Glas-Weld Systems, Inc. v. Boyle

Filing 123

ORDER: Motion for Partial Summary Judgment 96 is stayed pending ruling on Motion for Claim Construction 95 ); Denying Motion to Sever 107 ; Denying Motion to Compel 108 ; Denying Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply ; Granting Motion 121 . Signed on 6/2/14 by Chief Judge Ann L. Aiken. (ljb)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

GLAS-WELD SYSTEMS, INC., an
Oregon Corporation,

Civ. No.

6:12-cv-02273-AA
ORDER

Plaintiff,
v.

MICHAEL P. BOYLE, dba SURFACE
DYNAMIX and CHRISTOPHER BOYLE,
Defendants.
AIKEN, Chief Judge:
Plaintiff Glas-Weld Systems, Inc., brings patent infringement
and unfair competition claims against defendants Michael P. Boyle,
dba Surface Dynamix,

and Christopher Boyle. Before the court are

plaintiff's motions for partial summary judgment and to supplement
the record, and Christopher Boyle's motions to compel depositions
and to sever the claim alleging unfair competition.
Plaintiff's Motion to Supplement (doc. 121) is GRANTED, and it
may

supplement

its

reply

in

support

of

its

motion.

However,

plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment (doc. 96) is STAYED
pending the court's ruling on claim construction. Once the court
1 - ORDER

construes

the

patent

claims,

the

parties

may

supplement

their

briefing in support of and in opposition to the motion for partial
summary judgment.
In the meantime, defendants shall provide complete responses
to discovery requests identified by plaintiff in its motion and
supporting memoranda,

including Interrogatory No.

8 and Requests

for Production Nos. 12 and 18. To the extent plaintiff's discovery
requests

are duplicative,

defendants may group

their

responses

accordingly. Defendants' responses shall be completed and provided
to plaintiff within thirty (30) days from the date of this order.
Christopher Boyle's Motion to Compel Depositions (doc. 108) is
DENIED. Deposition of plaintiff's experts would not be relevant or
useful to the court's construction of the claims, particularly when
the relevance and helpfulness of plaintiff's expert testimony is
questionable. That said, Christopher Boyle may retain an expert to
rebut plaintiff's proposed claim construction. The court makes no
representation
Should the

that

such expert

parties

construction,

testimony would be

seek depositions

after

the

considered.

ruling

on

claim

the parties shall confer and agree to a reasonable

deposition schedule.
Christopher
competition
support

claim

Boyle's
(doc.

of plaintiff's

Motion
107)

is

Sever

DENIED.

plaintiff's

The

facts

unfair competition claim are

plaintiff's infringement claims,

2 - ORDER

to

i.e.,

unfair

alleged

in

related to

the sale of products that

embody the patents at issue and implicate plaintiff's proprietary
information and designs. As such, defendants are not prejudiced by
joinder, and severance would not serve the interests of judicial
economy.

However,

should this

case proceed to trial,

the court

would entertain a motion to bifurcate the patent claims from the
unfair competition claim, solely for purposes of trial.
As to Michael Boyle's in camera communication, additional pro
bono counsel will be neither requested nor appointed by this court.
Current

counsel

was

obtained

after

process of seeking additional

cou~sel

Should Michael

pro

Boyle

obtain

numerous

requests,

and

the

would only add undue delay.

bono

counsel

through

his

own

efforts, such counsel shall file a notice of appearance.
Finally, given that counsel for Michael Boyle is pro bono and
Christopher Boyle is appearing pro se,

the court is inclined to

grant reasonable leeway with respect to court and filing deadlines,
and plaintiff is advised to do the same. Moreover, pro se litigants
are entitled to notice of Rule 56 standards and supplementation of
any briefing, if appropriate, before a court may rule on a motion
for summary judgment.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this

nAJ.D

~

day of June, 2014.

Ann Aiken
United States District Judge

3 - ORDER

r