GlasWeld attorneys claim in court documents filed with the U.S. District Court of Oregon, Eugene division, that Christopher Boyle’s motion to reset the scheduling order in the alleged patent infringement case “should be denied because Christopher Boyle has not shown good cause” and the request appears to be “intended solely for the purpose of delay.”
“Contrary to his assertions in the motion, Christopher Boyle has been aware of the subject matter of this case since its inception through communication with his father and co-defendant Mike Boyle,” GlasWeld’s attorneys claim.
“Christopher Boyle’s motion should also be denied because 1) he filed a false and deficient certification … and 2) he filed his motion while meet and confer efforts were still ongoing,” GlasWeld’s attorneys claim.
“On October 11, 2013, Christopher Boyle also called GlasWeld counsel and spoke to Javier Sobrado regarding his proposed schedule changes. Sobrado confirmed that the October 11 email had been received and informed Christopher Boyle that GlasWeld could not agree to the schedule as proposed. … However, Sobrado indicated that GlasWeld was willing to work with Christopher Boyle to try to find a mutually agreeable schedule and indicated that after internal discussions with GlasWeld, a counter-proposal would be provided for further discussion,” GlasWeld’s attorneys write in court documents.
“On the following business day, October 14, 2013, GlasWeld sent Christopher Boyle a counter-proposal, offering extensions to the fact discovery and initial expert report deadlines … However, Christopher Boyle had already filed the [rescheduling] motion, claiming that it was unopposed with a false and deficient certification,” the company’s attorneys claim.
Christopher Boyle “fails to show good cause for re-opening claim construction,” GlasWeld’s attorneys claim. They ask the court to deny the motion to reset the scheduling order.
GlasWeld filed an alleged patent infringement lawsuit against Mike Boyle, doing business as Surface Dynamix, in late 2012. The company later added Christopher Boyle as a defendant in the lawsuit.
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.”
