DCT
6:22-cv-01215
Parsons Xtreme Golf LLC v. Edel Golf Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Parsons Xtreme Golf, LLC (Delaware)
- Defendant: Edel Golf, Inc. (Texas) and Edel Golf, LLC (Colorado)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Bruster PLLC; Carlson, Gaskey & Olds, P.C.
- Case Identification: 6:22-cv-01215, W.D. Tex., 11/22/2022
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Western District of Texas because Defendants have a principal place of business within the district and have committed the alleged acts of infringement there.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s SMS line of golf irons infringes patents related to hollow-body club head construction featuring peripheral weighting and polymer-filled internal cavities.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns advanced golf club iron design, a highly competitive market where manufacturers seek to optimize weight distribution, ball speed, and auditory feel to improve player performance.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that Plaintiff sent a letter to Defendants on October 28, 2022, providing pre-suit notice of the asserted patents and their alleged infringement.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2014-08-25 | Earliest Priority Date for '437 and '634 Patents |
| 2016-08-23 | '437 Patent Issue Date |
| 2016-08-30 | '634 Patent Issue Date |
| 2022-10-28 | Plaintiff Sent Pre-Suit Notice Letter to Defendants |
| 2022-11-22 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 9,421,437 - "Golf Club Heads And Methods To Manufacture Golf Club Heads," Issued August 23, 2016
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent background describes the challenge of optimizing a golf club head’s center of gravity (CG) and moment of inertia (MOI) by using multiple materials to control a golf ball's trajectory and spin rate (’437 Patent, col. 1:33-40).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a hollow-body golf iron featuring a plurality of exterior weight ports arranged along the club head's periphery (’437 Patent, col. 4:32-50). These ports are designed to hold removable or fixed weights made of a dense material. Crucially, the internal hollow cavity is at least partially filled with an "elastic polymer material," which is injected through at least one of the exterior weight ports (’437 Patent, col. 8:46-59). This construction allows for the performance benefits of a thin, flexible face and perimeter weighting, while the polymer provides structural support and dampens vibrations for improved feel, as illustrated in the cross-sectional view of Figure 7 (’437 Patent, Fig. 7).
- Technical Importance: This design seeks to combine the distance-enhancing thin face of a hollow-body iron with the forgiveness of high-MOI perimeter weighting and the solid feel typically associated with forged, non-hollow clubs (’437 Patent, col. 9:41-50).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 1 and reserves the right to assert additional claims (Compl. ¶¶35-36).
- Claim 1 Elements:
- A golf club head comprising:
- A plurality of weight portions made of a first material; and
- A hollow body portion made of a second material, which has a face, toe, top, sole, and back portion with a plurality of exterior weight ports along its periphery, and an interior cavity;
- At least one exterior weight port is connected to the interior cavity;
- The interior cavity is partially or entirely filled with an elastic polymer material through the at least one exterior weight port;
- Each weight port has a port diameter and is configured to receive a weight portion; and
- Any two adjacent exterior weight ports are separated by less than the port diameter.
U.S. Patent No. 9,427,634 - "Golf Club Heads And Methods To Manufacture Golf Club Heads," Issued August 30, 2016
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: Similar to the '437 patent, the '634 patent addresses the problem of optimizing a golf club head's CG and MOI using multiple materials and advanced structural designs (’634 Patent, col. 1:53-60).
- The Patented Solution: This invention focuses on the specific geometric arrangement of exterior ports on a golf club head with an interior cavity. The asserted claim requires at least a first, second, and third exterior port located on the periphery, with specific rules governing their spacing relative to each other and their port diameters (’634 Patent, col. 14:12-25). Unlike the asserted claim of the '437 patent, this claim does not require the ports to be filled with weights or the cavity to be filled with polymer; its novelty lies in the claimed port structure and its connection to an internal cavity (’634 Patent, Abstract).
- Technical Importance: The precise placement and spacing of peripheral ports, as claimed, provides a method for engineers to finely tune the mass properties of the club head to achieve desired performance characteristics (’634 Patent, col. 7:4-9).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 7 and reserves the right to assert additional claims (Compl. ¶¶60-61).
- Claim 7 Elements:
- A golf club head comprising:
- A body portion having an interior cavity, face, toe, top, sole, and back portions;
- A first, a second, and a third exterior port located along the periphery, each with a respective port diameter;
- The second port is located between the first and third ports;
- The separation between the first and second ports is less than or equal to the first or second port diameter;
- The separation between the second and third ports is less than or equal to the second or third port diameter; and
- At least one of the three ports is connected to the interior cavity.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
- Product Identification: The "Accused SMS Irons," identified as Defendants' "SMS Iron set, including the advertised set of 4-9 Irons, Pitching Wedge, and Gap Wedge" (Compl. ¶¶19-20).
- Functionality and Market Context: The complaint identifies the Accused SMS Irons as direct competitors to Plaintiff's products (Compl. ¶18). The infringement allegations suggest the accused irons employ a hollow-body design with perimeter weights and an elastomer-filled cavity, features central to the patents-in-suit (Compl. ¶¶37, 62). The complaint asserts that visual evidence in its exhibits confirms the infringing nature of the products' construction (Compl. ¶¶37, 62).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint makes conclusory allegations of infringement, stating that exhibits attached to the complaint demonstrate that the Accused SMS Irons meet every limitation of the asserted claims. For the '437 patent, the complaint asserts that Exhibit 4 demonstrates how the Accused SMS Irons meet each limitation of at least claim 1 (Compl. ¶37). Similarly, for the '634 patent, the complaint alleges that Exhibit 5 shows the Accused SMS Irons meet each limitation of at least claim 7 (Compl. ¶62).
'437 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a plurality of weight portions made of a first material | The Accused SMS Irons are alleged to have multiple, distinct weight portions made of a first, likely dense, material. | ¶37 | col. 2:30-37 |
| a hollow body portion... with a plurality of exterior weight ports along a periphery... and an interior cavity | The Accused SMS Irons are alleged to have a hollow-body construction with an internal cavity and multiple weight ports on the back periphery. | ¶37 | col. 8:24-28 |
| at least one exterior weight port... being connected to the interior cavity | At least one of the weight ports on the Accused SMS Irons is alleged to provide a channel into the internal cavity. | ¶37 | col. 12:1-6 |
| the interior cavity being partially or entirely filled with an elastic polymer material through the at least exterior weight port | The internal cavity of the Accused SMS Irons is alleged to be filled with a polymer-like substance, which was introduced through a weight port. | ¶37 | col. 8:46-59 |
| any two adjacent exterior weight ports are separated by less than the port diameter | The ports on the Accused SMS Irons are alleged to be spaced closely together, meeting the specific geometric constraint of the claim. | ¶37 | col. 4:43-45 |
'634 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 7) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a body portion having an interior cavity... | The Accused SMS Irons are alleged to have a body that contains an internal cavity. | ¶62 | col. 7:46-50 |
| a first exterior port... a second exterior port... and a third exterior port located along a periphery of the body portion... | The Accused SMS Irons are alleged to have at least three distinct exterior ports arranged on their periphery. | ¶62 | col. 14:12-16 |
| wherein the first exterior port and the second exterior port are separated by a distance of less than or equal to the first port diameter or the second port diameter | The spacing between the first and second ports on the Accused SMS Irons is alleged to meet this specific dimensional requirement. | ¶62 | col. 14:20-23 |
| wherein the second exterior port and the third exterior port are separated by a distance of less than or equal to the second port diameter or the third port diameter | The spacing between the second and third ports on the Accused SMS Irons is alleged to meet this specific dimensional requirement. | ¶62 | col. 14:23-25 |
| wherein at least one of the first exterior port, the second exterior port, or the third exterior port is connected to the interior cavity | At least one of the specified ports on the Accused SMS Irons is alleged to open into the club head's internal cavity. | ¶62 | col. 14:26-29 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: For the ’437 Patent, a central question will be whether the material used inside the Accused SMS Irons constitutes an "elastic polymer material" as understood in the patent. The method of filling will also be at issue, specifically whether the evidence shows the material was introduced "through" an exterior weight port.
- Technical Questions: For both patents, infringement will depend on precise physical measurements. A key technical question is whether the spacing between "adjacent exterior weight ports" on the accused products is verifiably "less than the port diameter." The evidence and methodology for these measurements may become a point of dispute.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "elastic polymer material" (’437 Patent, Claim 1)
- Context and Importance: This term is the functional core of the ’437 patent's invention, distinguishing it from a simple hollow club head. The outcome of the infringement analysis for this patent may depend entirely on whether the substance inside the Accused SMS Irons meets this definition.
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification provides several examples, including "a viscoelastic urethane polymer material such as Sorbothane®," "a thermoplastic elastomer material (TPE)," and "a thermoplastic polyurethane material (TPU)," suggesting the term covers a class of materials with certain properties, not a single substance (’437 Patent, col. 8:46-54).
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent explicitly links the material to the functions of absorbing shock, isolating vibration, and/or dampening noise (’437 Patent, col. 8:54-59). A party could argue that a material lacking these specific functional properties, even if polymeric, falls outside the claim scope.
The Term: "separated by less than the port diameter" (’437 Patent, Claim 1; ’634 Patent, Claim 7)
- Context and Importance: This precise geometric limitation appears in the independent claims of both asserted patents and defines the density of the port arrangement. Practitioners may focus on this term because infringement depends on a specific, measurable physical characteristic of the accused product.
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself seems to call for a straightforward physical measurement. A plaintiff would likely argue for the plain and ordinary meaning, measured from the closest edges of adjacent ports, as nothing in the specification appears to assign a special definition (’437 Patent, col. 4:43-45).
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent does not define how "separated" should be measured (e.g., edge-to-edge vs. center-to-center) or how to measure distance between ports on a curved surface as shown in Figure 2. A defendant could argue for a construction that makes it more difficult for the accused product to meet the limitation, such as requiring a specific measurement methodology not explicitly supported but inferable from the drawings.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement for both patents, asserting that Defendants market and sell the Accused SMS Irons with instructions that encourage and guide customers to use the products in their intended, infringing manner (Compl. ¶¶47-48, 72-73).
- Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on both pre-suit and potential post-suit knowledge. The complaint alleges Defendants had actual notice of the patents and their infringement at least as of an October 28, 2022 letter, and constructive notice via Plaintiff's public patent markings. It is alleged Defendants acted despite an objectively high likelihood of infringement (Compl. ¶¶38, 42, 63, 67).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of material identity and manufacturing process: Can Plaintiff provide sufficient evidence that the internal substance in the Accused SMS Irons is an "elastic polymer material" as defined by the '437 patent, and that it was introduced "through" an exterior port, as opposed to being a different material or inserted via another method?
- A key evidentiary question will be one of geometric compliance: Does the physical structure of the Accused SMS Irons satisfy the precise dimensional limitations of the claims—namely, that adjacent ports are "separated by less than the port diameter"—a factual determination that will likely require expert testimony and meticulous measurement?
- A central question for damages will be the defendant's state of mind: Given the allegation of a pre-suit notice letter, the court will need to examine whether Defendants' continued actions after being notified of the patents rose to the level of objective recklessness required for a finding of willful infringement.