GlasWeld Responds to Boyles’ Markman Briefs in Alleged Patent Infringement Case

GlasWeld attorneys argue that the patent terms Mike Boyle (doing business as Surface Dynamix) and his son, Christopher Boyle, seek to define for the U.S. District Court of Oregon, Eugene division, are best used in their “plain, ordinary English meaning.” However, if the court does decide to define the terms, GlasWeld’s attorneys claim in a response brief that their own definitions for the terms at the heart of the alleged patent infringement case should be used.

“A Markman hearing (also known as a claim construction hearing) is a court hearing in which a judge determines the meaning of words from patent claims that are in dispute in a patent infringement lawsuit. The determination of the meaning of words in patent claims is known as claim construction. Inventions are defined by the precise wording of the patent claims, and the definition of these words play a key role as to whether the jury will ultimately determine that patent infringement has occurred,” according to

“Ultimately, the claim terms defendants seek to construe are unambiguous, and used in accordance with their plain and ordinary English meaning. Accordingly, the court need not construe any of these claim terms. To the extent the court finds it necessary to construe the claim terms, the alternative proposed constructions offered by GlasWeld more closely adhere to, and are consistent with the intrinsic evidence, and should be adopted,” GlasWeld’s attorney claim in their response brief.

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.”

One the terms GlasWeld attorney’s addressed in their response brief is “convertibility:”

GlasWeld’s Proposed Construction:Mike Boyle’s Proposed Construction:Christopher Boyle’s Proposed Construction:
No construction necessary; in the alternative: “Capable of operating with the plunger engaged in the helical groove, or with the plunger retracted from the helical groove.”“Capable of being placed in more than one different physical configuration, said configurations operating differently from one another in a way that is relevant to the type of crack being repaired.”“The ability to operate in more than one physical configuration at the discretion of the user.”

 “As set forth in GlasWeld’s opening claim construction brief (Doc. No. 98), this claim term does not require construction because it is not limiting—it is in the preamble of the patent, is duplicative of structure in the body of the patent, and is not required to understand the scope of the claimed invention,” GlasWeld’s attorneys claim.

GlasWeld’s attorneys go on to do comparison charts on a variety of terms.

The court has not issued any new decisions at press time.

GlasWeld filed the alleged patent infringement lawsuit against Mike Boyle, doing business as Surface Dynamix, in late 2012. The company later added Christopher Boyle as a defendant in the lawsuit.

To read GlasWeld’s full response brief, click here.

For a full copy of Christopher Boyle’s brief, click here.

For Mike Boyle’s full brief, click here.

To view a copy of GlasWeld’s opening claim in the construction brief, click here.

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.

1 Response to GlasWeld Responds to Boyles’ Markman Briefs in Alleged Patent Infringement Case

  1. Pingback: Mike Boyle Responds to GlasWeld’s Markman Brief in Alleged Patent Infringement Case |

Leave a Reply

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