Wilson Sporting Goods Co. v. David Geoffrey & Associates

904 F.2d 677 (1990)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

P competes in the golf ball business. Dunlop is also a major player in the golf ball business. Dunlop sells its Slazenger ball only to D, which distributes the ball to U.S. customers. Golfers are always searching for a 'longer' ball. Inventors have experimented with numerous aspects of ball design over the years. Inventors focused on aerodynamics once other aspects of the ball were fixed. 'Dimple science' is otherwise quite complicated and inexact: dimples can be numerous or few, and can vary as to shape, width, depth, location, and more. Wilson's '168 patent claims a certain configuration of dimples on a golf ball cover. What is critical is the dimple location on the ball. The goal is to create a more symmetrical distribution of dimples. P's design results in 80 imaginary triangles and critically important are the light lines which join the midpoints. These lines form the arcs of circles which pass completely around the widest part of the ball. There are six such circles, referred to in the patent as 'great circles.' All of the claims of the '168 patent require this basic golf ball having eighty sub-triangles and six great circles. Particular claims require variations on the placement of dimples in the triangles, with one common theme -- the dimples must be arranged on the surface of the ball so that no dimple intersects any great circle. When the dimples are arranged in P's manner, the ball has six axes of symmetry, compared to prior balls which had only one axis of symmetry. The Pugh patent teaches that a golf ball can be divided into any regular polyhedron, including an icosahedron. Pugh also discloses sub-dividing each of the twenty icosahedral triangles into smaller triangles. Pugh divides each icosahedral triangle into sixteen sub-triangles, in contrast to the four sub-triangles required by the '168 patent. Pugh's sixteen sub-triangles are merely further divisions of four larger sub-triangles. The prior art also includes several patents to Uniroyal and a Uniroyal golf ball sold in the 1970s. The Uniroyal ball is an icosahedral ball having six great circles with 30 or more dimples intersecting the great circles by about 12-15 thousandths of an inch. D's balls have dimples which are arranged in an icosahedral pattern having six great circles, but the six great circles are not dimple-free as the claims literally require. P separately sued D and Dunlop for patent infringement. The Dunlop case went to trial and the jury found for P. P then moved for summary judgment in the D case. In Dunlop, the jury found that four of D's balls infringed the ‘168 patent under the doctrine of equivalents. D appealed from a summary judgment for P. D contends that there is no principled difference between the balls which the jury found to infringe and the prior art Uniroyal ball; thus to allow the patent to reach Dunlop's balls under the doctrine of equivalents would improperly ensnare the prior art Uniroyal ball as well.