Book a demo
Atturo Tire v. Toyo Tire: Tire Tread Design Patent Appeal | PatSnap
Explore in Eureka
Case ID22-1892
FiledJun 2022
ClosedOct 2024
Patent Litigation

Atturo Tire v. Toyo Tire: Federal Circuit Splits the Difference on Tire Design Patent

Atturo Tire Corp. brought design patent infringement claims against Toyo Tire Corp. and Toyo Tire USA Corp. over tire tread design patent USD626913S. After 844 days before the Federal Circuit, the court issued a mixed ruling — affirming some claims, reversing others, and dismissing a portion of the appeal outright.

Resolution time
844days
844-day appeal — above the Federal Circuit median for design patent cases
Patents asserted
1
USD626913S — ornamental tire tread design patent
Outcome
Appeal Dismissed in Part
Affirmed-in-part, reversed-in-part, dismissed-in-part — split outcome across claim scope
Cost ruling
Not Specified
Cost and fee allocation not disclosed in public record
Published by PatSnap Insights Team · Verified by PatSnap Eureka Data
Case overview

A Federal Circuit split verdict reshapes Atturo’s design patent position

Atturo Tire Corp. filed this appeal on June 13, 2022, challenging prior proceedings concerning its tire tread design patent USD626913S — a design patent protecting the ornamental appearance of a tire tread pattern. The defendants, Toyo Tire Corp. and its U.S. subsidiary Toyo Tire USA Corp., were represented by Foley & Lardner LLP, while Atturo was represented by Akerman LLP. The case originated as an infringement action, with Atturo asserting that Toyo’s tire products copied the protected design.

The Federal Circuit closed the case on October 4, 2024, issuing a verdict of affirmed-in-part, reversed-in-part, and dismissed-in-part. This three-way disposition is procedurally significant: the affirmance portion validates some aspects of the lower tribunal’s reasoning; the reversal signals the appellate court found legal error on at least one discrete issue; and the partial dismissal suggests one or more issues were not properly before the court on appeal.

The 844-day duration of this Federal Circuit appeal is consistent with complex design patent disputes that raise claim construction and substantial similarity questions. The mixed outcome suggests neither party achieved a clean appellate win, which may leave open questions around damages, injunctive relief scope, or remand proceedings. The public record does not disclose the precise grounds for each component of the split ruling, leaving the full commercial impact partially indeterminate.

Case at a glance
Case no.22-1892
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
JudgeN/A
FiledJune 13, 2022
ClosedOctober 4, 2024
Duration844 days
OutcomeAppeal Dismissed in Part
Verdict causeInfringement Action
BasisAppeal Dismissed in Part
Prior Art Intelligence
See what prior art exists on this patent.
Eureka scans millions of patents and papers to surface prior art that may have invalidated these claims before costly litigation begins.
Check Prior Art
Case data sourced from PACER / Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit via PatSnap Eureka Litigation Intelligence Explore similar cases ↗
Case timeline

Filing to Appeal Dismissed in Part in 844 days

844-day appeal — above the Federal Circuit median for design patent cases

Case timeline: Appeal filed JUN 13 2022, AUG–SEP — 844 days total Horizontal timeline showing the three key events in Atturo Tire Corp. v Toyo Tire, Corp. from filing to resolution. Source: PACER, Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. JUN 13 2022 Appeal filed Pre-trial proceedings OCT 4 2024 Appeal Dismissed in Part 844 DAYS TOTAL
Court ruling

Federal Circuit’s split verdict: what each part of the ruling means

Legal mechanism

What affirmed-in-part, reversed-in-part, dismissed-in-part means

A split Federal Circuit disposition is relatively uncommon and signals that the court found the lower decision correct on some issues, legally erroneous on others, and that certain issues were procedurally barred from appellate review. Each component carries independent legal weight — the reversal in particular indicates the appellate court identified a specific error warranting a different outcome on at least one claim or issue.

Mixed appellate disposition
Patent holder outcome

Atturo wins some ground — and loses some

The partial affirmance preserves Atturo’s position on the issues upheld below, maintaining enforceability of USD626913S on those grounds. However, the reversal component means Atturo failed on at least one significant issue before the Federal Circuit — potentially affecting infringement findings, claim scope, or damages. The dismissed portion suggests Atturo may have pressed arguments the court found procedurally improper, which typically cannot be re-raised.

Partial win — enforceability maintained in part
Challenger outcome

Toyo secures a reversal — but not a clean victory

Toyo Tire’s reversal on at least one issue represents a meaningful appellate success, potentially reducing liability exposure or narrowing the scope of any infringement finding. The partial affirmance, however, means Toyo did not escape the dispute entirely. The dismissed portion may have reflected Toyo’s procedural arguments or Atturo’s overreach, but without merits adjudication on that component, Toyo’s protection is limited to affirmed and reversed issues only.

Partial reversal — liability potentially reduced
Commercial implications

Design patent enforcement in tire markets remains contested

This mixed ruling suggests the Federal Circuit views tire tread design patent disputes with nuance, declining to grant wholesale affirmance or reversal. For tire manufacturers and aftermarket suppliers, the case signals that ornamental tread design patents can sustain infringement claims through appeal — but that overbroad enforcement attempts risk partial reversal. Competitors should treat USD626913S as an active enforcement asset with defined — though not fully public — scope.

Design IP risk — tire sector
Legal analysis based on PACER docket records for case 22-1892 and PatSnap Eureka litigation intelligence Search PatSnap Eureka ↗
Parties and representation

Full party and counsel information

RoleNameTypeDetail
PlaintiffAtturo Tire Corp.CompanyTire manufacturer and design patent holder — holder of USD626913SSearch in Eureka ↗
DefendantToyo Tire, Corp.CompanyToyo Tire Corp. and U.S. subsidiary Toyo Tire USA Corp., global tire manufacturersSearch in Eureka ↗
Co-DefendantToyo Tire USA, Corp.CompanySearch in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselBrian Bianco PartnerAttorneyCounsel for Atturo Tire Corp.Search in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff law firmAkerman LLPLaw FirmRepresenting Atturo Tire Corp.Search in Eureka ↗
Defendant counselKimberly K. Dodd.AttorneyCounsel for Toyo Tire, Corp.Search in Eureka ↗
Defendant law firmFoley & Lardner, LLPLaw FirmRepresenting Toyo Tire, Corp.Search in Eureka ↗
Presiding judgeJudge N/AJudgeCourt of Appeals for the Federal CircuitSearch in Eureka ↗
Official verdict

Official order — verbatim text

“AFFIRMED-IN-PART, REVERSED-IN-PART, AND DISMISSED-IN-PART”
Source: PACER Docket, Case 22-1892, Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

The Federal Circuit’s three-part disposition — affirmed-in-part, reversed-in-part, dismissed-in-part — reflects granular appellate review across distinct issues rather than a single up-or-down merits ruling. On appeal, the Federal Circuit reviews legal questions de novo and factual findings for clear error. The reversal component indicates the court identified at least one legal error in the proceedings below, while the dismissal of a portion suggests one or more issues lacked proper appellate jurisdiction or were inadequately preserved. The net effect is a remand-likely posture on the reversed issue.

PACER case 22-1892 · Public docket record Explore in Eureka ↗
Patent at issue

USD626913S — Ornamental Tire Tread Design Patent

Publication No.USD0626913S
Application No.US29/334700
Patent details
ProductOrnamental design for a tire tread pattern
Cited in actionJune 13, 2022

USD626913S is a U.S. design patent protecting the ornamental appearance of a tire tread pattern, filed under application number US29/334700. Design patents under 35 U.S.C. §171 protect the visual, non-functional characteristics of an article of manufacture — here, the surface geometry and aesthetic configuration of a tire tread. Unlike utility patents, infringement is assessed under the ‘ordinary observer’ test: whether an ordinary observer would find the accused design substantially similar to the patented design.

For the tire sector, tread design patents represent a meaningful but often underestimated IP layer. Manufacturers differentiate on tread aesthetics alongside performance, making ornamental design rights commercially significant — particularly in aftermarket and off-road tire segments where visual identity drives purchasing. USD626913S’s survival through Federal Circuit appeal, even in partial form, reinforces that Atturo views this asset as central to its competitive positioning against larger global manufacturers including Toyo.

Patent data sourced from USPTO via PatSnap Eureka patent database Search patent records in Eureka ↗
Freedom to operate

Should your team run an FTO check against USD626913S?

Any tire manufacturer, private-label distributor, or aftermarket supplier commercialising tread designs with visual similarities to Atturo’s patented pattern should treat USD626913S as an active enforcement risk. The Federal Circuit’s partial affirmance confirms the patent’s enforceability in at least some respects. R&D teams designing new tread patterns — particularly in the all-terrain and light truck tire segments — should validate clearance before tooling investment.

PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent allows IP and product teams to run rapid freedom-to-operate searches against USD626913S and related design patent families. Eureka surfaces visually and structurally similar design patents, identifies claim scope, and flags active enforcement history — giving you the intelligence needed to make go/no-go decisions on new tread design programmes before they reach market.

PatSnap Eureka FTO Search

Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on USD0626913S to assess your product’s exposure

Run FTO in Eureka →
Related litigation

Similar Federal Circuit tire design patent infringement appeals

Cases involving ornamental tire tread design patent enforcement at the Federal Circuit, including substantial similarity disputes and mixed appellate dispositions.

🔍
Access 40+ similar cases in PatSnap Eureka
Atturo Tire Corp. patent enforcement history, Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit case history, Atturo Tire Corp.’s full IP portfolio, and comparable case analysis
Similar tread design casesFederal Circuit design IP appealsToyo Tire litigation historyAtturo IP enforcement record
Unlock similar cases in Eureka →
Strategic implications

What this case signals for the tire design patent IP landscape

A split Federal Circuit ruling in a tire tread design case has layered consequences for enforcement strategy and competitor risk management.

Design patents on tire treads survive Federal Circuit scrutiny

The partial affirmance confirms that ornamental tread design patents like USD626913S can withstand appellate challenge. Tire manufacturers developing new tread patterns should treat registered design patents as credible enforcement tools — and conduct FTO analysis accordingly before commercialising new tread designs.

Mixed verdicts signal over-litigation risk for patent holders

Atturo’s failure to secure a full affirmance — with one portion reversed and another dismissed — suggests the original enforcement posture may have overreached. Design patent holders in manufacturing sectors should scope infringement claims tightly to avoid creating reversal surface area on appeal.

🔒
Full strategic analysis in PatSnap Eureka
Unlock full strategic analysis of this Federal Circuit tire design patent split ruling and its impact on enforcement risk.
Remand proceedings riskClaim scope after reversalDesign patent FTO strategy
Unlock full analysis →
Analysis powered by PatSnap Eureka Litigation Intelligence Explore in Eureka ↗
Frequently asked questions

Atturo v Toyo — key questions answered

Still have questions? PatSnap Eureka can answer them instantly from patent and litigation data. Ask Eureka ↗
PatSnap Eureka

Monitor tire design patent enforcement before your next tread programme

USD626913S remains enforceable following this Federal Circuit ruling. Run an FTO search and set litigation alerts for Atturo Tire’s design patent portfolio to protect your R&D investment before new tread designs reach market.

Ask anything about this case.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.
Powered by PatSnap Eureka
Link copied to clipboard

Help us improve this page

Found incorrect or outdated information? Let us know and we'll get it fixed.