DCT
1:25-cv-02066
Xene Innovations LLC v. Boeing Co
Key Events
Complaint
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Xene Innovations, LLC (Wyoming)
- Defendant: The Boeing Company (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Bunsow De Mory LLP; Susman Godfrey L.L.P.
- Case Identification: 1:25-cv-02066, E.D. Va., 11/17/2025
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Eastern District of Virginia because Defendant Boeing maintains its corporate headquarters and a regular and established place of business in Arlington, Virginia, from which it allegedly directs and oversees procurement and supply-chain operations relevant to the infringement claims.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s manufacturing process for carbon-fiber composite components used in its 787 Dreamliner and 777X aircraft infringes a patent related to a method for curing and shaping such components using expandable microcapsules.
- Technical Context: The lawsuit concerns advanced composite manufacturing, a critical technology in modern aerospace for producing lightweight, high-strength structural components like fuselages and wings.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Boeing has knowledge of the patented technology, citing Boeing's own patents (issued between 2021-2022) that allegedly claim similar methods. It also references ongoing criminal investigations and civil litigation in South Korea and Portugal involving Boeing, its affiliates, or its alleged microcapsule supplier (Nouryon) related to foreign counterparts of the patent-in-suit, with alleged knowledge dating to at least September 2023. Further, the complaint alleges specific notice of infringement was provided to Boeing via letter on March 13, 2024.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2009-12-09 | U.S. Patent No. 11,806,584 Priority Date |
| 2021-06-29 | Boeing's U.S. Patent No. 11,046,027 Issues |
| 2022-04-12 | Boeing's U.S. Patent No. 11,298,892 Issues |
| 2022-05-10 | Boeing's U.S. Patent No. 11,325,282 Issues |
| 2023-09-01 | Alleged start of Boeing's knowledge via South Korean criminal investigation |
| 2023-11-07 | U.S. Patent No. 11,806,584 Issues |
| 2024-03-13 | Plaintiff allegedly sends notice letter to Boeing |
| 2025-11-17 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 11,806,584 - “Fiber Composite And Process of Manufacture”
- Issued: November 7, 2023
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent’s background describes conventional methods for manufacturing hollow carbon-fiber composite parts (like tennis racquets) as relying on manual labor and air injection to pressurize a composite layup inside a mold (Compl. ¶¶ 48-50; ’584 Patent, col. 1:21-44). This process is described as creating parts prone to vibration and limiting design possibilities, as the part must remain hollow to allow for air flow during manufacturing (’584 Patent, col. 2:16-22).
- The Patented Solution: The invention claims a method that eliminates the need for external air injection by using thermally expandable microcapsules placed inside the uncured composite layup (Compl. ¶¶ 52-53). When the mold is heated, the microcapsules expand, generating internal pressure that forces the composite layers against the mold walls to shape and cure the part, while simultaneously filling the core with a lightweight foam in a single, integrated step (’584 Patent, col. 3:22-35, col. 14:48-54). Figures 9a and 9b illustrate the microcapsules (24) expanding to form a foam plastic core (30) that presses the fiber tube (10) against the mold walls (’584 Patent, col. 10:20-31, Sheet 7).
- Technical Importance: This method allows for the creation of solid-core, rather than hollow, composite parts that are stronger and lighter, produced with fewer steps and greater consistency than conventional methods (Compl. ¶10).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent Claim 11 of the ’584 Patent (Compl. ¶63).
- The essential elements of Claim 11 are:
- A method of manufacturing a shaped fiber composite part, comprising:
- supplying thermally expandable foamable microcapsules encapsulating a foaming agent;
- supplying an uncured carbon or fiberglass composite having a curing temperature;
- supplying a rigid constraining mold;
- placing the uncured composite against a wall of the constraining mold;
- adding the foamable microcapsules to an internal volume of the constraining mold proximate to the uncured composite, with the microcapsules configured to expand only when heated to a predetermined first temperature;
- closing the constraining mold to create a sealed pressure vessel;
- causing the microcapsules to expand by heating them to at or above the first temperature, creating a resulting pressure inside the sealed vessel; and
- allowing the composite to cure at a second temperature (at least equal to the first) while the pressure is being applied.
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The Boeing 787 Dreamliner, the Boeing 777X, and any similar aircraft manufactured using the accused process (Compl. ¶56).
Functionality and Market Context
The complaint alleges that the accused aircraft rely extensively on large, single-piece carbon-fiber composite parts for their primary structures, including the fuselage and wings (Compl. ¶68). This "all composite" design is alleged to make the aircraft lighter, more robust, and up to 20-25% more fuel-efficient than predecessors, representing a significant technological and commercial advancement (Compl. ¶¶ 68, 70). The complaint includes a marketing image from Boeing that shows a large composite fuselage section being manufactured on a rotating tool, described as a "huge mold" (Compl. ¶114, p. 23). This manufacturing approach allegedly allows for a more aerodynamic structure with fewer joints and fasteners (Compl. ¶¶ 71-72).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
Claim Chart Summary
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 11) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| supplying thermally expandable foamable microcapsules... | Boeing's manufacturing process allegedly uses "expandable pellets" or microcapsules, evidenced by Boeing's own patents and its alleged sourcing from suppliers of "EXPANCEL" microspheres. | ¶¶89, 165 | col. 12:30-41 |
| supplying an uncured carbon or fiberglass composite... | Boeing publicly states it uses "uncured carbon fiber" in its manufacturing process for the 787 and 777X aircraft. | ¶102 | col. 1:33-36 |
| supplying a rigid constraining mold; | Boeing uses large, rigid tools described as "huge mold[s]" to form and shape composite parts like the 787 fuselage. | ¶¶110-114 | col. 8:26-30 |
| placing said uncured... composite against a wall of said constraining mold; | Boeing's process allegedly involves wrapping "carbon fiber tape impregnated with a plastic resin around a rotating mold of the fuselage." | ¶¶123-124 | col. 1:45-54 |
| adding said foamable microcapsules to an internal volume of said constraining mold proximate to said uncured... composite... | Boeing allegedly uses an internal elastomer tool called a "bladder" that provides pressure from the inside of the part; the complaint alleges this bladder constitutes the "internal volume" where microcapsules are used to generate pressure. | ¶¶132-137 | col. 3:22-30 |
| closing said constraining mold to create a sealed pressure vessel; | To cure the parts, large sections are allegedly placed in a "massive, sealed chamber called an autoclave," which functions as a sealed pressure vessel. | ¶¶149, 161 | col. 8:1-4 |
| causing a plurality of said foamable microcapsules to expand by heating... so that a volumetric expansion... creates a resulting pressure... | The process allegedly uses the autoclave to apply heat and pressure, causing the microcapsules to expand and generate the internal pressure needed to cure large, complex parts where a bladder alone would be insufficient. | ¶¶160-163 | col. 3:56-65 |
| allowing said carbon or fiberglass composite to cure at a second temperature... while said resulting pressure is being applied... | Boeing's process allegedly cures the composite parts inside the autoclave under sustained heat and pressure, which "hardens the plastic and creates a solid composite structure." | ¶¶173-176 | col. 4:1-4 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: The complaint's theory appears to equate an internal inflatable "bladder" with the claimed "internal volume of said constraining mold" (Compl. ¶135). A central dispute may be whether the claim language requires the microcapsules to be placed directly into the main cavity of the external rigid mold, or whether it can be read to cover their placement inside a separate, internal tool like a bladder which is then placed within the larger mold.
- Technical Questions: A key evidentiary question may be whether the complaint provides sufficient direct proof that Boeing's process for its large-scale aircraft components actually uses foamable microcapsules to generate internal pressure, as required by the claims. The complaint relies heavily on inferences drawn from Boeing's own patents on related—but not identical—methods and on alleged supply chain relationships (Compl. ¶¶ 89-99, 165). For instance, the complaint points to an illustration in one of Boeing's patents showing "expandable pellets" to argue for technical similarity (Compl. ¶92, p. 18).
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
- The Term: "adding said foamable microcapsules to an internal volume of said constraining mold"
- Context and Importance: This term is critical because it defines the location where the pressure-generating microcapsules are placed. The viability of the infringement claim may depend on whether Boeing's alleged use of an internal "bladder" (Compl. ¶133) to apply pressure from the inside-out falls within the scope of this limitation. Practitioners may focus on whether the "internal volume" is part of the mold itself or can be a separate component placed within it.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes putting a "tubular layup bladder which is sealed at both ends" into an "iron mold" ('584 Patent, col. 3:26-28). The powder is inside this bladder. This could support an interpretation where the "internal volume" refers to the space inside the bladder, which is itself placed within the "constraining mold."
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Claim 11(d) recites "placing said uncured carbon or fiberglass composite against a wall of said constraining mold," followed by claim 11(e) reciting "adding said foamable microcapsules to an internal volume of said constraining mold." A defendant may argue this sequence implies two separate actions directed at the same "constraining mold"—placing the composite against its wall and then adding microcapsules into its internal space—suggesting the "internal volume" is the main cavity of the mold itself, not a separate bladder within it.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that The Boeing Company, as the parent entity, induces infringement by directing its affiliates and overseeing the supply chain and manufacturing processes (Compl. ¶¶ 192-193, 203). Knowledge is alleged based on Boeing's own patents on similar technology, criminal proceedings in South Korea and Portugal concerning foreign counterparts of the patent, and lawsuits involving its alleged microcapsule supplier (Compl. ¶¶ 194-202).
- Willful Infringement: The willfulness claim is based on alleged pre-suit and post-suit knowledge. Pre-suit knowledge is alleged to stem from Boeing’s own patenting activity, its awareness of international legal proceedings as early as September 2023, and a marketing video that allegedly acknowledges the technology’s origins in tennis rackets—the original application for the patented method (Compl. ¶¶ 217-229, 232). The complaint includes a still from this video showing the assembly of a tennis racket part (Compl. ¶233, p. 47). Post-suit knowledge is alleged based on a formal notice letter sent to Boeing on March 13, 2024 (Compl. ¶230).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of claim construction: does the claimed step of adding microcapsules to an "internal volume of said constraining mold" read on a process where the microcapsules are allegedly placed within an internal, inflatable bladder tool, or is it limited to placement within the main cavity of the external, rigid mold? The outcome of this definitional dispute may determine the viability of the infringement case.
- A second key question will be evidentiary: can the plaintiff successfully translate the circumstantial evidence presented—such as Boeing's own patents on similar methods and its alleged supplier relationships—into direct proof that Boeing's specific, large-scale manufacturing process for the 787 and 777X infringes each element of the asserted claim?
- Finally, the case will present a significant question of willfulness: given the complaint's detailed allegations of Boeing's awareness of the technology through its own patenting, related international litigation, and even its own marketing materials, a central focus will be whether any infringement was committed with the level of knowledge required for enhanced damages.