Plaintiff Glas-Weld Systems, Inc., filed a patent infringement and unfair competition action against defendants Michael P. Boyle, dba Surface Dynamix, and Christopher Boyle. Plaintiff moved for partial summary judgment and to supplement the record, and Christopher Boyle moved to compel depositions of plaintiff’s expert. The district court stayed the partial summary judgment motion pending the ruling on claim construction and ordered that once the court construes the patent claims, the parties could supplement their briefing in support of and in opposition to the motion for partial summary judgment.
The district court then turned to the motion to compel the deposition of plaintiff’s experts. Here, the district court found that the depositions would not be relevant or useful to the district court’s construction of the patent claims. “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.”
Nonetheless, the district court did permit the defendants to retain an expert to rebut the claim construction proposed by the plaintiff. “That said, Christopher Boyle may retain an expert to rebut plaintiff’s proposed claim construction. The court makes no representation that such expert testimony would be considered. Should the parties seek depositions after the ruling on claim construction, the parties shall confer and agree to a reasonable deposition schedule.”
Glas-Weld Systems, Inc. v. Boyle, Case No. 6:12-cv-02273-AA (D. Or. June 1, 2014)
The authors of www.PatentLawyerBlog.com are patent trial lawyers at Jeffer Mangels Butler & Mitchell LLP. We represent inventors, patent owners and technology companies in patent licensing and litigation. Whether pursuing patent violations or defending infringement claims, we are aggressive and effective advocates for our clients. For more information contact Stan Gibson at 310.201.3548 or SGibson@jmbm.com.