Xene Innovations LLC v. Boeing Co

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-2066, E.D. Va., 11/17/2025
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Eastern District of Virginia because Defendant's corporate headquarters and principal place of business are located in Arlington, Virginia, constituting a regular and established place of business from which it commits acts of infringement.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s manufacturing process for composite components used in its 787 Dreamliner and 777X aircraft infringes a patent related to a single-step method for forming foam-filled carbon-fiber parts.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns an integrated manufacturing process using thermally expandable microcapsules to simultaneously form and fill composite structures, a technique with applications in producing high-performance, lightweight components for the aerospace industry.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Defendant had pre-suit knowledge of the patented technology through several channels: its own patent filings for similar methods, litigation and criminal investigations involving foreign counterparts of the patent-in-suit against its microcapsule supplier, and a direct notice letter from Plaintiff.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2009-12-09	U.S. Patent No. 11,806,584 Priority Date
2021-06-29	Issue Date of Boeing's U.S. Patent No. 11,046,027
2022-04-12	Issue Date of Boeing's U.S. Patent No. 11,298,892
2022-05-10	Issue Date of Boeing's U.S. Patent No. 11,325,282
2023-07-05	Alleged date of Boeing's knowledge of related '447 Patent
2023-09-01	Alleged date of Boeing's knowledge via South Korea investigation
2023-10-01	Alleged date of Boeing's knowledge via Portugal investigation
2023-11-07	U.S. Patent No. 11,806,584 Issue Date
2024-03-13	Plaintiff allegedly sent notice letter to Boeing
2025-11-17	Complaint Filing Date

II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 11,806,584 (“Fiber Composite And Process of Manufacture”), issued November 7, 2023 (’584 Patent).

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes conventional methods for manufacturing graphite composite sports racquets, such as manual "layup" and air injection, as being labor-intensive, prone to quality control issues, and resulting in hollow frames that contribute to vibration and player injury (’584 Patent, col. 1:24-30, col. 2:50-55). These methods were inefficient and limited the structural design of the final product (Compl. ¶¶4-5, 49-50).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a streamlined manufacturing process that uses a rigid mold and thermally expandable microcapsules (’584 Patent, col. 3:20-33). Uncured carbon-fiber material is placed in the mold, and the microcapsules are positioned inside the material; when heated, the microcapsules expand to create a foam core while simultaneously generating internal pressure that presses the carbon-fiber layers against the mold to cure and shape the part in a single step (Compl. ¶¶9-10; ’584 Patent, col. 4:58-65). The patent’s Figures 9a and 9b, reproduced in the complaint, illustrate the microcapsules (24) before expansion and after expanding into foam plastic (30) to press the composite fiber (40) against the mold (61) (Compl. p. 10).
• Technical Importance: This integrated process allows for the creation of solid-core composite parts that are lighter, stronger, and more consistent than those made with traditional multi-step methods (Compl. ¶¶10, 47).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of independent Claim 11 (Compl. ¶63).
• The essential elements of Claim 11 are:
  • 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 mold;
  • adding the foamable microcapsules to an internal volume of the mold proximate to the uncured composite, with the microcapsules configured to expand only when heated to a first temperature;
  • closing the mold to create a sealed pressure vessel;
  • causing the microcapsules to expand by heating them to at least the first temperature, creating pressure inside the vessel; and
  • allowing the composite to cure at a second temperature (at least equal to the first) while the pressure is being applied.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The complaint identifies the accused products as those made by an infringing process, specifically the Boeing 787 Dreamliner (including the 787-9), the Boeing 777X, and any similar aircraft (Compl. ¶56).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges that Boeing manufactures primary structural components for these aircraft, such as the fuselage and wings, using a process that relies on carbon-fiber composites (Compl. ¶68). The process is alleged to involve wrapping "uncured carbon fiber" around a "huge mold" and then curing the assembly in a "massive, sealed chamber called an autoclave" under heat and pressure (Compl. ¶¶102, 114, 161). The complaint highlights the commercial significance of this manufacturing method, attributing the 787's status as the "bestselling passenger widebody of all time" in part to its "lighter and robust composite structure," which enables significant fuel savings (Compl. ¶70). The complaint includes a marketing image from Boeing describing the computerized lay-down of composite tape onto a large rotating mold for the 787 fuselage (Compl. p. 24, Exhibit O).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

’584 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 11)	Alleged Infringing Functionality	Complaint Citation	Patent Citation
A method of manufacturing a shaped fiber composite part	Boeing manufactures shaped carbon-fiber composite parts, such as the fuselage and wings, for its 787 and 777X aircraft.	¶¶67-68	col. 3:11-15
supplying thermally expandable foamable microcapsules...	Boeing allegedly uses "thermally expandable pellets" or "suitable microspheres" from suppliers like Expancel, as referenced in Boeing's own patents for similar manufacturing processes.	¶¶89, 90, 165	col. 3:20-25
supplying an uncured carbon or fiberglass composite having a curing temperature	Boeing publicly states that it uses "uncured carbon fiber" in its manufacturing process for the accused aircraft.	¶102	col. 3:40-43
supplying a rigid constraining mold	Boeing uses large, rigid "tools that serve[] as the mold" for major components like the 787 fuselage and 777X wing skins.	¶¶111, 113, 116	col. 3:28-29
placing said uncured carbon or fiberglass composite against a wall of said constraining mold	Boeing wraps "a carbon fiber tape impregnated with a plastic resin around a rotating mold of the fuselage."	¶124	col. 2:56-58
adding said foamable microcapsules to an internal volume of said constraining mold proximate to said uncured carbon or fiberglass composite...	Boeing allegedly uses an elastomer tool called a "bladder" that provides internal pressure, which Plaintiff identifies as the "internal volume" and asserts is filled with an expansion mechanism like foamable microcapsules.	¶¶133-137	col. 3:25-28
closing said constraining mold to create a sealed pressure vessel	The complaint alleges that sustaining internal pressure requires the mold to be closed and sealed, and points to Boeing's own patents that describe sealing a constraining container.	¶¶151, 153, 155	col. 2:56-57
causing a plurality of said foamable microcapsules to expand by heating... so that a volumetric expansion... creates a resulting pressure...	Boeing places large aircraft sections into a "massive, sealed chamber called an autoclave, where they are hardened under heat and pressure."	¶161	col. 4:58-65
allowing said carbon or fiberglass composite to cure... while said resulting pressure is being applied...	Boeing's technical publications allegedly explain that the cure cycle uses an autoclave to apply "heat and pressure to the part" to "cure the resin." A photo provided in the complaint shows a fuselage section inside a large, chamber-like structure alleged to be an autoclave (Compl. p. 35).	¶¶174-176	col. 5:1-5

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: The complaint alleges that procurement and logistical decisions made at Boeing's Virginia headquarters constitute "supplying" as required by claims 11(a), (b), and (c) (Compl. ¶¶31-33). A potential dispute is whether the term "supplying" in the context of a method claim requires a physical act at the site of manufacture or if it can be satisfied by remote logistical management.
  • Technical Questions: The complaint’s infringement theory for adding microcapsules to an "internal volume" (element e) rests on the allegation that Boeing uses an elastomer "bladder" filled with microcapsules (Compl. ¶¶133-137). A central question will be what direct evidence demonstrates that Boeing actually adds foamable microcapsules to this alleged bladder, as the complaint's support for this step relies heavily on arguments of technical necessity and citations to Boeing's separate patent filings rather than direct observation of the accused process.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "internal volume of said constraining mold"
• Context and Importance: This term from claim 11(e) is critical to the infringement analysis. The plaintiff's theory hinges on this phrase covering an internal elastomer "bladder" tool that is allegedly filled with microcapsules (Compl. ¶135). Practitioners may focus on this term because if it is construed to mean only the general empty cavity of the mold itself, or the hollow interior of the composite part, the plaintiff's infringement theory for this element may be difficult to prove.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim requires adding microcapsules to an internal volume "proximate to" the composite, which does not strictly require them to be inside the composite layup. This language may support an interpretation that includes a separate, adjacent volume like a bladder.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent specification repeatedly describes the process as putting the foaming material "into the tubular layup bladder" and creating an "inner core of foam plastic" (’584 Patent, col. 3:26, col. 3:2-3). This suggests the "internal volume" is the hollow space within the composite part itself that is ultimately filled with foam, not a separate tool used to apply pressure.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b), asserting that Boeing has knowledge of the ’584 Patent and directs its affiliates and subsidiaries to perform the infringing manufacturing method (Compl. ¶¶193, 203). Knowledge is alleged based on criminal proceedings against Boeing's microcapsule supplier concerning foreign counterparts of the patent, which allegedly commenced no later than September 2023 (Compl. ¶196).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement based on both pre-suit and post-suit knowledge. The allegations of pre-suit knowledge are based on several sources, including: Boeing's own patents for similar processes that reference the same type of microcapsules (Compl. ¶218); the aforementioned foreign litigation and investigations involving its supplier (Compl. ¶¶219-220); and public infringement allegations concerning a parent patent (Compl. ¶228). The complaint also cites a direct notice letter sent to Boeing on March 13, 2024 (Compl. ¶230).

VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case

• A key evidentiary question will be one of process reality: what direct evidence will be presented to prove that Boeing’s proprietary manufacturing process for its 787 and 777X aircraft actually practices the specific steps of claim 11, particularly the addition of thermally expandable microcapsules to an internal tool or volume to generate pressure, as opposed to using other established techniques for curing composites in an autoclave? The complaint’s reliance on Boeing's separate patent filings as evidence of its real-world process may be a central point of contention.
• The case may also turn on a question of definitional scope: can the claim term "internal volume of said constraining mold" be construed to read on a separate, internal pressure tool like the alleged "bladder"? The patent's focus on creating an "inner core of foam plastic" within the composite part itself may suggest a narrower interpretation that presents a challenge to the complaint's infringement theory.
• A threshold issue related to venue will be one of geographical infringement: can the term "supplying" in a method claim be satisfied by procurement and logistical decisions made at a corporate headquarters in Virginia, or must the physical act of providing materials occur at the place of manufacture to constitute an act of infringement in the district?