The judge overseeing the GlasWeld-Boyle case in the U.S. District Court of Oregon, Eugene division, has denied a motion by Mike Boyle and his son Christopher to dismiss the alleged patent infringement lawsuit for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
“[G]iven that GlasWeld hasn’t provided any evidence of, or allege any financial harm from the claimed infringement of patent`180, and injunctive relief is no longer a viable remedy [because the patent has expired], it is clear that there is no controversy here and the court has no subject matter jurisdiction,” the Boyles argued in their motion.
In a response to the motion to dismiss, GlasWeld agreed that an injunction cannot be entered on an expired patent, but the company’s attorney argued that the expiration of the patent does not impact subject matter jurisdiction.
“The expiration of the `180 patent does not preclude plaintiff GlasWeld from seeking damages for past infringement,” according to the judge’s decision. “Further, as this court has ruled numerous times, evidentiary issues related to damages will be addressed at the trial stage.”
The Boyles also filed a response in opposition to GlasWeld’s motion for summary judgement.
“These allegations are nothing more than an unsubstantiated attempt to strong arm a smaller competitor,” according to the Boyles’ court filing. “[T]he defendants will demonstrate that not only are the assertions made by the plaintiff false, but also that the facts of this case align in favor of a finding by this court of non-infringement on all counts.”
GlasWeld filed the alleged patent infringement lawsuit against Mike Boyle in the U.S. District Court of Oregon, Eugene division, in 2012. Christopher Boyle was later added as a defendant in the case.
To read the Boyles response in opposition to GlasWeld’s motion for summary judgment, click here.
To read GlasWeld’s supplemental motion for summary judgment, click here.