A federal court jury has sided with golf ball manufacturer Acushnet Company (Titleist) in a patent dispute with Callaway Golf Co., agreeing with Acushnet attorneys that the disputed patents were invalid.
The verdict seemingly ended a dispute that was initiated in 2006 when Calloway, better known for its Big Bertha drivers, alleged that earlier versions of the Titleist Pro V1 golf balls had infringed on four patents originally owned by Spalding and subsequently purchased by Callaway. Calloway sought $246 million in damages.
In January 2006, before Callaway filed its lawsuit, Acushnet petitioned the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office (PTO) to reexamine the four patents in the suit. The company further claimed that during the process, “seven separate PTO examiners were involved in evaluating the validity of these patents and all seven concluded that they are invalid.”
Nevertheless, a jury sided with Callaway in 2007, finding that it had valid patents on certain design elements of the Pro V1 golf balls. Titleist appealed and was granted a new trial.
With a second chance, Titleist’s legal team adopted a bold strategy, according to some observers. In essence, the company admitted that it had infringed on the patents in question, but that it should matter because the patents lacked the requisite specificity.
Acushnet wasted little time getting a statement out about the victory.
“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.”
Meanwhile, the Bloomberg news service reported that Callaway plans to file a motion asking the court to set aside the verdict, Bloomberg reports.
Callaway Golf Company v. Acushnet Company
Attorneys or Record: (for plaintiff) Thomas L. Halkowski, Esquire of Fish & Richardson P.C., Wilmington, Delaware. Of Counsel: Frank E. Scherkenbach, Esquire of Fish and Richardson P.C., Boston, Massachusetts; Roger A. Denning, Esquire of Fish and Richardson P.C., San Diego, California. (for defendant) Richard L. Horwitz, Esquire and David E. Moore, Esquire of Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP, Wilmington, Delaware. Of Counsel: Henry C. Bunsow, Esquire, Joseph P. Lavelle, Esquire and Brian A. Rosenthal, Esquire of Howrey LLP, Washington, D.C.
