Joola files patent suit against 11 paddle brands over Gen 3

On April 7, 2026 Joola filed a patent-infringement action with the International Trade Commission against eleven paddle brands. The filing centers on Joola's propulsion-core technology, the horseshoe-shaped EVA ring that wraps around the inside of the paddle face rather than fully filling the core. Two days later, on April 9, Joola brought parallel infringement lawsuits against the same eleven respondents in six federal district courts: Northern District of California, District of Delaware, District of Arizona, District of Colorado, Eastern District of Missouri, and Southern District of Florida.

The patents asserted are U.S. Patent No. 12,465,826 and U.S. Patent No. 12,357,891, both titled "Game Paddle." Per IP Fray's reading of the filings, the patents cover paddle construction using filler material to cover removed core sections to influence feel, power, and vibration. Both patents are due to expire in 2043. Joola is represented in all proceedings by K&L Gates LLP.

The defendants named in the filing:

• Franklin Sports
• Proton Sports
• RPM Pickleball
• Engage Pickleball
• Friday Labs
• Diadem Sports
• Faccelos
• ProXR Pickleball
• Paddletek
• Adidas Pickleball (through All Racquet Sports and All For Padel)
• Volair

That list represents a meaningful slice of the paddle industry. Paddletek and ProXR are corporate siblings, which explains why both appear separately. The remaining nine are independent brands across multiple price tiers.

Joola's public framing, attributed to CEO Richard Lee in the official announcement:

"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 rewarded. 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 to the category."

Friday Pickleball was the first defendant to issue a public response, via IP Fray. They are represented by Hecht Partners LLP:

"At Friday Pickleball, we are always innovating. The technology in these patents is from a previous generation of paddles that had some benefits and also some problems that we had to innovate around. We've already moved to the next gen. We will defend ourselves fully if we have to, but we are confident that this dispute can be resolved quickly."

The other ten named brands had not issued public responses at the time of this brief.

The strategic point that does not get enough attention in the headlines: the ITC does not award monetary damages. Its remedy is exclusionary, which means it can block infringing products from entering the U.S. market. For paddle manufacturers that rely on overseas production (essentially the entire industry, given most paddles are manufactured in China), that is the more consequential lever than damages. The companion federal suits are the path to monetary recovery (including treble damages on a finding of willful infringement); the ITC action is the path to actually pulling competitor paddles off shelves.

For rec players, the immediate implication is uncertain paddle availability. The ITC complaint requests a limited exclusion order; until the Commission rules (typically a 12-18 month process), the accused brands continue selling in the U.S. legally. Tournament eligibility is unchanged, since this is a patent dispute, not a USAP equipment issue. Even if a defendant brand wins on the merits years later, their current Gen 3 paddles may be off shelves in the interim. If you have been considering a foam-core paddle from one of the eleven brands above, the case worth following is whether your specific model gets pulled.

For the broader equipment story: this is the most significant industry move of 2026 so far. The Gen 3 / foam-core wave was where most of the meaningful paddle innovation lived in 2024 and 2025. The Friday Pickleball "moved to the next gen" defense is plausible because the Gen 4 full-foam architectures (Bread & Butter Loco, Spartus P1, 11six24 Vapor Power2, Vatic Pro V-Sol) don't generally rely on the horseshoe-foam-ring construction the Joola patents claim; whether that defense holds for all eleven defendants remains to be seen.

For paddle alternatives that sit outside the dispute, see our best foam pickleball paddles 2026 guide. For the broader 2026 paddle-tech context, see the state of pickleball paddles 2026. For the underlying technology, our foam vs honeycomb paddles guide explains the propulsion-core context and why the horseshoe-ring design matters. We will update this brief as the case progresses; the next material milestone is the ITC's decision on whether to institute the investigation (typically within 30-45 days of the complaint filing).