Pro V1x : 2009 vs 2011

Of course ! the newest edition of the Pro V1x is a LOT better than the previous, but ...... ???

How much difference can we expect from the new 2011 Pro V1x compared to the old rock

The reason I ask is that maybe it is time now to work out a deal with the shopowner, to buy his stock of 2009 all at once at a decent price, or to wait for the new model......

I personally like the 2009 (and 2007) version better.  The 2011 version felt firmer to me.  I'm willing to sacrifice a little durability for a softer feel, but I realize I'm in the monority.....

Actually, the '09 is better.  A lot of Titleist tour pros are still using the old ball.  The lawsuit with Callaway really set Titleist back in terms of ball technology.

As Iacas pointed out, the issue was for designs done well before 2009, and in fact Titleist changed the design in 2007 in anticipation of the late 2007 jury ruling upholding Callaway's patents.   Almost exactly a year ago a different jury invalidated all Callaway's claims.    Callaway is now waiting to see if the courts will grant a new trial per their latest motion.   If anyone is interesting in the longer version, here are the details from Callaway's latest 10-k SEC filing:

On February 9, 2006, Callaway Golf filed a complaint in the United States District Court in Delaware (Case No. C.A. 06-91) asserting patent infringement claims against Acushnet, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Fortune Brands, alleging that Acushnet’s Titleist Pro V1 family of golf balls infringed nine claims contained in four golf ball patents owned by Callaway Golf. Acushnet later stipulated that the Pro V1 golf balls infringed the nine asserted claims, and the case proceeded to trial on the sole issue of validity. On December 14, 2007, a jury found that eight of the nine patent claims asserted by the Company against Acushnet were valid, holding one claim invalid. The District Court entered judgment in favor of the Company and against Acushnet on December 20, 2007. On November 10, 2008, the District Court entered an order, effective January 1, 2009, permanently enjoining Acushnet from further infringing those patent claims, while at the same time denying Acushnet’s motions for a new trial and for judgment as a matter of law. Acushnet appealed the District Court’s judgment to the Federal Circuit (Appeal No. 2009-1076). On August 14, 2009, the Federal Circuit affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded the case for a new trial. The Federal Circuit affirmed the trial court’s rulings with respect to claim construction, and evidentiary rulings made during the trial and rejected Acushnet’s motion for judgment as a matter of law, but ruled that the jury’s inconsistent verdicts and an error granting partial summary judgment on Acushnet’s anticipation defense required the case against Acushnet to be retried. As a result of its ruling, the Federal Circuit also vacated the permanent injunction. Acushnet filed a petition for review by the United States Supreme Court which was denied on February 22, 2010. The case was retried based upon Callaway Golf’s asserted claims. On March 29, 2010, after a five-day trial, a jury found that the asserted claims were invalid as “anticipated” and “obvious.” Callaway Golf has moved for a new trial and for judgment as a matter of law. Callaway Golf’s motion was fully briefed on June 15, 2010 and is pending for a decision in the district court.

Although it isn't the most exciting reading, going through the details in the whole 10-k filing has a lot of interesting info on the business.   One thing I also learned is that Callaway is pretty much shuttering the golf ball manufacturing in the US and is moving all of that manufacturing to Mexico.