GlasWeld Responds to Boyles’ Request for Trial Date

In the latest development in the GlasWeld-Boyle lawsuit, officials from GlasWeld have filed a response to Mike and Christopher Boyle’s recent motion asking the court to set a trial date for the ongoing alleged patent infringement lawsuit.

In their latest response, attorneys for GlasWeld write, “Defendants have once again ignored the local rules requirement to meet and confer on the motion, or to attempt to discuss or to work out a proposed schedule in any meaningful way.”

Additionally, while GlasWeld officials say in their response that they agree “that the court should set a scheduling order now that the depositions have taken place,” they allege that [the] “defendants [have] ignore[d] the fact that Glas-Weld’s motion for summary and the court’s determination on the amount of fees to be awarded are still pending.”

GlasWeld officials, who are seeking a partial summary judgment, propose a possible schedule for the case. They note that the company will file its supplemental brief in support of its motion for partial summary judgment by January 22. Then, they suggest that the Boyles file their supplemental oppositions to the motion for partial summary judgment within 21 days of the date they file their supplemental brief. Next, GlasWeld plans to file its supplemental reply within 14 days of the supplemental oppositions. Finally, they suggest that the court set a schedule for trial and/or permanent injunction briefing upon entry of an order on GlasWeld’s motion for partial summary judgment of infringement.

The Boyles have responded to GlasWeld’s response opposing the trial date, saying, “Plaintiff’s response in opposition states no legal or factual authority which would prevent this Court from setting a date certain for a trial in this case, which is now more than three years in litigation.”

They continue, “The usual and customary procedure in Federal Court is that a trial date certain is set once all discovery has been completed. The defendants’ motion to compel follows this practice. Now with the expert depositions completed there simply is no reason to postpone setting of a trial date.”

The Boyles conclude their response as follows: “Setting a trial date now that all discovery has been completed is independent of any motion present or to be filled with the court. A pretrial conference and scheduling order will resolve all outstanding motions and issues prior to trial. Defendants maintain their request for an order for a trial date certain.”

GlasWeld filed the alleged patent infringement lawsuit against Mike Boyle, doing business as Surface Dynamix, in the U.S. District Court of Oregon, Eugene division in 2012. Mike Boyle’s son, Christopher, was later added as a defendant in the case.

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 *