GlasWeld, Mike Boyle (doing business as Surface Dynamix) and Christopher Boyle have agreed that binding Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) proceedings would be a good idea, according to their separate ADR reports. But none of the parties involved in the alleged patent infringement case can agree on terms for the proceedings.
“GlasWeld and Mike Boyle agreed that non-binding ADR proceedings will not assist in the resolution of this case,” GlasWeld’s attorneys write in their ADR report. “They further agree that binding ADR proceedings may be of assistance in resolution of this case.”
GlasWeld offered three proposals for ADR:
—Binding mediation or arbitration before Judge Coffin;
—Binding mediation or arbitration before another mutually agreeable magistrate judge or Article 3 judge in Eugene or Oregon; and
—Binding mediation or arbitration before a mutually agreeable mediator or arbitrator.
“Defendants have rejected binding mediation or arbitration before Judge Coffin,” GlasWeld’s attorneys’ allege. “Defendants did not comment further on plaintiffs’ remaining proposals.”
The Boyles received a slight extension from the court to file their ADR report.
“Defendants have made multiple attempts at initiating settlement talks, including providing negotiable terms. The plaintiff has not been receptive to any discussion of the sort,” Mike Boyle alleges in the Boyles’ ADR report.
“The defendants and plaintiff have, however, agreed to participate in binding arbitration. However, the differing terms requested by the opposing sides have precluded any finalization of an agreement,” he alleges. “Both defendants would seek a binding arbitration to be presided over by Judge Aiken pursuant to LR 16-4 (e)2; however, the plaintiff would seek to involve an outside party with no knowledge of the case. This would prejudice both sides, forcing both sides to educate a third party on well over two years’ worth of work at great cost in both time and money.
The Boyles are “resistant” to the proposal of Judge Coffin overseeing mediation or arbitration “due to the lack of understanding of the issues at hand conveyed by (the judge) in previous mediation,” according to their ADR report.
Meanwhile, GlasWeld is not in favor of turning to Judge Aiken for mediation or arbitration, as the Boyles’ proposed.
“GlasWeld does not believe that an ADR proceeding before the presiding trial judge is appropriate, and to the extent that a trial is necessary, GlasWeld does not wish to waive its right to a jury trial,” GlasWeld’s attorneys write.
The Boyles’ concluded their report by outlining the “language” for negotiations they sent to the plaintiff.
To read GlasWeld’s ADR report, click here.
To read the Boyles’ ADR report, click here.