Craik v. Boeing Co.
37 F. Supp. 3d 954
N.D. Ill.2013Background
- Craik, a Canadian resident, sues Boeing in Northern District of Illinois for patent infringement of three method claims relating to RFID/CMB aircraft maintenance.
- Craik alleges Boeing’s RFID and CMB technologies infringe his patents and may induce infringement.
- Boeing contends the case should be transferred to the Western District of Washington under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).
- RFID system development, testing, and related activities occurred primarily in Seattle and other West Coast sites; Fujitsu and Aerolnfo assisted.
- Patents at issue are method claims, not tied to a particular apparatus or system, with testing and documentation centralized in Seattle.
- Craik’s deposition/testing evidence and witnesses are predominantly located on the West Coast; Illinois has minimal connection to the dispute.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether venue is proper in both districts | Craik asserts venue is proper in NI only. | Boeing argues venue is proper in both NI and WDWA. | Venue is proper in both districts. |
| Whether the convenience factors favor transfer | Craik contends factors do not clearly favor transfer to WDWA. | Boeing argues factors support transfer to WDWA. | Factors weigh in favor of transfer to WDWA. |
| Whether the convenience of witnesses and sources of proof favors transfer | Craik claims West Coast witnesses and materials are not significantly closer to WDWA. | Boeing points to Seattle-based witnesses and evidence as central. | Convenience of witnesses and proof favors transfer to WDWA. |
| Whether the interest of justice supports transfer | Craik argues Illinois faster due to patent pilot program and court familiarity. | Boeing argues WDWA is faster and more efficient overall; greater local stake in Seattle. | Interest of justice favors transferring to WDWA. |
Key Cases Cited
- Coffey v. Van Dorn Iron Works, 796 F.2d 217 (7th Cir.1986) (transfer burdens and convenience framework)
- Body Sci USA LLC v. Boston Sci. Corp., 846 F.Supp.2d 980 (N.D.Ill.2012) (five-factor test for transfer)
- Research Automation, Inc. v. Schrader-Bridgeport Int’l, Inc., 626 F.3d 973 (7th Cir.2010) (court considers plaintiffs’ and witnesses’ convenience in venue transfer)
- In re Acer Amer. Corp., 626 F.3d 1252 (Fed.Cir.2010) (location of development/testing can weigh on situs of material events)