Dear JOOLA, You Don't Own Physics
Pickleball has exploded in popularity over the last several years, and with that growth has come a tidal wave of innovation in equipment design and manufacturing. One of the most recent developments is a patent infringement lawsuit filed by JOOLA against eleven competing paddle manufacturers, including Paddletek, Franklin, RPM, Proton, and Friday. While public details remain limited, the general understanding is that JOOLA alleges its competitors copied proprietary “propulsion” paddle-core technology designed to enhance power through what players commonly described as the “trampoline effect.”
In simple terms, the allegation is that the other manufacturers have replicated a paddle construction that increases the force returned to the ball upon impact by optimizing elasticity, rebound, and energy transfer.
The dispute raises an important question that extends well beyond pickleball: can a company own the right to a physical principle?
The short answer is no.
Under U.S. patent law, a company may obtain protection for a specific invention such as a novel material composition, structural arrangement, or manufacturing process. However, longstanding legal precedent makes clear that laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas are not themselves patentable. Gravity cannot be patented. Elasticity cannot be patented. Kinetic energy transfer cannot be patented.
The physics underlying the so-called “trampoline effect” — impact force, material flexibility, and recoil — have existed since long before pickleball paddles were ever manufactured. These are fundamental principles of mechanics that apply to everything from tennis rackets, golf clubs, hockey sticks, and countless other sporting tools.
If JOOLA has developed a unique paddle-core design using particular materials arranged in a novel way, that specific design may very well be protectable intellectual property. Patent law exists precisely to encourage this kind of innovation by granting inventors a limited monopoly over their particular solution.
But patent protection does not extend to the underlying scientific principles themselves. Competitors remain free to design their own paddle cores using different materials, structures, or manufacturing techniques to achieve similar performance characteristics, so long as they do not practice the patented claims.
Innovation frequently leads to parallel solutions. Engineers facing the same performance goals often arrive at similar conclusions because the laws of physics naturally constrain what is possible. That reality does not transform physics into private property.
A helpful comparison can be found in Formula 1 racing. Each race team shares the same objective: build the fastest racecar possible. However, every team must operate within the same technical regulations imposed by the sport’s governing body, the FIA. Those regulations restrict design freedom, forcing engineers to innovate creatively within these defined boundaries.
Over the life cycle of a set of regulations, teams often coalesce around similar aerodynamic concepts because the laws of physics naturally guide engineers toward efficient solutions to exploit physics within the constraints of the regulations. However, while each car looks similar, no two teams produce identical cars. Each team develops its own interpretation of how best to exploit airflow, weight distribution, tire grip, and balance.
Some designs perform better than others, and the competitive advantage ultimately belongs to the team that develops the most efficient solution first. The rest adapt, refine, and improve. The sport advances not because anyone owns physics, but because each competitor seeks to apply physics more effectively than the others.
Unlike in pickleball’s current dispute, Formula 1 teams do not typically sue one another merely for pursuing similar aerodynamic concepts such as front wings, sidepods, rear wings, or airflow strategies. The spoils simply go to the engineering team who developed a winning concept the fastest while the rest race to catch up.
Ultimately, once development stabilizes amongst the teams, the race results are left in the hands of the drivers, just like a point in pickleball is determined by the players, not the tools in their hands. The pickleball industry, like many others, is experiencing the natural tension between competition and intellectual property protection. Courts will ultimately determine whether the accused manufacturers improperly copied a patented design or simply developed their own lawful innovations within the boundaries of physics.
Until more details emerge, one thing remains clear: the laws of physics belong to everyone. Manufacturers are free to compete, experiment, and refine their products in pursuit of better performance. That process is not infringement. It is progress. And progress is exactly what keeps sports evolving, producing better performance and greater spectacle year after year.
Disclaimer:
I am not a patent attorney. My practice does not focus on intellectual property law, and this article is not intended to provide legal advice regarding any specific patent, product, or claim. I am, however, an avid pickleball player with an interest in how innovation shapes the game. This article is offered as general commentary on publicly discussed issues at the intersection of law, competition, and technology. Readers should consult qualified intellectual property counsel for advice regarding any particular patent matter.
