The judge overseeing the GlasWeld-Boyle case in the U.S. District Court of Oregon, Eugene division, has denied Mike and Christopher Boyles’ request to strike GlasWeld’s motion for partial summary judgment. In response, the Boyles filed a motion for an extension of time to respond to GlasWeld’s supplemental memorandum for partial summary judgement.
The Boyles had claimed GlasWeld filed its motion after the court’s deadline.
“The court did not impose additional deadlines on the summary judgment motion and plaintiff’s supplemental memorandum is appropriate now that depositions are completed,” writes Ann Aiken.
The judge gave the Boyles until April 2, 2016 to file a response to the supplemental memorandum for summary judgment and gave plaintiffs a deadline of April 16, 2016 to respond.
Aiken said the court will issue a ruling no later than June 4, 2016.
The Boyles have requested leave from the court for additional time to respond to GlasWeld’s motion because they wish to proceed with “Daubert” motions.
“Plaintiffs have filed numerous declarations from their experts in support of both the original motion for summary judgment filed in early 2014, nearly two years ago, and the renewed supplemental document filed after the expiration of every single deadline for doing such. In doing this, the plaintiffs accepted that the court, through Daubert, would determine the admissibility of such testimony prior to any ruling on said motion,” according to the court documents.
The Daubert Standard is used by a trial judge to make a preliminary assessment of whether an expert’s scientific testimony is based on reasoning or methodology that is scientifically valid and can properly be applied to the facts at issue, according to Cornell University Law School.
“Until this court establishes the admissibility of the plaintiffs’ expert testimony, any further actions by the parties or the court is altogether improper,” according to the Boyles filing.
The judge had not yet responded to the Boyles new motion at press time.
GlasWeld filed the alleged patent infringement lawsuit against Mike Boyle, doing business as Surface Dynamix, in the U.S. District Court of Oregon, Eugene division, in 2012. Mike Boyle’s son, Christopher, was later added as a defendant in the case.
To read the Boyles’ motion, click here.