GlasWeld’s attorneys have asked the judge overseeing the alleged patent infringement case in the U.S. District Court of Oregon to compel Michael Boyle to respond to their discovery requests.
“The court should enter an order compelling Boyle to immediately (1) produce all documents responsive to GlasWeld’s first set of requests for production, and (2) provide proper responses to GlasWeld’s first set of interrogatories,” GlasWeld’s attorneys write in court documents.
In a supplemental memorandum filed in support of their motion to compel on August 9, GlasWeld attorneys allege, “Defendant Michael Boyle continues to ignore the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and all of his discovery obligations. Moreover, he has become increasingly hostile, unprofessional and aggressive in response to GlasWeld’s attempt to appropriately prosecute this matter and GlasWeld’s requests that Boyle comply with his discovery obligations.”
The attorneys claim Boyle “did not file any opposition or other response” to GlasWeld’s motion to compel.
The attorneys go on to allege, “Boyle has informed GlasWeld that he has no intention of meeting any of his discovery obligations until he is ordered to comply with his obligations by the court. These tactics are nothing more than excuses to delay this case and delay GlasWeld’s ability to obtain discovery.”
Boyle apparently did respond in some form, though as GlasWeld’s attorneys allege in their request for a motion to compel that Boyle’s, “so-called ‘responses’ contain none of the information requested, but instead are evasive or incomplete. Therefore, they should be treated as a failure to respond.
“Prior to this motion to compel, GlasWeld reached out to Boyle to clarify the scope and relevance of each of these requests. Nevertheless Boyle refuses to supplement his answers,” GlasWeld’s attorneys claim.
GlasWeld attorneys write, “Accordingly, GlasWeld respectfully requests the court enter an order compelling defendant Michael Boyle to respond to all of GlasWeld’s discovery requests.”
At press time, the court had not yet ruled on GlasWeld’s requests and Boyle had not yet filed a response.
The original complaint was filed back in 2012. While 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.”