What’s the deal with Lab patents and all the other zero torque putters?

[soulciccia]

Hi,

Last week I walked into the pro shop and had the chance to take a look at the square2square odyssey putters and compare to a df3 a friend of mine owns.

made the basics balance tests, and although not all the odyssey versions had the same behavior (some were perfectly toe up, some rested around 15* closed from toe up), the #7 was the closest to the Lab, resting toe up but still taking quite a lot of time to rest, exactly like the df3 did.

now, I know this is not a scientific method to understand if the #7 is indeed lie angle balanced, but I would bet it behaves the same as a lab putter on the revealer.
 

since I deal quite a lot with patents, I read lab patents (kudos for clearly showing them), and got to the simple conclusion that all of the odyssey square2square, as long as most of the zero torque labeled putters on the market and prototypes we are seeing, are all falling within the lab patent.

 

Does the lab patent have some priority making the patent worthless or are simply these big companies stepping over?

 

keep in mind, I am talking about the head shape/balance aspect, not the forward press grip.

 

[TonyRo]

I briefly looked at the patents as well, and I suspect that Odyssey gets around it by moving the head CG heelward and closer to the face. They specifically mention in their S2S release video that there is a closing torque in both directions, so they're not really lie angled balanced, they're just toe up putters. It is likely true that they're low torque. To be honest, I am not patient enough with the patent language to really figure out if that's the distinction, but that would be my guess. 

[Shwagin1066]

Zero torque isn’t a thing lol. You’re buying snake oil 

Edited March 24 by Shwagin1066

[TonyRo]

2 hours ago, Shwagin1066 said:

Zero torque isn’t a thing lol. You’re buying snake oil 

Elaborate, you've piqued my curiosity. 

[soulciccia]

I am actually not into zero torque, near zero torque or lie angle balanced putters, my stroke is definitely not for those putters, I tested but didn’t get any good feedback whatsoever.

So I’m not interested in the concept and potential benefits, although I absolutely believe they work for some players, but just a curiosity around their patent and how (if) other brands are making their zero torque putters different than the Lab, purely by patents aspect.

 

I saw an expired patent about shaft axis going through the CG, but it’s not the case for the odyssey S2S as they rest in toe up or nearly toe up position.

 

Is it maybe the lab concept simply falls into the “toe up” category in patenting regards and so can not be protected in terms of “how much corrective torque”?

it would be nice to hear something from Sam itself.

[Red4282]

Subject has been beat to death. What the other companies are doing is just mimicking what lab does but it does not infringe on patents, so its not the same thing yet it appears to be. 
 

As for snake oil, thats nonsense. Its not solution for all, but rather a third category, toe hang, face balanced, ZT.

[jda]

If you deal with patents then you know that they are not enforceable unless somebody takes them before a judge/court.  The patent office does not verify the efficacy of what you file but they do make a small effort to check to see if something similar exists already.

 

For the court to rule in your favor, you must THEN show that it is a novel idea and that you followed what you filed to a tee and not misled or lied.  If any part of your design is based on an expired patent at any time, then you likely will lose.  You cannot assemble three or four expired patents into one new package.

 

You can probably file and get an approved patent for a rear shafted hickory putter with a brass head - you can post about it on your website and brag and stuff.  If you ever took somebody to court over it, it would get tossed since this is not a novel ideal and long since in public knowledge.

 

First - low torque putters have existed for decades to real humans and not just Golf WRX junkies/fanboys.  Second, they likely did not follow their patents to a tee and/or misled since they have claimed on this board that the putter do indeed have torque - corrective torque... which is different than no torque.  They would likely lose in any courtroom... but I will say that I have seen firsthand that courts can be fickle, but that is why appeals exist.

 

Trademarks are different.  Please don't confuse a trademark and a patent.  They might have more of a case if somebody stole their flat face with a heart behind it - although blood thingies that they put in your arm have adhesive apparatus of the same design that hold them in place.

 

For reference, owned a startup and we spent lots of time in Texas courts with patent issues and am too good of friend with an IP/patent attorney.  Like most legal things, doochers online think that they know since they watch TV and stuff, but nearly nobody knows anything about IP.

[Shwagin1066]

33 minutes ago, Red4282 said:

Subject has been beat to death. What the other companies are doing is just mimicking what lab does but it does not infringe on patents, so its not the same thing yet it appears to be. 
 

As for snake oil, thats nonsense. Its not solution for all, but rather a third category, toe hang, face balanced, ZT.

The LAB golf CEO believes every single human being on earth would putt better with their putters. 
 

it is the absolute definition of snake oil.

[Red4282]

11 minutes ago, Shwagin1066 said:

The LAB golf CEO believes every single human being on earth would putt better with their putters. 
 

it is the absolute definition of snake oil.

Haha.  So a CEO thinks his product can help golfers play better… isnt that like every golf company CEO? Lol

 

The term “snake oil” typically refers to a product that is marketed with exaggerated or false claims, especially when it lacks real effectiveness or scientific backing.

 

There are literally thousands and thousands of antidotal evidence of real effectiveness. Including guys on tour.

 

So burden is on you. Please explain the following and how you come to your conclusion:

 

The key factors that define “snake oil” are:

1. False or exaggerated claims – Promising results that the product cannot realistically deliver.

2. Lack of evidence – No scientific or real-world proof backing up the claims.

3. Intentional deception – The seller knows the product is ineffective but markets it aggressively anyway.

[rx1232]

20 minutes ago, Shwagin1066 said:

The LAB golf CEO believes every single human being on earth would putt better with their putters. 
 

it is the absolute definition of snake oil.

this might be a bit too far, calling them snake oil. 

 

Why would a CEO of their own company believing that the product they make helps people, make it a fraudulent claim? 

 

Whether anyone else believes it is up to them, but i would at least hope that the CEO believes in it. 

[Red4282]

Ah, screw the burden, ill just put it to bed. I like LAB, will defend them, but also know they arent for everyone. That being said:

 

LAB Golf putters get accused of being snake oil by some golfers because they market their Lie Angle Balance (LAB) technology as a revolutionary way to eliminate torque in putting strokes. The skepticism comes from:

• Bold claims – LAB suggests their putters can significantly improve consistency and make putting almost “effortless.” Some see this as overhyped.

• Non-traditional design – The putters have an unconventional look and high MOI, which makes some golfers dismiss them outright.

• Varied results – Some golfers see massive improvement, while others find no difference or even struggle with feel.

 

That said, calling LAB putters true snake oil is a stretch because:

1. There is real engineering behind them – The idea of Lie Angle Balance is a measurable design choice, not just marketing fluff.

2. Many golfers, including pros, swear by them – It’s not just a placebo effect; players who naturally twist the face less might not see a benefit, while others do.

3. They don’t claim to work for everyone – Unlike real snake oil, LAB putters aren’t marketed as a universal fix.

 

In the end, LAB putters are more of a polarizing innovation rather than outright snake oil. Some golfers will benefit greatly, while others might not. If someone expects magic and doesn’t adapt, they might be disappointed—but that’s true for any golf club.

[Shwagin1066]

1 hour ago, Red4282 said:

Ah, screw the burden, ill just put it to bed. I like LAB, will defend them, but also know they arent for everyone. That being said:

 

LAB Golf putters get accused of being snake oil by some golfers because they market their Lie Angle Balance (LAB) technology as a revolutionary way to eliminate torque in putting strokes. The skepticism comes from:

• Bold claims – LAB suggests their putters can significantly improve consistency and make putting almost “effortless.” Some see this as overhyped.

• Non-traditional design – The putters have an unconventional look and high MOI, which makes some golfers dismiss them outright.

• Varied results – Some golfers see massive improvement, while others find no difference or even struggle with feel.

 

That said, calling LAB putters true snake oil is a stretch because:

1. There is real engineering behind them – The idea of Lie Angle Balance is a measurable design choice, not just marketing fluff.

2. Many golfers, including pros, swear by them – It’s not just a placebo effect; players who naturally twist the face less might not see a benefit, while others do.

3. They don’t claim to work for everyone – Unlike real snake oil, LAB putters aren’t marketed as a universal fix.

 

In the end, LAB putters are more of a polarizing innovation rather than outright snake oil. Some golfers will benefit greatly, while others might not. If someone expects magic and doesn’t adapt, they might be disappointed—but that’s true for any golf club.

3. They absolutely do claim to work for everyone according to the person that invented them 😅

 

not sure what else to tell you 🤷🏼‍♂️ he’s gone way farther than just being a good ceo and marketing his club. He 100% believes every single human being on the planet would be a better putter with his technology. Which is simply remarkably stupid. I have never heard another employee of any golf company say their club will improve every single golfer on the planet. Not once. 

 

but to each their own. The beauty of golf is we’re all free to believe what we want. Confidence is absolutely the #1 factor in good putting, so if it gives you that, it’s the putter for you 👍🏻

 

in my opinion, LAB putters are *possibly* a fix for people who suck at putting with other putters. Doesn’t bother me at all if you disagree 🍻

 

for what it’s worth, LAB putters are the most returned golf club of any kind in 2024, and it isn’t close 

Edited March 24 by Shwagin1066

[Shwagin1066]

1 hour ago, rx1232 said:

this might be a bit too far, calling them snake oil. 

 

Why would a CEO of their own company believing that the product they make helps people, make it a fraudulent claim? 

 

Whether anyone else believes it is up to them, but i would at least hope that the CEO believes in it. 

I can live with it being a little too far. But I still agree with the general idea 

[Red4282]

15 minutes ago, Shwagin1066 said:

3. They absolutely do claim to work for everyone according to the person that invented them 😅

 

not sure what else to tell you 🤷🏼‍♂️ he’s gone way farther than just being a good ceo and marketing his club. He 100% believes every single human being on the planet would be a better putter with his technology. Which is simply remarkably stupid. I have never heard another employee of any golf company say their club will improve every single golfer on the planet. Not once. 

 

but to each their own. The beauty of golf is we’re all free to believe what we want. Confidence is absolutely the #1 factor in good putting, so if it gives you that, it’s the putter for you 👍🏻

 

in my opinion, LAB putters are *possibly* a fix for people who suck at putting with other putters. Doesn’t bother me at all if you disagree 🍻

 

for what it’s worth, LAB putters are the most returned golf club of any kind in 2024, and it isn’t close 

Show me where he said that, a quote or video.

[Shwagin1066]

6 minutes ago, Red4282 said:

Show me where he said that, a quote or video.

More than fine with you not believing me 😅👍🏻

 

They did a Q&A on here at one point, it’s in that thread somewhere. I have no interest in trying to find it. 

 

not trying to convince anyone of anything lol, just offering my opinion like you did yours 

[MHills]

37 minutes ago, Shwagin1066 said:

More than fine with you not believing me 😅👍🏻

 

They did a Q&A on here at one point, it’s in that thread somewhere. I have no interest in trying to find it. 

 

not trying to convince anyone of anything lol, just offering my opinion like you did yours 

 

You sure? You seem to be posting A LOT about lab and snake oil over and over.

[Shwagin1066]

27 minutes ago, MHills said:

 

You sure? You seem to be posting A LOT about lab and snake oil over and over.

 

are you sure? No chance I’ve made more than 15 posts about LAB golf on this site ever

 

what did you base that on? My 10 most recent posts that are mostly in this thread? Good research 👍🏻

 

 

Edited March 24 by Shwagin1066

[mogc60]

I’m protested heel sided slant neck putters cause I don’t like them. Snake oil…and anser styles cause I can’t putt with them. (I’m not a Lab owner) 

Isnt it just ok to have more options??? Seriously 

[soulciccia]

I 100% agree a new tec is always welcome, but let’s define “new”… now that I made some research, I found the Bob Mann who-dinni putter, which is EXACTLY the same tech lab is using (shaft axis running through the center of the topline and just over the CG).

and I think that’s a 50 years old putter at least…

FWIW, I‘d bet it would perform exactly like the lab putters on the revealer, and that would definitely answer my original question and ALL manufacturers could basically copy the lab geometry (except maybe for the forward press grip) without stepping into their patent…

[Shwagin1066]

8 minutes ago, soulciccia said:

I 100% agree a new tec is always welcome, but let’s define “new”… now that I made some research, I found the Bob Mann who-dinni putter, which is EXACTLY the same tech lab is using (shaft axis running through the center of the topline and just over the CG).

and I think that’s a 50 years old putter at least…

FWIW, I‘d bet it would perform exactly like the lab putters on the revealer, and that would definitely answer my original question and ALL manufacturers could basically copy the lab geometry (except maybe for the forward press grip) without stepping into their patent…

Louder 🗣️

[Red4282]

2 hours ago, soulciccia said:

I 100% agree a new tec is always welcome, but let’s define “new”… now that I made some research, I found the Bob Mann who-dinni putter, which is EXACTLY the same tech lab is using (shaft axis running through the center of the topline and just over the CG).

and I think that’s a 50 years old putter at least…

FWIW, I‘d bet it would perform exactly like the lab putters on the revealer, and that would definitely answer my original question and ALL manufacturers could basically copy the lab geometry (except maybe for the forward press grip) without stepping into their patent…

Chat gpt must be a paid sponsor of LAB lol:

 

While the Who-Dinni putter incorporates elements to enhance balance and reduce torque, such as its center-shafted design and material choices, it does not employ the specific Lie Angle Balance (L.A.B.) technology patented by L.A.B. Golf. Therefore, while both putters aim to improve stability during the stroke, the methods and technologies they use differ.

 

 

Key Differences

1. Torque Neutralization

• Who-Dinni reduces torque through a center-shafted design.

• L.A.B. putters eliminate torque via a precisely engineered balance system.

2. Customization

• Who-Dinni was a one-size-fits-all putter.

• L.A.B. putters are custom-built to a golfer’s lie angle for maximum effectiveness.

 

3. Modern Advancements

• The Who-Dinni was innovative for its time, but it did not use scientifically optimized weight placement like L.A.B. putters.

• L.A.B. putters take modern MOI (moment of inertia) and weight-balancing principles to an extreme level for a true torque-free stroke.

[J13]

I don't have a dog in the fight but I do work in golf and can say I appreciate seeing a smaller company catch lighting in a bottle like LAB.  Good for them!

 

Second - The revealer is a smart contraption to sell putters but it's quite easy to build all sorts of putters to do the same thing on it.  LAB putters are also not zero torque. 

 

Again most of this doesn't matter.  Try them out and if they work then great if not buy something else. 

[NewGuy412]

5 hours ago, Shwagin1066 said:

for what it’s worth, LAB putters are the most returned golf club of any kind in 2024, and it isn’t close 

 

Where's the sourcing behind that data? Aside from GolfWRX Classifieds, the secondary golf equipment world is VERY big.

[mogc60]

1 hour ago, NewGuy412 said:

 

Where's the sourcing behind that data? Aside from GolfWRX Classifieds, the secondary golf equipment world is VERY big.

Go to golfclubreturns.net.org.gov it’s all reported there. 🙄

[JimMLINY]

Was Karsten's Ping Anser putter considered snake oil back in day when if putt was struck proper the putter pinged?

 

My MSN search for "Karsten's ping anser putter" AND "snake oil" yielded four hits on one page three pf which were FS other was for something different.

 

Just wondering.

[RangeBaller]

Why does anything related to LAB descend into childish bickering over someone else's putter?  I came here to read about patents...

[dmeeksDC]

2 hours ago, NewGuy412 said:

 

Where's the sourcing behind that data? Aside from GolfWRX Classifieds, the secondary golf equipment world is VERY big.

I doubt anyone except the sellers has data but a sales rep at PGA Superstore told me they get more LAB putters returned under their playability guarantee than any other brand. He said most who return them say it was just too much of a change. Of course, that means they sell a lot of them too. I’ve tried two different LAB models. 
 

Edited March 25 by dmeeksDC

[rx1232]

i think this has become troll bait thread

[vanderputts]

LABs seem to work for a lot of people. I'm not one of them but doesn't make it a bad product or 'snake oil'.

 

I deal with Patents and wouldn't mind taking a look at theirs but it would be hard to believe that it would be enforceable, much like the SIK face technology. Trademarks for sure.

[Pnwpingi210]

4 hours ago, NewGuy412 said:

 

Where's the sourcing behind that data? Aside from GolfWRX Classifieds, the secondary golf equipment world is VERY big.

There is no data.  It’s one persons opinion.  Nothing more