by Kelly Campbell
The most recent “scandal” rocking the pickleball world right now has nothing to do with player drama, league fights, or contract breaches, but with major paddle brands that might own products sitting in your pickleball bag right now.
After JOOLA announced a patent infringement lawsuit filed with the US International Trade Commission (ITC), 11 pickleball brands are battling it out to determine whether their paddles can stay on US shelves. As of mid-May, JOOLA has already succeeded in their pursuit, reaching a settlement with one of the main brands involved.
The pickleball equipment market, particularly paddles, has been booming in recent years. As pickleball has skyrocketed in popularity, there’s been huge demand for quality paddles, sometimes costing upwards of $400, and paddle technology is ever-evolving.
From protecting proprietary innovations to controlling who can manufacture and sell competitive paddles in the US, JOOLA’s lawsuit is more than a money grab. They have the potential to transform the pickleball paddle industry as we know it by limiting competition, reshaping which brands survive, and ultimately deciding who controls the future of paddle technology.
Read on for everything we know about the initial lawsuit and brands involved, case updates, a settlement, and how we expect it to impact every pickleballer out there.
What Happened
In 2024, JOOLA introduced its innovative Gen 3 paddle technology, which effectively transformed how modern paddles are constructed. JOOLA says it invented and protected its U-shaped EVA foam perimeter construction with a portfolio of patents. Since 2024, after seeing how successful these paddles became, competing brands have released numerous paddle models with similar construction and performance claims.
On April 7, 2026, JOOLA officially filed a patent infringement complaint with the ITC, targeting what they call unauthorized copying of their propulsion core technology. This complaint aims to prohibit the import of alleged copycat paddles into the US. Soon after the initial filing, JOOLA launched a second suit in federal courts seeking financial compensation for willful patent infringement. If a court finds the infringement was deliberate, JOOLA could collect up to three times the actual damages from each paddle brand. Depending on any ruling, if JOOLA gets its way, the brands named in the lawsuit could be barred from importing their accused paddles into the US entirely and forced to pay significant financial damages on top of that.
“Protecting our innovation is not about limiting what others can do — it’s about ensuring the investment, creativity and engineering required to advance this sport are sustained,” said Richard Lee, CEO of JOOLA. “The brands that will shape the future of this sport are the ones willing to innovate on their own. We encourage every brand to bring their own ideas, their own engineering, and their own creativity.”
JOOLA was issued two patents in late 2025, both covering what they call their propulsion core technology. What remains up for debate is how broadly a court will interpret them. Depending on the ruling, the scope could extend well beyond the obvious Gen 3 copycats and potentially touch nearly every high-performance paddle on the market today.
Critics emphasize that JOOLA watched competitors copy their technology for two to three years before filing suit, and the defendants could still challenge whether the patents should have been granted in the first place. How a court rules on those questions will determine just how much of the paddle market JOOLA ends up controlling.
It’s clear that JOOLA genuinely innovated the paddle market with the introduction of their Gen 3 line and that many brands moved quickly to capitalize on that. JOOLA has a strong argument that the patent system exists precisely to protect them in this situation, but their own patent language and the timing of the suits could work against them.
JOOLA’s claims have already been validated this month via a settlement with Paddletek Group.
The Paddle Industry vs. JOOLA
The brands named in JOOLA’s lawsuit are some of the most recognizable names in pickleball: Franklin Sports, RPM Pickleball, Paddletek, Proton Sports, Engage Pickleball, Friday Labs, ProXR, Adidas Pickleball, Diadem, Facolos, and Volair.
JOOLA notably left out one major paddle brand: Selkirk. Although also considered a Gen 3 paddle, Selkirk’s Era Power has foam that runs all the way around; JOOLA seems to be specifically targeting paddles with a U-shaped foam perimeter. JOOLA is targeting the 11 mentioned brands because they sell paddles that feature U-shaped foam channels, which they say use patented propulsion core technology without authorization.
Only one group has publicly responded to the lawsuits, cooperating with JOOLA. This month, Paddletek Group and JOOLA have reached a settlement for claims against Paddletek and ProXR. Both will phase out their paddles, add the JOOLA propulsion core patent to their relevant products, and pay royalties to JOOLA. They have until the fall of 2026 to phase out the affected models.
“We take intellectual property protection seriously and rely on it in our own business with a multitude of our own patents and trademarks,” said Ron Saslow, CEO of Paddletek Group. “We are pleased to have worked with the team at JOOLA cooperatively to reach a fast resolution on these disputed claims that allows us to stay focused on what matters most—supporting our consumers, our distributors, and our world-class athletes. Fortunately, this matter involves a limited portion of our products. We look forward to launching numerous new products outside of this technology.”
The remaining nine brands have stayed silent, which may signal a longer legal battle. Some brands might have deeper pockets to fight back with.
Take a look in your pickleball bag. If JOOLA wins against the other paddle companies, you might have a soon-to-be extinct paddle, and your future options to replace it could be somewhat limited.
What This Means for Pickleball and Players Everywhere
Whether you’re a casual player or a hardcore competitor, this lawsuit has the potential to change what paddles you can buy, how much they cost, and who controls the future of the sport.
If JOOLA wins, they could potentially own and dictate the construction methods for today’s most popular paddles, peninsula core, full foam, Gen 3, and Gen 4 until 2043, which would completely transform the paddle market as we know it.
Regardless of any current settlements and how this will shake out, by going after its competitors in this way, JOOLA is setting a precedent for the future of paddle technology and development, limiting what brands can and cannot put on pickleball shelves.
Every brand still named in the lawsuit has a decision to make: settle and pay royalties like Paddletek or fight back in court and risk years of expensive litigation. Smaller brands with less capital to fight back may have no choice but to settle.
If the ITC grants JOOLA’s exclusion order, affected paddle models could be pulled from the US market entirely. Future imports and sales of the very paddle models you use could be at risk, limiting your options for eventual replacements. Reduced competition in the high-performance segment could drive prices up, and a shrinking pool of brands means less variety at every price point.
This situation isn’t getting resolved any time soon. While the ITC moves faster and could have a decision in 8-15 months, federal cases could last much longer.
The pickleball community has been vocal, with many calling it a money grab and others arguing IP protection is legitimate and necessary for innovation to thrive. If one brand can patent a core construction method broadly enough to cover nearly every performance paddle being made today, what does that mean for the next wave of innovation in the sport?
What do you think? Is JOOLA going overboard, or are they right to protect the tech? Let us know what you think the biggest impacts and consequences will be from JOOLA’s decision to assert its control over the paddle market.
Sources
Recent Comments