D. Mass. Patent Litigation Update: December 2025

This is part of a series of articles discussing recent orders of interest issued in patent cases by the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts.

In Metrom Rail, LLC v. Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority, et al., No. 25-cv-11446-ADB Judge Burroughs (i) granted defendant Piper Networks Inc.'s motion to dismiss or transfer, (ii) granted the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (“MBTA”)'s motion to sever and stay, and (iii) denied without prejudice (a) Plaintiff motions for preliminary injunction and related expedited discovery and (b) the MBTA's motion to dismiss.

According to the complaint, Plaintiff sells and holds patents on train collision avoidance systems. Together with a third-party integrator, Piper lost a bid to the MBTA to provide collision avoidance systems for the Green Line trolley system, which project was later cancelled as the winning bigger was unable to deliver. Piper subsequently hired multiple individuals who worked with the third party integrator on Plaintiff technology and won a new bid from the MBTA. Plaintiff “believes . . . that Piper used the former [third-party] engineers to develop and field its own collision avoidance system that mimics the systems previously developed by [Plaintiff]” and “[i]n addition to offering infringing systems to the MBTA . . . Piper has offered infringing systems to other transit agencies or rail operators . . . .”

Piper moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim and improper venue or, in the alternative, to transfer to the Southern District of New York. Venue in patent cases is determined by the Supreme Court's TC Heartland case and is proper where a defendant (i) is incorporated or (ii) committed acts of infringement and has a regular and established place of business. Piper is incorporated in Delaware and asserts that it is no office or other physical presence in Massachusetts and had only one in-state employee whose last day coincided with the filing of the complaint. In contending that Piper had a Massachusetts presence, Plaintiff identified circumstantial evidence and Piper job listings that post-date the complaint. Finding that Plaintiff's allegations were “based on little more than speculation” the Court found that Plaintiff “has not made a prima facie showing of venue” and denied its request for venue discovery as not likely to yield evidence supporting venue. Noting that Piper and Plaintiff are already litigating patent infringement claims in the Southern District of New York, the Court transferred the instant case there and denied Piper's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim with leave to renew after transfer.

The MBTA moved to sever and stay the claims against it pending resolution of Plaintiff's allegations against Piper, arguing that Plaintiff will not be prejudiced, the issues would be simplified, the case is at an early stage and that under the customer suit exception the suit against Piper should take precedence. Plaintiff argued that a stay would frustrate discovery, lead to duplication, slow litigation regarding the asserted patents, and that the customer suit exception should not apply. The Court severed and retained the claims against the MBTA to facilitate transfer as to Piper, noting that no party argued venue is proper in the Southern District of New York as to the MBTA. The Court further found that a stay as to the MBTA was appropriate because, as Plaintiff could seek discovery from and preliminary injunctive relief against Piper in New York, a stay did not clearly present a tactical disadvantage for Plaintiff. The Court further found that the transferred litigation was likely to simplify the issues, and there is no dispute that the case is at a very early stage. The Court thus found that a stay as to the MBTA is proper, and accordingly that it need not address the parties' arguments on the customer suit exception.

As to the remaining motions, the Court denied Piper's motions for preliminary injunction and related expedited discovery without prejudice to renewal in the transferee forum and denied resolution of the MBTA's motion to dismiss, which concerned issues admittedly “substantially identical” to those raised by Piper with leave to renew.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.