Correction: An earlier version of this story ran with an incorrect headline. The current has been updated to accurately reflect the information below.
United States District Judge Ann Aiken, in the United States District Court for the District of Oregon, has stayed a motion for a partial summary judgment and denied two motions from Christopher Boyle.
In the document, the judge notes that the motion is stayed, “pending the court’s ruling on claim construction. Once the court construes the patent claims, the parties may supplement their briefing in support of and in opposition to the motion for partial summary judgment.”
During the stay, she does request that defendants provide responses to earlier discovery requests from plaintiff.
The first of the motions, Christopher Boyle’s Motion to Compel Depositions, was deined on the grounds that, “Deposition of plaintiff’s experts would not be relevant or useful to the court’s construction of the claims, particularly when the relevance and helpfulness of plaintiff’s expert testimony is questionable,” according to a partial summary judgment handed down by Judge Aiken. “That said, Christopher Boyle may retain an expert to rebut plaintiff’s proposed claim construction. The court makes no representation that such expert testimony would be considered. Should the parties seek depositions after the ruling on claim construction, the parties shall confer and agree to a reasonable deposition schedule.”
Judge Aiken also denied Christopher Boyle’s Motion to Sever for plaintiff’s unfair competition claim.
“The facts alleged in support of plaintiff’s unfair competition claim are related to plaintiff’s infringement claims, i.e., the sale of products that embody the patents at issue and implicate plaintiff’s proprietary information and designs,” the judge states. “As such, defendants are not prejudiced by joinder, and severance would not serve the interests of judicial economy. However, should this case proceed to trial, the court would entertain a motion to bifurcate the patent claims from the unfair competition claim, solely for purposes of trial.”
Additionally, Judge Aiken also grants plaintiff’s motion to supplement. Further, she notes that, because Michael Boyle has pro bono counsel and Christopher Boyle is appearing pro se, the court is “inclined to grant reasonable leeway with respect to court and filing deadlines, and plaintiff is advised to do the same.
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.”