Mike Boyle, doing business as Surface Dynamix, has filed a motion for summary judgment alleging “gross ethical and legal misconduct on the part of the plaintiff and plaintiff’s agents” in the case GlasWeld against him in the U.S. District Court of Oregon, Eugene division, over alleged patent infringement. He alleges an incident took place over the weekend between himself and a person acting as a process server who attempted to serve papers on Christopher Boyle (Mike’s son). He has asked the court to find in favor of a summary judgment in the alleged patent infringement case filed by GlasWeld.
“The defendant moves the court to find in favor of the defendants’ motion for summary judgment and/or dismiss all alleged charges against the defendants due to gross ethical and legal misconduct on the part of plaintiff and plaintiff’s agents,” Boyle writes in documents filed with the U.S. District Court of Oregon, Eugene division.
Boyle alleges that he witnessed agents of the plaintiff breaking into the offices of Surface Dynamix, which are based in Bend, Ore.
He filed a report with the local Deschutes County Sheriff’s about the incident. Cassie Dodge, an office assistant at the sheriff’s office, confirmed that a deputy responded to a call at the Surface Dynamix offices on Saturday, August 24. The deputy who took the report was not available for comment at press time.
Judge Ann Aiken had recently allowed GlasWeld to amend its original complaint to add Christopher Boyle.
In ruling, the judge writes, “… The plaintiff alleges that after [Michael and Christopher Boyle’s termination from GlasWeld in 2009] the Boyles formed Surface Dynamix, and on or about December 1, 2010, began unlawfully marketing, advertising and selling products that infringe one or more of the claims recited in the plaintiff’s patents.
“… The plaintiff contends that the Boyles, through Surface Dynamix and/or Smart Glass Repair, continue to unlawfully use plaintiff’s customer lists and other proprietary information to sell or attempt to sell, infringing products to plaintiff’s customers, thereby introducing unauthorized ‘knockoff’ products and decreasing the plaintiff’s market share,” she adds.
In his response to the amended complaint, Michael Boyle writes, “Defendant denies the allegations in paragraph 1 of the complaint. Furthermore, Christopher Boyle has no ownership in Surface Dynamix.”
He denies all allegations and argues, “Defendant has not infringed upon plaintiffs’ alleged patents and defendant has not participated in unfair business practices nor used any customer list illegally. The defendant requests that this complaint be dismissed with prejudice.”
The judge had not issued any new rulings.