Club-Conex v. M&P Golf: Golf Shaft Adapter Patent Case Settles in 90 Days
Club-Conex, LLC filed suit against M&P Golf LLC in the Arizona District Court, asserting US11426638B2 — a patent covering universal adjustable golf club shaft and head connection adapters — against M&P Golf’s ‘All-Fit’ product line. The parties reached a settlement in principle within just 90 days of filing, with the court ordering dismissal with prejudice, signalling a swift resolution in a technically specialised corner of the golf equipment IP market.
Swift settlement ends golf adapter patent clash in Arizona
Club-Conex, LLC initiated this patent infringement action against M&P Golf LLC on 28 March 2025 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona, before Judge G. Murray Snow. The asserted patent, US11426638B2, covers universal adjustable golf club shaft adapters — devices that allow golfers and club-builders to connect shafts to driver and fairway wood heads from major OEM brands including TaylorMade, Callaway, Cobra, Ping, and others. M&P Golf’s accused products are sold under the ‘All-Fit’ brand, comprising at least 46 identified SKUs marketed as offering +/- 1.5° adjustability.
The matter closed on 26 June 2025 — just 90 days after filing — following the court’s denial of the parties’ joint motion to stay pending finalisation of settlement documents. Judge Snow’s order was direct: rather than granting a 90-day stay, the court imposed a 30-day deadline for dismissal, after which the case would be dismissed with prejudice automatically. The resulting dismissal with prejudice means Club-Conex cannot re-assert the same claims against M&P Golf on the same accused products, and M&P Golf receives a final resolution without an admission of liability on the public record.
The speed of resolution — under three months from filing to closure — suggests the parties may have been in or near settlement discussions before the complaint was filed, or that the strength of the patent position prompted M&P Golf to resolve quickly. The precise financial terms, any licence granted to M&P Golf, and whether product modifications were agreed remain confidential. What the public record does confirm is that Club-Conex pursued enforcement vigorously enough to file suit, and M&P Golf chose settlement over litigation — a pattern consistent with well-scoped utility patents in niche equipment markets.
Filing to Case Stayed in 90 days
90-day resolution — well below the median 2–3 year patent case lifecycle in U.S. district courts
Dismissed with prejudice: what the settlement outcome means for both parties
Dismissed with prejudice on court order — not voluntary Rule 41
Rather than granting the parties their requested 90-day stay, Judge Snow ordered that the case would be dismissed with prejudice within 30 days unless a stipulation to dismiss was filed first. This judicial mechanism — sometimes called an ordered dismissal — produces the same preclusive effect as a voluntary dismissal with prejudice: the plaintiff cannot refile the same claims against the same defendant on the same accused products. The court retained control of timing to avoid indefinite docket delay.
Preclusive dismissalClub-Conex enforced its patent — but forfeits right to re-litigate
Club-Conex achieved a resolution — almost certainly including some form of commercial terms, whether a licence, royalty, or product design change — but in exchange accepted a with-prejudice bar. This is standard practice in patent settlements: the patent holder secures value without trial risk, but cannot return to court on identical claims against M&P Golf. The patent itself, US11426638B2, remains in force and enforceable against other third parties.
Patent remains enforceableM&P Golf exits litigation — settlement terms remain private
M&P Golf LLC secured closure without any court finding of infringement, validity, or damages. The dismissal with prejudice shields the company from Club-Conex re-asserting US11426638B2 on the same All-Fit products. However, the settlement terms are not public — it is unknown whether M&P Golf agreed to a licence, product modification, royalty payment, or simply a lump-sum resolution. The absence of any invalidity ruling means the patent’s claims are not weakened for future enforcement against others.
No liability findingUS11426638B2 remains a live enforcement risk for the adapter market
The swift settlement — without any invalidity ruling or claim construction — leaves US11426638B2 fully intact and enforceable. Competitors selling universal adjustable golf shaft adapters, particularly those targeting multi-OEM compatibility (TaylorMade, Callaway, Cobra, Ping, etc.), should treat this patent as an active commercial risk. Club-Conex’s willingness to litigate and M&P Golf’s decision to settle both suggest the patent is commercially credible. Any company in the golf club-fitting or custom-build equipment space should conduct a freedom-to-operate review.
Patent enforcement risk persistsFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Club-Conex, LLC | Company | Golf equipment IP holder — asserting US11426638B2 covering universal adjustable shaft adaptersSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | M&P Golf LLC | Company | Golf aftermarket equipment company — seller of ‘All-Fit’ universal shaft adapter productsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Daniel Michael Staren | Attorney | Counsel for Club-Conex, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | David Gary Barker | Attorney | Counsel for Club-Conex, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Gregory T. Chuebon | Attorney | Counsel for Club-Conex, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Michael H Joshi | Attorney | Counsel for Club-Conex, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Noah M Leibowitz | Attorney | Counsel for Club-Conex, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Dechert LLP – New York, NY | Law Firm | Representing Club-Conex, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Dechert LLP – San Francisco, CA | Law Firm | Representing Club-Conex, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Snell & Wilmer LLP (Phoenix, AZ) | Law Firm | Representing Club-Conex, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Andrew T Fox | Attorney | Counsel for M&P Golf LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Marvin Christopher Ruth | Attorney | Counsel for M&P Golf LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Coppersmith Brockelman PLC | Law Firm | Representing M&P Golf LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge G. Murray Snow | Judge | Arizona District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court’s order denied the parties’ requested 90-day stay and instead imposed a hard 30-day deadline for dismissal with prejudice, noting that settlement documents should not require more than a couple of weeks if parties and counsel are motivated. This phrasing is atypical — judges rarely editorialize on negotiation pace — suggesting the court was managing docket efficiency rather than accommodating open-ended settlement timelines. The with-prejudice dismissal carries full preclusive effect: Club-Conex is barred from reasserting the same claims against M&P Golf on the accused All-Fit products, while M&P Golf receives no public admission or finding of infringement.
US11426638B2 — Universal Adjustable Golf Club Shaft-to-Head Adapter
US11426638B2, filed as application US15/639303, protects a universal golf club shaft adapter — specifically a connector system that allows a single shaft to be fitted to driver and fairway wood heads from multiple OEM manufacturers, including TaylorMade, Callaway, Cobra, Ping, and others, with adjustable loft and lie settings (±1.5°). The patent addresses the fragmentation problem in the golf equipment aftermarket, where proprietary hosels across OEM brands historically required brand-specific adapters. By claiming a universal connection architecture, the patent targets a commercially significant segment of the club-fitting and custom-build market.
Strategically, US11426638B2 sits at the intersection of two growing market segments: custom club fitting and golf equipment aftermarket components. The All-Fit product line accused in this case — marketed directly to both consumers and club-builders — illustrates the commercial scale of this technology. With major OEM brands maintaining proprietary hosel systems, any company seeking to sell universal or cross-brand adapter solutions must contend with this patent. The absence of any invalidity ruling means the claims have not been tested, making the patent a credible and unreduced enforcement asset for Club-Conex.
Should you run an FTO analysis against US11426638B2?
Any company designing, manufacturing, or distributing universal golf club shaft adapters — particularly products marketed for compatibility with multiple OEM driver or fairway wood brands — should treat US11426638B2 as a primary FTO checkpoint. The Club-Conex v. M&P Golf settlement demonstrates active enforcement intent, and the breadth of accused SKUs (46+) suggests the patent is being applied broadly. Custom club-fitting equipment suppliers, aftermarket shaft adapter brands, and OEM accessory developers operating in this space face meaningful infringement exposure if they have not mapped their products against the patent’s claims.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent enables R&D and IP teams to rapidly map product architectures against US11426638B2’s independent and dependent claims, identify prior art that may constrain claim scope, and surface related family members or continuation applications that could extend coverage. Given that no claim construction order exists in this case, your own claim mapping is the primary protection. Eureka can also monitor Club-Conex’s patent portfolio for continuation filings or new applications in the shaft adapter technology space, providing early warning of evolving enforcement risk.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US11426638B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Golf Equipment Patent Infringement Cases in U.S. District Courts
Cases involving golf equipment adapter and club-fitting technology patents in U.S. district courts, including Arizona, with comparable infringement and settlement patterns.
What this case signals for the golf equipment adapter IP landscape
A 90-day settlement without invalidity ruling keeps US11426638B2 fully armed — and signals active enforcement intent in the golf fitting market.
Pre-suit posture likely: 90-day resolution suggests prior negotiation
Cases that settle within 90 days of filing typically indicate that the parties had substantive commercial discussions before the complaint was filed, or that the accused party assessed litigation risk quickly and chose resolution. For competitors in the shaft adapter market, this pattern suggests Club-Conex may be executing a systematic licensing or enforcement campaign, not a one-off dispute.
No claim construction = no public clarity on patent scope
Because the case settled before any Markman hearing or claim construction ruling, there is no judicial interpretation of US11426638B2’s key terms. This leaves meaningful uncertainty for third parties about what the patent’s claims actually cover in practice. Any competitor or designer working in the universal golf shaft adapter space must conduct their own claim-by-claim analysis against their product architecture.
Club-Conex v M&P — key questions answered
Club-Conex asserted US11426638B2, a patent covering universal adjustable golf club shaft-to-head connection adapters, filed as application US15/639303. The patent covers connector systems compatible with multiple OEM golf driver and fairway wood brands, with adjustable loft/lie settings.
M&P Golf’s ‘All-Fit’ product line was accused, specifically universal adjustable shaft adapters and collar components marketed for compatibility with TaylorMade, Callaway, Cobra, Ping, and other major OEM brands. At least 46 specific SKUs (TG1001–TG1066 series) were identified in the complaint, along with associated adapter collars sold through allfitgolf.com.
The case was dismissed with prejudice following a court-ordered settlement process. Judge G. Murray Snow denied the parties’ joint motion for a 90-day stay and ordered that the case would be dismissed with prejudice within 30 days absent a stipulation. The settlement terms are confidential. No finding of infringement, validity, or damages was entered on the public record.
Dismissal with prejudice bars Club-Conex from refiling the same patent infringement claims against M&P Golf on the same accused All-Fit products. However, it does not affect Club-Conex’s ability to enforce US11426638B2 against other third parties, and the patent itself remains in full force and effect.
No. Because the case settled before any claim construction, summary judgment, or trial, no court issued any ruling on the validity or scope of US11426638B2. The patent’s claims are legally unaffected by the settlement. Third parties cannot rely on this case as precedent limiting the patent’s reach — the settlement carries no estoppel effect on claim scope for non-parties.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.