Quimbee logo
DMCA.com Protection Status

Callaway Golf Co. v. Acushnet Co.

576 F.3d 1331 (2009)

Case BriefRelatedOptions
From our private database of 33,800+ case briefs...

Callaway Golf Co. v. Acushnet Co.

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

576 F.3d 1331 (2009)

Facts

Callaway Golf Co. (Callaway) (defendant) owned four patents for three-layer golf balls having polyurethane outer covers with on-the-ball, Shore D hardness of no greater than 64. At the time of invention, three-layer and polyurethane-covered golf balls were separately known in the art, and golf-ball hardness was measured on a standard scale identified by the size of an indentor used for the measurement—type A, B, C, D, etc. Callaway sued Acushnet Co. (Acushnet) (plaintiff), alleging balls sold by Acushnet infringed the four patents. Acushnet presented evidence of known three-layer balls without polyurethane covers, arguing the art invalidated the patents for obviousness. None of the evidence presented expressly disclosed the requisite cover hardness; however, Acushnet argued that one of the three-layer ball references implicitly taught the requisite hardness by incorporation of a reference that taught polyurethane outer covers having a Shore C hardness that necessarily converted to the requisite Shore D hardness. The district court construed the term “cover layer having Shore D hardness” to mean hardness measured on-the-ball versus off-the-ball, which is significant because the two measures of the same ball can be different, according to expert testimony. Other testimony provided that cover hardness depends on the composition of layers beneath the outer cover and that Acushnet’s evidence to support conversion of the Shore C to Shore D hardness called into question the accuracy of such a conversion. After a trial on obviousness, a jury returned a verdict that eight of Callaway’s asserted claims were not invalid for obviousness. The district court refused to grant judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) in favor of Acushnet that the asserted claims would have been obvious.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Dyk, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 604,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 604,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 33,800 briefs, keyed to 984 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 604,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 33,800 briefs - keyed to 984 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership