Callaway Golf Loses All Claims in Patent Reexamination

BPAI Sides with AccushnetAs reported here last January, the Board of Patent Appeals & Interferences (BPAI) heard oral arguments in the longstanding dispute between Callaway Golf and Acushnet. Acushnet is the parent company of Titleist, maker of the ProV1 family of golf balls. Callaway asserts that the ProV1 balls infringe several of their patents (6,210,293, 6,503,156, 6,506,130, 6,595,873)The majority of the debate related to whether or not a certain hardness range recited in the claims referred to a characteristic of the material, used to construct the ball, or the ball itself. Callaway argued that the claims were directed to a ball, not ingredients. Acushnet explained that the specifications of the patents were broad enough to cover a ball hardness interpretation and an ingredient hardness interpretation, thus the PTO was correct in rejecting the claims.Not surprisingly, today the BPAI affirmed all rejections made by the examiner (decisions here here and here)Next up is the inevitable request for rehearing at the BPAI, then appeal to CAFC. In the co-pending litigation the patents were also found invalid. (March 2010 D.Del). Seems this war is all but ov

As reported here last January, the Board of Patent Appeals & Interferences (BPAI) heard oral arguments in the longstanding dispute between Callaway Golf and Acushnet. Acushnet is the parent company of Titleist, maker of the ProV1 family of golf balls. Callaway asserts that the ProV1 balls infringe several of their patents (6,210,293, 6,503,156, 6,506,130, 6,595,873)

The majority of the debate related to whether or not a certain hardness range recited in the claims referred to a characteristic of the material, used to construct the ball, or the ball itself. Callaway argued that the claims were directed to a ball, not ingredients. Acushnet explained that the specifications of the patents were broad enough to cover a ball hardness interpretation and an ingredient hardness interpretation, thus the PTO was correct in rejecting the claims.

Not surprisingly, today the BPAI affirmed all rejections made by the examiner (decisions here here and here)

Next up is the inevitable request for rehearing at the BPAI, then appeal to CAFC. In the co-pending litigation the patents were also found invalid. (March 2010 D.Del). Seems this war is all but over.