Bridgestone Americas v. Speedways Tyres — Dismissed With Prejudice After 727 Days
Bridgestone Americas brought a three-patent infringement action against Speedways Tyres and six related entities in Texas Northern District Court, targeting the Agristorm nD2 tire. After nearly two years of litigation, the case concluded with a dismissal with prejudice — closing the door on Bridgestone refiling the same claims against any of the named defendants.
Multi-defendant tire patent action ends with prejudicial dismissal in Texas
On 25 February 2022, Bridgestone Americas, Inc. — one of the world’s largest tire manufacturers — filed a patent infringement action in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, before Chief Judge Mark Pittman. The complaint named Speedways Tyres Limited as the primary defendant, alongside six co-defendants including Route 66 Tire and Rubber, LLC, Speedways Rubber Co Limited, SWT Americas, LLC, SWT North American Operations, LLC, Speedwaystyres SWT Global Sales, LLC, and American Tire Distributors, Inc. Three patents were asserted: US9873291B2, US4935373A, and US4013251A, all directed to tire technology. The accused product was the Agristorm nD2 tire.
The case closed on 22 February 2024 — almost exactly two years after it was filed — through a two-track conclusion. The Court issued an order dismissing Bridgestone’s claims against the SWT-affiliated defendants (ECF No. 189), while a Joint Stipulation of Dismissal (ECF No. 188) resolved claims against the remaining defendants. The final judgment, entered pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58, dismissed the entire action with prejudice. A dismissal with prejudice is a final adjudication on the merits: Bridgestone is barred from bringing the same patent claims against the same defendants in any future proceeding.
The 727-day duration and dual-track resolution mechanism — a court-ordered dismissal combined with a party-stipulated dismissal — are consistent with a negotiated resolution reached after substantial litigation activity, though the specific terms of any underlying agreement remain confidential. The involvement of a major U.S. distributor, American Tire Distributors, as a co-defendant suggests Bridgestone pursued an expansive enforcement strategy targeting the full supply and distribution chain. What drove the parties toward final dismissal rather than a court verdict — whether licensing, commercial settlement, or another arrangement — is not disclosed in the public record.
Filing to dismissal in 727 days
727 days — nearly two years from filing to final dismissal order
What the with-prejudice dismissal means for Bridgestone and Speedways
Two-track dismissal: court order plus joint stipulation
The case ended through two simultaneous instruments. The Court’s own order (ECF No. 189) dismissed claims against the SWT-affiliated defendants, while a Joint Stipulation of Dismissal (ECF No. 188) — filed by the parties together — resolved claims against the remainder. Both tracks converged in a single Rule 58 final judgment. This dual mechanism suggests different resolution dynamics may have applied to different defendant groups within the same proceedings.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 58 final judgmentDismissed with prejudice: Bridgestone cannot refile these claims
A dismissal with prejudice is treated as a decision on the merits. Bridgestone Americas is legally precluded from bringing the same patent infringement claims — under US9873291B2, US4935373A, and US4013251A — against the same defendants in any future action. This is the most final form of dismissal available and forecloses the same litigation pathway for Bridgestone. Defendants gain certainty, though patent claims can still be asserted against different parties or different accused products in separate proceedings.
Res judicata bar appliesFull supply chain targeted: manufacturer to distributor
Bridgestone’s complaint named seven defendants spanning the full commercial chain — from the overseas tire manufacturer (Speedways Tyres Limited, Speedways Rubber Co Limited) through U.S. distribution entities (SWT Americas, SWT North American Operations, Speedwaystyres SWT Global Sales, Route 66 Tire and Rubber) to a major national distributor (American Tire Distributors, Inc.). This approach is consistent with patent enforcement strategies designed to maximise commercial pressure and cut off all U.S. market access for the accused Agristorm nD2 tire.
7-defendant enforcement sweepConfidential terms likely underlie the public dismissal
Dismissals with prejudice in multi-defendant patent cases — particularly those resolved through joint stipulations — frequently reflect privately negotiated licensing or settlement agreements, the terms of which are not disclosed in the court record. The coordinated timing of ECF No. 188 and ECF No. 189 suggests the parties moved toward resolution simultaneously across defendant groups. Whether the Agristorm nD2 tire remains in the U.S. market, and under what conditions, is not determinable from public filings alone.
Settlement terms undisclosedFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Bridgestone Americas, Inc. | Company | Global tire manufacturer — holder of US9873291B2, US4935373A, and US4013251ASearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Speedways Tyres Limited | Company | Speedways Tyres Limited and six related Speedways/SWT entities plus American Tire DistributorsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Bryan J. Jaketic | Attorney | Counsel for Bridgestone Americas, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Jonathan R. Mureen | Attorney | Counsel for Bridgestone Americas, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Michael P. Gonzalez | Attorney | Counsel for Bridgestone Americas, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Michael S. Forshey | Attorney | Counsel for Bridgestone Americas, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Steven M. Auvil | Attorney | Counsel for Bridgestone Americas, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Woli Urbe | Attorney | Counsel for Bridgestone Americas, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Thomas F. Harkins | Attorney | Counsel for Speedways Tyres LimitedSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Mark Pittman | Chief Judge | Texas Northern District Court — Chief JudgeSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Stipulation of dismissal — official text
The final judgment text reveals a coordinated dual-instrument resolution: the SWT entities were dismissed by court order (ECF No. 189) while remaining defendants exited via joint stipulation (ECF No. 188). The with-prejudice characterisation applies across all defendants and all three asserted patents. This language bars Bridgestone from relitigating the same infringement claims against the same parties — a complete termination of this enforcement action. The absence of any damages award or injunction language in the public order is consistent with a privately settled or licensed resolution, though this cannot be confirmed from the record alone.
US9873291B2, US4935373A & US4013251A — Tire Technology Patents
The three patents asserted by Bridgestone Americas span a notable temporal range. US4013251A (application US05/634677) and US4935373A (application US07/294908) are significantly older grants, suggesting Bridgestone’s claim is rooted in foundational tire construction or compound technology with long-established scope. US9873291B2 (application US15/460261) is a more recent grant and may represent updated design or structural innovations in tire architecture. Together, they define a layered IP perimeter around the technology embodied in, or competing with, Bridgestone’s agricultural tire products — directly targeting the Agristorm nD2 tire offered by the Speedways group.
For the agricultural and commercial tire sector, a plaintiff holding patents spanning multiple decades of filing history creates a particularly challenging design-around landscape. Older claims, if still valid, may read on broad structural principles, while newer grants can capture specific modern implementations. Any competitor developing or importing tires into the U.S. market that overlap in category with Bridgestone’s agricultural range — including off-road, agri, or OTR tires — should treat this three-patent cluster as a live risk signal, irrespective of the dismissal outcome in this specific case.
Should you run an FTO against US9873291B2, US4935373A, and US4013251A?
Any tire manufacturer, importer, or distributor operating in the U.S. agricultural, off-road, or commercial tire market should assess exposure to all three Bridgestone patents named in this action. The fact that Bridgestone pursued a seven-defendant enforcement sweep — including distributors — signals an aggressive enforcement posture. A freedom-to-operate analysis is especially urgent for companies considering launching competing agricultural tire lines or expanding distribution of non-OEM agricultural tires into the U.S. market.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent allows R&D and IP teams to map product designs against the full claims scope of US9873291B2, US4935373A, and US4013251A simultaneously — identifying overlap, design-around opportunities, and potential invalidity arguments. Claim monitoring alerts can notify your team if Bridgestone files continuations or divisional applications that extend protection from the same patent families, keeping your competitive strategy current as the IP landscape evolves.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US4013251A to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar tire patent infringement cases in U.S. district courts
PatSnap Eureka tracks related litigation across truck body equipment, vehicle accessories, and comparable infringement actions in the Georgia district system.
What this case signals for the tire and agricultural tire IP landscape
A major OEM enforcing three patents simultaneously against a full distribution chain signals heightened IP risk for import-reliant tire competitors in the U.S. market.
Multi-patent enforcement is standard practice for large tire OEMs
Bridgestone asserted three patents in a single action rather than relying on a single claim — a common strategy to increase litigation leverage, complicate invalidity challenges, and demonstrate a broad IP perimeter around the technology. Companies operating in the agricultural tire space should audit their designs against layered patent portfolios, not just individual blocking patents.
Distributor co-defendants face significant exposure in OEM patent actions
The inclusion of American Tire Distributors — a national distribution intermediary — as a co-defendant illustrates that patent holders routinely name downstream parties to maximise pressure and reach U.S.-based assets. Distributors importing or stocking tires from non-OEM manufacturers should contractually ensure upstream indemnification is in place before agreeing to carry competing products.
Bridgestone v Speedways — key questions answered
The case was dismissed with prejudice. The final judgment, entered by the Northern District of Texas under Fed. R. Civ. P. 58, dismissed all claims against all defendants with prejudice — meaning Bridgestone Americas cannot refile the same patent infringement claims against the same defendants in future proceedings.
Bridgestone asserted three patents: US9873291B2, US4935373A, and US4013251A. All three are directed to tire technology and were asserted against the Speedways Tyres group and co-defendants in connection with the Agristorm nD2 tire product.
The seven defendants were: Speedways Tyres Limited, Speedways Rubber Co Limited, Speedwaystyres SWT Global Sales LLC, Route 66 Tire and Rubber LLC, SWT Americas LLC, SWT North American Operations LLC, and American Tire Distributors Inc. The inclusion of American Tire Distributors indicates Bridgestone pursued the full U.S. distribution chain.
The accused product was the Agristorm nD2 tire, an agricultural tire offered by the Speedways Tyres group. Bridgestone alleged that this product infringed its three asserted tire technology patents.
The case ran for 727 days, from filing on 25 February 2022 to closure on 22 February 2024. It was resolved through a dual mechanism: a court order dismissing claims against the SWT-affiliated defendants and a joint stipulation of dismissal for the remaining parties, both resulting in a dismissal with prejudice under Fed. R. Civ. P. 58.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.