Second, in Bridgestone Sports Co., Ltd. v. Acushnet Japan Inc., the IP High Court issued a decision on January 24 2012, regarding the patent-in-suit of a special core in a golf ball to improve the distance of golf shots. The Tokyo District Court refused to apply both Articles 102(1) and (3) at the same time and held that the calculation methods under these articles are different and it would result in unreasonable and excessive compensation for Bridgestone, the patentee, if the court applied Article 102(3) to the quantity of accused products sold by Acushnet that Bridgestone would not have been able to sell.