All the parties settled, but the litigation cost Orlimar money and momentum. The company filed for bankruptcy in 2003.

In 2006 Callaway sued Acushnet, arguing that the ball giant had infringed on four patents acquired by Callaway in its purchase of Top-Flite. Its lawyers lobbied the judge to call Callaway spokesman Phil Mickelson as a rebuttal witness, reasoning that he had information regarding the development and commercialization of the Pro V1 in 2000, when Mickelson was a Titleist endorser. (Mickelson signed with Callaway in 2004.) The lawyers claimed Mickelson would rebut testimony by Titleist’s director of sales and marketing Gerald Bellis, who said that he didn’t know details about Mickelson’s threat to terminate his Titleist contract unless it developed a ball to compete with Callaway’s Rule 35. After Callaway won a partial victory in December, Acushnet requested post-trial relief, asking for either a new trial or that the verdict be thrown out.

In the aforementioned Bridgestone v. Acushnet (the industry leader makes an inviting target), the plaintiff contended that it had pioneered some of the characteristics of the new three-piece balls. Acushnet countered that Bridgestone was giving itself too much credit, asserting instead that the popularity of three-piece balls didn’t really grow until Tiger Woods began playing Nike’s ball.

Bridgestone’s attorneys then disclosed that it was their company that actually produced Nike’s balls.(Bridgestone continues to manufacture balls for Nike in its factory, using Nike’s patents and designs.)
_________________________________________

Brief History »
Patent Truths »
Return to Sender »