Mail Stop “PATENT BOARD” Patent Trial and Appeal Board U.S. Patent and trademark Office P.O.

Exhibit # 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005-2108 2109 Description United States Golf Association Procedure for Measuring the Flexibility of a Golf Clubhead, Revision 2.0 (March 25, 2005) Ralph Maltby, GOLF CLUB DESIGN, FITTING, ALTERATION & REPAIR, THE PRINCIPLES & PROCEDURES (4th ed. 1995) Joe Matal, “A Guide to the Legislative History of the America Invents Act: Part II of II,” available at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/aia_implementation/guid e _to_aia_part_2.pdf.

Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, S. 5402, 112th Cong., 1st Session (Sept. 8, 2011)

TMG-PXG Settlement Agreement with Appendices A-E

Date: February 6, 2019 1100 New York Avenue, N.W.

The Board should not institute post grant review of the ’944 Patent because PXG failed to establish that it would have been obvious to modify Shear to include a sleeve portion capable of adjusting the loft, lie, or face angle to achieve the claimed invention ..................................................................... 43

Second, the Board should deny institution because PXG failed to comply with the basic statutory and regulatory requirements for particularity of arguments and supporting evidence in a petition, as set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 322(a)(3), 37 C.F.R. § 42.22(a)(2), and 37 C.F.R. § 42.204(b)(4)-(5).

The requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 322(a)(3), 37 C.F.R. § 42.22(a)(2), and 37 C.F.R. § 42.204(b)(5) are intended to protect Patent Owners and TMG from the unfair burden of responding to insufficiently explained and conflicting arguments Case PGR2018-00074 U.S. Pat. No. 9,814,944 and evidence in a petition, such as presented by PXG.

Attempting to overcome those deficiencies, PXG resorts to fabricating “arbitrary reference planes” at subjective, advantageously concocted locations on Figure 1 of Shear as allegedly representative of the claimed vertical planes.

Nystrom v. Trex Co., 424 F.3d 1136, 1148-49 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (reversing district court for “acceptance of [party’s] invalidity arguments based on models made from [the patent’s] drawings” and holding that “speculative modeling premised on unstated assumptions in prior art patent drawings cannot be the basis for challenging the validity of claims reciting specific dimensions not disclosed Case PGR2018-00074 U.S. Pat. No. 9,814,944 directly in such prior art”); Hockerson-Halberstadt, Inc. v. Avia Grp., Int’l, 222 F.3d 951, 956 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (rejecting party’s argument that “hinge[d] on an inference drawn from certain figures about the quantitative relationships between the respective widths of the [patent’s] groove and fins” where the patent was “devoid of any indication that the proportions of the groove and fins [were] drawn to scale”); In re Wright, 569 F.2d 1124, 1127 (C.C.P.A.

Mail Stop “PA TENT BOARD” Patent Trial and Appeal Board US.

Patent and Trademark Office PO.

Pat. No. 9,814,944 Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(b), Patent Owner, Taylor Made Golf Company, Inc., hereby appoints practitioners of Customer No. 26111 as its attorneys to transact all business in the United States Patent & Trademark Office and Patent Trial and Appeal Board associated with the above—captioned Post—Grant Review of US.

These attorneys include at least: Lead Counsel David K.S.

These Notices are being timely filed within 21 days of service of the Petition.

The real parties-in-interest are Patent Owner Taylor Made Golf Company, Inc., and KPS Capital Partners, LP.

There are no judicial or administrative matters related to U.S. Patent No. 9,814,944.

The lead counsel for Patent Owner is: David K.S.

Cornwell Registration No. 31,944 Attorney for Patent Owner Date: July 19, 2018 1100 New York Avenue, N.W.