GlasWeld Systems recently filed a motion to strike two affirmative defenses in an ongoing lawsuit being waged between the company and Mike Boyle in the U.S. District Court of Oregon, Eugene Division. GlasWeld filed suit against Boyle, a former company president, in December 2012, alleging patent infringement.
The patents referenced in the complaint are U.S. Patent No. 5,670,180 (the `180 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.”
The GlasWeld suit goes on to allege, “Nonetheless, after his departure from GlasWeld, on or about August 5, 2009 Mr. Boyle began unlawfully marketing, advertising and selling products that infringe GlasWeld’s patents, including without limitation, the Halo Pro™ Curing Light and the DynaVac™ resin injector and/or substantially similar products under the name Surface Dynamix.”
In his response filed with the court Boyle claimed patents `190 and `372 are not valid.
In the most recent movement, the court documents allege, “Counsel for plaintiff has conferred by telephone with the defendant ‘pro se’ regarding the matters which are subject of this motion, but the parties have been unable to reach an agreement.
“Plaintiff GlasWeld Systems Inc. by and through its undersigned counsel hereby move for the court to strike defendant Michael Boyle’s second and third affirmative defenses relating to the unenforceability of U.S. Patent No. 5,670,180 (the `180 patent} and 6,898,372 (the `372 patent) due to inequitable conduct and fraud,” according to the court documents.
Boyle’s second affirmative defense asserts “inequitable conduct in that the
patents `180 and `372 are invalid and obtained fraudulently.”
In his third affirmative defense filed with the court Boyle, “asserts that the plaintiff cannot claim infringement due to ‘unclean hands’ in that they obtained patents illegally, violated the provisional patents of others, and obtained information, knowledge and patent fraudulently.”
Boyle’s attorneys argue, “The defendant has not infringed upon plaintiff’s alleged patents and said patents are void or illegally obtained … The defendant requests that this complaint be dismissed with prejudice.”
At press time, the court had not yet ruled on the motion.
