STAFF AND WIRE REPORTSCallaway Golf earned a victory in its patent infringement suit against Acushnet Co., maker of Titleist golf balls, when jurors deemed at least three of Callaway’s ball patents as valid, according to a Bloomberg report.
The patents in question deal with the construction of a multilayer ball with a solid core and a polyurethane cover that are used in the Titleist Pro V1 ball. Callaway acquired the patents in 2003 when it purchased Top-Flite Golf following the bankruptcy of parent Spalding Sports Worldwide.
Callaway officials said their next step would be to seek injunctive relief and damages, but Acushnet executives maintain the legal battle is far from over.
“We continue to believe that we will ultimately prevail in having all claims of the Spalding patents found invalid,” said Joseph Nauman, Acushnet’s executive vice president of corporate and legal, responding to the jury’s decision in U.S. District Court in Delaware.
Acushnet officials said they are awaiting the court’s judgment and would respond appropriately, including possibly seeking a new trial. According to Acushnet, on Jan. 17, 2006, before Callaway filed its suit, Acushnet asked the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) to re-examine the asserted patents. In early 2007, initial office actions found claims on four patents to be invalid, and last month the PTO issued a second action on one of the patents, again determining it to be invalid. This information, which Acushnet’s legal team characterized as “pivotal,” wasn’t allowed into evidence by the court.
“We believe that the PTO determination is correct and are confident that the court and PTO will render final decisions that these patents are invalid,” Nauman said.
Meanwhile, Callaway officials applauded the jury’s verdict.
“We have now established in court that our golf ball patents are valid and that Titleist Pro V1 golf balls infringe those patents,” said Michele Szynal, Callaway’s vice president of communications. “We will immediately start the process of requesting an appropriate remedy, including injunctive relief and damages.”
If the jury’s outcome stands, Acushnet could find itself incurring further costs related to ball development. On Sept. 28, Acushnet reached an out-of-court settlement with Bridgestone Sports Co. Ltd., resolving a 2 1/2-year ball patent infringement suit. Under terms of that agreement, Acushnet is required to pay Bridgestone on-going royalties for use of an undisclosed number of Bridgestone patents.
Posted: 12/14/2007
print
email
discuss
