Callaway Granted Permanent Pro V-1 Sales Injunction

Golf World's E. Michael Johnson reports a stunner that could have huge implications...or not?

The United States District Court in Wilmington, Del., has granted Callaway'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.

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.

But...

Key to the ruling, however, is the phrase "Acushnet's current line of Titleist Pro V1 family of golf balls." Although the court's ruling would appear to indicate that some inventory of Pro V1s currently on shelves may have to be stopped, the Acushnet Company, parent company of Titleist, said it will file an appeal and that it does not expect the ruling to have a material adverse impact on its results.

Comments

[Jim Beckner]

Others who are practicing attorneys in this area should respond but it seems to me, reading the article, that the ruling in fact does cover "Acushnet's current line of Titleist Pro V1 family of golf balls" - and I read that to mean all of the Pro V1's. The phrase that Acushnet "does not expect the ruling to have a material adverse impact on its results," seems to me to be the language used by public companies when bad news hits - not when a company is talking about its golf balls, so I am a little stumped at the meaning or intent.

But to me the real phrasing that tells the story is that production is now outside the protection of the patents, that they redesigned the balls - "According to a statement released by Acushnet, in September 2008, Titleist converted production of existing Pro V1 models so that they were outside the patents in question. The company also said it has developed and will introduce new Titleist Pro V1 products in the first quarter of 2009 that also are outside the patents in question."

So, if you want a real Pro V1 you buy Callaway?

Jim

[Rich]

Am I the only one who sees life imitating art via the Troon McAllister novel "Scratch"?

[Smolmania]

I read the Judge's opinion from the link on David Dawsey's ip/golf blog, but saw no mention of the fact that one of the patents the jury ruled Titleist had infringed was in fact invalid. I thought I had read that the Patent Office had come down with that ruling after the initial verdict. . . I'm no intellectual property lawyer, but that would seem to be relevant. I guess we'll have to wait for Mr. Dawsey's analysis to find out.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Smols, in fact four of the patents were ruled invalid by the USPTO. This links to that golf-patents.com article: http://tinyurl.com/6ga5pl . I'm as confused as anyone else how what are "invalid" patents can be used for an injunction, but I'm not a patent lawyer, so...

And my understanding of "family" of golf balls doesn't mean new models, but rather the brother/sister pairing of "Pro V1" and "Pro V1x."