CRBN pickleball just launched a patent infringement lawsuit against Vatic Pro on December 17th, specifically related to the new Vatic Pro V-Sol Power paddle. In my day job, I research a lot of lawsuits, so it felt like second nature to research this case.
As a background, I really like both brands and have written about my CRBN TruFoam experience and the new V-Sol Power and Pro, and I hope that they can resolve this to keep innovating in the paddle space.
In this article, I share what I believe the CRBN lawsuit is about, the lawsuit text and my summary, and what may happen next. I’ll plan to keep adding updates as this case develops, so if that’s interesting to you, please consider subscribing below.
1. I Believe CRBN is Referring To Figure 11 in The Patent.
On Facebook, I saw a post referring how different the CRBN TruFoam is from the V-Sol Power, which I found interesting. See below.
When I saw this, I immediately wanted to see what the figures looked like on the patent itself.
I was able to find a copy of the patent, so check out CRBN’s actual patent that was filed on March 13, 2025 and appears to be approved on November 11, 2025. The patent has many different designs, but the design that stood out to me the most was figure 11.
Now, consider the picture below of the Vatic Pro V-Sol Power core. I would argue that it’s definitely not the exact same, but I can also see similarities between the two designs.
Second, let’s look at the case text and a summary of what I read from the complaint.
2. The Lawsuit Complaint Summary
I’ve read the complaint thoroughly, and I wanted to include a summary of what I am reading as I read a lot of complaints. Firstly, when I read a complaint, I try to see the amount of emotion from the lawyer writing the complaint. Sometimes you can just feel bitterness and anger, but other lawsuits have a more professional tone.
The YouTube Mention
This complaint is also only 8 pages, and to be honest, it felt repetitive at times. In addition, I found that it extremely interesting that introduction paragraph mentioned a YouTube video that Vatic’s CEO was on.
If you’ve followed my blog for any amount of time, you know that I shoot a lot of YouTube content, but I was surprised that I actually watched the video interview that the lawsuit was referring to.
It took me a while to find the video, and the quote, but I was able to find it, and I added the exact placement of the quote below.
I found it fascinating that one of CRBN appears to be arguing that these statements demonstrate not just patent infringement, but a willful disregard for patent law. This video is also from 2 years ago, so it’s unclear whether the Vatic Pro founder still has those views.
One question is whether they are trying to open up the door for enhanced damages rather than just royalties.
The Missing Exhibit
In the complaint, you will read about Exhibit 1 and Exhibit 2. Exhibit 1 is the patent that I provided above, but what’s interesting is that the court allowed that Exhibit 2 is under seal. Here’s what CRBN states is in that exhibit.
A chart identifying specifically where each limitation of claims 1, 4, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13 are found in the V-SOL POWER paddle is attached hereto as Exhibit 2.
In short, CRBN included a detailed, side-by-side technical breakdown showing exactly how Vatic’s V-SOL POWER paddle allegedly matches each part of CRBN’s patent claims.
I would have loved to see Exhibit 2.
CRBN Wants More Than Just Damages
Beyond monetary compensation, CRBN is asking the court for treble damages, attorneys’ fees, and an injunction that could prevent Vatic from continuing to sell the accused paddle.
The complaint alleges that Vatic ignored multiple notices both before and after the patent was issued, and that continued sales have caused lost revenue and market harm.
If the court agrees, the case could impact not only past sales but also future paddle availability, making the outcome relevant to retailers, athletes, and consumers watching the high-performance paddle space.
3. What Happens Next?
One of the biggest questions what happens next in a lawsuit of this magnitude. In many cases, the defendent will write a response to the complaint called an answer.
The defendent will generally do that within 21-30 days of receiving the complaint, but they could request additional time. According to the lawsuit, CRBN is requesting a trial by jury, but that would probably be over a year out if it even comes to that.
At any times, both sides can also come together and try to settle the case outright and dismiss the case.
I will continue to follow this case closely and write updates, but please comment below whether you have any questions or your general thoughts on this case.
Leave a Reply