GlasWeld’s attorneys have responded to Christopher Boyle’s request that the court compel company officials to appear for depositions, writing, “his motion should be denied in its entirety as unfounded.” GlasWeld filed the alleged patent infringement lawsuit against Mike Boyle, doing business as Surface Dynamix, in late 2012. The company later added Christopher Boyle, Mike’s son, as a defendant.
“Christopher Boyle set depositions on dates that he had been expressly told by GlasWeld’s counsel were unacceptable. He refused to accept the alternative dates proposed by GlasWeld’s counsel during the week of May 19th, not because he was unavailable—to the contrary, he admitted that he was available on those dates—but because GlasWeld did not agree to an almost two-month extension to his deadline to file a response to GlasWeld’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment of Infringement, which is not really a ‘minor reciprocation,’ as claimed by Christopher Boyle,” GlasWeld’s attorneys claim.
“[A]ll that is needed is a short, one-week extension to the fact discovery deadline to accommodate depositions the week after discovery is presently set to close,” attorneys write. “Furthermore Christopher Boyle has provided no legitimate rationale supporting his request for a 45-day extension to the fact discovery deadline, and his request to have his response to GlasWeld’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment extended until after the depositions take place.”
GlasWeld’s attorneys go on to claim that Christopher Boyle’s Motion to Compel the depositions of personnel is “unnecessary because GlasWeld has not refused to produce these witnesses.”
In a related court move, Christopher Boyle responds to GlasWeld’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment.
“Defendant Christopher Boyle, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(d), respectfully requests the court defer the consideration of the Plaintiffs Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and allow the defendant Christopher Boyle the right to modify or/and amend this brief upon depositions of plaintiff and plaintiff’s employees and experts,” Christopher Boyle writes in court documents. “The plaintiff’s employees and experts have yet to be deposed by the defendants, and as such their statements and qualifications have yet to be substantiated.”
“Upon even a basic examination of the products and processes available to anybody skilled in the art of windshield repair the similarity of products is widespread. This stems from the success of the product represented in U.S. Patent 4, 775,305 which was patented in 1987 and has long since expired. The Surface Dynamix products which allegedly infringe upon plaintiff’s patent ‘180 draw inspiration from a multitude of technologies which are represented in expired patents and un-patented technologies,” he claims.
Meanwhile, in another filing, GlasWeld further argues in favor of a partial summary judgment by the court.
“GlasWeld filed its motion seeking summary judgment of patent infringement because there are no questions of fact regarding the structure of the products that infringe the Patents-in-Suit (the accused products), only questions of law relating to claim construction, which are already fully briefed and before the court.”
The judge has not issued any new decisions at press time.
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.”