DCT

2:25-cv-01044

Club Conex LLC v. M&P Golf LLC

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:25-cv-01044, D. Ariz., 03/28/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Arizona because Defendants are registered as business entities in Arizona, maintain regular and established places of business in the district, and have allegedly committed acts of infringement within the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ "All-Fit" line of universal golf club adaptors, and the club fitting services using them, infringe a patent related to interchangeable golf club head and shaft connectors.
  • Technical Context: The technology enables brand-agnostic customization in the golf club fitting market by allowing shafts and club heads from different manufacturers to be connected and tested interchangeably.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that the accused products were the subject of a U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC) investigation (Inv. No. 337-TA-1354) which resulted in a Limited Exclusion Order on September 18, 2023, based on a finding that the products infringe the patent-in-suit. The complaint also alleges Defendants have had actual knowledge of the patent and the USITC proceeding since at least August 2023.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2014-03-26 Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 11,426,638
2022-08-30 U.S. Patent No. 11,426,638 Issued
2023-08-23 Date Plaintiff alleges Defendants received knowledge of '638 Patent
2023-09-18 USITC issues Limited Exclusion Order in Inv. No. 337-TA-1354
2023-10-01 Business discussions allegedly began between parties
2023-11-12 Confidentiality agreement allegedly entered between parties
2025-01-23 Plaintiff allegedly sent correspondence to Defendants re: infringement
2025-02-12 Plaintiff allegedly sent additional correspondence to Defendants
2025-03-20 Alleged infringing use of accused products observed
2025-03-28 Complaint Filed

II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 11,426,638, “Universal Connector for Adjustable Golf Clubs,” issued August 30, 2022.
  • The Invention Explained:
    • Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes a limitation in the golf equipment market where proprietary connectors from different manufacturers are not interchangeable, preventing a user from combining a preferred club head from one brand with a preferred shaft from another brand (’638 Patent, col. 1:41-59).
    • The Patented Solution: The invention is a two-piece connector system designed to create a universal standard. A first member attaches to the golf shaft and has a universal mating feature. A second member, which is designed to mate with a specific brand’s club head hosel, has a corresponding universal feature to engage the first member (’638 Patent, col. 4:1-10, Fig. 2). This architecture allows any shaft equipped with the universal first member to connect to any club head, provided the head is fitted with the appropriate brand-specific second member, thus enabling mix-and-match capability (’638 Patent, col. 4:61-67).
    • Technical Importance: This approach provides a standardized interface that decouples the shaft connection from the brand-specific head connection, which facilitates brand-agnostic club fitting services (Compl. ¶2).
  • Key Claims at a Glance:
    • The complaint asserts infringement of at least independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶41).
    • The essential elements of Claim 1 include:
      • A first member for receiving a shaft.
      • At least one second member that mates with the first member and is configured to mate with the club head’s hosel.
      • A first anti-rotational member (e.g., downwardly facing teeth) on the first member that engages a second anti-rotational member (e.g., upwardly facing teeth) on the second member, forming a mating interface that is "exposed on an exterior radially outer facing surface."
      • A third anti-rotational member on the second member, below the second anti-rotational member, configured to mate with the club head to prevent rotation.
      • The first member includes a threaded bore for a mounting screw that biases the two members together.
      • The third anti-rotational member is selected from a group of specific structures (e.g., ribs, facets, teeth).
    • The complaint notes that the USITC found infringement of claims 1, 2-5, 10, 12-13, 15, and 16-19, and may implicitly reserve the right to assert these additional claims (Compl. ¶33).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

  • Product Identification: The accused instrumentalities are the "All-Fit" universal golf club shaft and golf club head connection adaptors and components thereof, referred to as the "Cool Clubs Infringing Products" (Compl. ¶31).
  • Functionality and Market Context:
    • The accused products are a two-part system used for custom golf club fitting. The system comprises a main adapter piece (the alleged "first member") that attaches to a shaft, and a series of interchangeable, brand-specific "collars" (the alleged "second members") that attach to different OEM club heads (Compl. ¶45).
    • Defendants allegedly use these products in their "Cool Clubs" fitting centers to provide "brand-agnostic custom golf club fitting services," allowing customers to test numerous combinations of shafts and heads from different manufacturers (Compl. ¶¶5, 35). The complaint includes a photograph of the accused adaptors on display in a rack of golf shafts at a Defendant’s retail location, illustrating their use in a club fitting environment (Compl. ¶36, p. 11).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

  • ’638 Patent Infringement Allegations
Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
[1.a] a first member having a head portion and a body portion and having a bore for receiving a terminal end of a shaft, the first member formed as a single piece... The main body of the "All-Fit" adapter is alleged to be the first member, having a bore to receive a shaft. The complaint includes an image of this component to support the allegation (Compl. ¶44, p. 15). ¶¶43-44 col. 4:35-37
[1.b] at least one second member, the at least one second member having a head portion and a body portion, the body portion configured to mate with the hosel, wherein the at least one second member is matable with the first member... The various brand-specific "collars" sold as part of the "All-Fit" system are alleged to be the second member. The complaint provides images of multiple such collars designed for different OEM brands like TaylorMade, Ping, and PXG (Compl. ¶45, pp. 15-16). ¶45 col. 4:37-43
[1.c] wherein the first member includes a first anti-rotational member in the form of a plurality of downwardly facing teeth and the at least one second member includes a second anti-rotational member in the form of a plurality of upwardly facing teeth... the first and second anti-rotational members forming a mating interface which is exposed on an exterior radially outer facing surface of the universal connector system The complaint alleges the main adapter has downwardly facing teeth and the collars have upwardly facing teeth that engage to prevent rotation. Annotated photographs highlight these features on the accused products and show them forming an externally visible interface when mated (Compl. ¶¶46-48, pp. 17-19). ¶¶46-48 col. 5:7-17
[1.d] wherein the at least one second member includes a third anti-rotational member... configured to mate with an anti-rotational member of the golf club head... wherein the first member includes a threaded bore for receipt of a one-piece mounting screw... The external features of the collars (e.g., splines, ribs) are alleged to be the third anti-rotational member that mates with the hosel. The main adapter is alleged to have a threaded bore for a mounting screw, which the complaint notes is sold with the collars (Compl. ¶50, p. 21). ¶¶49-50 col. 5:19-24
[1.e] wherein the third anti-rotational member of the second member being selected from the group consisting of: [a plurality of radially outwardly extending ribs; a plurality of radially outwardly facing facets; a plurality of outwardly extending ribs formed along an outer periphery; or a plurality of members in the form of teeth, ribs or facets] The complaint alleges that the various accused collars embody different options from this group. It provides photographs of collars with radially outwardly extending ribs and facets to support this allegation (Compl. ¶¶51-55, pp. 22-23). ¶¶51-55 col. 9:33-10:4
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: A central question may be the proper construction of "mating interface which is exposed on an exterior radially outer facing surface." A dispute could arise over whether the interface on the accused product is sufficiently "exposed" to meet this limitation, or if it is considered internal to the overall connector assembly.
    • Technical Questions: The infringement analysis for element [1.e] will depend on factual evidence. The court will need to determine whether the specific physical structures of the various accused "collars" fall within the definitions of the members of the claim's Markush group (e.g., "radially outwardly extending ribs," "radially outwardly facing facets").

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "universal connector system"

    • Context and Importance: While this term appears in the preamble of Claim 1, it is central to the patent's title, abstract, and purpose. Its construction could influence the interpretation of the claim as a whole, particularly regarding the required relationship between the first and second members.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification repeatedly emphasizes the goal of overcoming brand-specific limitations to "allow a user to connect a club shaft of one brand with a club head of another brand" (’638 Patent, col. 4:5-8), suggesting a functional interpretation based on achieving interoperability.
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent consistently describes a specific two-part architecture to achieve this universality, comprising a first member with a universal interface and a second member with a brand-specific interface (’638 Patent, col. 4:61-67). A defendant might argue the term is limited to this specific disclosed structure.

  • The Term: "mating interface which is exposed on an exterior radially outer facing surface"

    • Context and Importance: This term in Claim 1[c] defines the location of the anti-rotation teeth that link the first and second members. Practitioners may focus on this term because it is a precise structural limitation that could be a point of non-infringement if the accused device's corresponding interface is determined to be internal or shielded.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent figures, such as Figure 2, depict the mating teeth (52, 54) as being located on the outside of the main body of the connector components, visible before assembly into the hosel. This could support a reading that "exposed" means not enclosed within the club head hosel itself.
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A defendant could argue that "exposed on an exterior... surface" requires the interface to be visible on the final, assembled product in situ. The complaint's own photograph of the assembled accused product suggests the interface is a seam between two parts, which could raise questions about the degree of "exposure" required (Compl. ¶48, p. 19).

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement of infringement by asserting that Defendants instruct and encourage customers and club fitters to use the accused products in an infringing manner through their club fitting services and marketing materials (Compl. ¶¶68-69). It further alleges the accused products constitute a material part of the invention and are not staple articles of commerce with substantial non-infringing uses (Compl. ¶68).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendants have had actual knowledge of the ’638 Patent and their infringement since at least August 23, 2023, based on communications regarding the adverse USITC ruling (Compl. ¶59). The complaint further details subsequent correspondence in January and February 2025, providing additional notice and alleging that any continued infringement is willful (Compl. ¶¶62-64).

VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case

  • A primary issue will be the procedural and evidentiary impact of the prior USITC decision. The extent to which the ITC's findings on claim construction and infringement against the same products and patent may influence or streamline proceedings in the district court will be a central question for the case, especially concerning the allegations of willfulness.
  • The case will likely involve a focused dispute on claim construction. A core technical issue for the court will be to define the scope of structural limitations, such as whether the interlocking teeth of the accused adapter constitute a "mating interface which is exposed on an exterior radially outer facing surface" as required by Claim 1.
  • A key evidentiary question will be one of literal infringement. The analysis may turn on a feature-by-feature comparison of the various accused "All-Fit" collars against the specific structural options recited in the Markush group of Claim 1[e], likely requiring detailed expert testimony on the products' physical characteristics.