New Motions Filed by GlasWeld and Boyle in Alleged Patent Infringement Case

GlasWeld has filed a motion in the U.S. District Court of Oregon, Eugene division, for an order to show cause why default judgment should not be entered against Mike Boyle (doing business as Surface Dynamix) and his son Christopher, in the alleged patent infringement case. The Boyles have responded with a motion saying default judgment should not be entered against them.

“Mike Boyle intentionally missed the deadline to identify his experts despite numerous communications from GlasWeld informing him that he was not in compliance with the March 6 order which prohibited defendants from identifying a third expert.  … Instead, Mike Boyle wasted GlasWeld’s time and resources by refusing to narrow his experts as required, identifying new, previously undisclosed individuals as experts, and refusing to serve expert reports. … Ultimately, Mike Boyle refused to serve expert reports …,” according to GlasWeld’s filing.

GlasWeld also alleged that “an angry and irate Mike Boyle attempted to assault Randy Mackey, GlasWeld’s technical expert and director of product development, outside of his place of worship, publically seeking him out there and demanding to talk to Mackey about the lawsuit.”

The company has filed declarations about the alleged incident from Mackey and a person identified only as a church “elder” who Mike Boyle allegedly addressed.

“On Tuesday, April 21, 2015, Mike Boyle also did a slow drive-by of GlasWeld’s offices, even driving through its parking lot, in a further effort to intimidate GlasWeld’s personnel,” the company alleges in court documents.

Mike Boyle denies the alleged incidents took place.

“This scenario [regarding the church] is absurd on its face. The idea of going to a church with many parishioners to threaten a witness is difficult to imagine,” according to court documents filed by Mike Boyle. “More far-fetched is the church’s authorities failing to call the police immediately to respond to an individual who has threatened a member of the congregation and been denied access to the hall and remains in the parking lots watching the hall from his vehicle.”

Mike Boyle asks the court to strike the declaration of Mackey and requests sanctions.

GlasWeld responds that 911 was called and it was in the process of tracking down the incident report regarding the alleged incident.

As for the second alleged incident, Mike Boyle says it is “hearsay” in court documents.

“Since Tuesday was a business day, Mike Boyle can account for his physical presence in Sisters, Oregon, from 9 a.m. until approximately 5 p.m. when he was transported by the Sisters Fire Department via Emergency Ambulance to St. Charles Hospital where he underwent laparoscopic surgery the next day for severe internal bleeding,” according to court documents.

Mike Boyle filed his medical records under seal.

In respond to GlasWeld’s motion to show cause why default judgment should not be entered against both Boyles, Mike Boyle writes in court documents, “The plaintiff has already made accommodation to resolve any issues pertaining to the availability of expert witness reports.”

He alleges the time period for each scheduled expert deposition was extended.

“This is a clear and unequivocal admission that the plaintiffs have offset any prejudice which they might feel is placed upon them by not receiving the expert reports when they want to,” Mike Boyle writes in the court documents.

The judge has not yet issued any new decisions to the latest filing at press time.

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

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 *