IP Law Daily, TRADE SECRETS—W.D. Wash.: Wilson Aerospace's trade secrets and copyright claims against Boeing proceed; other claims dismissed, (Mar 18, 2025)

By Saurabh Kashyap, B.A., LL.B., LL.M.

Wilson Aerospace failed to establish key elements of its fraud, RICO, and Lanham Act claims but sufficiently alleged trade secret misappropriation and copyright infringement.

The federal district court in Seattle, Washington, granted in part and denied in part The Boeing Company's motion to dismiss Wilson Aerospace LLC's lawsuit alleging trade secret misappropriation, copyright infringement, fraud, and tortious interference. The court dismissed Wilson's fraud, Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), and Lanham Act claims, holding that Wilson had failed to plead essential elements, including a pattern of racketeering under RICO and secondary meaning for its alleged trademark. However, the court allowed Wilson’s trade secret misappropriation and copyright infringement claims to proceed, finding that Wilson sufficiently alleged that Boeing improperly used proprietary aerospace tool designs obtained under confidentiality agreements (Wilson Aerospace LLC v. Boeing Co. Inc., No. 2:23-cv-00847-JHC (W.D. Wash. Mar. 14, 2025)).

Background. The plaintiff, Wilson Aerospace LLC, is a family-owned aerospace engineering company specializing in precision tool design for the aerospace and defense industries. It has developed high-torque tools and specialized equipment for assembling and maintaining complex aerospace systems, including components on NASA's Space Launch System (SLS) and the International Space Station (ISS). The company holds several patents and proprietary designs related to its Fluid Fitting Torque Devices (FFTDs) and other specialized aerospace tools.

The defendant, The Boeing Company, is one of the world’s largest aerospace and defense contractors, manufacturing commercial airplanes, satellites, and military aircraft. Boeing is a primary contractor for NASA and has played a key role in the development of the SLS, a next-generation heavy-lift rocket designed for deep-space exploration.

The dispute began after Wilson Aerospace entered into Non-Disclosure Agreements (NDAs) with Boeing in 2012 and 2014. Wilson alleged that it shared proprietary designs for its FFTDs and other aerospace tools under the NDAs. According to Wilson, Boeing expressed interest in purchasing Wilson's tools for NASA projects but misappropriated Wilson's designs and integrated them into Boeing's manufacturing processes without authorization.

Wilson claimed Boeing provided copies of Wilson’s designs to third parties and falsely marketed Boeing’s own versions as superior alternatives. Wilson further alleged that Boeing’s actions damaged its relationship with NASA, which ceased purchasing Wilson’s tools, allegedly due to misrepresentations from Boeing regarding the performance of Wilson’s products.

In response, Wilson filed this lawsuit against Boeing, asserting claims for trade secret misappropriation under the Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA) and Washington’s Uniform Trade Secrets Act (WUTSA), copyright infringement, fraud, violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), trademark infringement under the Lanham Act, and tortious interference. Boeing moved to dismiss all claims, arguing that Wilson's trade secret allegations were vague, that federal procurement regulations preempted its copyright claims, and that Wilson failed to establish fraud or racketeering under RICO.

Trade secret misappropriation claims. Boeing sought dismissal of Wilson’s trade secret misappropriation claims under DTSA and WUTSA, arguing that Wilson failed to sufficiently identify its trade secrets with particularity. The court disagreed, finding that Wilson adequately described its proprietary FFTD designs, technical drawings, and manufacturing specifications as confidential trade secrets. The court noted that trade secret allegations do not require full disclosure of confidential details at the pleading stage.

The court found that Wilson's allegations of Boeing's unauthorized use of its proprietary tool designs were sufficient to support a claim under DTSA and WUTSA. Wilson alleged that Boeing improperly used Wilson's confidential information after the parties' NDA expired falsely claimed authorship over Wilson's designs, and presented competing tools to NASA as its own. The court ruled that these allegations met the DTSA's standard for misappropriation, as they plausibly alleged that Boeing used Wilson's trade secrets without authorization for its competitive benefit.

However, the court dismissed portions of Wilson’s trade secret claims that were based on information already disclosed in Wilson’s publicly available marketing materials. The court reasoned that publicly available data cannot constitute a trade secret under 18 U.S.C. § 1839(3), which requires trade secrets to be kept confidential and derive economic value from their secrecy. Wilson was granted leave to amend these claims to specify which aspects of its alleged trade secrets were non-public.

Copyright infringement claims. Additionally, Wilson alleged that Boeing copied, modified, and distributed Wilson’s engineering drawings without authorization. Boeing argued that Wilson’s copyright claims should be dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1498(b), which directs intellectual property claims arising from government contracts to the U.S. Court of Federal Claims. The court rejected Boeing’s argument, holding that Boeing had not shown that Wilson’s copyrighted materials were exclusively used for government contracts. Since Boeing allegedly used Wilson’s materials beyond the scope of federal procurement, the court allowed Wilson’s copyright claims to proceed.

Lanham Act and trademark claims. Wilson claimed that Boeing misused Wilson’s “Fluid Fitting Torque Device (FFTD)” designation, misleading customers into believing that Boeing’s tools were associated with Wilson’s brand. The court dismissed the Lanham Act claim, ruling that Wilson failed to establish that “FFTD” had acquired secondary meaning.

The court cited Converse, Inc. v. ITC, 909 F.3d 1110 (Fed. Cir. 2018), emphasizing that unregistered trademarks require proof of consumer recognition to establish secondary meaning. Wilson did not provide sufficient evidence to show that “FFTD” was distinctive in the minds of aerospace industry professionals, leading the court to dismiss the claim.

RICO and civil conspiracy claims. Further, Wilson argued that Boeing’s alleged pattern of trade secret theft constituted racketeering under the RICO Act. The court dismissed the RICO claims, finding that Wilson failed to establish a pattern of racketeering activity or an organized criminal enterprise.

The court emphasized that intellectual property disputes, even involving significant misconduct, do not automatically qualify as RICO violations. It also emphasized that plaintiffs must show continuing criminal conduct to sustain a RICO claim. Wilson's allegations failed to meet this threshold, leading to dismissal.

Fraud and tortious interference claims. Wilson alleged that Boeing fraudulently induced it to share confidential tool designs under false promises of a commercial partnership. Wilson also claimed that Boeing’s actions caused NASA to stop purchasing Wilson’s tools, constituting tortious interference. The court dismissed the fraud claim, ruling that Wilson failed to allege specific fraudulent misrepresentations as required under Rule 9(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The tortious interference claim was similarly dismissed, as Wilson did not provide evidence that Boeing's alleged misrepresentations caused NASA to cease business with Wilson.

The Case is No. 2:23-cv-00847-JHC.

Judge: Chun, J.

Attorneys: Christopher J. Warmbold (Meyers & Flowers LLC) for Wilson Aerospace LLC. Benjamin L. Hatch (McGuireWoods LLP) for The Boeing Co. Inc.

Companies: Wilson Aerospace LLC; The Boeing Co. Inc.

Cases: Copyright TechnologyInternet Trademark TradeSecrets WashingtonNews GCNNews