Acushnet Company, the golf business of Fortune Brands, Inc., announced that it will move forward with the appeals process following denial of its request for a stay of an injunction regarding certain Titleist Pro V1 golf balls.


The company said in a statement that it does not expect the ruling or the injunction, which took effect Jan. 1, 2009, to have a material adverse impact on its results and reaffirmed its confidence that it will ultimately win its appeal of the verdict in the underlying patent dispute.

“This decision will not interfere with Titleist's ability to continue to manufacture, distribute and sell Pro V1 golf balls,” said Joe Nauman, executive vice president, corporate and legal of Acushnet. “While the stay was not granted, we understand that it was a request for extraordinary relief based upon a limited review.”


In September, the production of existing Pro V1 model golf balls was converted to be outside the patents in question. As of Jan. 1, 2009, there will be limited amounts of non-converted Pro V1 golf balls in retail inventory.


“Acushnet does not believe that the injunction order requires Acushnet to recall any Pro V1 golf balls from retailers, or that retailers are required to return any golf balls to Acushnet,” continued Nauman. “However, Acushnet is prepared to accept returns of non-converted retail inventory if requested by retailers.”


On Nov. 10, 2008, the U.S. District Court in Delaware granted Callaway Golf's request for an injunction in a dispute with respect to four Callaway patents and Acushnet's Titleist Pro V1 golf balls. Acushnet strongly disagreed with the judge's ruling and filed an appeal on Nov. 19, 2008, to seek relief from the injunction, and to appeal the district court actions and other of the court's decisions. Although the stay was not granted, Achushnet maintained that the Appeals Court will review the issues in greater detail and will likely render a decision sometime late in 2009.


“We firmly believe in our position and will continue to defend ourselves vigorously in the appeal process,” Nauman added. “We expect to prevail in having all claims of all four patents at issue determined to be invalid once the appeal is fully briefed and argued. Our confidence is underpinned by the fact that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has issued final office actions which have determined these patents to be invalid.”