{"id":3626,"date":"2026-06-02T01:51:18","date_gmt":"2026-06-01T16:51:18","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/pickle-times.com\/news\/joola-patent-lawsuit\/"},"modified":"2026-06-02T01:51:18","modified_gmt":"2026-06-01T16:51:18","slug":"joola-patent-lawsuit","status":"publish","type":"news","link":"https:\/\/pickle-times.com\/en\/news\/joola-patent-lawsuit\/","title":{"rendered":"JOOLA sues 11 rivals at once for patent infringement\u2014the full story of the \u201cPropulsion Core\u201d paddle war"},"content":{"rendered":"

Details of the suit\u2014a two-front strategy of ITC plus federal court<\/p>\n

On April 7, JOOLA petitioned the ITC to open an investigation, alleging that the products of the 11 companies infringe its patents. The ITC does not have the authority to order monetary damages, but it can issue an \u201cexclusion order\u201d that bars the import of infringing goods into the U.S. Given an industry structure in which paddles manufactured overseas make up the majority, this strategy is on point.<\/h2>\n

In parallel, JOOLA also filed suit in federal court, securing a path to future claims for damages as well. CEO Richard Lee issued a statement saying, \u201cThis is a principled decision, not a reflexive action.\u201d<\/p>\n

What is \u201cPropulsion Core\u201d?<\/p>\n

The technology at issue is a structure that places U-shaped, horseshoe-form EVA foam inside the paddle, combined with a polypropylene honeycomb core. This design amplifies drive and speed-up power without increasing swing force. JOOLA brought this technology to market in 2024 with the Gen 3, MOD TA-15, and 3S paddles.<\/h2>\n

Worth noting is that designs enclosing the entire perimeter of the paddle with foam (such as Selkirk\u2019s Era Power) are not included in the suit. It is specifically the U-shaped, partial foam placement that is the core of the patent.<\/p>\n

List of the 11 defendant companies<\/p>\n

A major sporting-goods maker. Also makes MLB official balls<\/h2>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
Brand name<\/th>\nNotes<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n
Franklin Sports<\/td>\nA global brand that entered the pickleball market in 2025<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Adidas Pickleball<\/td>\nA rapidly growing paddle-specialist maker<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
RPM Pickleball<\/td>\nWell regarded for paddles aimed at intermediate to advanced players<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Engage Pickleball<\/td>\nDevelops performance-focused paddles<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Proton Sports<\/td>\nA paddle brand originating from a tech startup<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Friday Labs<\/td>\nExpanding into pickleball from tennis equipment<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Diadem Sports<\/td>\nExpanding into pickleball from tennis equipment<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Facolos<\/td>\nAn emerging paddle maker<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Volair<\/td>\nA brand drawing attention for its lightweight design<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Paddletek<\/td>\n* Settled (agreed on royalty payments)<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
ProXR Pickleball<\/td>\n* Settled (agreed on royalty payments)<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

Paddletek and ProXR settle early\u2014resolved with a royalty agreement<\/h2>\n

Of the 11 companies, two\u2014Paddletek and ProXR\u2014reached a settlement soon after being sued. Both agreed to license JOOLA\u2019s patents and pay royalties. The targeted paddles will be phased out of sale by fall 2026.<\/p>\n

For the remaining nine companies, litigation is ongoing. The move by the two companies that agreed to settle can also be read as indirectly supporting the validity of JOOLA\u2019s patents.<\/p>\n

Reaction from industry insiders<\/h2>\n

JOOLA CEO Richard Lee commented, \u201cProtecting innovation is not about restricting others\u2019 possibilities. It is about sustaining the investment, creativity, and engineering needed to move this sport forward.\u201d<\/p>\n

On the other side, paddle makers are expected to counter that \u201cthe U-shaped foam structure existed before JOOLA.\u201d In the ITC investigation, the existence of prior art is highly likely to become a point of contention.<\/p>\n

Industry analysts note, \u201cThis is the first large-scale patent lawsuit in the pickleball industry, and it will determine the direction of future paddle development.\u201d It is a moment when the balance between freedom of paddle design and IP protection is being tested.<\/p>\n

Impact on Japanese players<\/h2>\n

For players in Japan who use JOOLA products, this lawsuit has no direct impact. However, if an ITC exclusion order is issued, the defendant brands\u2019 paddles could disappear from the U.S. market. Players who had obtained these brands through personal imports may see their procurement routes affected.<\/p>\n

In the long term, patent licensing fees could also be passed on to paddle prices.The Apollo \u00d7 DoorDash 225-million-dollar investment<\/a>as seen there, amid continued capital inflows into the pickleball industry, we have entered an era in which IP strategy shapes a maker\u2019s competitiveness.<\/p>\n

Ripple effects on the paddle industry\u2014an era where IP decides who wins<\/h2>\n

This lawsuit symbolizes the pickleball industry\u2019s shift from a \u201cstartup infancy\u201d to a \u201cmaturity that differentiates through IP.\u201d In tennis and golf, patent lawsuits over clubs and racquets have long existed, but this is the first IP dispute of this scale in pickleball.<\/p>\n

Paddle makers will likely accelerate patent filings for their own technologies going forward. At the same time, the importance of \u201cpatent clearance\u201d\u2014assessing the risk of infringing others\u2019 patents\u2014rises.The MLP 2026 season<\/a>This lawsuit\u2019s outcome should also affect the choice of paddles used by pro players.<\/p>\n

Practical information summary<\/h2>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
Item<\/th>\nDetails<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n
Filing date<\/td>\nApril 7, 2026<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Where filed<\/td>\nU.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) plus federal court<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Patent at issue<\/td>\nPropulsion Core (U-shaped EVA foam plus polypropylene honeycomb structure)<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Number of defendants<\/td>\n11 companies (2 of which have settled)<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Settling companies<\/td>\nPaddletek, ProXR (royalties plus a license agreement, targeted products phased out by fall)<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
In the case of an ITC exclusion order<\/td>\nA ban on importing the infringing paddles into the U.S.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Impact on Japan<\/td>\nPossible limited impact on personal-import routes<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

Summary\u2014the IP-ification of paddle technology accelerates<\/h2>\n

JOOLA\u2019s simultaneous suit has thrown a clear message at the pickleball-equipment industry: \u201cyou cannot protect what you have not patented.\u201d The fact that Paddletek and ProXR agreed to an early settlement hints at the strength of the Propulsion Core patent. How the remaining nine companies respond, and the ITC\u2019s decision, will likely redraw the map of the paddle market going forward. Players considering buying a new paddle will want to keep a close eye on where the litigation is headed.<\/p>\n

Source<\/h3>\n