Acushnet (Titleist) patent-infringement case takes on start-up brands

[iacas]

Note that Callaway won round 1, IIRC, Titleist won round 2 and had a bunch of Callaway patents nullified, and then… I think they settled.

Took like five years too, again IIRC.

I'm curious to see how this pans out.

[billchao]

http://www.golfdigest.com/blogs/the-loop/2015/06/five-golf-ball-companies-named.html

Quote:

While two of the companies recently announced their decisions to step away from the golf ball business, five others have responded to the Acushnet complaint with a categorical denial of any patent infringement by their golf balls. All of the companies named in the lawsuit are small operations with limited sales that are often marketed only through direct-to-consumer campaigns on company websites. The vast majority of balls named in the lawsuit are three-piece, cast urethane golf balls offered at a much cheaper price than balls of a similar construction.

Within the last two weeks, both 3Up Golf and Lightning Golf have cleared out inventory of their golf balls that were cited in the Acushnet lawsuit. 3Up's founder Rob Zimmerman sent a letter to customers stating: "It's with sadness that I'm writing you today to announce the end of sale date for the 2S14, and that the 3F12 is officially sold out. Unfortunately, we can't discuss the circumstances which bring us to this stage. We've had to make a very tough business decision over the last week and as such, will be winding down our golf ball business."

In an email to Golf Digest, Zimmerman also declined to discuss the details of a settlement with Acushnet, but did note, "This certainly has been one hell of a painful learning experience."

Jay Costa, who founded Lightning Golf last fall, also appears to be stepping away from the golf-ball business. In a phone call last week, he said, "I don't know what they were going to get from me, but I do know that it wasn't worth the trouble." Costa didn't say he was out of the golf-ball business forever. "I might find a different manufacturer to work with," he said.

While Germany-based Vice has a few more weeks to file its response to the complaint, the five companies who filed their documents May 29 (Dixon, Rife, Monsta, KickX and Vail Roberts for INeedtheBall.com) didn't seem interested in walking away or closing up shop. Each is represented by Adam Kessel, a lawyer with the nationally regarded intellectual-property law firm Fish and Richardson. Each response was similar in wording, including a denial of "each and every allegation," as well as a denial "that Acushnet is entitled to the relief requested or any other relief."

Two companies backed away, five so far have denied wrongdoing. Still not certain of the particulars of the suit, but it's going exactly as I would have thought it would go.

From a consumer standpoint, I hope the little guys win.

[saevel25]

Glad to see the 5 companies joined forces with on legal representation. That is a smart move on their part. Now they can pool resources.

[boogielicious]

Quote:

Originally Posted by billchao

http://www.golfdigest.com/blogs/the-loop/2015/06/five-golf-ball-companies-named.html

Quote:

While two of the companies recently announced their decisions to step away from the golf ball business, five others have responded to the Acushnet complaint with a categorical denial of any patent infringement by their golf balls. All of the companies named in the lawsuit are small operations with limited sales that are often marketed only through direct-to-consumer campaigns on company websites. The vast majority of balls named in the lawsuit are three-piece, cast urethane golf balls offered at a much cheaper price than balls of a similar construction.

Within the last two weeks, both 3Up Golf and Lightning Golf have cleared out inventory of their golf balls that were cited in the Acushnet lawsuit. 3Up's founder Rob Zimmerman sent a letter to customers stating: "It's with sadness that I'm writing you today to announce the end of sale date for the 2S14, and that the 3F12 is officially sold out. Unfortunately, we can't discuss the circumstances which bring us to this stage. We've had to make a very tough business decision over the last week and as such, will be winding down our golf ball business."

In an email to Golf Digest, Zimmerman also declined to discuss the details of a settlement with Acushnet, but did note, "This certainly has been one hell of a painful learning experience."

Jay Costa, who founded Lightning Golf last fall, also appears to be stepping away from the golf-ball business. In a phone call last week, he said, "I don't know what they were going to get from me, but I do know that it wasn't worth the trouble." Costa didn't say he was out of the golf-ball business forever. "I might find a different manufacturer to work with," he said.

While Germany-based Vice has a few more weeks to file its response to the complaint, the five companies who filed their documents May 29 (Dixon, Rife, Monsta, KickX and Vail Roberts for INeedtheBall.com) didn't seem interested in walking away or closing up shop. Each is represented by Adam Kessel, a lawyer with the nationally regarded intellectual-property law firm Fish and Richardson. Each response was similar in wording, including a denial of "each and every allegation," as well as a denial "that Acushnet is entitled to the relief requested or any other relief."

Two companies backed away, five so far have denied wrongdoing. Still not certain of the particulars of the suit, but it's going exactly as I would have thought it would go.

From a consumer standpoint, I hope the little guys win.

I'm torn a bit on this. We tend to see the larger company as the bad guy beating up little companies.  But, I work for a large company and have several patents that I worked hard for.  If I saw some start up steal my idea, I'd be pissed and want to go after them.  My company recently went after a start up that had a couple of former employees in the group.  They basically stole ideas and manufacturing processes to make money.

Titleist is not that large a company with respect to the Exxons of the world.  If there was actual infringement, I would like the courts to decide.  Stealing ideas from anyone is sleazy and they thieves should be punished.

[saevel25]

I'm torn a bit on this. We tend to see the larger company as the bad guy beating up little companies.  But, I work for a large company and have several patents that I worked hard for.  If I saw some start up steal my idea, I'd be pissed and want to go after them.  My company recently went after a start up that had a couple of former employees in the group.  They basically stole ideas and manufacturing processes to make money.

Titleist is not that large a company with respect to the Exxons of the world.  If there was actual infringement, I would like the courts to decide.  Stealing ideas from anyone is sleazy and they thieves should be punished.

This pretty much sums it up for me. If Titleist is using this as a way to push around smaller companies, when the it is clearly not a patent infringement, I always think there should be some sort of penalty for that. Basically all Titleist is doing is drowning the smaller company in legal fees and a drawn out process. In the start up phase, this could discourage many companies.

[newtogolf]

This pretty much sums it up for me. If Titleist is using this as a way to push around smaller companies, when the it is clearly not a patent infringement, I always think there should be some sort of penalty for that. Basically all Titleist is doing is drowning the smaller company in legal fees and a drawn out process. In the start up phase, this could discourage many companies.

I agree, but in this case I believe Titleist has a basis for the lawsuit, especially since 2 defendants decided to exit the business because of the suit and the other five joined together.  As I see it, there's an opportunity within the premium golf ball market to come out with a 3 or 4 piece ball at $35 - $40.  All the major players are currently selling their premium golf balls around $45 - $49 in the US, though I heard Bridgestone was dropping the price of their premium golf ball to $38.   As we've seen with Snell and others, the smaller guys can enter the market with a comparable ball to the Pro V1 at a lower price given their lower overhead costs.

[Shorty]

More than happy to see a company called "Ineedtheball" to account for its actions.

[Golfingdad]

I agree, but in this case I believe Titleist has a basis for the lawsuit, especially since 2 defendants decided to exit the business because of the suit and the other five joined together.

Come on now ... that's not fair at all.  That would be like saying that if Hulk Hogan walked up to me and challenged me to a fistfight and I said "no thanks" and walked away, then you just say "Oh, well obviously since he walked away, whatever the dispute was about, he must have been in the wrong and Hulk was right."

This certainly doesn't mean that Titleist doesn't have a basis for the lawsuit, but you can't go off of the fact that a couple of small companies didn't want to (or couldn't afford to) fight them as proof.

[newtogolf]

Come on now ... that's not fair at all.  That would be like saying that if Hulk Hogan walked up to me and challenged me to a fistfight and I said "no thanks" and walked away, then you just say "Oh, well obviously since he walked away, whatever the dispute was about, he must have been in the wrong and Hulk was right."

This certainly doesn't mean that Titleist doesn't have a basis for the lawsuit, but you can't go off of the fact that a couple of small companies didn't want to (or couldn't afford to) fight them as proof.

When someone sues you like Titleist and you're in the right, most lawyers would suggest you countersue to recoup legal fees and damages as a result of the baseless lawsuit.  I agree it's possible the two companies decided it wasn't worth a fight, but it's also possible they realized they were in violation of the patents and a countersuit wouldn't win so therefore they cut their losses.

[Golfingdad]

When someone sues you like Titleist and you're in the right, most lawyers would suggest you countersue to recoup legal fees and damages as a result of the baseless lawsuit.  I agree it's possible the two companies decided it wasn't worth a fight, but it's also possible they realized they were in violation of the patents and a countersuit wouldn't win so therefore they cut their losses.

That's what I said ... that both are possible.  But you said that them deciding not to fight was basically "evidence" that they were likely in the wrong.  That's more than just saying its possible.

[newtogolf]

That's what I said ... that both are possible.  But you said that them deciding not to fight was basically "evidence" that they were likely in the wrong.  That's more than just saying its possible.

I think you could take Hulk Hogan btw.

[Golfingdad]

I think you could take Hulk Hogan btw.

Ha!  I don't mind flattery ... no matter how absurd.

[billchao]

When someone sues you like Titleist and you're in the right, most lawyers would suggest you countersue to recoup legal fees and damages as a result of the baseless lawsuit.  I agree it's possible the two companies decided it wasn't worth a fight, but it's also possible they realized they were in violation of the patents and a countersuit wouldn't win so therefore they cut their losses.

I'm pretty sure there's still a cash flow problem. Defending a lawsuit costs money, but so does countersuing, even if you're in the right.

[Ernest Jones]

I'm pretty sure there's still a cash flow problem. Defending a lawsuit costs money, but so does countersuing, even if you're in the right.

Right and even if you do recover all your legal costs through a court ordered award it may be too late to save your business. Add to that the endless options of appeals, stays, and other time eating tactics the little guy is going to get squeezed pretty bad.

[boogielicious]

Quote:

Originally Posted by billchao

I'm pretty sure there's still a cash flow problem. Defending a lawsuit costs money, but so does countersuing, even if you're in the right.

Right and even if you do recover all your legal costs through a court ordered award it may be too late to save your business. Add to that the endless options of appeals, stays, and other time eating tactics the little guy is going to get squeezed pretty bad.

But if the "little guys" actually did violate the patent and stole IP, then I don't feel sorry for them.

[billchao]

But if the "little guys" actually did violate the patent and stole IP, then I don't feel sorry for them.

Agreed. Probably never going to know, really. Most likely, they'll settle out of court one way or another, as these kinds of cases tend to do.

[acerimusdux]

But if the "little guys" actually did violate the patent and stole IP, then I don't feel sorry for them.

Agreed. Probably never going to know, really. Most likely, they'll settle out of court one way or another, as these kinds of cases tend to do.

It sounds to me like the smaller companies were all probably relying on Foremost. So they probably had no idea if there was a patent violation. And maybe Foremost isn't named in the suit because they aren't a US company, and it is harder to enforce the patent against them? It sounds to me like the smaller companies are caught in the middle.

[Ernest Jones]

But if the "little guys" actually did violate the patent and stole IP, then I don't feel sorry for them.

Me neither, but they should have access to a fair and just judicial ruling based on the facts, not their ability to money match the big boys.