PXG sues Taylor Made

[maowv]

Check out Michael Newton's head-to-head video between the P790 and the PXG. It's on Youtube.

 

Couldn't get any closer in launch monitor results. Same distance, same trajectory, same peak height, basically same ball speeds, same spin. Only real difference is the look and the price, of course.

[Krt22]

Check out Michael Newton's head-to-head video between the P790 and the PXG. It's on Youtube.

 

Couldn't get any closer in launch monitor results. Same distance, same trajectory, same peak height, basically same ball speeds, same spin. Only real difference is the look and the price, of course.

 

Im sure that can be said about a lot of club on the market. The reality of the golf world is there really isnt much innovation or tech that has yet to be uncovered. Hollow irons and thermoplastic inserts are nothing new.

[009]

(I have not read the entire thread so apologies if the following has already been brought up)

 

IMO, thanks to Parsons, this lawsuit will help increase sales for Taylormade. By filing this, Parsons is essentially admitting the P-790s are as good as his PXGs. Golfers will see this and want to buy the P-790s for half the price of the PXGs.

 

He would have been better served to keep his ego out of this and concentrate on his PXG brand.

[bfizzy]

(I have not read the entire thread so apologies if the following has already been brought up)

 

IMO, thanks to Parsons, this lawsuit will help increase sales for Taylormade. By filing this, Parsons is essentially admitting the P-790s are as good as his PXGs. Golfers will see this and want to buy the P-790s for half the price of the PXGs.

 

He would have been better served to keep his ego out of this and concentrate on his PXG brand.

 

While I'm inclined to agree with you, the other part of me says that a good portion of people considering PXG are looking for exclusivity just as much as they are looking for performance, and therefore this will have little impact to both businesses. I've said it in another thread but I think the reason that people hit PXG "better" isn't because the tech is ground breaking, but because PXG puts an emphasis on getting properly fit, but that doesn't mean that PXG can't defend their IP.

 

The price point drive out a significant portion of the market and the over the top marketing creates hype and buzz. All that combined makes for a BRAND that people want but can't have. One camp is saying they are buying TM because this validates that TM has the same tech for 1/3 the price, but what we aren't reading are the people that are going to buy PXG because they have the real tech. This to me means that there really isn't cross shopping between the two brands as the price differential is enough to drive other people to other attributes to distinguish between the two, with brand perception being the primary factor.

[DrCRHop]

(I have not read the entire thread so apologies if the following has already been brought up)

 

IMO, thanks to Parsons, this lawsuit will help increase sales for Taylormade. By filing this, Parsons is essentially admitting the P-790s are as good as his PXGs. Golfers will see this and want to buy the P-790s for half the price of the PXGs.

 

He would have been better served to keep his ego out of this and concentrate on his PXG brand.

 

In absolutely no way is PXG admitting the P-790's "are as good as his". By filing this lawsuit he is trying to protect his IP from a company that has a significantly larger market share. IF they used his IP, it doesn't mean the clubs are equivalent, they could have done a shoddy job at using his IP. There have been a number of claims on this thread about whether or not his patents will hold up. Lawyers and non-lawyers alike spewing thoughts, but these are all simply opinions. We will not know until a) the case is settled (and then there may be no admission) or b) there is a court ruling. Just because someone is a patent attorney does not make them an expert in this case.

[new2g0lf]

(I have not read the entire thread so apologies if the following has already been brought up)

 

IMO, thanks to Parsons, this lawsuit will help increase sales for Taylormade. By filing this, Parsons is essentially admitting the P-790s are as good as his PXGs. Golfers will see this and want to buy the P-790s for half the price of the PXGs.

 

He would have been better served to keep his ego out of this and concentrate on his PXG brand.

 

He's not admitting anything, he's accusing TM of stealing his IP. When golf club manufacturers sue clone companies are they admitting the cheap Chinese knockoffs are as good as their clubs?

[Dpavs]

If being a patent attorney doesn't make someone an expert in patent law ... I'm not sure what does. Design engineers can talk until they are blue in the face about why they think a design is unique but if the criteria required to substantiate those claims in a court of law are not met... it's game over I would think.

[DrCRHop]

Then why do patent attorneys bring in expert witnesses to testify? I have ~25 issued patents and another 10 applications (in the chemical matter/pharmaceutical field) and patent attorneys know the law, but are not experts in the specifics of every field. I've been called as an expert witness in several litigation disputes and the attorney's rely on my testimony to help determine what is patentable or what is infringed upon.

[009]

(I have not read the entire thread so apologies if the following has already been brought up)

 

IMO, thanks to Parsons, this lawsuit will help increase sales for Taylormade. By filing this, Parsons is essentially admitting the P-790s are as good as his PXGs. Golfers will see this and want to buy the P-790s for half the price of the PXGs.

 

He would have been better served to keep his ego out of this and concentrate on his PXG brand.

 

He's not admitting anything, he's accusing TM of stealing his IP. When golf club manufacturers sue clone companies are they admitting the cheap Chinese knockoffs are as good as their clubs?

 

I agree he's accusing TM of stealing his IP. I also think he's seen the side-by-side comparison tests and has determined the P-790s are equal/near-equal in performance to his irons. Because of that, the P-790s pose a threat to his business and he's determined it is worth the time and large amount of money to file a lawsuit. If the performance numbers didn't compare, instead of filing a costly lawsuit, he'd spend his money on advertising - detailing the advantages of the PXGs over the P-790s.

 

You mention manufacturers sue clone Chinese knockoff companies. I'm not aware of that. I would think it would not be worth it to them. Do you have some examples of this?

[Jasonic]

Put me on the list for predicting that pxgs patents will be thrown out as uninforcible .

 

And beside that point I still do not see the issue with the 790 iron. It doesn't look like pxg. Doesn't feel like pxg. And isn't being marketed as " as good or better than " pxg. So what's the issue ? Has more differences than similarities in my eyes. Someone please explain in detail without just saying " they copied pxg wha wha wha ".

 

It's because bob parsons is a dooshbag.

[Dpavs]

Then why do patent attorneys bring in expert witnesses to testify? I have ~25 issued patents and another 10 applications (in the chemical matter/pharmaceutical field) and patent attorneys know the law, but are not experts in the specifics of every field. I've been called as an expert witness in several litigation disputes and the attorney's rely on my testimony to help determine what is patentable or what is infringed upon.

 

I would surmise it is so that they can express opinions about certain design elements and why they are different from state of art or other patented elements, but now we are diverging from the content of your original post unless I misunderstood it, where I believe you stated...

 

"There have been a number of claims on this thread about whether or not his patents will hold up. Lawyers and non-lawyers alike spewing thoughts, but these are all simply opinions. We will not know until a) the case is settled (and then there may be no admission) or b) there is a court ruling. Just because someone is a patent attorney does not make them an expert in this case. "

 

It is in that statement that I responded to and with which I would tend to disagree. Actually, I would think that the patent lawyers are precisely the type of experts whose opinions are the most relevant in regards as to whether the patents for PXG will likely hold up or not.

 

That said... I would agree that until the proceedings are completed we really won't know what will happen. We can conjecture as to the likelyhood, but the result may differ from the best of suppositions one way or the other.

[Kingcat990]

Then why do patent attorneys bring in expert witnesses to testify? I have ~25 issued patents and another 10 applications (in the chemical matter/pharmaceutical field) and patent attorneys know the law, but are not experts in the specifics of every field. I've been called as an expert witness in several litigation disputes and the attorney's rely on my testimony to help determine what is patentable or what is infringed upon.

 

They need someone to explain the process thoroughly enough to differentiate from other processes'. If 1 party used a chiller and another party used a cooling tower, would that be infringement? Is it the process or the final product?

[DrCRHop]

Then why do patent attorneys bring in expert witnesses to testify? I have ~25 issued patents and another 10 applications (in the chemical matter/pharmaceutical field) and patent attorneys know the law, but are not experts in the specifics of every field. I've been called as an expert witness in several litigation disputes and the attorney's rely on my testimony to help determine what is patentable or what is infringed upon.

 

I would surmise it is so that they can express opinions about certain design elements and why they are different from state of art or other patented elements, but now we are diverging from the content of your original post unless I misunderstood it, where I believe you stated...

 

"There have been a number of claims on this thread about whether or not his patents will hold up. Lawyers and non-lawyers alike spewing thoughts, but these are all simply opinions. We will not know until a) the case is settled (and then there may be no admission) or b) there is a court ruling. Just because someone is a patent attorney does not make them an expert in this case. "

 

It is in that statement that I responded to and with which I would tend to disagree. Actually, I would think that the patent lawyers are precisely the type of experts whose opinions are the most relevant in regards as to whether the patents for PXG will likely hold up or not.

 

That said... I would agree that until the proceedings are completed we really won't know what will happen. We can conjecture as to the likelyhood, but the result may differ from the best of suppositions one way or the other.

"I would surmise it is so that they can express opinions about certain design elements and why they are different from state of art or other patented elements.."

 

"I would think that the patent lawyers are precisely the type of experts whose opinions are the most relevant in regards as to whether the patents for PXG will likely hold up or not."

 

If the attorneys need someone else's "opinions about design elements and why they are different from state of the art (or prior art) or other patented elements" then they (patent attorneys) are not the expert who can state whether these patents will hold up. That was my point.

 

Yes, patent attorney's are experts in the patent law; however, that is not the same as knowing the prior art and determination of patentability. The attorney is excellent in taking the patent idea and crafting the claims in the legalese that is needed based on the information given to them by the inventors and prior art searches performed. If they were the experts, then they would be called during litigation to discuss the merits of the claims - they are not. When a patent is reviewed by the patent office they generally come back with opinions about which claims are allowed and those that are not. The attorney then will send that opinion to the experts (usually the inventors) in order to draft the response to the examiner (again, if the attorney was the expert they would craft the response, but they don't). Many patent attorneys do have advanced degrees in a science based field in order to help themselves, but again, that doesn't make then the expert in the enforceability of the claims. For instance, the patent attorney that my group works with has a doctorate in biology; however, that does not make them an expert in my field - it does allow them to speak and understand my needs and claims better than someone without a science degree. But, we would not rely on them to make a determination of whether the claims that were rejected were correct.

 

And one more item about the foam being prior art. Foam being inside golf clubs does not necessarily mean that is prior art for all new instances of foam being in golf clubs. If there is an advancement in the materials used in the foam that then impart unexpected improvements: then that could be deemed a non-obvious change and thus be novel and granted a patent. There are many nuances to advances and a single one size fits all term doesn't apply. Now, PXG will have their experts say why theirs is novel; and TM will have their experts saying why theirs is different. That is why it is nearly impossible for those on these forums (attorneys or not) to express anything other than an opinion on whether the patent will be validated or not.

[DrCRHop]

Then why do patent attorneys bring in expert witnesses to testify? I have ~25 issued patents and another 10 applications (in the chemical matter/pharmaceutical field) and patent attorneys know the law, but are not experts in the specifics of every field. I've been called as an expert witness in several litigation disputes and the attorney's rely on my testimony to help determine what is patentable or what is infringed upon.

 

I would surmise it is so that they can express opinions about certain design elements and why they are different from state of art or other patented elements, but now we are diverging from the content of your original post unless I misunderstood it, where I believe you stated...

 

"There have been a number of claims on this thread about whether or not his patents will hold up. Lawyers and non-lawyers alike spewing thoughts, but these are all simply opinions. We will not know until a) the case is settled (and then there may be no admission) or b) there is a court ruling. Just because someone is a patent attorney does not make them an expert in this case. "

 

It is in that statement that I responded to and with which I would tend to disagree. Actually, I would think that the patent lawyers are precisely the type of experts whose opinions are the most relevant in regards as to whether the patents for PXG will likely hold up or not.

 

That said... I would agree that until the proceedings are completed we really won't know what will happen. We can conjecture as to the likelyhood, but the result may differ from the best of suppositions one way or the other.

"I would surmise it is so that they can express opinions about certain design elements and why they are different from state of art or other patented elements.."

 

"I would think that the patent lawyers are precisely the type of experts whose opinions are the most relevant in regards as to whether the patents for PXG will likely hold up or not."

 

If the attorneys need someone else's "opinions about design elements and why they are different from state of the art (or prior art) or other patented elements" then they (patent attorneys) are not the expert who can state whether these patents will hold up. That was my point.

 

Yes, patent attorney's are experts in the patent law; however, that is not the same as knowing the prior art and determination of patentability. The attorney is excellent in taking the patent idea and crafting the claims in the legalese that is needed based on the information given to them by the inventors and prior art searches performed. If they were the experts, then they would be called during litigation to discuss the merits of the claims - they are not. When a patent is reviewed by the patent office they generally come back with opinions about which claims are allowed and those that are not. The attorney then will send that opinion to the experts (usually the inventors) in order to draft the response to the examiner (again, if the attorney was the expert they would craft the response, but they don't). Many patent attorneys do have advanced degrees in a science based field in order to help themselves, but again, that doesn't make then the expert in the enforceability of the claims. For instance, the patent attorney that my group works with has a doctorate in biology; however, that does not make them an expert in my field - it does allow them to speak and understand my needs and claims better than someone without a science degree. But, we would not rely on them to make a determination of whether the claims that were rejected were correct.

 

And one more item about the foam being prior art. Foam being inside golf clubs does not necessarily mean that is prior art for all new instances of foam being in golf clubs. If there is an advancement in the materials used in the foam that then impart unexpected improvements: then that could be deemed a non-obvious change and thus be novel and granted a patent. There are many nuances to advances and a single one size fits all term doesn't apply. Now, PXG will have their experts say why theirs is novel; and TM will have their experts saying why theirs is different. That is why it is nearly impossible for those on these forums (attorneys or not) to express anything other than an opinion on whether the patent will be validated or not.

 

I don't want to digress from this topic any more than I have and do not mean any disrespect to the patent attorney's on the forums.

[J13]

(I have not read the entire thread so apologies if the following has already been brought up)

 

IMO, thanks to Parsons, this lawsuit will help increase sales for Taylormade. By filing this, Parsons is essentially admitting the P-790s are as good as his PXGs. Golfers will see this and want to buy the P-790s for half the price of the PXGs.

 

He would have been better served to keep his ego out of this and concentrate on his PXG brand.

 

He's not admitting anything, he's accusing TM of stealing his IP. When golf club manufacturers sue clone companies are they admitting the cheap Chinese knockoffs are as good as their clubs?

 

But TM is not a cheap Chinese knock off company. They dominate PXG in club sales and just came out with a similar product for 1/3 the cost.

 

790's= PXG Killers , because lets be honest the woods are terrible and no one uses the putters. Irons are all they got and now that's gone

[QMany]

It will be a "battle of the experts." PXG hired Stites for their initial analysis, paying his consulting bills since NIKE went defunct. I wonder who Taylormade will hire.

[Peanut191]

It will be a "battle of the experts." PXG hired Stites for their initial analysis, paying his consulting bills since NIKE went defunct. I wonder who Taylormade will hire.

 

Tom Wishon?

[J13]

It will be a "battle of the experts." PXG hired Stites for their initial analysis, paying his consulting bills since NIKE went defunct. I wonder who Taylormade will hire.

 

Tom Wishon?

 

That would be a good draft pick

[SheriffBooth]

 

"I would surmise it is so that they can express opinions about certain design elements and why they are different from state of art or other patented elements.."

 

"I would think that the patent lawyers are precisely the type of experts whose opinions are the most relevant in regards as to whether the patents for PXG will likely hold up or not."

 

If the attorneys need someone else's "opinions about design elements and why they are different from state of the art (or prior art) or other patented elements" then they (patent attorneys) are not the expert who can state whether these patents will hold up. That was my point.

 

Yes, patent attorney's are experts in the patent law; however, that is not the same as knowing the prior art and determination of patentability. The attorney is excellent in taking the patent idea and crafting the claims in the legalese that is needed based on the information given to them by the inventors and prior art searches performed. If they were the experts, then they would be called during litigation to discuss the merits of the claims - they are not. When a patent is reviewed by the patent office they generally come back with opinions about which claims are allowed and those that are not. The attorney then will send that opinion to the experts (usually the inventors) in order to draft the response to the examiner (again, if the attorney was the expert they would craft the response, but they don't). Many patent attorneys do have advanced degrees in a science based field in order to help themselves, but again, that doesn't make then the expert in the enforceability of the claims. For instance, the patent attorney that my group works with has a doctorate in biology; however, that does not make them an expert in my field - it does allow them to speak and understand my needs and claims better than someone without a science degree. But, we would not rely on them to make a determination of whether the claims that were rejected were correct.

 

And one more item about the foam being prior art. Foam being inside golf clubs does not necessarily mean that is prior art for all new instances of foam being in golf clubs. If there is an advancement in the materials used in the foam that then impart unexpected improvements: then that could be deemed a non-obvious change and thus be novel and granted a patent. There are many nuances to advances and a single one size fits all term doesn't apply. Now, PXG will have their experts say why theirs is novel; and TM will have their experts saying why theirs is different. That is why it is nearly impossible for those on these forums (attorneys or not) to express anything other than an opinion on whether the patent will be validated or not.

 

I don't want to digress from this topic any more than I have and do not mean any disrespect to the patent attorney's on the forums.

 

Expert witnesses are used in litigation because that's what the Rules of Evidence require. Attorneys can't testify as to the facts of a case, any more than an engineering expert witness can testify to the legal standards that a judge or jury should apply - it's the inherent structure of our adversarial legal system. That does not mean that the opinions of an experienced patent attorney regarding a case such as this should be ignored or discounted because they are not practicing golf club engineers. Patent lawyers understand what is required to prove and prevail in a case such as this, and there's quite a bit more involved than simply a technical inquiry into the engineering. Your argument makes it sound as though we should accept the opinion of the barista at Starbucks on this matter as readily as we should accept the opinion of an experienced patent litigator.

 

As you know from experience, in a trial, the engineering expert does not testify as to whether he or she thinks the design infringes. They may testify about technical elements and what they think is similar in their opinion. And of course there will be an expert on the other side who says exactly the opposite. Ultimately, whether a patent has been infringed will be decided by a jury, made up of housewives and bus drivers and college students and retirees, most of whom have absolutely no specialized knowledge that they can bring to bear.

[Dpavs]

+1 ^ exactly

[johnjingle]

haha...hurry up and buy them before they get pulled from shelves!

[SHIVAN]

Can intellectual property (IP) be "stolen" when the IP was already in the public domain, but did not originate with the plaintiff? Serious question.

[J13]

Can intellectual property (IP) be "stolen" when the IP was already in the public domain, but did not originate with the plaintiff? Serious question.

 

People keep talking about IP and it's not what people think. It's not the look or the fact that TM pushed "speedfoam" into a hollow iron. The IP in question is what the speed foam is made of. Parson's is claiming TM stole the secret in the sauce and copied his recipe.

[jdcadkin]

Can intellectual property (IP) be "stolen" when the IP was already in the public domain, but did not originate with the plaintiff? Serious question.

 

People keep talking about IP and it's not what people think. It's not the look or the fact that TM pushed "speedfoam" into a hollow iron. The IP in question is what the speed foam is made of. Parson's is claiming TM stole the secret in the sauce and copied his recipe.

 

That's completely wrong and not what PXG is claiming.

[jdcadkin]

Expert witnesses are used in litigation because that's what the Rules of Evidence require. Attorneys can't testify as to the facts of a case, any more than an engineering expert witness can testify to the legal standards that a judge or jury should apply - it's the inherent structure of our adversarial legal system. That does not mean that the opinions of an experienced patent attorney regarding a case such as this should be ignored or discounted because they are not practicing golf club engineers. Patent lawyers understand what is required to prove and prevail in a case such as this, and there's quite a bit more involved than simply a technical inquiry into the engineering. Your argument makes it sound as though we should accept the opinion of the barista at Starbucks on this matter as readily as we should accept the opinion of an experienced patent litigator.

 

This is 100% correct.

 

As you know from experience, in a trial, the engineering expert does not testify as to whether he or she thinks the design infringes. They may testify about technical elements and what they think is similar in their opinion. And of course there will be an expert on the other side who says exactly the opposite.

 

Almost. Technical experts will definitely opine on whether a patent is infringed and/or valid (assuming they are willing to get behind that opinion) after applying what they understand the appropriate legal standard to be after getting coached up by their side's attorneys.

 

Ultimately, whether a patent has been infringed will be decided by a jury, made up of housewives and bus drivers and college students and retirees, most of whom have absolutely no specialized knowledge that they can bring to bear.

 

This is 100% correct, and a HUGE problem for patent law in the U.S.

[Dpavs]

Can intellectual property (IP) be "stolen" when the IP was already in the public domain, but did not originate with the plaintiff? Serious question.

 

Once something enters the public domain it is no longer IP (intellectual property) and there are no remaining exclusive ownership rights, so it cannot be stolen and it is there for all to use or copy.

[Pigems]

^^ How does IP get classified as being in the Public domain and no longer be IP??

[bladehunter]

Can intellectual property (IP) be "stolen" when the IP was already in the public domain, but did not originate with the plaintiff? Serious question.

 

People keep talking about IP and it's not what people think. It's not the look or the fact that TM pushed "speedfoam" into a hollow iron. The IP in question is what the speed foam is made of. Parson's is claiming TM stole the secret in the sauce and copied his recipe.

 

That's completely wrong and not what PXG is claiming.

 

Then what are they claiming. I've asked what is unique to pxg and heard crickets.

[jdcadkin]

Can intellectual property (IP) be "stolen" when the IP was already in the public domain, but did not originate with the plaintiff? Serious question.

 

People keep talking about IP and it's not what people think. It's not the look or the fact that TM pushed "speedfoam" into a hollow iron. The IP in question is what the speed foam is made of. Parson's is claiming TM stole the secret in the sauce and copied his recipe.

 

That's completely wrong and not what PXG is claiming.

 

Then what are they claiming. I've asked what is unique to pxg and heard crickets.

 

They are claiming infringement of certain of their patents. See https://www.scribd.com/document/358808739/PXG-vs-TaylorMade-Full-suit-filing.

 

It does not appear that the claims of any of the patents currently asserted identify a specific compound or "secret sauce" injected into PXG clubs. The claims simply refer to an "elastic polymer material" (e.g., PXG's TPE), but they do not claim a specific chemical makeup. The claims of the patents relate to the design of a hollow clubhead, injected with an "elastic polymer," having various weight configurations as described in the claims.

 

There will be a giant fight as to what "elastic polymer material" means and whether TM's speedfoam is such a material.

[QuickFeet]

Can intellectual property (IP) be "stolen" when the IP was already in the public domain, but did not originate with the plaintiff? Serious question.

 

People keep talking about IP and it's not what people think. It's not the look or the fact that TM pushed "speedfoam" into a hollow iron. The IP in question is what the speed foam is made of. Parson's is claiming TM stole the secret in the sauce and copied his recipe.

 

That's completely wrong and not what PXG is claiming.

 

Then what are they claiming. I've asked what is unique to pxg and heard crickets.

 

They are claiming infringement of certain of their patents. See https://www.scribd.c...ll-suit-filing.

 

It does not appear that the claims of any of the patents currently asserted identify a specific compound or "secret sauce" injected into PXG clubs. The claims simply refer to an "elastic polymer material" (e.g., PXG's TPE), but they do not claim a specific chemical makeup. The claims of the patents relate to the design of a hollow clubhead, injected with an "elastic polymer," having various weight configurations as described in the claims.

 

There will be a giant fight as to what "elastic polymer material" means and whether TM's speedfoam is such a material.

 

LOL.........man, that is a pretty broad category since it can include thermoplastics, thermosets, elastomers and synthetic fibers. Chances are PXG doesn't even own the material; most likely it is a products of DuPont, 3M, Dow, BASF, etc.