GlasWeld’s attorneys have asked the U.S. District Court of Oregon, Eugene division, to allow it to supplement the evidentiary record in support of a partial summary judgment of infringement. The defendant, Mike Boyle (doing business as Surface Dynamix), has opposed this motion.
GlasWeld filed the alleged patent infringement lawsuit against Mike Boyle, doing business as Surface Dynamix, in late 2012
“[G]lasweld first learned of Michael Boyle’s ‘thread locker adhesive’ non-infringement theory on April 7, 2014 when Michael Boyle filed his response in opposition to GlasWeld’s motion for partial summary judgment of infringement. … Since learning of this new non-infringement theory, GlasWeld has been diligently investigating Michael Boyle’s claims that adhesives were used on the hex screw that acts as a plunger and engages the helical groove in the products accused of infringing U.S. Patent No. 4,670,180 (the `180 patent),” GlasWeld’s attorneys write in court documents.
“As set forth in declarations of Javier Sobrado Esq. and Mark Plager Esp. filed concurrently with the reply, all sampled of the accused products in GlasWeld’s possession, custody and control, including two that were produced by defendant Michael Boyle, lack the alleged thread locker adhesive, and the hex screws in these products can be manipulated manually without any undue pressure or force,” they add.
In response, Mike Boyle’s attorney filed an opposition to this motion.
“The court may or may not choose to admit the declarations presented—they are cumulative of earlier declarations and irrelevant to boot—but it must not allow itself to be misled into believing that the absence or presence of thread locker on the set screw is dispositive of the infringement question,” Mike Boyle’s attorney claims in court documents.
“The accused injectors do not infringe because the half-dog screw is not a plunger and because the accused injector is not convertible,” he filed.
“Circuit Judge Bryson, writing for the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals, reversed the District Court’s erroneous determination of likely infringement because ‘a device does not infringe simply because it is possible to alter it in a way that would satisfy all the limitations of a patent claim’ (High Tech Medical Instrumentation Inc. versus New Image Industries Inc.),” he adds, citing another case.
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.” The company later added Christopher Boyle, Mike’s son, as a defendant.
Christopher Boyle also opposes GlasWeld’s latest motion.