How Odyssey’s Square 2 Square Putters Navigate Around L.A.B. Golf’s Patents

By Derek E. Clements

In recent years, L.A.B. Golf has made waves in the putter market with its proprietary “Lie Angle Balanced” technology — an innovation that promises to eliminate torque from the putting stroke. Their putters, such as the DF 2.1 and Mezz.1, have developed a loyal following among players who believe torque-free designs improve consistency and accuracy on the greens.

As a result, other major golf manufacturers have begun to respond. One notable entrant is Odyssey Golf, a subsidiary of Callaway, which released its Square 2 Square putters (including the Ai-One Square 2 Square Jailbird) to address similar player concerns — namely, keeping the face square to the path, improving consistency, and reducing twisting. While these putters are clearly positioned to appeal to the same user base, they do not appear to infringe L.A.B. Golf’s patents.

So, how does Odyssey manage to offer similar performance benefits without violating L.A.B.’s intellectual property? The answer lies in the specific scope of L.A.B.’s patents — and the engineering trade-offs Odyssey has made in its design approach.

Understanding L.A.B. Golf’s Core Patents

L.A.B. Golf’s technology is protected by a set of utility patents, most notably U.S. Patent No. 9,233,280 (“the ’280 Patent”) and related filings. The core innovation in these patents revolves around:

• Lie Angle Balance:

The mass distribution of the putter is configured so that the center of mass aligns with the axis of the shaft at a specific lie angle. A key figure (FIG. 4 of the ’280 Patent) illustrates how the golfer’s preferred lie angle α is used to determine a balance point (reference number 404 in FIG. 4) at which the shaft is attached. This configuration creates an effective center of gravity aligned with the shaft axis during the stroke — the defining feature of Lie Angle Balance.

• Unique Grip Geometry:

The grips of L.A.B. putters are intentionally misaligned with the shaft. A specially angled grip channel introduces a built-in forward press, further eliminating torque and promoting consistent, square impact.

• Shaft and Head Geometry:

The method by which the shaft connects to the head, as well as the shape and weighting of the head itself, are critical to achieving true Lie Angle Balance.

Importantly, L.A.B.’s patents are not about static face balancing— a common feature of traditional mallets — but about but about adjusting the lie angle to match each golfer’s natural setup and stroke. That distinction is both novel and legally significant.

Odyssey’s Design Approach: Parallel, Not Infringing

Odyssey’s Square 2 Square Ai-One putters make similar performance claims to those of L.A.B. Golf — keeping the face square, improving consistency, and minimizing twisting — but the design approach diverges in at least three important ways.

• Shaft Placement and Center of Gravity

L.A.B.’s patents emphasize precise shaft placement relative to the putter’s center of gravity (CG), tailored to the golfer’s preferred lie angle. This alignment is essential to achieving true Lie Angle Balance.

In contrast, Odyssey’s Square 2 Square putters use more conventional geometry, primarily center-shafted designs where the shaft is aligned above — but not necessarily through — the CG. There’s no indication that the balance point is determined based on a golfer’s individual lie angle, and the shaft does not appear to be attached at a dynamically calculated offset from the CG.

This difference in shaft/CG alignment appears sufficient to steer clear of L.A.B.’s specific patent claims.

• Face Stability via MOI, Not Torque Elimination

L.A.B. putters achieve face stability by eliminating torque through custom mass distribution based on the golfer’s stroke characteristics.

Odyssey, by contrast, takes a more conventional path: it relies on a high moment of inertia (MOI) and perimeter weighting to resist face twisting. For example, the Ai-One Square 2 Square Jailbird uses a rear weight bar and perimeter weights to increase MOI, especially on off-center strikes.

The face may still want to rotate during the stroke, but higher MOI resists that rotation. This is a classic example of a design-around — achieving similar results through a different physical mechanism.

• Standard Grips

Odyssey appears to use standard putter grips. Unlike L.A.B., which uses hollowed or channeled grips to support misaligned shaft angles and a forward press, Odyssey’s grips do not attempt to replicate this feature. This design choice further distances Odyssey from infringing on L.A.B.’s grip-related claims.

The Broader Lesson: Designing Around Utility Patents

Odyssey’s approach is a textbook example of a design-around strategy:

• They studied the key claims of L.A.B.’s patents.
• They identified the boundaries of what was protected.
• They engineered an alternative that competes in the same market using different principles.

This is precisely the kind of innovation patent law is intended to foster. It rewards original inventors (like L.A.B. Golf) with exclusive rights to their inventions while encouraging competitors to devise alternative solutions.

It’s also important to note that golf club patents are often narrowly drafted. Even small tweaks to shaft angle, CG alignment, or weight distribution can materially alter a putter’s performance — and its legal status. That reality creates space for thoughtful competitors to innovate without infringing.

Risk Factors and Considerations

While Odyssey appears to have avoided direct infringement, any high-profile product that competes with patented technology must consider several legal risks:

• Doctrine of Equivalents:

Even if not literally infringing, a court may find infringement if the product performs substantially the same function in substantially the same way to achieve the same result.

• Trade Dress / Trademark Risks:

Use of similar marketing terms, aesthetics, or user interfaces could raise concerns over unfair competition or consumer confusion.

• Indirect Infringement:

If third parties (such as custom fitters or golfers) modify Odyssey’s putters in ways that fall within L.A.B.’s patent claims, liability could arise through inducement or contributory infringement.

To date, no public litigation has emerged between Odyssey and L.A.B. Golf — suggesting either a careful legal strategy by Odyssey or the possibility of a private agreement or cross-licensing arrangement.

Final Thoughts

The Odyssey Square Stroke 2 and related models represent a thoughtful engineering response to the success of L.A.B. Golf’s Lie Angle Balanced technology. By relying on traditional MOI-based stability and avoiding the unique shaft/head alignments protected by L.A.B.’s patents, Odyssey has entered the torque-free conversation with a competitive — and likely non-infringing — offering.

For patent professionals, this case is a practical illustration of how patent claims shape market behavior. A strong patent doesn’t block all competitors; it pushes them to invent differently. That’s a win for innovation, competition, and ultimately — the consumer.

At Clements IP, we help clients craft patent strategies that protect their innovations while anticipating how competitors might design around them. Whether you’re an inventor, a manufacturer, or a brand navigating complex IP terrain, we can help you move forward with confidence.