Patent Law

The Saga Continues... Acushnet Files Motion and Brief Requesting Judgment as a Matter of Law Regarding the Invalidity of Callaway's Patents, OR a New Trial

By David Dawsey PE Esq

This post is not related to Callaway?s Motion for a permanent injunction; because Acushnet has not yet filed their response. Rather, this post is directed to Acushnet?s requests for ?post-trial? relief.

Back on January 7th Acushnet filed a document entitled ?Acushnet Company?s Motion for Post-Trial Relief.? (Click HERE to read the actual document) In this motion Acushnet renewed its motion for ?judgment as a matter of law? as to the invalidity of Callaway?s patents-in-suit, and moved, in the alternative, for a new trial (and/or to alter or amend the Court?s judgment as to such claims). In this motion Acushnet stated:

Now, this week Acushnet filed a brief in support of their January 7th motion. The brief is titled ?Acushnet?s Opening Brief in Support of Its Motion for Post Trial Relief.? (Click HERE to read the entire brief in support)

While the Brief in Support is 59 pages, once you eliminate all the boilerplate legal requirements? it is very manageable to read the entire document, and well worth your time (although, I have to warn you that if you don?t love patents? it may put you to sleep; but who doesn?t love patents?). After all, any brief that leads with the statement ?Acushnet will show that the evidence adduced at trial can support only one legal conclusion ? that all the claims-in-suit are obvious and invalid,? has a lot to prove.

While the Brief in Support included 6 exhibits, one exhibit in particular is very interesting (click HERE to view Exhibit 4). Exhibit 4 contains almost 60 slides used during Callaway?s opening statement at trial. Any golfer will enjoy skimming through these slides. Check them out.

I am not going to summarize the Brief in Support because a lot of the content focuses on issues that only attorneys are interested in, but I will point out a few interesting things that I learned while reading it. One statement in particular jumped out at me (although I don?t feel that it is particularly significant to the case? just interesting), was ?If Spalding and Callaway truly believed that practicing the claims of the Sullivan patents was the reason the ProV1 was successful, one wonders why Spalding never chose to use this claimed technology in its products, and why Callaway has since abandoned it completely.? I did not realize that! Another interesting fact? ?For the past 25 years, Titleist has been played by the majority of the professional players on the U.S. PGA Tour and more than all other golf balls combined.?

I must admit, Acushnet?s Brief in Support is pretty darn good; but, when there is so much money at stake I wouldn?t expect anything less from either side. Can you imagine how much has been spent on legal fees so far?

Again, if nothing else? check out these slides from Callaway?s opening statement at trial.

David Dawsey  ? The Golf Patent Lawyer

PS ? Other posts regarding this lawsuit include:

a) General post 
b) Post re Mickelson subpoena
c) Post re Greg Norman subpoena
d) Post re jury selection process
e) Post re proposed jury instructions
f) Post re proposed verdict form
g) Post re USPTO reexamination of one patent
h) Post re rulings on Motions for Summary Judgment
i) Post re Mickelson?s potential rebuttal testimony
j) Post re the verdict
k) Post re Callaway?s Motion for Permanent Injunction

Full post as published by Golf Patents on January 27, 2008 (boomark / email).