## Facts

- Callaway sued Acushnet for infringing multiple claims of four related patents covering multi-layer golf balls with polyurethane covers (the “Sullivan patents”).
- Acushnet stipulated that its accused golf balls infringed the asserted claims but argued the claims were invalid for anticipation and obviousness based on prior art patents and products.
- The district court granted summary judgment that the asserted claims were not anticipated.
- Obviousness was tried to a jury, which found most asserted claims not obvious but found one dependent claim (claim 5 of the ’293 patent) obvious while finding a broader related independent claim not obvious.
- The district court entered judgment reflecting the verdicts and denied Acushnet’s post-trial efforts to overturn the nonobviousness findings as a matter of law.

## Issues

1. Whether summary judgment of no anticipation was improper because the record raised a genuine dispute of material fact on whether the prior art disclosed every claim limitation.
2. Whether Acushnet was entitled to judgment as a matter of law that the asserted claims were obvious.
3. Whether the jury’s obviousness verdicts were irreconcilably inconsistent (particularly between an independent claim and its dependent claim), requiring vacatur and a new trial.

## Decision

- Reversed the summary judgment of no anticipation because Acushnet produced evidence creating a genuine issue of material fact on anticipation.
- Affirmed the denial of Acushnet’s request for judgment as a matter of law on obviousness because a reasonable jury could find nonobviousness on the record presented.
- Vacated the district court’s obviousness judgment and remanded for a new trial due to irreconcilably inconsistent jury verdicts on obviousness among related claims.
- Remanded for further proceedings consistent with these holdings.

## Legal Principles

- Summary judgment on anticipation is improper when the nonmovant presents evidence from which a reasonable factfinder could conclude the prior art discloses all claim elements; courts may not resolve material factual disputes at that stage.
- A party seeking judgment as a matter of law on obviousness must show that no reasonable jury could find the claims nonobvious, given the fact questions underlying the obviousness inquiry.
- Jury verdicts on invalidity must be logically consistent across related claims; finding an independent claim not obvious while finding its narrower dependent claim obvious, without a reconciling basis, can be irreconcilably inconsistent and require a new trial.

## Conclusion

The Federal Circuit held that anticipation could not be resolved on summary judgment because factual disputes remained, rejected Acushnet’s attempt to invalidate the claims for obviousness as a matter of law, and ordered a new obviousness trial because the jury’s inconsistent treatment of dependent and independent claims could not be reconciled.


Callaway Golf Co. v. Acushnet Co., 576 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2009)