PXG sues Taylor Made

[TheMoneyShot]

This thread is hilarious....

[pinestreetgolf]

It's not all process in the lawsuit. Apparently design is part of it according to this article from Golf Magazine. Probably more of a business move by Parsons but the fact is that design is indeed part of this lawsuit.

 

http://www.golf.com/...ny-prove-to-win

 

1. You usually put every single claim you can possibly think of into the lawsuit. We saw this in the Titleist case. In federal court the cut-off for amendment is 90 days. Use it or lose it. The worst that happens is they just dismiss on their own motion in a while or take a pie in the face on MSJ. If they don't include it and then find some smoking gun email from a TM exec like "F Bob Parsons let's just steal his patent" they could run out of time. Not to mention that the SoL keeps running despite litigation being filed unless you include that specific claim.

 

2. I don't think this lawsuit was filed to win it. The timing with the PE deal is too perfect. That is just speculation on my part. I know nothing about patent law beyond law school 101, but I know a whole lot about M&A and tax law. As rawdog, an investment banker said these lawsuits are routine when you are approaching a PE close. Adidas has to either pay Parsons off or he has to walk away from the deal. Its basically a sophisticated form of greenmail.

[TM_HOYER]

Let's all take a closer look at the ones that are specifically listed in the lawsuit:

 

 

'336 - A weight port on the toe at or below the midplane. WOW! Obviously deserving of a patent since nobody else has EVER put a weight port on a golf club towards the bottom/toe.

 

'143 - TWO weight ports, with one weighing LESS than the other. Revolutionary Bob, how did you ever come up with that one?

 

'938 - Face thickness less than 1.5mm. Really? I mean they truly granted this crap? BRB guys... I'm gonna go apply for a patent on a rocket that goes to the moon.

 

'203 - Toe, top, sole, front, and back... multi piece construction. Done before, and this is getting repetitive.

 

'727 - Weight ports again, this time worded exactly the same as 143, but there might be MORE sole weights!

 

'201 - Basically now just combining all of the above into one and padding out the ol' patent portfolio. "We have 128 patents!... nevermind the fact that it's really just like 4 ideas reworded 32 different ways, and the original 4 are things that everyone else was already doing, but it's totally 128 patents and Bob is a super awesome philanthropist and avid golfer and his clubs are super, duper, meteorically successful!

 

'481 - Volume of the interior cavity. Should be thrown out for being obvious given the already set nature of iron head size.

 

'853 - Weights again. This time it states that the weight itself might be a different material than the rest of the club. Duh. That's kind of the point of these things. If they were the same material as the head, you wouldn't be able to effectively add much weight now would you? So you use tungsten for your heavies. And Titanium for your lights. Thrown out for being obvious as well as already having been done.

 

 

These patents are just bad, and whoever issued them should feel bad.

 

I am not a lawyer but I can think of prior art in every one of the patents, some of it going back to the early 80's. At least he did not sue in the patent trolls favorite court, Eastern District of Texas. There they do not care about prior art and just automatically rule for the patent trolls.

[Babydaddy]

I'll respond to all who quoted me here. Of course its speculation. I have no idea. Maybe he has the dolphin tanks that write family guy scripts from south park writing lawsuits. I was looking at the situation and writing what I thought might be going on. I think I'm right (obviously) but nobody knows, including me.

 

The infringement claims sound like a process patent (how the foam is bonded) but could be a unique feature and not a process. Either way, its not the club itself, but how its put together. Am I right about the rest? I have no idea. I don't think its a co-incidence the PE deal closes Oct. 1 and the suit happened now. There is no way a huge firm puts together a lawsuit this big in the little time since those irons were released IMO. But this is just IMO. My opinion and a dollar will get you a cup of coffee. I do think, however, that calling Parsons a "moron" and railing against PXG is kinda dumb.

 

Without speculation, internet message boards would be newspapers.

 

EDIT

Here is how it will work -

 

PE Firm to Adidas - We didn't have this suit when we agreed to buy TM. We want out. We don't' officially take over until Oct 1, and this lawsuit has open-ended liability which is a reason we can break the deal.

Adidas - Oh Crap

Adidas to PXG - What will it take to settle this stupid thing so we can close the PE deal

PXG - It'll take XYZ

Adidas - Settle the stupid thing so we can get rid of Taylormade

 

Tons of lawsuits get filed right before PE deals close. Is it a co-incidence? I have no idea. It sure is funny timing though.

You are most certainly right- I've seen this in a much smaller scale first hand.

Sometimes, even when you have a lot of money, timing combined with litigation looming can work all sorts of magic.

 

From Parson's point of view this is an investment, and also a way to position his company in the market by latching onto the number one driver maker-

Parson's is a shrewd businessman- this is extremely transparent.

 

If it looks like a duck, and quack likes a duck...

[I'_rather_be_golfing]

Smart move by Bob to patent his "designs" and "ideas". Where as the others did not. Seems he as every right to sue if he has it patented. I mean isn't that the whole point of getting it "patented"? So nobody else can use it. Don't be surprised if Bob finds a different way of using sliding weights and puts a patent on it.

[BirdieBob]

NICE COPY JOB TAILOR MAID

 

I would not have expected more from a Chinese company trying to rip-off PXG.

And to think PXG might have been worried about the Chinese doing a fake/copy of their irons..........LOL!

[doctorbloor]

NICE COPY JOB TAILOR MADE

 

I would not have expected more from a Chinese company trying to rip-off PXG.

And to think PXG might have been worried about the Chinese doing a fake/copy of their irons..........LOL!

 

I can smell the flop sweat through the computer.

[BirdieBob]

NICE COPY JOB TAILOR MAID

 

I would not have expected more from a Chinese company trying to rip-off PXG.

And to think PXG might have been worried about the Chinese doing a fake/copy of their irons..........LOL!

 

I can smell the flop sweat through the computer.

 

 

 

 

The Chinese are soooooooooooo pissed.........Tailor Maid beat them to it!!

[dgp17]

It's hard for me to get behind the cross-licensing of PXG's irons and TM's woods. PXG doesn't win anything there, because at the end of the day, Taylormade will be selling its irons and drivers at half the price of PXG irons and drivers. The licensing agreements would essentially be an admission that Taylormade makes the same products as PXG, and those products can be bought off the rack for half-price.

 

I am an attorney but know nothing at all about patent infringement. But in my opinion, assuming PXG's claim really has merit, PXG has to fight this to conclusion. Any settlement PXG accepts has to end with Taylormade not releasing the P790s. This goes back to my reasoning in the first paragraph. A licensing agreement or royalty paid to PXG is simply an admission that you can buy the same thing at half-price. I have read somewhere that PXG has never turned a profit, and I know Parsons is worth $3 billion. This leaves me thinking that PXG isn't willing to whore its brand to Taylormade in order to receive $100 per set that Taylormade sells. On the other hand, if Taylormade wins this, I think PXG will take a big hit. This lawsuit shows that PXG thinks the Taylormade irons are very similar to its current products. If Taylormade is allowed an unconditional release of the P790s, it's hard for PXG to then change its mind and claim its irons are way better and different.

 

I'm very curious to see what happens with the TRO. Taylormade probably has $30 million in pre-sales that are supposed to be released tomorrow. If PXG ends up prevailing on the TRO after the P790 release, Taylormade is going to be extremely vulnerable.

[cvhookem63]

Looks like Dr Parsons has filed for a Temporary Restraining Order to block the sale (and production) of these irons while the lawsuit is pending.

 

Since the P790s are slated for release tomorrow, I have a hard time seeing that being possible.

 

In the TRO:

 

"PXG will be experiencing loss of exclusivity and damage to reputation as an innovator in the golf industry..."

 

"will experience lost business opportunities instead of fully benefiting from its patented invention"

 

and "PXG will suffer loss of sales and market share because TaylorMade is spoiling the market."

[Babydaddy]

It's hard for me to get behind the cross-licensing of PXG's irons and TM's woods. PXG doesn't win anything there, because at the end of the day, Taylormade will be selling its irons and drivers at half the price of PXG irons and drivers. The licensing agreements would essentially be an admission that Taylormade makes the same products as PXG, and those products can be bought off the rack for half-price.

 

I am an attorney but know nothing at all about patent infringement. But in my opinion, assuming PXG's claim really has merit, PXG has to fight this to conclusion. Any settlement PXG accepts has to end with Taylormade not releasing the P790s. This goes back to my reasoning in the first paragraph. A licensing agreement or royalty paid to PXG is simply an admission that you can buy the same thing at half-price. I have read somewhere that PXG has never turned a profit, and I know Parsons is worth $3 billion. This leaves me thinking that PXG isn't willing to whore its brand to Taylormade in order to receive $100 per set that Taylormade sells. On the other hand, if Taylormade wins this, I think PXG will take a big hit. This lawsuit shows that PXG thinks the Taylormade irons are very similar to its current products. If Taylormade is allowed an unconditional release of the P790s, it's hard for PXG to then change its mind and claim its irons are way better and different.

 

I'm very curious to see what happens with the TRO. Taylormade probably has $30 million in pre-sales that are supposed to be released tomorrow. If PXG ends up prevailing on the TRO after the P790 release, Taylormade is going to be extremely vulnerable.

I think he is possibly trying to buy TM at a bargain price while he has potential leverage over them- devaluing TM to their current, and likely temporary owners

[dgp17]

Also, it may be posted somewhere else in this thread, but just wanted to make sure everyone knows:

 

I just checked the docket through Pacer/ECF and yesterday Judge Tuchi entered an order setting the hearing on PXG's TRO motion for 2:00pm tomorrow afternoon. Taylormade's Response to PXG's motion for TRO is due today by 5:00pm today.

[sofla]

It's like I said in other TM threads, private equity will be the death of TM. They come in rape and pillage the companies. The executives get rich, bankrupt the company and move on.

[cvhookem63]

Sounds like PXG brought in Tom Stites (of Ben Hogan and Nike Golf "The Oven" fame) to analyze their patent infringement claims. He analyzed the claims and sided with PXG.

[TM_HOYER]

I would not be surprised if Taylormade goes to the patent office, provides prior art documentation, and the patents are thrown out. There are a lot of garbage tech industry patents that are thrown out after the owner sues for enforcement of the patent. The problem in the tech industry is that the juries in the Eastern District of Texas ignore the fact the patent has been thrown out and still give damages to the patent troll.

[cvhookem63]

I would not be surprised if Taylormade goes to the patent office, provides prior art documentation, and the patents are thrown out. There are a lot of garbage tech industry patents that are thrown out after the owner sues for enforcement of the patent. The problem in the tech industry is that the juries in the Eastern District of Texas ignore the fact the patent has been thrown out and still give damages to the patent troll.

 

And that is why so many tech companies file those types of suits at the Marshall, TX court. So much so that Samsung has funded the ice skating rink across the street from the court building.

 

[jmck]

I would not be surprised if Taylormade goes to the patent office, provides prior art documentation, and the patents are thrown out. There are a lot of garbage tech industry patents that are thrown out after the owner sues for enforcement of the patent. The problem in the tech industry is that the juries in the Eastern District of Texas ignore the fact the patent has been thrown out and still give damages to the patent troll.

 

And that is why so many tech companies file those types of suits at the Marshall, TX court. So much so that Samsung has funded the ice skating rink across the street from the court building.

 

Best legal system money can buy.

[maowv]

It's hard for me to get behind the cross-licensing of PXG's irons and TM's woods. PXG doesn't win anything there, because at the end of the day, Taylormade will be selling its irons and drivers at half the price of PXG irons and drivers. The licensing agreements would essentially be an admission that Taylormade makes the same products as PXG, and those products can be bought off the rack for half-price.

 

I am an attorney but know nothing at all about patent infringement. But in my opinion, assuming PXG's claim really has merit, PXG has to fight this to conclusion. Any settlement PXG accepts has to end with Taylormade not releasing the P790s. This goes back to my reasoning in the first paragraph. A licensing agreement or royalty paid to PXG is simply an admission that you can buy the same thing at half-price. I have read somewhere that PXG has never turned a profit, and I know Parsons is worth $3 billion. This leaves me thinking that PXG isn't willing to whore its brand to Taylormade in order to receive $100 per set that Taylormade sells. On the other hand, if Taylormade wins this, I think PXG will take a big hit. This lawsuit shows that PXG thinks the Taylormade irons are very similar to its current products. If Taylormade is allowed an unconditional release of the P790s, it's hard for PXG to then change its mind and claim its irons are way better and different.

 

I'm very curious to see what happens with the TRO. Taylormade probably has $30 million in pre-sales that are supposed to be released tomorrow. If PXG ends up prevailing on the TRO after the P790 release, Taylormade is going to be extremely vulnerable.

I think he is possibly trying to buy TM at a bargain price while he has potential leverage over them- devaluing TM to their current, and likely temporary owners

 

This one may be fun to watch play out. I'm a litigation attorney with a little experience in intellectual property law but have not read the PXG Complaint and do not intend to do so. I'm with these guys on the thought that this ordeal may be intended as a buy or sell option. TM's financial struggles are widely known but they are still the much bigger player than PXG at the moment. Might Parsons want to acquire TM to match their long clubs with his irons? Doubtful but possible. At the same time, TM has a history of blatantly infringing upon patents (Adams speed slots) and then when sued they just bought Adams to own the patents. Might Parsons be looking to sell of PXG? He has certainly made a splash but he is spending money on players at a rate that his sales can't currently support. Granted, PXG has made itself known but they still aren't selling clubs in volume and are most likely hemorrhaging cash.

 

For the non-lawyers out there, I'm with you in that my first thought when I saw the TM 790 was that is a blatant copy of a PXG iron. However, there is nothing illegal about copying a competitor's product as it happens all the time and is referred to as "reverse engineering". It only becomes illegal if the original company owns a patent on their product. Then they are protected for a specific period of years. After that expires, copying is not only legal but encouraged. Think about generic prescription drugs for example.

 

On the specifics about the PXG clubs, I don't know. Hollow bodied irons have been around for decades. Foam-filled irons have been around for decades. Weight screws and external weighting have been around for decades. As many on this thread have shown, TM had hollow-body, foam-filled irons in the 1990's long before PXG came along. I had a set of those at one time but never really liked them. Apparently, neither did most of you guys since they didn't last long in the marketplace. PXG may have a hard time on this one since their "technology" isn't really "theirs" or even "original" in my mind. The cosmetic arrangement of how they used the technology is very unique in a visual sense but not from a technology standpoint. To oversimplify this, imagine if Callaway sued TM for infringing upon a cavity back iron design.

 

Now, process patents are another animal. Is there anything unique about how the PXG process creates the club? I don't know and that's why I'm not reading the complaint. This stuff hinges upon highly technical information that I don't have the time to learn about. I'd like to think TM is smart enough to not copy the specific material of "speed foam" or whatever they want to call it. There are literally millions of chemical combinations available to create an elastic foam. TM had better used any one of the other possible foams instead of the an exact copy of the PXG type.

 

Finally, the temporary restraining order threat is just that, a threat. I have a better chance at winning the lottery than finding a federal judge to stop commerce by an established player in any industry. The 790 clubs will be on the shelves and they will be available for sale. PXG will not prevail in stopping the sales on the front end. To me, that is the easiest part of the analysis.

 

Now that I've already spent far more time than intended on this post, I go back to where I started. It should be fun to watch and in the end, someone is trying to either buy the other or force a purchase by the other. Federal judges are inundated with drug issues in their courts right now and in perspective, they really don't give much of a s*** about fights between millionaire/billionaire types over golf clubs - except their own clubs of course. (My apologies to any federal judicial officers who are also WRX'ers if my take on this is off the mark).

[jdcadkin]

I would not be surprised if Taylormade goes to the patent office, provides prior art documentation, and the patents are thrown out. There are a lot of garbage tech industry patents that are thrown out after the owner sues for enforcement of the patent. The problem in the tech industry is that the juries in the Eastern District of Texas ignore the fact the patent has been thrown out and still give damages to the patent troll.

 

And that is why so many tech companies file those types of suits at the Marshall, TX court. So much so that Samsung has funded the ice skating rink across the street from the court building.

 

 

Except this case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona. PXG hometowned TaylorMade in a jurisdiction not known for being sophisticated as to patent litigation. That could be good or bad for PXG; we shall see... but, in general, it is extremely unlikely for a TRO/PI to issue for these types of cases. Certainly possible, however.

[DBill]

Again, my thought here is that Parsons is butt hurt about someone designing an iron similar to his and performing better.

 

Performing better? Says who? Surely that is subjective, but coming from a person who won a trip to TM for the 790 fitting we shouldn't expect any less I guess.....

 

Someone else seems a little butt hurt too.

 

Are you going to be ok?

[cvhookem63]

I would not be surprised if Taylormade goes to the patent office, provides prior art documentation, and the patents are thrown out. There are a lot of garbage tech industry patents that are thrown out after the owner sues for enforcement of the patent. The problem in the tech industry is that the juries in the Eastern District of Texas ignore the fact the patent has been thrown out and still give damages to the patent troll.

 

And that is why so many tech companies file those types of suits at the Marshall, TX court. So much so that Samsung has funded the ice skating rink across the street from the court building.

 

 

Except this case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona. PXG hometowned TaylorMade in a jurisdiction not known for being sophisticated as to patent litigation. That could be good or bad for PXG; we shall see... but, in general, it is extremely unlikely for a TRO/PI to issue for these types of cases. Certainly possible, however.

 

Yeah, I don't think he meant that the case filed in Marshall. We just got off on a bit of a tangent about tech patents.

[TM_HOYER]

'938 - Face thickness less than 1.5mm. Really? I mean they truly granted this crap? BRB guys... I'm gonna go apply for a patent on a rocket that goes to the moon.

 

Why isn't PXG suing Callaway for this one. The Epic iron has 1 mm face thickness at it's thinnest point.

[SHIVAN]

Doesn't PING also inject "goo" in their iBlades?

[TM_HOYER]

I would not be surprised if Taylormade goes to the patent office, provides prior art documentation, and the patents are thrown out. There are a lot of garbage tech industry patents that are thrown out after the owner sues for enforcement of the patent. The problem in the tech industry is that the juries in the Eastern District of Texas ignore the fact the patent has been thrown out and still give damages to the patent troll.

 

And that is why so many tech companies file those types of suits at the Marshall, TX court. So much so that Samsung has funded the ice skating rink across the street from the court building.

 

 

Except this case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona. PXG hometowned TaylorMade in a jurisdiction not known for being sophisticated as to patent litigation. That could be good or bad for PXG; we shall see... but, in general, it is extremely unlikely for a TRO/PI to issue for these types of cases. Certainly possible, however.

 

Yeah, I don't think he meant that the case filed in Marshall. We just got off on a bit of a tangent about tech patents.

 

I was just using the tech industry as an example on why just because you have a patent, it does not mean it is valid (except in one Federal District).

[pinestreetgolf]

I would not be surprised if Taylormade goes to the patent office, provides prior art documentation, and the patents are thrown out. There are a lot of garbage tech industry patents that are thrown out after the owner sues for enforcement of the patent. The problem in the tech industry is that the juries in the Eastern District of Texas ignore the fact the patent has been thrown out and still give damages to the patent troll.

 

And that is why so many tech companies file those types of suits at the Marshall, TX court. So much so that Samsung has funded the ice skating rink across the street from the court building.

 

 

Except this case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona. PXG hometowned TaylorMade in a jurisdiction not known for being sophisticated as to patent litigation. That could be good or bad for PXG; we shall see... but, in general, it is extremely unlikely for a TRO/PI to issue for these types of cases. Certainly possible, however.

 

Yeah, I don't think he meant that the case filed in Marshall. We just got off on a bit of a tangent about tech patents.

 

There is a 0% chance of a TRO or Injunction. The entire point of a TRO or injunction is to stop something that cannot be compensated with monetary damages (for example, somebody using the "Ruth Chris" name to open a burger joint - the damage to the reputation cannot be reversed by money, that is why TROs exist). In this case, if PXG wins, sales of golf clubs can certainly be compensated by money - just order TM to give PXG all the revenue or profit or whatever. So why ask for a TRO or PIJ at all? Its a discovery vehicle. The burden is on TM to show that it should not be granted. In doing so, they have to reveal (At least some) of their hand.

 

Everyone on this thread (virtually) takes things way too literally in litigation. Literally 99% of motions/complaints/CoAs/requests are not intended to be won. They are intended to get at information or as a tactical ploy to shape the case for trial.

 

The penalty for losing a motion (like a request for a TRO) is nothing. The judge just issues an order and you move on. But there can be massive benefits. So analyzing this stuff on its actual merits (who will win? who will lose?) is kinda a waste of time until/unless a jury is impaneled, and even then you don't know if its just a chicken settlmenet game.

 

less than 2% of cases in our system are actually tried. This probably won't be one of them. Being right means a whole lot less than most people think.

[TM_HOYER]

Doesn't PING also inject "goo" in their iBlades?

 

Or the Nike Vapor Fly irons that injected a modified version of RZN.

[MK7Golf21]

Doesn't PING also inject "goo" in their iBlades?

 

wha? lol

[buckeyefl]

Release from MGS:

 

https://Not allowed because of spam.com/pxg-sues-taylormade-for-patent-infringement/

 

For the record the folks over there are GIGANTIC PXG fanboys that I have no doubt were compensated before the clubs even hit the market or are complete idiots.

 

Release from MGS:

 

https://Not allowed because of spam.com/pxg-sues-taylormade-for-patent-infringement/

 

For the record the folks over there are GIGANTIC PXG fanboys that I have no doubt were compensated before the clubs even hit the market or are complete idiots.

[bobcat]

Before the patent case was ever filed, the 'buzz' surrounding the P790 introduction was already sky high. As more people learn of the PXG lawsuit, the P790's become even more desirable.. :yes:

 

So, in the short term at least, this predatory' action by PXG is 'backfiring' on Bob Parsons. For in the absence of a TRO, (Temporary Restraining Order), that would prevent TM from selling the P790 irons, the result so far is rapidly accelerating consumer demand for Taylormade's new P790 irons, with a corresponding decrease in demand for the much more expensive PXG irons.

 

Up to now, the general view of consumers has been that PXG's irons were very good performers although quite pricey, but thanks to this lawsuit, PXG irons now seem 'grossly overpriced'... :rolleyes:

 

 

:golfer:

[jdcadkin]

So why ask for a TRO or PIJ at all? Its a discovery vehicle. The burden is on TM to show that it should not be granted. In doing so, they have to reveal (At least some) of their hand.

 

Not really. The burden is on PXG to demonstrate that they have a high likelihood of success on the merits (among other things). The lack of discovery at this stage of the case likely weighs in favor of TaylorMade unless PXG has completely reverse engineered the P790 club head, including analysis of what exactly comprises the Speed Foam, which I do not think has happened, but I haven't reviewed all the papers in detail.

 

Literally 99% of motions/complaints/CoAs/requests are not intended to be won. They are intended to get at information or as a tactical ploy to shape the case for trial.

 

No, that's not at all true. Sure, some motions or requests are more strategic and you expect to lose, but nowhere close to 99%.