A judge for the U.S. District Court of Oregon recently issued several decisions in the alleged patent infringement involving GlasWeld and Mike Boyle, doing business as Surface Dynamix, including granting a motion to compel Mike Boyle to “produce documents responsive to the requests for production,” denying Mike Boyle’s request for summary judgment and agreeing to Mike Boyle’s request for a pro bono attorney.
“Plaintiff [GlasWeld] seeks to compel the production of documents, answers to interrogatories and requests for admissions served on Mike Boyle in May and June 2013,” Judge Ann Aiken writes in court documents. “Mike Boyle has not responded to the motion, and I find his responses to plaintiff’s discovery requests to be incomplete and insufficient. Therefore, plaintiff’s motion for compel is granted.”
Judge Aiken ordered Mike Boyle to respond to outstanding discovery requests within 45 days.
Moreover, the judge ordered that information in the case be reclassified from “attorney eyes only” to “confidential.”
The judge also wrote that “an admonishment is warranted” for Michael Boyle, referring to several of the exhibits in the case.
GlasWeld had also asked the judge to “bar” Michael Boyle from conducting depositions until his son, Christopher Boyle (who was recently named in the case), files a responsive pleading so that these meetings can be coordinated together.
“I find both requests reasonable,” Judge Aiken writes. “Coordinating depositions for both defendants is encouraged by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and will decrease the burden and expenses incurred by all parties, and the exchange of documents and interrogatory answers will assist the parties in preparing for depositions. … Once plaintiff receives those (discovery responses) from Mike Boyle and defendant Christopher Boyle appears, depositions may proceed.”
The judge went on to deny Michael Boyle’s motion for a “summary judgment dismissal of plaintiff’s claims on the grounds that he was harassed by an investigator, process service or other agent of plaintiff.”
The judge writes, “It is generally undisputed that the investigator and/or process server was attempting to serve Christopher Boyle with service and summons. Michael Boyle provides no information or evidence that plaintiff endorsed, promoted or ordered the alleged harassment and dismissal of plaintiff’s claims is not warranted.”
The judge also addressed Michael Boyle’s motion to compel depositions, writing that once “Christopher Boyle files a responsive pleading and outstanding discovery requests are completed, depositions may proceed.”
Judge Aiken also awarded Michael Boyle a pro bono attorney. The attorney named, David H. Madden, has 14 days to respond to his appointment.
She concluded her decisions by writing, “Upon request, the court will refer this case for a judicial settlement conference at the earliest opportunity.”
In a separate move, GlasWeld requested that the judge strike two of Mike Boyle’s affirmative defenses.
GlasWeld’s attorneys claim, “The court should strike the second and third affirmative defenses from Defendant’s answers to amended complaint because defendant Mike Boyle alleges fraud but does not plead the same with particularity as required by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and governing Federal Circuit precedent.
“In these defenses, Boyle alleges inequitable conduct and that the patents-in-suit were obtained fraudulently, but provides no specific facts identifying who committed the alleged fraud or any details as to what circumstances constituted the alleged fraud,” the attorneys continue.
The judge had not yet ruled on this motion to strike at press time.