Christopher Boyle has asked the U.S. District Court of Oregon to strike several patent infringement claims GlasWeld has filed against him with the court and GlasWeld has responded in opposition to the motions. Christopher Boyle was recently added to the alleged patent infringement lawsuit between his father Mike Boyle, doing business as Surface Dynamix, and GlasWeld.
“Plaintiff’s fourth, fifth and sixth claims make broad and speculative arguments with no supporting facts which could on the surface provide a reasonable and plausible conclusion of infringing activity on the part of defendant Christopher Boyle,” writes Christopher Boyle in court documents. He is representing himself in the case.
“… These claims clearly provide no evidence or reasonable specificity of any infringing activity and are plainly generic statements of opinion,” he claims. “Additionally, the plaintiff provides no exhibits which illustrate or demonstrate any possible infringing activity and as such does not meet the sufficiency test …”
In response, GlasWeld’s attorneys claim the motions to strike should be denied because Christopher Boyle has failed to identify any deficiencies with the claims.
“Christopher Boyle has failed to identify any pleading deficiencies with respect to counts four and five, and there are none,” GlasWeld’s attorneys write in court documents.
“Moreover, although the caption of the motion purports to challenge count six of plaintiff’s amended complaint, Christopher Boyle does not attempt to identify any pleading deficiencies in GlasWeld’s count of contributory infringement against him or its count of unfair competition against both him and co-defendant Michael Boyle. And there are no such deficiencies,” GlasWeld’s attorneys claim.
The judge has not issued any new decisions at press time.
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.”