The dispute started back in February 2006, when Callaway filed a lawsuit against Acushnet asserting that the Titleist ProV1 golf balls infringed four patents that were previously owned by Spalding. The latest decision from the PTO backs up a court decision in March 2010 that all four patents were invalid.
“Throughout this long-running dispute, Acushnet has always maintained that these patents are invalid and should never have been issued,” says Joe Nauman, executive vice president, corporate and legal, for Acushnet. “The Board of Patent Appeals’ decision is one significant step closer to having that view finally and permanently confirmed by the court system.”
Callaway sees the situation differently, and Tim Buckman, senior director of Callaway’s global communications, offered this response to SGB Golf:
“We believe the Patent Office got the decision wrong and did not have the authority to decide the validity of the patents. As the federal court in Delaware has already ruled, Acushnet breached its contract with Callaway Golf by asking the Patent Office to re-examine the validity of the patents. If necessary, we will appeal the decision to the Federal Circuit. The validity of the patents is currently being considered independently in the only appropriate forum, the federal court in Delaware, so the decision from the Patent Office does not end the case.”
Callaway won its initial patents claim against Titleist in December 2007, but by the time an injunction to stop sales of the Pro V1 family of balls became effective in January 2009, Titleist had altered the Pro V1 specifications to ensure the balls no longer infringed the patents in question.
