Boyle Files Motion to Dismiss GlasWeld Patent Infringement Lawsuit
June 12, 2013

by Jenna Reed,

Michael Boyle has filed a motion asking the U.S. District Court of Oregon, Eugene division, to dismiss the alleged patent infringement case GlasWeld Systems had filed against him back in 2012.

In the motion, Boyle, a former president of GlasWeld who is representing himself in the case, writes, "It is the belief of the defendants that the plaintiff [GlasWeld] has no claim for relief on the basis of doctrine of acquiescence. The plaintiff has long forgone its rights to claim by knowingly allowing similar products that undeniably infringe upon the plaintiff's patent 5,670,180 (the `180 patent), pertaining to devices for windshield repair."

Furthermore, Boyle writes "The plaintiff clearly states in the filing of this suit that the plaintiff was clearly aware of alleged infringing activity in 2009; however, chose to take no action. There is no possible explanation for the delay of over three years for filing other than the desire of the plaintiff to wait until the defendant had built a well-established and respected business [Surface Dynamix] before trying to seek relief with the express purpose of trying to recover larger sums of damage."

Boyle claims he was not infringing on GlasWeld's patents.

At press time, GlasWeld attorneys had not yet filed a response to Boyle's motion for dismissal.

In the original complaint filed by GlasWeld in 2012, the company alleges ( that Boyle has engaged in the "unauthorized making, using, selling or offering to sell GlasWeld's patented technology after his departure from GlasWeld, including but not limited to, improperly engaging in these infringing activities with GlasWeld's own customers."

The patents referenced in the complaint are U.S. Patent No. 5,670,180 ("the 18'0 Patent"), "Laminated Glass and Windshield Repair Device," and U.S. Patent No. 6,898,372 ("the '372 Patent"), "Lamp System for Curing Resin in Glass," issued to GlasWeld in September 1997 and May 2005, respectively. While 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."

This story is an original story by AGRR™ magazine/™. Subscribe to AGRR™ Magazine.
Subscribe to receive the free e-newsletter.