Christopher Boyle recently filed a response with the U.S. District Court of Oregon denying patent infringement allegations as well as ownership in Surface Dynamix in the case involving GlasWeld and his father Mike Boyle. The elder Boyle has also been granted a court-appointed attorney.
“Defendant Christopher Boyle denies all allegations … including the unsubstantiated statement that defendant Christopher Boyle is an owner of Surface Dynamix,” according to court documents. “This statement is a direct contradiction with the plaintiffs’ earlier statements of ‘Mike P. Boyle, doing business as Surface Dynamix.’ … Surface Dynamix was registered in Oregon as DBA/ABN with the sole proprietor being Mike Boyle. This being such, there is no way for the plaintiff to assert that defendant Christopher Boyle is or ever has been an owner of Surface Dynamix.”
In October 2011, Surface Dynamix issued a press release to glassBYTEs stating, “Surface Dynamix president Mike Boyle has announced that he has sold the company to several employees, including his son, Chris Boyle, with whom he founded the company last December. With this move, Mike Boyle said he was retiring from the auto glass industry.”
Moreover, in the court documents Christopher Boyle disputes the timing of when left GlasWeld.
“Defendant Christopher Boyle was terminated in October 2009 not September as alleged. Defendant Christopher Boyle was ‘terminated’ under false pretenses and then was blackmailed by GlasWeld ownership, Thomas Spoo, to not raise an issue over the details of defendant Christopher Boyle’s termination or Thomas Spoo would attack defendant Christopher Boyle’s father Mike Boyle,” Christopher Boyle claims in the response he filed with the court.
As for allegations of “stealing” proprietary GlasWeld information, the younger Boyle denies all claims.
“Defendant Christopher Boyle denies any allegation that “the Boyles” unlawfully came to be in possession of proprietary GlasWeld information as alleged. … This is an unsubstantiated and baseless allegation set forth with the intent of creating undo prejudices toward the defendants,” according to court documents. “Any ‘customer list’ that was allegedly stolen could easily be obtained through GlasWeld’s very own website. … Furthermore, defendant Christopher Boyle denies any allegations that ‘the Boyles’ produced ‘knock off’ GlasWeld product.”
In his defense, Mike Boyle claims in court documents that, “patent `180 and `372 are not valid due to their lack of originality and novelty. Numerous products long existed in the marketplace prior to the application of both patents in question which utilize technology which GlasWeld claims inventorship over.”
Christopher Boyle claims he “has not infringed upon plaintiffs’ intellectual property rights and aforementioned patents are unenforceable” and asks the court to dismiss GlasWeld’s complaint “with prejudice and award the defendants any and all fees, costs and interest incurred in this case along with any additional relief in law or equity as the court deems equitable and just.”
The patents referenced in the case 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.”