Jump to content
Check out the Spin Axis Podcast! ×
IGNORED

Bridgestone/Acushnet ProV1/X lawsuit settled


Note: This thread is 6827 days old. We appreciate that you found this thread instead of starting a new one, but if you plan to post here please make sure it's still relevant. If not, please start a new topic. Thank you!

Recommended Posts

Posted
WEB STREET GOLF REPORT


BREAKING NEWS
Monday, October 01, 2007


GOOD THINGS COME TO THOSE WHO WAIT:
In March of 2005, accusations were made regarding Titleist’s ProV1 and ProV1x golf balls along with some of the other models by the #1 ball in golf. Bridgestone Sports Co., Ltd., and its wholly owned subsidiary, Bridgestone Golf, Inc., filed a patent infringement lawsuit against the Acushnet Company (Titleist’s parent Company) in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. It centered on ten United States patents owned by Bridgestone relating to multi-piece solid core golf ball technology. “During the course of several months of negotiations with Acushnet, we attempted to settle this dispute; however, when negotiations failed, Acushnet left us with no other course of action, but to file suit,” said Mr. Kawano, President, Bridgestone Sports Co., Ltd in a prepared statement in 2005. In the ensuing complaint, Bridgestone Sports charged Acushnet with willful infringement of ten United States patents. Among the Acushnet balls charged with infringement were: Titleist Pro V1, the Titleist Pro V1x, the Titleist NXT, Titleist NXT Tour, the Titleis DT SoLo, and the Pinnacle Exception golf balls. More than two years later Bridgestone announced it has reached a settlement in its patent dispute with The Acushnet Company. Under the terms of the agreement, Acushnet will pay Bridgestone a license fee that includes an on-going royalty for a license under certain of Bridgestone’s patents. The two parties have also agreed to a non-royalty bearing cross-license of other patents held by each company. The agreement resolves all pending litigation in the United States between them. A related suit in Japan was not a part of this settlement and remains pending, according to Bridgestone. Commenting on the settlement, Bridgestone Sports’ President Hisashi Kawano said, “We are very pleased to have reached a settlement agreement with Acushnet and to bring the U.S. litigation to an end. This agreement demonstrates the value of our technology and our Intellectual Property." Acushnet issued a prepared statement on the subject but declined to accept any questions to gain any further insight into the topic. “The litigation between Acushnet Company and Bridgestone Sports Co., Ltd. regarding golf ball patents, which was filed in March, 2005 in the United States District Court in Delaware, has been resolved through mediation. The resolution includes fully paid up cross licenses between the parties for certain patents. The resolution also includes a royalty bearing license from Bridgestone to Acushnet with respect to certain patents. The terms of the agreement are confidential. Acushnet considers this matter to be closed and will have no further comment.”

Back to main page

Posted
I think I got the gist of that, but now I have a headache.

Bag: Grom
Driver: HiBore 10.5° Fuji Stiff
3W: V-Steel 15° Graphite Designs YS-6 Stiff
3h-4h: Bobby Jones Stiff
5i-PW: CG4 Steel StiffWedges: 588 DSG RTG 52°, 900 RTG 56° Low bounce, Reg. 588 RTG 60°Putter: Dead CenterBalls: Pro V1 Speed Cart V1Home Courses: Riverdale Dunes / Knolls,...


Note: This thread is 6827 days old. We appreciate that you found this thread instead of starting a new one, but if you plan to post here please make sure it's still relevant. If not, please start a new topic. Thank you!

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Want to join this community?

    We'd love to have you!

    Sign Up
  • TST Partners

    Carl's Place
    PlayBetter
    Golfer's Journal
    ShotScope
    The Stack System
    FitForGolf
    FlightScope Mevo

    Coupon Codes (save 10-20%): "IACAS" for Mevo/Stack/FitForGolf, "IACASPLUS" for Mevo+/Pro Package, and "THESANDTRAP" for ShotScope. 15% off TourStriker (no code).
  • Posts

    • Day 37, June 10.  Today was primarily WFH, so I had several practice sessions (indoors, off a mat, into the net).  At least one each of U, 9, and 6-iron full swings with the usual priority.   I also tried a few times a putting type stroke with my 4H, as something I should probably learn how to hit (and what it does), but the mechanical shot at home off a mat doesn't tell me much of what it's doing.  That's something I should probably try on a real green, not during a round until I've tried it.
    • Day 10 (10 Jun 26) - Played in the midweek shootout at my home course - on aerated and sanded greens - day of trying to figure tempo to get the best roll on the greens.  Approach game was decently solid as was shots off the tee.  
    • Ok, I'm trying to find a feel to hit a consistent ball flight (irons).  My current predicament.  1. I try to do the arms down stuff better, with the club feeling like it is way behind me more. It's just a cluster of results. Most of the time, I can't get any speed on the swing. If I get my arms down faster, I just throw them out.  2. I focus all my attention on turning better. Pushing off with my left leg and getting my right side through better. On the DTL view, this doesn't produce anywhere close where the hands and club should be. The result is usually ball first contact, lower ball flight, more centered contact.  At this point, I am going with option 2. Stop thinking about what the hands do. Just make a shorter backswing, keep it wide, turn through. Somehow, the club head finds the ball. My focus is so much on just making sure I turn, it's like, "Oh, that contact was better.... Oh, that bell flight looks playable." If not, I will just be practicing my entire summer.       
    • Nope, they spent too much money. They are in over 28 million on the football roster and related NIL compensation at this point. Boosters associated with any Texas college football team has HUGE sway. The AD is between a rock and a hard place. They put a lot of money into Sorsby, at the chance of winning a NC this year. If you move on, you basically wasted a lot.  This is why Ohio State wants 3 QB's they feel can start. That is why the backups the past 5 years at some point transfer. Texas Tech has no backup near the quality of Sorsby. If they move on, they are screwed for 2026. 
    • Maybe there's something I still don't understand about the situation. Wouldn't Texas Tech do itself a favor to move on from Sorsby at this point?      
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Welcome to TST! Signing up is free, and you'll see fewer ads and can talk with fellow golf enthusiasts! By using TST, you agree to our Terms of Use, our Privacy Policy, and our Guidelines.