Christopher Boyle Asks Court to Compel GlasWeld to Depositions, Sever Count

Christopher Boyle, son of Mike Boyle (doing business as Surface Dynamix), has filed two new motions in the alleged patent infringement case asking the court to compel GlasWeld officials to appear for depositions and “sever” him from one count of the lawsuit.

“Defendant Christopher Boyle respectfully requests the court to: (a) compel plaintiffs [GlasWeld officials] to appear for their depositions at a date and time certain (preferably April 14-15); (b) extend the fact discovery by 45 days; and extend defendants deadline to reply to any motion including the current motions by the plaintiff until after they appear for their depositions; and (c) order any such sanctions pursuant to FRCP 3 7 or any other relief as is deemed just and proper by the court,” according to court documents filed by Christopher Boyle.

In a separate filing, Christopher Boyle has also asked the court to sever him from part of the lawsuit.

“In civil suits severance refers to the division of a trial into two or more parts. Plaintiffs in civil suits base their cases on a cause of action—facts that give the plaintiff the right to sue. For reasons of judicial economy, the court may order the lawsuit divided into two or more independent causes of action. This type of severance occurs only when each distinct Cause of Action could be tried as if it were the only claim in controversy. As a result of severance, the court renders a separate, final, and enforceable judgment on each cause. A second type of severance occurs in cases involving multiple defendants. The court may sever one or more defendants from the trial and try their cases separately,” according to a definition at

“Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 and 14 defendant Christopher Boyle is respectfully requesting that this court sever defendant Christopher Boyle from the  plaintiffs second Count VI (presumably Count VII) of the first-amended complaint,” according to court documents.

“There is no discussion of allegations or statements of fact contained in plaintiffs first- amended complaint which allege defendant Christopher Boyle is or should be joined to the plaintiffs second Claim VI (presumably Claim VII). Further more plaintiffs second Claim VI (presumably Claim VII), is highly prejudicial to the defendant and unrelated to the ‘patent infringement” suit,” he claims.

In the count in question, GlasWeld’s attorneys allege: “The Boyles have continued to improperly and unlawfully use GlasWeld’s customer lists to market Surface Dynamix Products to GlasWeld’s customers. … The Boyle’s actions have created or are likely to create confusion in the marketplace regarding the origin of the Surface Dynamix Products as being from GlasWeld. … The Boyles’ actions constitute unfair competition.”

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.

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.”

This article is from glassBYTEs™, the free e-newsletter that covers the latest auto glass industry news. Click HERE to sign up—there is no charge. Interested in a deeper dive? Free subscriptions to Auto Glass Repair and Replacement (AGRR) magazine in print or digital format are available. Subscribe at no charge HERE.

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

2 Responses to Christopher Boyle Asks Court to Compel GlasWeld to Depositions, Sever Count

  1. Pingback: Patent Infringement Dispute Between GlasWeld and the Boyles Continues |

  2. Pingback: Judge Issues Partial Summary Judgment in GlasWeld and Boyle Case |

Leave a Reply

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