Joola files patent suit against 11 paddle brands over Gen 3 horseshoe core

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. Joola was first to market with the design and holds the patent. Companion suits in federal court are also being filed in parallel, per the company's own announcement, to preserve the option of pursuing damages.

The defendants named in the filing:

• Franklin Sports
• Proton Sports
• RPM Pickleball
• Engage Pickleball
• Friday Labs
• Diadem Sports
• Faccelos
• ProXR Pickleball
• Paddletek
• Adidas Pickleball
• 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 of the suit, per the press release and CEO Richard Lee: "Joola has spent years investing in the research, development, and rigorous testing behind its propulsion core technology, a patent-protected innovation that has become the standard in competitive pickleball." The litigation is positioned as a "principle decision, not a reactive one." Whether the ITC agrees that the horseshoe-ring design is patentable in the way Joola is arguing is the open question.

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), that is the more consequential lever than damages. The companion federal suits are the path to monetary recovery; the ITC action is the path to actually pulling competitor paddles off shelves.

For rec players, the immediate implication is uncertain paddle availability. 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. If the legal action narrows what other brands can ship, the pace of category innovation may slow further.

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.