Boyle Responds to Motion for Default Judgment in GlasWeld Suit

Mike Boyle, doing business as Surface Dynamix, has responded to a recent motion by GlasWeld for a default judgment against him and his son, Christopher Boyle. The response is the latest in the suit, filed by GlasWeld in December 2012, alleging patent infringement.

GlasWeld had filed the motion for default judgment in July, alleging that the Boyles have not fully participated in discovery.

In response, Mike Boyle alleges that he “has complied with all [discovery] requests as required to the best of his ability.”

“The plaintiff’s counsels attempt to continually disparage the defendant in documents submitted to the courts is not only unprofessional, in many cases they have fabricated statements that are false,” writes Boyle, who is representing himself, after a brief stint with pro bono representation appointed by the court. “Their ongoing tactics lead to the defendant requesting and receiving pro bono counsel. In a continuous effort to execute a ‘scorched earth policy’ plaintiffs’ counsel were responsible for the failure of pro bona counsel to sufficiently represent the defendant due to the inordinate amount of time required to field the unprofessional and overburdening tactics of Feldman Gale, plaintiff’s counsel.”

Boyle goes on to explain in the response that the counsel appointed for him ultimately had to be terminated.

“[The attorney] was not qualified to represent the defendant, nor prepared to handle litigation or managing the discovery process,” writes Boyle. “His lack of qualifications and unwillingness to challenge plaintiff’s counsel has irreparable prejudiced the defendant.”

Additionally, Boyle alleges that “the facts of this case have baffled some of the most qualified firms that practice patent litigation.”

“The defendant was never contacted by the firm to discuss the issue prior to filing suit,” reads the response. “No good faith effort to avoid a costly baseless suit. The plaintiff had hoped the tactics employed by their counsel would destroy the defendant in a short time.”

Finally, Boyle’s response claims that “the defendant has contacted the plaintiff’s counsel repeatedly to confirm or deny any deficiencies in discovery request.”

“Plaintiff’s counsel has refused to provide specifics numerous times,” writes Boyle.

Boyle is asking that the court deny the plaintiff’s motion for default judgment and “sanction plaintiffs for continued tactics that prejudice the defendant.”

At press time, the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon, where the case is pending, had not yet ruled on GlasWeld’s motion for default judgment.

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 Boyle Responds to Motion for Default Judgment in GlasWeld Suit

  1. Pingback: Legal Battle Over Alleged Patent Infringement Continues |

Leave a Reply

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