A defendant in an ongoing court case against GlasWeld has filed a new motion claiming the company makes “ … new statements which serve to be profoundly damning to their allegations of patent infringement” and asks the court to dismiss the case.
Christopher Boyle, who is a co-defendant along with his father Mike, filed the motion September 16.
GlasWeld filed an 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. 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.”
In his September 16 motion, Chris Boyle seeks to amend previous statements in order to give context to GlasWeld’s latest assertion, according to court documents. Specifically, Chris Boyle takes issue with GlasWeld’s contention that the G3 resin injector is “ … an embodiment of the ‘180 patent.”
“The statement by the plaintiff that ‘GlasWeld disagrees with defendants’ analysis and arguments relating to the G3 Connector. It is an embodiment of the ’180 Patent,’ provides a clear and uncontested path to a finding of non-infringement and the resulting relief sought by the plaintiffs,” Chris Boyle asserts in court documents. “The court can draw one of two conclusions: either the G3 is an embodiment of Patent ‘180 or it is not. Both of these conclusions will serve as dispositive to the plaintiffs’ allegations.”
The motion goes on to point out that Patent ‘180 is expired, thus nullifying the claim of infringement.
“Given that the exclusive rights secured by the patent have expired, there is no possible remedy given a potential finding of infringement,” the motion reads. “Continuation of this case would serve only as a purely academic endeavor, one that would continue to prejudice the defendants.”
GlasWeld had not yet responded to the motion at press time.