TaylorMade Files Countersuit against PXG

golfunfiltered

Johnny Unhappy Pro
Joined
May 8, 2015
Messages
2,719
Reaction score
2,388
Location
Red Robin bidet
Handicap
6
Interesting. Somewhere 2 Law Firms are extremely happy.
 
everyone's got the boxing gloves on now
 
"The 189-page counterclaim not only denies that TaylorMade is infringing any of the PXG patents, but also asks the court to prevent PXG from selling most of its current products, including all the PXG 0311 irons (0311, 0311T, 0311XF, 0311X) and PXG woods, including the 0811 drivers and 0341 fairway woods for violations of patents granted to TaylorMade between 2007 and 2016."

That's my favorite part.
 
why does it put bp in a tough spot?

Interesting. Somewhere 2 Law Firms are extremely happy.

what’s interesting to me is that tm seems to be shedding costs and slimming down. yet here they are spending money to go after someone who, at least by my perception, is after a different market segment than tm. i don’t see pxg stealing tm customers; i would think the opposite would be true.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Nice. enjoyed the podcast where you discussed this.

In other unsurprising news trucker hats are suing popped collars over intellectual and emotional infringement. No word on if fake tans will be involved or not.
 
why does it put bp in a tough spot?



what’s interesting to me is that tm seems to be shedding costs and slimming down. yet here they are spending money to go after someone who, at least by my perception, is after a different market segment than tm. i don’t see pxg stealing tm customers; i would think the opposite would be true.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Because part of protecting your IP is enforcing it.
 
why does it put bp in a tough spot?

Because he'll essentially have to put his entire company on the line if he wants to fight this.
 
Because he'll essentially have to put his entire company on the line if he wants to fight this.

honest question: were we concerned that tm would have to stop selling anything, or did we just label the original suit as bp being bp? why do we think tm’s countersuit holds any more water?

i guess i don’t see why this puts him in a bad spot unless he feels he might lose. i know it’s expensive, but he has the money and he certainly has the ego to see it through.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
what’s interesting to me is that tm seems to be shedding costs and slimming down. yet here they are spending money to go after someone who, at least by my perception, is after a different market segment than tm. i don’t see pxg stealing tm customers; i would think the opposite would be true.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Because part of protecting your IP is enforcing it.

To fup's point, I would add that there are potential legal ramifications if you don't protect your IP. Plus, there are a lot of good strategic reasons for the counterclaim. At the very least, it may flip the tables and put PXG on the defensive in a case it filed, particularly because PXG already lost its bid for a preliminary injunction.
 
To fup's point, I would add that there are potential legal ramifications if you don't protect your IP. Plus, there are a lot of good strategic reasons for the counterclaim. At the very least, it may flip the tables and put PXG on the defensive in a case it filed, particularly because PXG already lost its bid for a preliminary injunction.

You should see my legal bills just from trademark enforcement alone.
 
honest question: were we concerned that tm would have to stop selling anything, or did we just label the original suit as bp being bp? why do we think tm’s countersuit holds any more water?

i guess i don’t see why this puts him in a bad spot unless he feels he might lose. i know it’s expensive, but he has the money and he certainly has the ego to see it through.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Part of it is the way he went about it. Going after the stores that sell TM products, but leaving out the fitters, because that is where his products are. It was almost flippant, and I think rubbed some people following it the wrong way.
 
No opinion on the legal merits of this case, but I hit the TM P790s at Dicks a few weeks ago and they're sweet.

Never hit a PXG club and have no desire, I'd be laughed out of my club if me and the 15 strokes I'm getting showed up with 3000 bucks worth of irons.
 
I like this move by Taylormade.

It makes me wonder how many of the golf OEMs could go after each other for patent violations if they really wanted to.
 
Interesting good on Taylormade for putting it back on Parsons


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
I like it. This will be the talk of all golf media the rest of the week and into the weekend for sure!
 
I laughed at the part where BP basically fired his lawyers after losing the long shot motion for injunctive relief. What a tool.
 
Highly Correct!

Yes, they are. This is a strategic ploy by TM to get PXG to settle. That is all. Now we can all move along while Bob screams.
 
Is it me or is 99% of the GolfDigest site nothing but click bait adds?
 
why does it put bp in a tough spot?



what’s interesting to me is that tm seems to be shedding costs and slimming down. yet here they are spending money to go after someone who, at least by my perception, is after a different market segment than tm. i don’t see pxg stealing tm customers; i would think the opposite would be true.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The procedural rules that govern litigation require a party who has been sued to raise any compulsory counterclaim in the same lawsuit or lose the right to raise it. A compulsory counterclaim is one that arises out of the same subject matter. In other words, TM had to raise the counterclaims related to the IP or lose the right to raise them later. Thus, it would be normal for TM to have asserted the counterclaims as it has. TM’s counterclaims are also strategical in nature. PXG has lots at stake in bringing the lawsuit against TM. The validity of its patents will be decided. However, now, PXG could potentially lose everything, if it is found to be infringing TM’s patents. The risk/reward analysis now could lead PXG to settle, rather than risk a death blow.

These counterclaims are fairly predictable and normal in this type of litigation. My guess is that the parties will settle, neither one willing to put the validity of its IP to the ultimate test.
 
They should design a driver with 2 dongs and rivets on it and dub it the BP18... would that hit home?
 
I just asked about this in the 790 ad thread as it seemed to be quiet on the original lawsuit front. Now this, sounds like a peeing contest
 
The procedural rules that govern litigation require a party who has been sued to raise any compulsory counterclaim in the same lawsuit or lose the right to raise it. A compulsory counterclaim is one that arises out of the same subject matter. In other words, TM had to raise the counterclaims related to the IP or lose the right to raise them later. Thus, it would be normal for TM to have asserted the counterclaims as it has. TM’s counterclaims are also strategical in nature. PXG has lots at stake in bringing the lawsuit against TM. The validity of its patents will be decided. However, now, PXG could potentially lose everything, if it is found to be infringing TM’s patents. The risk/reward analysis now could lead PXG to settle, rather than risk a death blow.

These counterclaims are fairly predictable and normal in this type of litigation. My guess is that the parties will settle, neither one willing to put the validity of its IP to the ultimate test.

As a procedural matter, these claims are not compulsory just so we are clear. This move was 100% expected because if you have to spend money to defend a patent case, you might as well make them do it too (defending is typically much more expensive due to burden issues).
 
Because part of protecting your IP is enforcing it.

This is very true in the context of trademarks, but it is not required with patents. I give the analogy of a patent being a plot of land that you put a fence around because a patent isn't a right to do something, its a right to prevent others from doing something.

In the context of the analogy, the land owner can (1) use his land or (2) not use his land and let it sit idle. Placing the fence doesn't require anything of the land owner but it gives the land owner the right to yell "get off my yard" to anyone who goes on the land.
 
Back
Top