営業秘密の特定不十分を理由に、Goodyear社に対する6,400万ドル評決が破棄

2022年、オハイオ州の陪審員は、セルフインフレーションタイヤ(自動空気圧管理式タイヤ)に関連する5件の営業秘密を不正使用したとして、Goodyear社に責任があると認定し、原告Coda Development社に対し、補償的損害賠償として280万ドル、懲罰的損害賠償として6,120万ドル、合計約6,400万ドルの評決を下した。Coda Dev. s.r.o. v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 160 F.4th 1350, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2025) しかし、第1審裁判所は、Coda社が営業秘密を十分に特定できていなかったことなどを理由に、この評決を破棄し、Goodyear社勝訴の判断を下した。連邦巡回控訴裁判所は、この判断を控訴審において維持した。

オハイオ州法の下で営業秘密侵害を主張する原告は、他の多くの管轄と同様に、「裁判所が保護要件を適用し、かつ、不正使用の有無を判断できる程度に、保護を求める情報を十分に特定する」必要がある(Caudill Seed & Warehouse Co. v. Jar-row Formulas, Inc., 53 F.4th 368, 380–81 (6th Cir. 2022) 引用)。この原則に基づき、第2審裁判所は、Coda社に対し、「具体性をもって、営業秘密の完全な一覧」を示すよう求めるInterrogatory(質問書)への回答を命じていた。しかし、裁判所は、最終的に提出された主張上の営業秘密(そして陪審評決の基礎となった内容)はいずれも十分な特定性を欠いていると判断し、連邦巡回控訴裁判所もこれに同意した。

不正使用が主張された営業秘密のひとつである「セルフインフレーションタイヤにおける空気輸送のための多目的インターフェースに関するCoda社の設計および開発」は、「機能の列挙にとどまり、それらの機能がどのように実現されているのかについての具体的説明を欠いていた」とされた。他の2件についても、「差別化されていない構成要素の集合にすぎず、主張される知識の内容や設計・開発の具体像が示されていなかった」とされた。さらに、4件目については、特許出願や学術論文で開示されていた情報を含む「業界で既知の情報と区別できる程度の特定」がなされていなかったことから、営業秘密としての要件を満たさない、と判断された(TLS Mgmt. & Mktg. Servs., LLC v. Rodriguez-Toledo, 966 F.3d 46, 54 (1st Cir. 2020) 引用)。

本Goodyear事件は、訴訟に先立ち、営業秘密を十分かつ具体的に特定することの重要性を改めて示す最近の一連の裁判例のひとつである。他の同様の裁判例としては、Medidata Solutions, Inc. v. Veeva Systems, Inc., No. 17-589, 2022 WL 585734 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 25, 2022)や、Zunum Aero, Inc. v. Boeing Co., No. 21-896, 2024 WL 3822780 (W.D. Wash. Aug. 14, 2024)などが挙げられる。

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.

© 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.

営業秘密の特定不十分を理由に、Goodyear社に対する6,400万ドル評決が破棄

2022年、オハイオ州の陪審員は、セルフインフレーションタイヤ(自動空気圧管理式タイヤ)に関連する5件の営業秘密を不正使用したとして、Goodyear社に責任があると認定し、原告Coda Development社に対し、補償的損害賠償として280万ドル、懲罰的損害賠償として6,120万ドル、合計約6,400万ドルの評決を下した。Coda Dev. s.r.o. v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 160 F.4th 1350, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2025) しかし、第1審裁判所は、Coda社が営業秘密を十分に特定できていなかったことなどを理由に、この評決を破棄し、Goodyear社勝訴の判断を下した。連邦巡回控訴裁判所は、この判断を控訴審において維持した。

オハイオ州法の下で営業秘密侵害を主張する原告は、他の多くの管轄と同様に、「裁判所が保護要件を適用し、かつ、不正使用の有無を判断できる程度に、保護を求める情報を十分に特定する」必要がある(Caudill Seed & Warehouse Co. v. Jar-row Formulas, Inc., 53 F.4th 368, 380–81 (6th Cir. 2022) 引用)。この原則に基づき、第2審裁判所は、Coda社に対し、「具体性をもって、営業秘密の完全な一覧」を示すよう求めるInterrogatory(質問書)への回答を命じていた。しかし、裁判所は、最終的に提出された主張上の営業秘密(そして陪審評決の基礎となった内容)はいずれも十分な特定性を欠いていると判断し、連邦巡回控訴裁判所もこれに同意した。

不正使用が主張された営業秘密のひとつである「セルフインフレーションタイヤにおける空気輸送のための多目的インターフェースに関するCoda社の設計および開発」は、「機能の列挙にとどまり、それらの機能がどのように実現されているのかについての具体的説明を欠いていた」とされた。他の2件についても、「差別化されていない構成要素の集合にすぎず、主張される知識の内容や設計・開発の具体像が示されていなかった」とされた。さらに、4件目については、特許出願や学術論文で開示されていた情報を含む「業界で既知の情報と区別できる程度の特定」がなされていなかったことから、営業秘密としての要件を満たさない、と判断された(TLS Mgmt. & Mktg. Servs., LLC v. Rodriguez-Toledo, 966 F.3d 46, 54 (1st Cir. 2020) 引用)。

本Goodyear事件は、訴訟に先立ち、営業秘密を十分かつ具体的に特定することの重要性を改めて示す最近の一連の裁判例のひとつである。他の同様の裁判例としては、Medidata Solutions, Inc. v. Veeva Systems, Inc., No. 17-589, 2022 WL 585734 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 25, 2022)や、Zunum Aero, Inc. v. Boeing Co., No. 21-896, 2024 WL 3822780 (W.D. Wash. Aug. 14, 2024)などが挙げられる。

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.

© 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.

ニュース

Event

Amanda Shafer Berman to Speak on Energy and Administrative Law at WEN-DC Webinar

As the Supreme Court's new Term begins, Jenner & Block Partner Amanda Shafer Berman will join a Women's Energy Network of Washington, DC (WEN-DC) webinar on how the Court's decisions are shaping the energy sector.

October 14, 2026

Publications

Partner Amanda Shafer Berman Quoted in Bloomberg Law on Senate Permitting Overhaul Bill

Partner Amanda Shafer Berman was quoted in an October 5 Bloomberg Law article, "Permitting Deal Gives Projects Defense Against Litigation Delays," on the Senate's new permitting overhaul package and its expected impact on litigation over federal permitting reversals.

October 2026

Event

Partner John Storino to Speak at Sandpiper Partners' “AI and Outside Counsel Guidelines Roundtable”

On October 8, Partner John Storino will serve as a panelist at the “AI and Outside Counsel Guidelines Roundtable,” hosted by Sandpiper Partners in Chicago.

October 8, 2026

Event

Partner Meghan Greenfield to Speak on Supreme Court Climate Case at Edison Electric Institute's Fall Legal Conference

On Wednesday, October 7, Partner Meghan Greenfield will speak on a panel titled "Boulder County v. Suncor Energy: What the Supreme Court's Climate Case Means for the Energy Industry" at the Edison Electric Institute's Fall Legal Conference in Salt Lake City, Utah.

October 7, 2026

Publications

The Form Rules Everything: A Seventh Circuit Ruling on ERISA's Substantial Compliance Doctrine

Partner Joseph Torres and Special Counsel Jennifer Beach authored an article for Employee Relations Law Journal examining the Seventh Circuit's decision in Packaging Corp. of America Thrift Plan for Hourly Employees v. Langdon, a ruling that addresses both the standard of review in ERISA interpleader actions and the continued viability of the substantial compliance doctrine for changing plan beneficiaries.

October 5, 2026