V1 golf ball franchise represents the accumulation of technology developed by Acushnet over a 20-year period. As the worldwide golf ball performance and technology leader, Acushnet currently holds over 715 of the nearly 2,000 active patents related to golf balls – more than any other manufacturer.

[JohnBarry]

So in the long run, what does this mean for us golfers?

[jamo]

It seems like this is a surprise, wasn't Callaway expected to win?

[GolfSpy_X]

Well Callaway made it seem that way to the public...although that was just the perception they wanted...and it worked. Probably hurt Titleist ball sales a little and helped theirs a little with their ads they ran but golf ball guys knew it had no legs to stand on.

 

Just Titleist was not going to go down to the level of using this as a PR stunt like Callway did.

 

 

 

It seems like this is a surprise, wasn't Callaway expected to win?

[JohnBarry]

I thought they already did, that why they made the new ProV1

[NGage]

This whole thing's been confusing to say the least. Each side has won their share of court victories, and who knows if it'll ever end.

 

IMHO, it looks like Callaway thought maybe there was some infringement....but also knew that even filing the suit that it would lend credibility to their product -- just like Nike went after Tiger for that purpose.

 

As for us golfers?....none of it matters or affects us a bit, I don't believe.

[Maverickping]

Titleist Wins Decision In Pro V1 Patent Dispute With Callaway

 

Fairhaven, MA (March 29, 2010) - Acushnet Company, the golf business of Fortune Brands, Inc. (NYSE: FO), and manufacturer of Titleist, the #1 ball in golf, announced that it won a jury verdict in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware in its golf ball patent dispute with Callaway Golf Co.. Callaway asserted that previous generation Titleist Pro V1 golf balls had infringed on four patents originally owned by Spalding and subsequently purchased by Callaway Golf. The jury agreed with Acushnet's position that the patents in question are invalid.

 

"We are extremely pleased with the court's decision, and we hope that this finally brings this long standing dispute to a close," said Joe Nauman, Executive Vice President, Corporate and Legal, Acushnet Company. "We have explained throughout this process that Acushnet independently developed the technology in question. The Titleist Pro V1 family utilizes technology from 74 Acushnet patents and was first introduced to our PGA TOUR players in October 2000, well before any of the Spalding patents were issued in 2001 and 2003. We appreciate the jury's careful consideration of the facts and the time they devoted to these proceedings. This verdict affirms our view that all claims in these patents are invalid - just as the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office (PTO) has repeatedly found."

 

In January 2006, before Callaway filed this litigation, Acushnet petitioned the PTO to reexamine the four patents in the suit. Since then, the PTO has repeatedly found that all claims of all four patents are invalid. During this process, seven separate PTO examiners were involved in evaluating the validity of these patents and all seven concluded that they are invalid.

 

Acushnet Company has a comprehensive product and process Research and Development staff and the Pro V1 golf ball franchise represents the accumulation of technology developed by Acushnet over a 20-year period. As the worldwide golf ball performance and technology leader, Acushnet currently holds over 715 of the nearly 2,000 active patents related to golf balls - more than any other manufacturer.

[TWShoot67]

Excellent! I think it was all BS the first time round. The patents that Callaway said Titleist used were patents that ere acquired after the ball was already made by Titleist when the used some open patents that Top Flite had if I remember correct. Finally Titleist wins but the damage was already done. making them pull balls off shelves. Now how is Titleist going to be compensated?

[Dave in Asia]

Excellent! I think it was all BS the first time round. The patents that Callaway said Titleist used were patents that ere acquired after the ball was already made by Titleist when the used some open patents that Top Flite had if I remember correct. Finally Titleist wins but the damage was already done. making them pull balls off shelves. Now how is Titleist going to be compensated?

 

Well, I'd be interested to see whether the V1 actually took a dip in sales when they changed to the 'new' V1 produced to conform with the previous ruling. There undoubtedly will have been expenses incurred in researching and implementing changes to the production process of the 'new', but my guess is that Titleist would be hard pressed to show that it a suffered substantial loss in sales in the V1 as a result of having to roll out a version conforming to the previous judgment.

[JohnBarry]

If anything, it might have boosted sales, everyone out for the new balls!

[GolfSpy_X]

Jury Verdict

titleist-callaway-jury-verdict.pdf