Per Bob Parson’s Twitter account, PXG has filed a lawsuit in federal court against TaylorMade Golf, citing “many” patent infringements resulting from the company’s new P790 iron. While neither TaylorMade nor PXG has offered any official statement, one has to think the basis for the suit has to do with the injection filled, hollow-body construction that is the foundation of most PXG products. While PXG uses thermoplastic elastomer and TaylorMade uses a TPU-based SpeedFoam, if the patents are broad enough, the material won’t matter. This case will likely boil down to process and construction, not the material composition of the goo.
Through the proverbial grapevine, MGS has learned that PXG anticipated this day would come, but it would have been impossible to foresee which OEM would step far enough over the line to prompt this response from Parson and PXG.
Some knee-jerk pundits and keyboard jockeys will (and already have) falsely label Parsons a “jerk” or “bully” based on the limited information shared in his tweet. Not that the Twittersphere is a place where people ever cast false aspersions, but let’s be clear – Bob Parsons had to do this, if for no other reason than to make it abundantly clear, he’s not going to be pushed around by any company, big or small. His entire golf business is built on this technology, if somebody else can use it, it’s a problem.
Failure to protect the defining technology upon which PXG clubs are based would invariably open up the floodgates; leaving the technology free for any OEM to mimic or copy without fear of recourse.
With Parsons pursuing a suit, a line has been drawn in the sand. In protecting the primary asset, Parson’s removes any doubt as to his position or the lengths he’ll go to secure the viability of PXG’s defining technology.
Moreover, it’s a proxy statement within the industry of David defending himself against Goliath. Often smaller (by market-share) OEM’s can’t swallow the massive legal costs necessary to engage in what could be a prolonged, and costly, legal process. Financial resources don’t pose the same issue for Parsons. Should PXG prevail, it would be a massive blow (and more than a little embarrassing) to TaylorMade’s efforts to regain momentum after losing its position atop the industry this year to rival, Callaway.
That said, it’s reasonable to think a drawn out legal battle is exactly what TaylorMade’s new owner (private equity firm KPS Capital purchased TaylorMade for $425 Million in May) wants to avoid – and should it want this matter to disappear quickly, that would likely work in PXG’s favor. If the irons go away, I suspect the lawsuit does too.
The upside for TaylorMade, and indeed the risk for PXG is that consumers may link the two technologies. If PXG is viewed as the same as TaylorMade, its perceived performance advantage would be significantly and perhaps irreparably diminished.
There’s also a possibility PXG could bring suit against retailers distributing TaylorMade’s irons, a maneuver which could put both entities (TaylorMade and retailers) in a difficult and unenviable situation – and because PXG isn’t sold via the same channels, it’s a less complicated move for Parsons. Regardless of the legal path Parson’s takes, it would be a mistake to underestimate his business acumen or passion for his company.
To be certain, golf companies sue or threaten to sue, each other with alarming regularity. To no small degree, the action itself cements PXG’s position within the industry. It’s now part of the status quo.
The truth of the matter is that sometimes the claims made in lawsuits like this are valid, sometimes they’re about little more than attention getting, and in other cases, about leveraging nonsense to gain a competitive advantage. Which this will prove to be remains to be seen.
More information as it becomes available.
Steve Hamer
2 years agoif pxg are so good why is miss ko not doing as well as she did with callaway ?
S Bogey
2 years agoAny update on the results from Fridays court hearing? I don’t see anyway that PXG is able to obtain a TRO (temporary restraining order) on the P790.
The people on this board are correct, lots of prior art relative to what PXG was granted in their patent. It will probably be invalidated at a later trial date.
Meanwhile, Bob Parsons did himself no favors announcing it to the world. Possible increase in P790 sales as a result?!
Carsten
2 years agoWell…
Before you spend 2800 bucks on a set of golf clubs I’d rather give it your local pro. Foam, elastomere or whatever do not help 99% source of issues: the guy holding the club. PXG will never become a mass product at that price and will rather battle for market share with brands like Honma. Therefore this whole stuff is just PR related in my opinion
Birdieputt
2 years agoBob Parson’s never intended PXG to become a “mass product”. It is intended for a small segment of the market that will pay for a high quality, expertly fit set of clubs. It’s that simple. When one looks at the number of Tour players on several tours, who are playing PXG products and realize that PXG will be profitable this year, one has to assume that Mr. Parson’s hit his goals. When you look at the gross sales numbers for the year, it’s staggering.
There IS a fairly large segment of the market that will pay for high end golf products.
Troy Beros
2 years agoKit Chan, we kind of called this
Greggytees
2 years agoEven being a club maker don’t know much about PXG products, sorry I just don’t. But way back when, I met Bob Parsons in the early Go Daddy years and spent considerable time with him. This man is passionate about anything he gets involved in. I mean gnarly stupid passionate.
His passion for golf is obviously known, his furious love for the business’ s he created is not. Beware TM, this is not a puppy running from the big dog.
KenS
2 years agoI believe Ely Callaway, by way of his chief designer, Richard Helmstetter, developed the first Big Bertha driver around 1986 (at 190cc). Why couldn’t they have patented all larger sized driver designs and sued every other company who ever made a driver larger than 190cc? Callaway increased the design to 290cc in 1997. I don’t see how Callaway could patent the idea of larger sized driver heads. Likewise, I don’t see how creating a hollowed iron design and injecting it with elastomer (or any other material for that matter) is a process a patent lawyer or a judge could define as “intellectual property.” But then I’m not a lawyer or a judge.
TacoTollefson67
2 years agoOk, So Based on this Quote Forbes August 2016 from Parsons, Why is he pursuing Legal Action???? With sets of clubs that sell for $5,000, Parsons says “PXG doesn’t compete for sales with the likes of Titleist, TaylorMade, Callaway and Ping because customers loyal to those companies are at the lower end of the market.” To Parsons, it’s like comparing Ferrari to car manufacturers like Honda and Toyota.
Donald Hojnacki
2 years agoIf the question is who first started foaming golf clubs. I can tell you I worked with GARY Adams of TM assemble test and manufacture TM clubs, when we started in 1979 in McHenry, IL. They were foaming club heads in 1979 and I know why,when, and reason. I know of no other companies who were doing this at the time.
KM
2 years agoIf lm not mistaken TaylorMade made the 1st hollow iron in 1987 then their midsize iron in 1993, l domt think Parsons stands a chance, and it might even be proven in court that PXG is steping on a TM patent…he has no chance.
Lawrence Lane
2 years agoDallas, business school teaches one that Product Differentiation is where the core of marketing is at! However, think of all the minute equipment changes which have led us from the hickory Spoon!
Dana Johnson
2 years ago$2500, that’s crazy. Money better spent on a K-vest.
Colby Evans
2 years agoTM made the hollow foam filled irons the first time in the 90’s with the ICW no? And now parsons is telling the world that TaylorMade made the same thing as him for 1/2-1/3 the price. Smart move…
In other news, no one makes TM money like companies suing TM does
Tony Covey
2 years agoI’ve had a chance to review PXG’s complaints (Ryan Ballengee has them over on TheGolfNewsNet.com), and it is my opinion that the patents PXG alleges have been infringed upon are specific enough as to exclude TM’s ICW as a ‘we did it first’ kind of thing, but broad enough to potentially cause issues for TaylorMade’s P790.
It’s a gross over-simplification to think that the existence of seemingly similar designs from several decades ago, is actually relevant to this case. I think most fail to realize the level of specificity within patents. As I’ve said in other venues, this will boil down to construction and process. Simply put, not all hollow-body cream-filled irons are created equal. From a legal perspective, “looks like” is a long way from infringement, and certainly that could cut both ways in this case.
The claims are focused on things like face thickness (the ICW has face thicker than what PXG’s patent covers, the P790 may not), the construction method, placement of weight, ratio of goo mass relative to metal mass, and most interestingly IMO, the use of adhesive to bond the polymer material to the face.
If I remember correctly, it was the adhesive material that bonds the goo to the face that was the most difficult for PXG to get right, so it may also prove to be the most difficult to work around from a patent perspective. These are things for the courts to decide assume it goes that far. Admittedly it’s a guess, but *IF* TM’s patent team missed anything in their vetting process (I assume they still have one), I’d put my money on the adhesive layer.
PXG is seeking a temporary restraining order to halt sales of the P790, and while I don’t expect the average golfer will even be aware of the action, among those keeping track, I think it could actually accelerate sales, especially if golfers believe they might not be able to get them later.
As Chris said in the article, both sides have plenty riding on this. If the TM P790 stays on the market, it will be perceived – and I think rightfully so – as PXG or PXG-like technology at a substantial discount. That would take plenty of the shine of the PXG brand.
If TM ends up on the wrong side of this or if P790 comes off the shelves, it’s Wilson Triton level embarrassment multiplied exponentially. A total hit to brand credibility at a time when it’s trying to regain significant share loss in both the metalwood and iron categories.
For whatever it’s worth, the industry consensus so far is that Bob and PXG are grandstanding and that the complaint is nonsense. That said, ‘nonsense’ is always the majority opinion regardless of who is suing who or what is being alleged.
The wildcard in all of this is KPS. Contrary to what some have said, the new owners haven’t taken over TM just yet. When it assumes control, it’s widely believed that its first order of business will be significant cost-cutting. A prolonged legal battle over a single product might be viewed as an unnecessary expense that doesn’t fit that objective. That part is, of course, speculation.
Finally, it’s worth mentioning that unlike the Titleist v. Costco situation where both sides might be best served by settling quietly and walking away, the foundation of the PXG business is on the line, as is the next generation of TaylorMade technology. Nobody gets out of this one clean.
jsilva
2 years agoThank you for giving us such an insightful and unbiased observation, well done.
Vas
2 years agoExcellent synopsis! Also, my other takeaway was that one cannot falsely label Parsons “a jerk”. It fits like a custom suit.
dr. bloor
2 years agoWhat’s your reaction to the article over at Golfwrx this morning w/the reactions from a couple of disinterested patent attorneys?
AJ
2 years agoSo are saying that TM yanked some goo out of PXG clubs and chemically analyzed it. Then TM made & injected equivalent goo into the P790? So it is the composition of the goo that is patented?
S Bogey
2 years agoIt has nothing to do with any “face adhesive”, 30 minutes of research on Google parents will show it has to do with a combination of hollow iron, filled and multiple plugs, plus the position of the plugs/weights. Lots of prior art in this realm.
Dan
2 years agoGreat reply Tony, Tks. A patent worth investigating in this is an obscure one, but worth checking out none the less. It covers the original Nickent Wedge/Irons that stated life as Genex & eventualy became their ARC product line. Very similar concept to PXG, and is different to the TM foam’rs. This patent was picked up in the liquidation/sale of Nickent & probably now rests in a lawyers drawer somewhere (as they no longer use it). From memory the shape & size of the cavity is different, as is face thickness, but overall it’s a remarkably similar application of the idea/technology (which pre-dates PXG). It’s a John Hoeflich design from around 2008 I think. Be worth taking a look if you can find it.
Steve Gerrick
2 years agoHow small is the market for golfers that will spend $2500 for a set of irons? They are a real joke!!! Someone has a lot of money to burn but not many brains.
DFS
2 years agoIf not enforce these patents, why even have patent law? I would love for some of you to thing outside of your 2″ sphere of influence and come up with an original idea, patent it, get wealthy, just to have a much larger company infringe upon your intellectual property and steal all of your business. This will come to a deal in Parson’s favor much sooner, rather than later. Don’t let your emotions get in the way of the facts here just because you can’t afford PXG equipment (but still buy a new set of wrong irons that you probably can’t properly game anyways every year).
jsilva
2 years agoTaylormade put out the ICW 11 and ICW 5 irons in 1991… they where hollow foam filled irons. There’s nothing new out there, just companies tweaking old ideas and claiming them as new.
DFS
2 years agoWhy were the PXG patents approved if it’s the same technology? Please enlighten everyone on here as to your clearly extensive knowledge in Physical and Intellectual Patents as well as first hand experience with apparently “RE-patenting” something? This is all new to me apparently.
jsilva
2 years agoyou must work for PXG
Eric
2 years agoWasn’t Nickent the first to use polymers injected into irons 10 + years ago? Genex irons I believe.
Don
2 years agoIt was an ‘elastomer’ that was used to create a cavity back like forgiveness in their arc wedges. They were decent wedges and in my price range back then (i.e. cheap 🙂 ).
I dunno what the difference is between an elastomer and a polymer. I would assume they are pretty much the same.
Nigel Turner
2 years agothe real reason is tm is undercutting pxg by 1.5k
SV677
2 years agoMaybe someone should have sued PXG previously. Foam in a hollow iron head is not new to PXG. This was done a number of years ago (although I don’t remember the manufacturer).
Fawley
2 years agoWhat would they be sued for? Does it infringe on a patent?
Skip
2 years agoIronically, Taylormade lol. Burner Mid from the early 90’s
Dave P.
2 years agoHere is the really funny part to me. By commencing this legal action, PXG will be perceived as basically saying yes Taylormade’s 790’s are essentially the same as our clubs but at half the price. This should end up helping Taylormade’s sales of the 790’s greatly.
The clock on PXG’s time in the Sun may well be ticking.
John
2 years agoA Cadillac and a Subaru will both get you where you want to go in about the same time, but some prefer to travel in style while others prefer to be frugal. While the comparison between PXG and other brands may be slightly different, I think it’s a good analogy. I don’t play PXG, but as a capitalist and a consumer, I firmly believe in the right of every manufacturer to protect their methods of producing a product. If TM violated a PXG patent, they should get punished for it.
Shailesh
2 years agoNot really.
Subaru has a patented boxer engine ( Ferrari cousin, I suppose) and a simple but sophisticated all wheel drive. Cadillac or no other manufacturer can copy the technology.
This case ultimately will be decided on the scientific merits of the patent and infringement. If the PXG patent lawyers can prove COPY CAT design, material use, bonding, weight distribution etc. TM is in trouble.
Brandon
2 years agoThis will be the end of PXG.
Joe Gaudin
2 years agoWell then, I guess Bob Parsons might as well add Titleist to the law suit for the T-MB line of hollow cavity filled irons. If your going to sue for making a product simular to yours you’ll have to sue a lot of people.
IP Attorney
2 years agoIntellectual Property attorney here. Go get ’em Parsons!
Brian
2 years agoGod forbid somebody else comes out with a similar product for $1,300 compared to $2,800. This whole discussion is about price protection. Good for TM!
Vincent Collier
2 years agoNo, no it’s not. it’s about property and theft. Property, physical and intellectual, is the basis of a capitalist economy.
If TM is in the wrong, I hope they get whacked
Dman
2 years agoThis has been done in the 70’s. Parson just “apparently” holds the patent. So technically parson stole it
Mike
2 years agoNo, US Patent office forbid. Like literally you can’t do it.
Dave S
2 years agoNope. It’s about protecting a proprietary technology. Just because you can’t afford PXG doesn’t mean they don’t have a right to protect their technology.
ken
2 years agoParsons seems to have a huge head. Taylor Made brought out a hollow iron back in the 80s it was a great iron people just did not buy the product.
Vincent Collier
2 years agoThe issue is not the hollow head… it’s the process of filling the head cavity
Brian Davies
2 years agoSurely Wilson Staff should sue them both as they were the first to use this process
Graham Riley
2 years agoAs golfers I don’t think we care too much about who sues who BUT as a designer, innovator and inventor patents and design registrations is the only way anyone can stop another person or company stealing, copying or using your ideas or ‘slant’ on maybe an old idea. For those of you who don’t have patents etc do be the ‘first to cast the stone’ when you really don’t know what impact it has on the patent holder or what it cost or could cost them in the long run. If its a publicity stunt…… let them pay the proverbial piper, their money not mine!!!
Bob
2 years agoThis move by PXG is hilarious and just meant as an attention getting publicity ploy. They will get nowhere with this lawsuit.
Richard Morris
2 years agoHmm, wonder who did it first? Some older players may recall the TaylorMade irons back in the late 80’s / early 90’s that featured a hollow stainless body filled with foam. I actually have a set from integra (i think, don’t want to get sued for mispeaking)
So if TM patented it back in the 90’s, the protection has worn off, so can PXG re-patent the technology ?
Steve S
2 years agoNo, once a patent has expired the technology is in the public domain, free for anyone to use. Even if Taylormade did not patent the original design it was publicly disclosed by them selling a product and you still can’t patent it.
This issue will boil down to what are in the patent claims and whether they are narrow enough to be unique but broad enough to cover what TM is doing.
Dallas Reid
2 years agoI tried these things out at Pure Form in HK. Absolutely no benefit. But I guess fools and their money will always find ways to separate.
Graeme Peacock
2 years agoMaybe they should sue Ping for having a P and G in the name?
Minnesota Golfer
2 years agoThis is a good one
Vasil
2 years agoEasy now… I thought Parsons just crossed the “I” and the “N” to make an “X” and sell the same stuff.
Hamish Chandler
2 years agoNathan Joseph
Nick Aquilino
2 years agoI looked at some of the PXG patents and they appear to so limited in the scope of the coverage it is hard to believe anyone would infringe their rights so I am thinking this is some sort of publicity effort……….
Shane Wickham
2 years agoNo way in the world would I buy PXG….
Geoff Morrison
2 years ago@PXG can’t sue @TaylormadeGolf because those are Twitter accounts.
Clint O’Neil
2 years agoWeren’t R9s foam filled?
Christopher Polsinelli
2 years agoOlder models were not those..in the early 90s I think
Rob
2 years agoYes they were!
Jooce81
2 years agoaccording to this site the R9 and R9TP had “foam fill” http://www.golf.com/equipment/taylormade-r9-irons
marc
2 years agoTaylorMade actually did it first with the original Tour Preferred irons in the mid 80s if I remember correctly. The next iteration of those was the ICWs, I believe.
Arno Will
2 years agoScott Graham Bell
W.g. Ogden
2 years agoDon’t think Taylormade can afford to just buy Parsons off like they did with Adams create your own [email protected]
#ruttrow
#790goodnight
Christopher Polsinelli
2 years agoYou do know taylormade used this tech first….30 yrs ago
W.g. Ogden
2 years agoPatents only last 20 years ask Mizuno why there new irons are grain flow forged hd! But YES If you want to say the technology is 20 years old I would argue the foam filled Burner is a little different then the PXG Irons! However did they renew the patent after 20 years is the question?? And did they??
cgasucks
2 years agoYou can’t renew patents. If that was the case, Pfizer would still be enjoying the huge profits from Viagra.
Michael Anderson
2 years agoElliot Taylor – get me that order filled quickly before you end up in court
Elliot Taylor
2 years agoKristian Carr told me about this this morning. It won’t stand up in court if I’m in the UK ?
Ray L Tollefson
2 years agoAre you seriously kidding me, ok so sue everyone that has the same shapes iron, the grooves, the hosel, the number on the iron, the grip placement, the steps on the shaft, the topline, the heel, the cavity, the muscle, the blade, the lie, the loft, the toe, Come On This Could Go On For Hours, the ball, the cover, the mantle, the core, the shape, the dimples……………………………………………………………………………………….,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Jeremy Scott
2 years agoTaylormade clubs are now PXG knockoffs.
Bob Gomavitz
2 years agoBreaking News! Ping sues Scotty Cameron! Now that’s a story, not this
COGolfer
2 years agoLaw comes down to money and time. These organizations have way too much of both to understand who is right.
Chris Fiadino
2 years agoJoe Fiadino
Joe g
2 years agoI am already re chroming there irons. They all had different weights.
Nick Green
2 years agoBret Newmiller what I say lol
Bret Newmiller
2 years agoBe interesting to see what part of the design pxg is calling out. If it is a hollow foam filled head then TM can just pull this baby out
Andy Mickelson
2 years agoThe ultimate compliment. Didn’t Taylormade create the first hollow body foam filled iron? Tough to sell the same stuff at 2k more is what this seems to be about.
Andy Mickelson
2 years agoOh and I almost forgot…
Geo Golfx
2 years agoWhat’s old is new again, even for Taylor Made.
Brandon Albert
2 years agoI have the p-790s and I’ve hit all versions of the PXG. The TMs are better hands down imo. Cost less, feel better, look better, go further.
George Waller
2 years agoBrent Barlow
Ian Chin
2 years agoI want to sue PXG over that awful logo!
Angie Andrew Dobberphul
2 years agoPlay titleist period
James Wallace
2 years agoSelling like hot cakes
James Wallace
2 years agoI was waiting for it. I saw that they had 80 patents today ? better get on those 790’s now
Stephen McCurdy
2 years agoThis could be a good one if they can prove that the construction and how they inject the foam is infringing on the patent
Birdieputt
2 years agoI would think that the last thing that Taylormade wants or needs is to get into a complicated lawsuit with someone who has VERY deep pockets and a very strong desire to protect his brand. If PXG prevails in what will be a protracted litigation, Taylormade might as well fold up the tents.
Scott Timmins
2 years agoImagine not being able to realease the p790 after all this hype haha
Aiden Withers
2 years agoScott Timmins You would of thought so hey but we will find out later I guess
Tim Dotson
2 years agoYep Taylormade iron sales just got a spike
Tim Brantley
2 years agoPings X Guys (PXG) isn’t messing around. If you want to spend a ton of money and be underwhelmed; they’re your brand!
Aarik Greenley
2 years agoThey can’t afford to pay off PxG like they did at Adams golf. Their pockets aren’t that deep!!!
Kenneth Dickerson
2 years agoSaw that
Chris Nickel
2 years agoHaven’t hit this particular version.
Nick Chomack
2 years agoKen G
2 years agoGotta love UnderPar1818’s response. Wonder how Bob Parsons replied to that comment? LOL!
gunmetal
2 years agoThat’s just it – some people have said that this could hurt PXG because now people would be able to find their tech in other irons. I disagree. Those who fall into PXG’s demographics are less interested in the tech and more interested in the price tag and exclusivity. Even UnderPar1818 admits “was looking for a PXG iron at an affordable price” so he was never going to buy PXG irons (they’re not affordable). Anyone on these sites know that there’s no technological advantage (at least tangible anyway) with PXG, Taylormade, Callaway, Titleist, or any other manufacturer. They’re all marketing companies now bound by limits imposed by USGA so they can’t make conforming clubs that intrinsically possess some great tech that makes one club better than another.
But they can make 39* pitching wedges, eh Callaway?
Zebhead47
2 years agoPXG is not a walk into a retail store and walk out with a set of clubs under your arm solution. PXG is a combination of club technology, a serious qualified control process and a superb fitting process. I spent two hours, hit probably 150 balls and went through 10-12 shafts and a couple of head designs with a fitter that knew what they were doing. I ended up in steel shafts that I hadn’t played in 30 years. They weigh almost twice as much as what were in my Titleist 716’s and were 1/2″ longer and 1 upright. I did not hit the PXG’s materially further, but you could throw a blanket over the dispersion pattern. I’ve played Callaway, Ping, Mizuno and Titleist over the years and I can tell you PXG is the most solid iron I’ve ever played, but there is more than just a solid technology. Yes, their price is a little on the absurd side, and yes you definitely can still hit bad shots. But Parsons isn’t going to come out with a “new and improved” set of irons evert six months either. In other words Taylormade and PXG are two different games regardless of the technology component. But, if I’m Bob Parsons I’m going to protect my product technology too, even though that is just part of the equation if for no other reason so people don’t believe that one set of clubs is “just like” another.
Bogeypro
2 years agoYou bought overpriced snake oil.
Billy Thomas
2 years agoWhy do you think this?
pistolpeterr
2 years agoPrice is a function of the wallet of the beholder. But a very tight dispersion pattern “throw a blanket over his shot pattern is pretty tight) is a consequence of a good swing and equipment that fits properly. Who cares what someone pays for clubs! Some folks drive Ferraris and some drive Porsches and some drive Hondas and Fords and Chevys. They all perform the function of getting you from point A to point B. One gets you there fast with unreal handling and another does so with less speed and perhaps less feel and for far less money. They accomplish the same task. Different strokes for different folks.. .
CamiloArturo
2 years agoWhy are people always so worried about what other people spend their money on? If I have 3k spare, why can’t I buy more expensive clubs if I chose to do so? It’s not the commenter fault you can’t afford PXGs really. If he wanted to buy Miuras, Hommas or just TopFlite OTC, why would you care?
Bob
2 years agoPXG caters to the very rich. The same folks whom you’d hardly see in any stores. The market that TM services would not dent the extremely limited customers of PXG. The huge majority of people who buy TM could not afford, nor have any interest in purchasing PXG equipment. And in fact, outside of the few whom buy PXG, most of the rest of us laugh at the extremely over-priced clubs that would really not improve most people’s games. Now maybe if PXG marketed its clubs to the general public through golf and sports stores, they might have a case, But they don’t and it would be an obvious waste of time and money if they did. In my opinion, this is a publicity and attention getting ploy by Parsons. All you have to read is that Parsons got a patent not to protect his product, but to try and get some major golf company to fall into their trap. I hope the courts see this for what it is and throw out the case.
Also, the new owners of TM are probably smart enough to know that Parsons would come after them because of their new P970 irons, but decided to produce them anyways. So, it would seem to reason that KPS Capital is not worried. And yes, my opinion is Parsons is a self-centered jerk who I hope loses the case.
gunmetal
2 years agoThat’s awesome. I’m glad you’ve got a great set of sticks. However, I don’t think your success is attributed so much to some mythical technology PXG possesses that others don’t, but rather to the rigorous fitting. PXG keeps asking me to become a PXG fitting studio and my fittings look a lot like what you described. I think I could have had the same amount of success with you by using Mizuno, Callaway, Wishon, KZG, or even Maltby heads from Golf Works. Certainly not Ping or Titleist as they are the most anti custom in the industry. The point is, any manufacturer that will sell qualified fitters just their heads really gets and buys into custom fitting. PXG falls into that category and I think that’s where your advantage came from.
Tom
2 years agoYears ago I dealt in antique golf memorabilia and clubs. My memory is sketchy now but I once had a lower lofted wooden shafted iron with the head made in two pieces. The cavity between the head and back was filled with gutta, and the face was secured to the head. The promise of this patented club was more distance. I sold it for lower four figures. I’ve seen other ” radically new ” club concepts whose foundation goes back to another era.
Kelly Schmitt
2 years agoI am going to get the AP3. Back to Titleist for me next year.
DJ
2 years agoAdams XTD Forged??? Hollow 2 piece forged blade like irons filled with goo……..
Tim Martinez
2 years agoChris Nickel have you hit the Taylormades? Any personal comparison?
Dave
2 years agoIt was only a matter of time.
Scott Timmins
2 years agoDon’t buy pxg, just buy p790 ?
Scott Timmins
2 years agoThis will be interesting. I’m sure taylormade would have looked into this pre production so i wonder what will come of it
Scott Robinson
2 years agoTaylormade made injection filled burner irons over 10 years ago…before PXG overpriced clubs existed. I still have a set.
Thomas Barker
2 years agoR9 and R9 Tp were both foam filled.
Matt Alston
2 years agoBrady Armstrong wow, never saw that one coming.
dcorun
2 years agoHasn’t just about every technology been used by everyone at one time or another. For example, how different really is the Dragonfly crown from the HiBore crown from the Boeing crown and on and on. I just like playing golf and the rest of it is just amusing. Here’s a thought, why don’t they settle quickly and give some of their millions to help the people hit by Hurricane’s Harvey and Irma! They are the real victims not Bob Parsons or TaylorMade.
NA
2 years agoPXG donated $1 million to hurricane relief last week. Read/think before you write.
Fred
2 years agoParsons is a smart business man. That $million donation will get him some good publicity, which any new company needs, along with a nice tax deduction.
dcorun
2 years agoYour right. That was a really great thing for him to do.
Bob
2 years agoParson’s donation to hurricane relief, while commendable, has nothing to do with this lawsuit subject. And I am sure that the courts will not take into any consideration that donation.
Aaron n
2 years agoParsons gives away a lot of money every year to various causes and charities.
Jordan
2 years ago1 million. That is nothing. The man could pull that much times by 100 out of his back pocket. He should donate more and so should all the other rich dogs like trump, mayeweather.
Layne C. Chastain
2 years agoGreat read and anticipate the follow up!!!!
Clinton Messer
2 years agoGet callaway ground breaking company Kelly Schmitt
Jonathan Evans
2 years agoKelly Schmitt you hate Taylormade The tech is almost identical
Luke Hoffman
2 years agoWho cares they both suck!
Jordan
2 years agoI agree just go titleist.
Joe Howsley
2 years agoI can’t afford PXG so I don’t know if they are a better club. To be honest it won’t improve my swing path nor if I pure it in the middle of the face every time. 2500$ would be better spent by myself on good lessons from my local pro then get fitted for the correct swing I developed. And no guarantee that the best for me is PXG OR TM. I swing Ping and I am good with them.
Fred
2 years agoPXG is coming along slowly but surely. Meanwhile, only a small handful of players (PGA and LPGA) have done all that well with the clubs. Zach Johnson and Lydia Ko, both major winners on their respective tours, have yet to win with the clubs since switching.
Caleb Stent
2 years agoCool story bro
Keith
2 years agoTaylor burner midsized was hollow and foam filled 8n the late 1990s. Even earlier tm irons (name escapes me)
Keith
2 years agoAh… ICWs
Crazy Mike
2 years agoI loved those TaylorMade Midsize irons!!
Craig Konkle
2 years agoGo get Them PXG hope you Win Taylor made Sucks
Billy Thomas
2 years ago+1
Tom C
2 years agoWasnt TaylorMade the first to fill bladelike irons with foam back in the early 90’s.
Rafael Lenartowicz
2 years agoIt is as interested to me as ferrari suing volkswagen (except that ferrari actually IS better than v dub). Who gives a shit
Joe Stallings
2 years agoOh shit
Chad Mardesen
2 years agoSo the Burner irons like 20 years ago…those were what, different?
This is a PR stunt…plain and simple. Next he’ll buy a helicopter with the PXG logo on it.
Lawrence J Phillips
2 years agoDone
Nigel Turner
2 years agohe just as lol
Garry Pierce
2 years agoPing will be suing PXG. All his techs came from Ping. PXG’s are hi $ clones of Ping. Parsons is a blow hard with a pocket of full of cash. This is the new way of making money in the golf biz…SUE your completion(been going on for years)
John dire
2 years ago“New way to make money” followed by “been going on for years”.
Nice thought
Matt Shaulis
2 years agoIs there any chance PXG gets some sort of injunction granted in their favor that wild halt TM from further producing or selling the irons pending the lawsuit result?
Robin Towson
2 years agoWilson and Taylormade should counter sue given they were doing while ole Bob was milling around Baltimore, City.
And ole Bob can’t match the assets of KPS Capital, current owner of TM, around $5.4 billion on assets.
Thanks Bob, I think I will order a new set of 790’s.
Kman74
2 years agoactually Bob CAN match them. Bob is worth $2.5 billion dollars and as an individual he has the ability to be more adaptable than a holdings company. I think it’s funny how everyone on here thinks Parsons is some idiot. He’s a Marine, he’s smart and has turned a small personal idea into something pretty big. Say what you want but I’m willing to bet TM is taking this very serious.
robin
2 years agoI was a Marine, and nobody ever called me smart. Especially after my boxing career was over !!!
cksurfdude
2 years agoWhat I read into KMan’s comment, re: Marine, was that once he has outlined a task for himself .. he will see it through to completion.
Also – Parson started a software company .. which he sold to Intuit (makers of QuuckBooks and other s/w); and started GoDaddy and built that up and sold it.
Just saying that PXG is not his first rodeo.
Clay Chadbourne
2 years agoParsons just wants to be able to keep selling clubs at stupid expensive prices…normal amateurs will never pony up for a set costing $350 per club! I hope the suit gets vacated cause the rest of us would like PXG performance at normal people prices…
Geo Golfx
2 years agoThat’s not their niche. What you pay doesn’t necessarily equal Performance
Clay Chadbourne
2 years agoGeo Golfx if that’s true, then Parsons is suing just to spite Taylormadegolf and try and legitimize his ultra premium prices.
saveva
2 years agoI have pxg 0311 irons, my other set of callaway apex cf16 performs just as well. I didn’t buy pxg bc I thought I would play better. You don’t buy a Rolex bc it tells time better, a cheap battery powered quartz watch would tell time better.
Bill
2 years agoI’m curious, why did you buy them?
Fred
2 years agoHe possibly bought PXGs for the same reason people buy Ralph Lauren Polo shirts instead of Nautica or Tommy – it’s that little pony, which many see as a status symbol, much like a Rolex watch.
saveva
2 years agoI bought them because I like nice expensive things that are unique and exclusive; materialistic / status. I simply appreciate luxury goods more, and it makes me feel good using them. I grew up poor and aspirational. Quoting Drake… “Started from the bottom now we’re here”
bill
2 years agoHow many “normal amateurs” will pay $300 per stick for Callaway’s Epic Star. They’ve sold in Japan so now Eli is bringing them to the US market. Same as the traditional “Epic” but with lighter shafts & grips and a bit of gold paint. PT Barnum was right. There really “is” one born every minuted.
Jeremy Scott
2 years agoPony up the dough, they are worth it. At least demo the irons. The driver tech is pretty much the same for all companies because everyone is pushing the spec limits anyway. But the irons are freaking money
Carson Joens
2 years agoYES!!!!!!!!
Kelly Schmitt
2 years agoGetting me some cheap pxg irons. Lol
Spitfisher
2 years agoThis could also be a very frivolous lawsuit that could be tied up in court for years and years. From what I understand if a manufacturers patent is changed by 20%…..i.e.The foam material is different, how its injected into the club and where it resides in the club, might be enough. This very well may be a case of a billionaire with his panties bunched up. The more upsets he becomes, the more press, the more it will draw attention to the hot selling TM P790 for half the PXG retail price……come to think of it, that’s probably it. It threatens the value of PXG. Other than casual conversation the consumer really doesn’t care about lawsuits at all- only lawyers do.
Sean Raisbeck
2 years agoTM has used foam filled irons since the R9…cant everybody just get along
Steven LePage
2 years agoTM did this back with the ICW irons in the early 90’s. Correct me if I’m wrong..
Dan Pearce Jr
2 years agoSo will this delay the Sept 15th release and ship date of the P790 if you have already pre-ordered them???
Ian Chin
2 years agoI doubt it.
Brandon Albert
2 years agoGlad I got mine already.
Bob Pegram
2 years agoCustomers are already getting shipments of custom ordered P790s.
KM
2 years agoWhy bother? Only the lawyers will get rich off this suit, stupid.
Fred
2 years agoYes, the lawyers will make out just fine. Meanwhile, Parsons gets his PXG name out there, which we really don’t see all that often, along with suggesting that his company has some secretive technology no one else has.
Josh Spangler
2 years agoTaylormade designed this stuff first. Also how many people have ripped off Ping ideas
Ryan Draper
2 years agowell taylormade sales just skyrocketed
Birdieputt
2 years agoNot !!
Michael Cofer
2 years agoDid Parsons just sell a boat load of taylormade clubs. I think so.
Jarasphong Yaowarat
2 years agoPxG
PDub
2 years agoReporting that one golf company is suing another for patent infringement is the same thing as reporting that humans breathe oxygen: happens everyday, everyone knows, nothing special, life goes on.
George F Blackshaw IV
2 years agoIf memory serves me right didn’t Taylormade have the ICW 5’s and ICW 11’s foam filled in the late 80’s early 90’s
Geo Golfx
2 years agoIf patented – that expired quite a while ago
Tony DeMaria
2 years agoTaylor Made had hollow back irons in the early to mid 90’s. PXG just filled them with foam and decided to rip everyone off
Matt Shaulis
2 years agoIt isn’t ripping anyone off if you take a medium (hollow body iron) and use it to make a completely different item using a new material and manufacturing process.
Geo Golfx
2 years agoWas it patented. And if so it has expired Foamed to weight.
Mike Page
2 years agoIt’s a rubber like polymer not foam
Tony DeMaria
2 years agoMatt Shaulis I was referring to the price. They do not perform significantly better than other products on the market
Cyril Gleiman
2 years agogo get em
Joe Gendron
2 years agoI could never afford PXG’s but shit if these are so close, I can afford these easy. Thanks Bob Parsons.
Cliff Morgan
2 years agoYep I see a few people buying TM just because of this
Will Jones
2 years agoTaylormade will buy them out. #adamshadtheslottechnologyfirst
Geo Golfx
2 years agoTaylor Made doesn’t have the $
Joe Gendron
2 years agoTMag owns Adams.
Ed
2 years agoTMag bought Adams because Adams sued for patent infringement over the slot technology. It was cheaper to buy the company than to fight the suit.
Will Jones
2 years agoJoe Gendron, that’s why TM owns Adams. Instead of going through a patent infringement litigation suit, they bought the company.
Aaron n
2 years agoBob Parsons personally has more money than TM. Pxg is a pet project for him. He will not be bought out.
Kirk Oguri
2 years agoDo you realize who has more money?
Chris Nickel
2 years agoI don’t believe it’s a case of who has more, per se. It’s a case of who has enough. Parsons has more than enough to support a lengthy legal process (if it comes to that and that’s what he feels is best) and that’s atypical in this situation.
James
2 years agoYes as well as A number of other technologies ripped off from Mizuno. The driver with the slider to change the weight. Today everybody use it. When Mizuno did it everybody thought it was a wast of time
Oral Sambol
2 years agoThe owner of PXG could by Taylormade with his walking around money.
Geoff Morrison
2 years agoBob Parsons owns Go Daddy. He has so much money after spending $400,000 on golf clubs in a year he just said screw it, and started PXG.
Daniel Williams
2 years agoIt’s going to be hard to prove .
Mike Abate
2 years agoInteresting…. one would think the other way around considering PXG has only been around for a few years.
Geo Golfx
2 years agoIf I’m a 1 month old company, and a hundred year old company infringes on my patent – it’s still the same. Age of the company is irrelevant.
Mike Abate
2 years agoGeo Golfx no shit, I’m just saying what could it be?