GlasWeld has filed a memorandum in opposition to Michael Boyle’s motion to dismiss the alleged patent infringement case the company had filed against him back in 2012 in the U.S. District Court of Oregon.
“In short, the motion fails to show that GlasWeld’s allegations are insufficient to state a claim for relief and the motion fails to prove patent invalidity or establish any equitable defenses to patent infringement. Therefore, the motion should be denied,” GlasWeld’s attorneys state in court documents.
“Boyle’s motion is based (almost) entirely on argument with no actual supporting evidence or citations to the evidence of record. That alone is fatal to Boyle’s motion because a party seeking summary judgment must support that motion with particular citations to the evidence of record. … It’s not surprising Boyle cannot provide citations to any evidence in the record because discovery has only recently begun and no documents have been produced, no interrogatory answered, no admissions served and no depositions scheduled,” attorneys added in the memorandum.
In his motion for dismissal, Boyle, a former president of GlasWeld who is representing himself in the case, wrote, “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.”
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 (`180 patent), “Laminated Glass and Windshield Repair Device,” and U.S. Patent No. 6,898,372 (`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.”