Wilson Aerospace LLC v. The Boeing Company Inc
2:23-cv-00847
| W.D. Wash. | Mar 14, 2025Background
- Wilson Aerospace LLC alleges Boeing misappropriated its custom-built aerospace tools and related intellectual property, violating non-disclosure agreements and trade secret protection laws.
- Wilson claims Boeing, after receiving proprietary designs (particularly for the Fluid Fitting Torque Device (FFTD) and other tools), both misused and copied these tools, including involving competitors and creating counterfeits, damaging Wilson’s business and reputation.
- Non-disclosure and proprietary information agreements were executed in 2012 and 2014; the alleged misappropriation occurred in various Boeing projects including the International Space Station and SLS rocket.
- Procedurally, this is a motion to dismiss Wilson's Third Amended Complaint, raising a host of federal and state law claims including copyright, trade secret, trademark, RICO, and others.
- The Court partially granted and partially denied Boeing’s motion to dismiss, allowing some claims to proceed (notably, copyright and certain trade secret claims), while dismissing others with prejudice after multiple opportunities to amend.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Subject matter jurisdiction over copyright | § 1498(b) is just an affirmative defense | § 1498(b) deprives court of jurisdiction | Court has jurisdiction |
| Statute of limitations (copyright/trade secret) | Had no reason to suspect wrongdoing before 2021 | Claims time-barred due to earlier events | Not clearly time-barred; survived motion |
| DTSA trade secret misappropriation (FFTD-3) | Sufficient post-2016 misuse pled, excluding patent disclosures | No plausible post-DTSA enactment misuse | Claim survives re: undisclosed trade secrets |
| Trademark/counterfeiting (Lanham Act) | Registration not precondition; use after registration alleged | No actionable use post-registration; marks not protectable | Dismissed; no post-registration infringement |
| RICO/conspiracy claims | Boeing ran enterprise to steal IP from small firms | No enterprise, no pattern outside predicate acts | Dismissed for insufficient facts |
| Fraud | Alleged material misstatements by Boeing reps | No particularity; no actionable or relied-upon statement | Dismissed; fails Rule 9(b) particularity |
| Tortious interference with business expectancy | Boeing’s actions hurt relationships with NASA/others | No valid expectancy; no knowledge or interference | Dismissed; expectancy not reasonable |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (Rule 12(b)(6) plausibility standard)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (Rule 12(b)(6) facial plausibility)
- Odom v. Microsoft Corp., 486 F.3d 541 (RICO: elements of enterprise and pattern)
- Safe Air for Everyone v. Meyer, 373 F.3d 1035 (Rule 12(b)(1) jurisdictional challenge)
- Leite v. Crane Co., 749 F.3d 1117 (Rule 12(b)(1) standard)
- Stiley v. Block, 130 Wash. 2d 486 (Washington fraud elements)
- Pac. Nw. Shooting Park Ass’n v. City of Sequim, 158 Wash. 2d 342 (elements for tortious interference in Washington)
- Reves v. Ernst & Young, 507 U.S. 170 (RICO enterprise participation standard)
- Two Pesos, Inc. v. Taco Cabana, Inc., 505 U.S. 763 (trademark distinctiveness)
- Lahoti v. VeriCheck, Inc., 586 F.3d 1190 (standard for trademark infringement claims)