Earlier this year, JOOLA sued 11 paddle companies, each accused of infringing its patents on the propulsion core, the honeycomb-and-foam construction that has become one of the most common ways to build a paddle. Since then the case has split into two very different stories. Most defendants are settling or waiting things out behind a slower, parallel case at the International Trade Commission. One company, RPM, is doing neither. It's fighting in district court right now, with its own invalidity argument aimed squarely back at JOOLA's patent. And while that fight plays out, JOOLA has filed a new continuation patent that could extend its reach to cover the majority of performance paddles currently on the market.

This is a fight over who gets to own a construction method that a large share of the paddle industry already relies on, and how it resolves will shape what companies are allowed to build for years to come.

How we got here

JOOLA holds two patents at the center of the original suit: the '826 patent, covering a horseshoe-shaped EVA foam layer, and the '891 patent, which adds foam inserts in the neck and throat area (the "cheek foam" that shows up starting with JOOLA's Pro 4). Both were filed in November 2023 and awarded together. Between them, they describe what's become known as the propulsion core: a center core separated from the paddle's edge, with one gap filled with foam and a second "frame" gap wrapped in a carbon fiber tube.

It's a familiar construction because so many companies have used some version of it. Variations of this core, gap, and frame layout have been common across the industry for years, which is a large part of why 11 companies ended up named as defendants at once.

The case is running on two tracks at the same time. One is an International Trade Commission proceeding, which can block Chinese paddle imports but can't award JOOLA any damages, and which moves faster than the courts. The other is a set of individual federal district court cases, one per defendant. For most companies, the district court case is currently paused behind the ITC outcome, something one industry voice described as the easy button: wait for the ITC to resolve things, and you're not on the hook for damages either way.

Four companies have already settled: ProXR, Paddletek, Volair, and Proton, all agreeing to pay royalties and pull the infringing paddles from their lineups after selling through inventory.

RPM comes out swinging

RPM is the one company that chose to fight now, in district court, rather than wait. Its formal answer included 13 separate affirmative defenses, not a simple denial but an argument that JOOLA's patent shouldn't have been granted in the first place, along with a request that JOOLA cover RPM's legal fees.

The technical core of RPM's defense comes down to how JOOLA's patent changed during the approval process. JOOLA's original filed claim was broad. The "gap" in the design could theoretically sit anywhere in the paddle, including deep in the neck or throat. To get the patent granted, JOOLA had to narrow that claim to something more specific: a core separated from the edge by two distinct gaps, each filled with a defined material.

RPM argues that under that narrowed claim, its own honeycomb core technically runs edge to edge. X-rays of the RPM Friction Pro reportedly show "ghost" honeycomb cell remnants inside the channels JOOLA would call gaps, meaning there's no true void there to infringe on. It's worth noting that JOOLA's own paddles reportedly show similar ghosting under X-ray, which suggests this argument could cut in more than one direction if it holds up.

RPM's own stated reasoning for fighting now rather than waiting on the ITC comes down to timing and efficiency. Preparing a defense for one venue means most of the work is already done for the other, and if JOOLA wins at the ITC first, that could set an unfavorable precedent heading into the district court cases anyway. Better to get ahead of it now than wait for a worse hand later.

The continuation patent raises the stakes

While the original suit works its way through court, JOOLA filed a new continuation patent in February 2026. If granted, it would backdate to the original November 2023 filing, and it extends JOOLA's claimed coverage from the horseshoe-shaped foam to a fully floating foam ring that completely encircles the core.

That's a much bigger deal than it sounds. Floating-core construction has gone from a minority of paddles a few years ago to the majority of new releases since 2025. If this continuation is granted, JOOLA's potential reach could sweep in a large share of paddles currently on shelves, though the practical scope may still hinge on a technical detail: whether the floating foam runs all the way to the paddle's edge, or sits inside a separate firm layer of edge foam. Not every paddle marketed as a "floating core" today necessarily works the same way underneath.

The prior art question

The strongest counter-argument isn't about RPM's specific design. It's about whether JOOLA's patents describe an invention at all, or just a combination of things the industry was already doing. Gearbox's Power series paddles use a strikingly similar core, gap, and frame sequence, with a lineage that traces back to at least 2021, and Gearbox's Pro Power paddle was reportedly cited and known to examiners during JOOLA's own patent application process.

That's the real legal question underneath all of this: is the propulsion core a genuine invention, or a familiar combination of thermoformed cores, EVA foam, and carbon fiber edge banding that the industry has used for years, repackaged under a patent broad enough to claim ownership of the category?

Where the line gets drawn

JOOLA has a legitimate right to protect real intellectual property, and it's worth saying plainly that the company does a lot for the sport, from tour sponsorships to a presence at seemingly every club in the country. This isn't meant as a takedown of JOOLA.

But there is a real question of where legitimate IP protection ends and industry-wide overreach begins, especially once a patent claim starts covering a construction style that most of the market already builds around. However this plays out in court, it's likely to end up defining that boundary for the whole paddle industry, not just the 11 companies currently named.