GlasWeld Files Motion to Strike Christopher Boyle’s Defense of Unenforceability

Following Christopher Boyle’s recent filing in the U.S. District Court of Oregon asking the court to strike patent infringement claims, plaintiff GlasWeld followed suit, filing a motion to strike the unenforceability defense from Boyle’s answer.

In the company’s memo in support of its motion to strike, GlasWeld’s attorneys claim, “The court should strike the second affirmative defense from Christopher Boyle’s answer because Christopher Boyle alleges fraud, but does not please the same with particularity as required by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and governing Federal Circuit precedent. In this defense, Christopher Boyle alleges inequitable conduct and that the patents-in-suit were obtained fraudulently, but provides no specific facts identifying the alleged fraud or any details as to what circumstances constituted the alleged fraud.”

GlasWeld’s attorneys further state, “Christopher Boyle suggests that Thomas Spoo withheld ‘information’ or ordered ‘information’ to be withheld, but does not ever specify what information was withheld, why it was withheld or whether it was material. He similarly mentions ‘products’ that were allegedly available in the marketplace but does not identify the products that were allegedly withheld, anyone at GlasWeld who had actual knowledge of the products, why the products were withheld or whether the products were material … Accordingly, Christopher Boyle’s second affirmative defense is fatally deficient and should be stricken.”

At press time, Christopher Boyle’s attorneys had yet to file a response.

Christopher Boyle, who was recently added to the alleged patent infringement lawsuit between his father Mike Boyle, doing business as Surface Dynamix, and GlasWeld, recently filed the motion to strike, saying that GlasWeld’s argument is too broad. (

“Plaintiff’s fourth, fifth and sixth claims make broad and speculative arguments with no supporting facts which could on the surface provide a reasonable and plausible conclusion of infringing activity on the part of defendant Christopher Boyle,” writes Christopher Boyle, who is representing himself, in court documents.

“… These claims clearly provide no evidence or reasonable specificity of any infringing activity and are plainly generic statements of opinion,” he claims. “Additionally, the plaintiff provides no exhibits which illustrate or demonstrate any possible infringing activity and as such does not meet the sufficiency test …”

The patents referenced in the complaint are U.S. patent No. 5,670,180 (`180 patent), “Laminated Glass and Windshield Repair Device,” and U.S. patent No. 6,898,372 (`372), “Lamp System for Curing Resin in Glass,” issued to GlasWeld in September 1997 and May 2005, respectively. While Mike Boyle was named as an inventor on the `372 patent, GlasWeld officials allege that he assigned all of his rights of ownership to the company and “has no right to practice the technology claimed in the `372 patent.”

This article is from glassBYTEs™, the free e-newsletter that covers the latest auto glass industry news. Click HERE to sign up—there is no charge. Interested in a deeper dive? Free subscriptions to Auto Glass Repair and Replacement (AGRR) magazine in print or digital format are available. Subscribe at no charge HERE.

This entry was posted in glassBYTEs Original Story and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *