Christopher Boyle Submits Markman Brief in Alleged Patent Infringement Case

Christopher Boyle, one of the parties involved in GlasWeld-Mike Boyle lawsuit, filed a Markman brief Thursday. In the brief, Christopher Boyle laid out his interpretations of the terminology involved with the alleged patent infringement case. GlasWeld and Mike Boyle (Chris’ father, doing business as Surface Dynamix) submitted their briefs late last week.

“A Markman hearing (also known as a claim construction hearing) is a court hearing in which a judge determines the meaning of words from patent claims that are in dispute in a patent infringement lawsuit. The determination of the meaning of words in patent claims is known as claim construction. Inventions are defined by the precise wording of the patent claims, and the definition of these words play a key role as to whether the jury will ultimately determine that patent infringement has occurred,” according to www.markmanhearing.org.

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.”

Claim construction is an issue reserved exclusively for the court due to ‘the importance of uniformity in the treatment of a given patent,’ according to Markman versus West Instruments Inc.,” Christopher Boyle claims in his brief.

Representing himself, Christopher Boyle offers his own definitions for the terms involved within the patents in question. He largely agrees with definitions included in his father’s brief.

“Defendant Christopher Boyle is amiable to accepting without objection the constructions set for by defendant Michael Boyle,” he notes in the court filing.

Looking at the terms “having convertibility” in Patent ‘180, Christopher Boyle offers his own explanation.

“The term ‘having convertibility’ is paramount to the novelty of patent ‘180, as the device claimed in patent ‘180 represents only a minor improvement upon technology which was originally claims in U.S. patent 4,775,305. This is readily apparent given the minimal brevity of patent ‘180. And the claim of novelty and uniqueness is based solely on the idea of ‘convertibility,” he claims in his brief.

“The term ‘having convertibility’ is used throughout the description of patent ‘180 as well as clearly laid out in the prosecution history of patent ‘180. The intended meaning of ‘having convertibility’ is to describe the claimed inventions ability to optimally repair both surface and sub-surface type cracks in laminated glass,” he continues. “This is achieved by allowing the invention to change configurations.”

Christopher Boyle’s proposed definition for “having convertibility” is “the ability to operate in more than one physical configuration at the discretion of the user.”

For a full copy of Christopher Boyle’s brief, click here.

In GlasWeld’s brief filed late last week, attorneys disputed the need for definitions of the terminology in the patents, arguing that that language is self-explanatory.

“The claims of U.S. patents ‘180 and ‘372 patent … are straight-forward and use terminology that has well understood, ordinary and plain English meaning. Under such circumstances there is no need for the court to interpret such terminology. The written description and the prosecution history (i.e. the intrinsic evidence) confirm that the claim terms mean what they say. As such, in virtually every instance, the scope and meaning of the claims is manifest, and the claim terms require no further interpretation by the court.”

To view a copy of GlasWeld’s opening claim in the construction brief, click here.

The court has not issued any new decisions at press time.

GlasWeld filed the 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.

This entry was posted in glassBYTEs Original Story and tagged , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *