$64 Million Verdict Against Goodyear Vacated for Failure to Properly Define Trade Secrets
An Ohio jury found Goodyear liable for misappropriating five trade secrets related to self-inflating tires in 2022, awarding the plaintiff, Coda Development, $2.8 million in compensatory damages and $61.2 million in punitive damages. Coda Dev. s.r.o. v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 160 F.4th 1350, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2025). Following trial, however, the district court threw out the verdict and found in favor of Goodyear because, among other things, Coda had failed to sufficiently define its trade secrets. Id. at 1354.1 The Federal Circuit recently affirmed the decision on appeal. Id. at 1352.
As in many jurisdictions, a trade secret plaintiff asserting a claim under Ohio law must “defin[e] the information for which protection is sought with sufficient definiteness to permit a court to apply the criteria for protection…and to determine the fact of an appropriation.” Id. at 1355 (quoting Caudill Seed & Warehouse Co. v. Jar-row Formulas, Inc., 53 F. 4th 368, 380-81 (6th Cir. 2022)). In accordance with this principle, the district court had ordered Coda to answer an interrogatory calling for “a complete list of trade secrets (with particularity).” Id. at 1356. The district court ultimately concluded that the purported trade secrets that resulted—and which formed the basis of the jury’s verdict—were not sufficiently definite, and the appellate court agreed.
One of the claimed trade secrets, “Coda’s design and development of a multipurpose interface for transporting air in a self-inflating tire,”2 was just a list of “functions…described in vague terms with no detail regarding how those functions are carried out.” Id. at 1357. Two others were “no more than an undifferentiated components,” with “no disclosure of what [the claimed] knowledge is and/or what the design or development is.” Id.; see id. at 1353. And a fourth failed because the plaintiff failed to identify it “with sufficient specificity to ‘separate the purported trade secret from the other information that was known in the trade,” including information disclosed in a patent application and a journal article. Id. at 1356 (quoting TLS Mgmt. & Mktg. Servs., LLC v. Rodriguez-Toledo, 966 F.3d 46, 54 (1st Cir. 2020)).
The Goodyear case is the latest in a string of recent reminders of the importance of adequately identifying trade secrets before trial. See, e.g., Medidata Solution, Inc. v. Veeva Sys., Inc., No. 17-589, 2022 WL 585734 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 25, 2022) (precluding evidence at trial when trade secrets not adequately described); Zunum Aero, Inc. v. Boeing Co., No. 21-896, 2024 WL 3822780 (W.D. Wash. Aug. 14, 2024) (same).
This article is available in the Jenner & Block Japan Newsletter. / この記事はJenner & Blockニュースレターに掲載されています。
One of the claimed trade secrets, “Coda’s design and development of a multipurpose interface for transporting air in a self-inflating tire,”2 was just a list of “functions…described in vague terms with no detail regarding how those functions are carried out.” Id. at 1357. Two others were “no more than an undifferentiated components,” with “no disclosure of what [the claimed] knowledge is and/or what the design or development is.” Id.; see id. at 1353. And a fourth failed because the plaintiff failed to identify it “with sufficient specificity to ‘separate the purported trade secret from the other information that was known in the trade,” including information disclosed in a patent application and a journal article. Id. at 1356 (quoting TLS Mgmt. & Mktg. Servs., LLC v. Rodriguez-Toledo, 966 F.3d 46, 54 (1st Cir. 2020)).
The Goodyear case is the latest in a string of recent reminders of the importance of adequately identifying trade secrets before trial. See, e.g., Medidata Solution, Inc. v. Veeva Sys., Inc., No. 17-589, 2022 WL 585734 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 25, 2022) (precluding evidence at trial when trade secrets not adequately described); Zunum Aero, Inc. v. Boeing Co., No. 21-896, 2024 WL 3822780 (W.D. Wash. Aug. 14, 2024) (same).
This article is available in the Jenner & Block Japan Newsletter. / この記事はJenner & Blockニュースレターに掲載されています。
[1] In addition to finding that four of the five alleged trade secrets at issue were not sufficiently definite, the court held that four were not “secret,” four had never been used or disclosed by Goodyear, and two were never conveyed by Coda to Goodyear.
[2] The full identification was “Coda's design and development of a multipurpose interface for transporting air in a self-inflating tire that can connect to the air source, connect to the tire interior, connect to the peristaltic pump, serve as an end to the peristaltic pump, connect to the regulator, carry the regulator, go around or through the bead, go around or through the tire layers, click to the bead and hold the filter.” 160 F. 4th at 1353.
Footnotes
[1] In addition to finding that four of the five alleged trade secrets at issue were not sufficiently definite, the court held that four were not “secret,” four had never been used or disclosed by Goodyear, and two were never conveyed by Coda to Goodyear.
[2] The full identification was “Coda's design and development of a multipurpose interface for transporting air in a self-inflating tire that can connect to the air source, connect to the tire interior, connect to the peristaltic pump, serve as an end to the peristaltic pump, connect to the regulator, carry the regulator, go around or through the bead, go around or through the tire layers, click to the bead and hold the filter.” 160 F. 4th at 1353.
Related Articles
Related Capabilities
© 2026 Jenner & Block LLP. Attorney Advertising. Jenner & Block LLP is an Illinois Limited Liability Partnership including professional corporations. This publication, presentation, or event is not intended to provide legal advice but to provide information on legal matters and/or firm news of interest to our clients and colleagues. Readers or attendees should seek specific legal advice before taking any action with respect to matters mentioned in this publication or at this event. The attorney responsible for this communication is Brent E. Kidwell, Jenner & Block LLP, 353 N. Clark Street, Chicago, IL 60654-3456. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Jenner & Block London LLP, an affiliate of Jenner & Block LLP, is a limited liability partnership established under the laws of the State of Delaware, USA and is authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority with SRA number 615729. Information regarding the data we collect and the rights you have over your data can be found in our Privacy Notice. For further inquiries, please contact dataprotection@jenner.com.
An Ohio jury found Goodyear liable for misappropriating five trade secrets related to self-inflating tires in 2022, awarding the plaintiff, Coda Development, $2.8 million in compensatory damages and $61.2 million in punitive damages. Coda Dev. s.r.o. v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 160 F.4th 1350, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2025). Following trial, however, the district court threw out the verdict and found in favor of Goodyear because, among other things, Coda had failed to sufficiently define its trade secrets. Id. at 1354.1 The Federal Circuit recently affirmed the decision on appeal. Id. at 1352.
As in many jurisdictions, a trade secret plaintiff asserting a claim under Ohio law must “defin[e] the information for which protection is sought with sufficient definiteness to permit a court to apply the criteria for protection…and to determine the fact of an appropriation.” Id. at 1355 (quoting Caudill Seed & Warehouse Co. v. Jar-row Formulas, Inc., 53 F. 4th 368, 380-81 (6th Cir. 2022)). In accordance with this principle, the district court had ordered Coda to answer an interrogatory calling for “a complete list of trade secrets (with particularity).” Id. at 1356. The district court ultimately concluded that the purported trade secrets that resulted—and which formed the basis of the jury’s verdict—were not sufficiently definite, and the appellate court agreed.
One of the claimed trade secrets, “Coda’s design and development of a multipurpose interface for transporting air in a self-inflating tire,”2 was just a list of “functions…described in vague terms with no detail regarding how those functions are carried out.” Id. at 1357. Two others were “no more than an undifferentiated components,” with “no disclosure of what [the claimed] knowledge is and/or what the design or development is.” Id.; see id. at 1353. And a fourth failed because the plaintiff failed to identify it “with sufficient specificity to ‘separate the purported trade secret from the other information that was known in the trade,” including information disclosed in a patent application and a journal article. Id. at 1356 (quoting TLS Mgmt. & Mktg. Servs., LLC v. Rodriguez-Toledo, 966 F.3d 46, 54 (1st Cir. 2020)).
The Goodyear case is the latest in a string of recent reminders of the importance of adequately identifying trade secrets before trial. See, e.g., Medidata Solution, Inc. v. Veeva Sys., Inc., No. 17-589, 2022 WL 585734 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 25, 2022) (precluding evidence at trial when trade secrets not adequately described); Zunum Aero, Inc. v. Boeing Co., No. 21-896, 2024 WL 3822780 (W.D. Wash. Aug. 14, 2024) (same).
This article is available in the Jenner & Block Japan Newsletter. / この記事はJenner & Blockニュースレターに掲載されています。
One of the claimed trade secrets, “Coda’s design and development of a multipurpose interface for transporting air in a self-inflating tire,”2 was just a list of “functions…described in vague terms with no detail regarding how those functions are carried out.” Id. at 1357. Two others were “no more than an undifferentiated components,” with “no disclosure of what [the claimed] knowledge is and/or what the design or development is.” Id.; see id. at 1353. And a fourth failed because the plaintiff failed to identify it “with sufficient specificity to ‘separate the purported trade secret from the other information that was known in the trade,” including information disclosed in a patent application and a journal article. Id. at 1356 (quoting TLS Mgmt. & Mktg. Servs., LLC v. Rodriguez-Toledo, 966 F.3d 46, 54 (1st Cir. 2020)).
The Goodyear case is the latest in a string of recent reminders of the importance of adequately identifying trade secrets before trial. See, e.g., Medidata Solution, Inc. v. Veeva Sys., Inc., No. 17-589, 2022 WL 585734 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 25, 2022) (precluding evidence at trial when trade secrets not adequately described); Zunum Aero, Inc. v. Boeing Co., No. 21-896, 2024 WL 3822780 (W.D. Wash. Aug. 14, 2024) (same).
This article is available in the Jenner & Block Japan Newsletter. / この記事はJenner & Blockニュースレターに掲載されています。
[1] In addition to finding that four of the five alleged trade secrets at issue were not sufficiently definite, the court held that four were not “secret,” four had never been used or disclosed by Goodyear, and two were never conveyed by Coda to Goodyear.
[2] The full identification was “Coda's design and development of a multipurpose interface for transporting air in a self-inflating tire that can connect to the air source, connect to the tire interior, connect to the peristaltic pump, serve as an end to the peristaltic pump, connect to the regulator, carry the regulator, go around or through the bead, go around or through the tire layers, click to the bead and hold the filter.” 160 F. 4th at 1353.
Footnotes
[1] In addition to finding that four of the five alleged trade secrets at issue were not sufficiently definite, the court held that four were not “secret,” four had never been used or disclosed by Goodyear, and two were never conveyed by Coda to Goodyear.
[2] The full identification was “Coda's design and development of a multipurpose interface for transporting air in a self-inflating tire that can connect to the air source, connect to the tire interior, connect to the peristaltic pump, serve as an end to the peristaltic pump, connect to the regulator, carry the regulator, go around or through the bead, go around or through the tire layers, click to the bead and hold the filter.” 160 F. 4th at 1353.
Related Articles
Related Capabilities
© 2026 Jenner & Block LLP. Attorney Advertising. Jenner & Block LLP is an Illinois Limited Liability Partnership including professional corporations. This publication, presentation, or event is not intended to provide legal advice but to provide information on legal matters and/or firm news of interest to our clients and colleagues. Readers or attendees should seek specific legal advice before taking any action with respect to matters mentioned in this publication or at this event. The attorney responsible for this communication is Brent E. Kidwell, Jenner & Block LLP, 353 N. Clark Street, Chicago, IL 60654-3456. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Jenner & Block London LLP, an affiliate of Jenner & Block LLP, is a limited liability partnership established under the laws of the State of Delaware, USA and is authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority with SRA number 615729. Information regarding the data we collect and the rights you have over your data can be found in our Privacy Notice. For further inquiries, please contact dataprotection@jenner.com.
News and Insights
Publications
Emily Loeb Discusses Congressional Oversight Preparedness in Bloomberg Law
Partner Emily Loeb, co-chair of Jenner & Block's Congressional Investigations Practice, spoke with Bloomberg Law article about how companies can prepare for potential oversight exposure ahead of this fall's midterm elections.
July 7, 2026
Publications
In New York Law Journal, The True Lender Doctrine and the OppFi Decision
Partners Jeremy Creelan, Michael Ross, Megan Poetzel, and Laurel Loomis Rimon, and Associate Molly Oberstein-Allen authored an article for the New York Law Journal examining the "True Lender" doctrine in light of a May 2026 California decision that provides the most detailed judicial framework to date for evaluating bank-nonbank lending partnerships.
July 1, 2026
Event
Partner Michael Vernick to Speak at NACUA's 2026 Annual Conference
On July 1, Partner Michael Vernick will speak on a panel at the National Association of College and University Attorneys (NACUA) 2026 Annual Conference in Nashville.
July 1, 2026
Publications
In Employee Relations Law Journal: What Happens When ERISA Disability Deadlines Slip
Partner Joseph Torres along with Associates Emma O'Connor and Christopher LeWarne, authored an article for the Employee Relations Law Journal analyzing a significant Fourth Circuit decision with substantial consequences for ERISA disability plan administrators.
June 23, 2026