Book a demo

Cut patent&paper research from weeks to hours with PatSnap Eureka AI!

Try now
Coda Development SRO et al. v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber et al. | Patent Lawsuit 5:15-cv-01572

Coda Development SRO et al. v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company et al.

5:15-cv-01572 N.D. Ohio Closed 13 patents
Get a prior-art report

Infringement action filed 9 Aug 2015 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio and closed 31 Mar 2023, with 13 patents asserted. Recorded basis of termination: judgment on the merits for defendant.

Case recordPatsnap Litigation Data·

Case record

Case no.
5:15-cv-01572
Verdict cause
Infringement action
Court
N.D. Ohio
Court level
District Court
Case region
Ohio
Chief judge
Sara Lioi
Trial level
First instance
Filed – Closed
9 Aug 2015 – 31 Mar 2023
Duration
2791 days
Basis of termination
Judgment on the merits for Defendant
Products & marks
Air maintenance pumping assembly and tire · Air maintenance pumping tube and tire assembly · Device for monitoring maintenance and adjustment of pressure in a tire · Filter for a pneumatic tire · In-line pumping assembly for self-inflating tire · Method of manufacturing a self-inflating tire · Self-inflating tire · Self-inflating tire and pressure regulator · Self-inflating tire assembly · Tire for self-inflating tire system
Source: Patsnap Litigation Data. Case 5:15-cv-01572, United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio. Open this record in Eureka
Patsnap Eureka

Check this patent against your own product

Prior art, claim scope, infringement exposure and design-around routes. Every answer cites the records behind it.

Get an FTO claim chart
10,000 free credits to start
Patent at issue
US8381784B2 Active App. US13/178767

Air maintenance pumping assembly and tire

A groove is positioned within the bending region of the first tire sidewall and deforms segment by segment within the rolling tire footprint. An air tube positioned within the sidewall groove is in contacting engagement with groove sidewalls and resiliently squeezes and collapses segment by segment as the groove constricts segment by segment within the rolling tire footprint. A series of adjacent projecting ridges extend from a groove sidewall segment into the groove air passageway, the projecting ridges operatively positioned to vary the applied pressure on the air tube increase the air pressure within the air tube passageway as the air tube rolls segment by segment with the tire through tire footprint. The series of projecting ridges are constructed having a variable amplitude and/or spacing frequency in a direction of air flow within the air passageway to increase the pressure applied to the air tube and air pressure of the air flowing through the tube passageway.

Read claims and description in Eureka
Patent standing
Legal status
Active
Granted
26 Feb 2013
Est. expiry
19 Jul 2031
Validity challenges
None recorded
Licences recorded
None recorded
Classification
B60C23/12
Examiner
KOTTER, KIP T
US8381784B2 patent drawing, figure 1
Fig. 1
US8381784B2 patent drawing, figure 2
Fig. 2
US8857484B2 Active App. US13/221231

Self-inflating tire

A self-inflating tire assembly includes an air tube connected to a tire and defining an air passageway, the air tube being composed of a flexible material operative to allow an air tube segment opposite a tire footprint to flatten, closing the passageway, and resiliently unflatten into an original configuration. The air tube is sequentially flattened by the tire footprint in a direction opposite to a tire direction of rotation to pump air along the passageway to an inlet device for exhaust from the passageway or to an outlet device for direction into the tire cavity. The inlet device is positioned within the annular passageway 180 degrees opposite the outlet device such that sequential flattening of the air tube by the tire footprint effects pumping of air along the air passageway with the tire rotating in either a forward or reverse direction of rotation. The invention further includes an inlet device for regulating the inlet flow of the air tube pump.

Read claims and description in Eureka
Patent standing
Legal status
Active
Granted
14 Oct 2014
Est. expiry
30 Aug 2031
Validity challenges
None recorded
Licences recorded
None recorded
Classification
B60C23/12
Examiner
BELLINGER, JASON
US8857484B2 patent drawing, figure 1
Fig. 1
US8857484B2 patent drawing, figure 2
Fig. 2
Source: Patsnap patent data + case record. Bibliographic fields and drawings reproduced from the published patent document. Break down the claims
Parties & counsel

Parties of record

Plaintiff

Coda Development SRO

Core tech
Not recorded
Counsel
Abdulrahman Althebaity · Alexander B. Reich · Boyd T. Cloern · David H. Kwasniewski · Dwight J. Draughon · Emily K. Anglewicz · Erica L. Fruiterman · J. Michael Wilson · James R. Nuttall · Jeremy S. Goldkind · Jessica A. Lopez · John M. Caracappa · Joseph F. Ecker · Julie C. Amadeo · Kassandra M. Officer · Katherine D. Cappaert · Kevin M. Pasquinelli · Leah M. Quadrino · Lindsey E. Sacher · Michael E. Flynn-O’Brien · Michael Simons · Mitchell G. Blair · Paul J. Zoeller · Ronald S. Kopp · Scott M. Richey · Stacie R. Hartman · Stephen W. Funk · Steven C. Carlson · Timothy P. McAnulty · Tracy Scott Johnson · William F. Abrams
Firm
Bunsow De Mory, Calfee, Halter & Griswold LLP (Cleveland), Finnegan LLP, Finnegan Henderson Farabow Garrett & Dunner – Washington, Kalish Law, Kasowitz, Benson, Torres, Kasowitz, Benson, Torres & Friedman – Houston, Kasowitz, Benson, Torres & Friedman – Redwood Shores, Roetzel & Andress LPA, Roetzel & Andress LPA (Akron), Steptoe & Johnson – Chicago Monroe St., Steptoe & Johnson – New York, Steptoe & Johnson – San Francisco, Steptoe & Johnson LLP (Washington), Tucker Ellis LLP (Cleveland), Williams Simons & Landis
Also named
Code Innovations SRO · Frantisek Hrabal
Defendant

Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company

Core tech
B60C23/12
Counsel
Calvin P. Griffith · David M. Maiorana · Gregory A. Castanias · John Charles Evans · Kerry A. Barrett · Michael P. Atkins · Thomas R. Goots · Thomas S. Koglman · Tracy A. Stitt
Firm
Jones Day (Cleveland), Jones Day (Washington)
Also named
Robert Allen Losey · Robert Benedict

Counsel of record

AttorneyForRole
Abdulrahman AlthebaityCoda Development SROPlaintiff
Alexander B. ReichCoda Development SROPlaintiff
Boyd T. CloernCoda Development SROPlaintiff
David H. KwasniewskiCoda Development SROPlaintiff
Dwight J. DraughonCoda Development SROPlaintiff
Emily K. AnglewiczCoda Development SROPlaintiff
Erica L. FruitermanCoda Development SROPlaintiff
J. Michael WilsonCoda Development SROPlaintiff
James R. NuttallCoda Development SROPlaintiff
Jeremy S. GoldkindCoda Development SROPlaintiff
Jessica A. LopezCoda Development SROPlaintiff
John M. CaracappaCoda Development SROPlaintiff
Joseph F. EckerCoda Development SROPlaintiff
Julie C. AmadeoCoda Development SROPlaintiff
Kassandra M. OfficerCoda Development SROPlaintiff
Katherine D. CappaertCoda Development SROPlaintiff
Kevin M. PasquinelliCoda Development SROPlaintiff
Leah M. QuadrinoCoda Development SROPlaintiff
Lindsey E. SacherCoda Development SROPlaintiff
Michael E. Flynn-O’BrienCoda Development SROPlaintiff
Michael SimonsCoda Development SROPlaintiff
Mitchell G. BlairCoda Development SROPlaintiff
Paul J. ZoellerCoda Development SROPlaintiff
Ronald S. KoppCoda Development SROPlaintiff
Scott M. RicheyCoda Development SROPlaintiff
Stacie R. HartmanCoda Development SROPlaintiff
Stephen W. FunkCoda Development SROPlaintiff
Steven C. CarlsonCoda Development SROPlaintiff
Timothy P. McAnultyCoda Development SROPlaintiff
Tracy Scott JohnsonCoda Development SROPlaintiff
William F. AbramsCoda Development SROPlaintiff
Calvin P. GriffithGoodyear Tire & Rubber CompanyDefendant
David M. MaioranaGoodyear Tire & Rubber CompanyDefendant
Gregory A. CastaniasGoodyear Tire & Rubber CompanyDefendant
John Charles EvansGoodyear Tire & Rubber CompanyDefendant
Kerry A. BarrettGoodyear Tire & Rubber CompanyDefendant
Michael P. AtkinsGoodyear Tire & Rubber CompanyDefendant
Thomas R. GootsGoodyear Tire & Rubber CompanyDefendant
Thomas S. KoglmanGoodyear Tire & Rubber CompanyDefendant
Tracy A. StittGoodyear Tire & Rubber CompanyDefendant
Source: case record + Patsnap company data. Attorney names appear as recorded in the docket. Compare both portfolios
Outcome

Basis of termination

From the record · verbatim

“For the reasons set forth in the Memorandum Opinion and Order on Defendants’ Renewed Rule 50 Motion (Doc. No. 393) and the separately issued Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order (Doc. No. 394) judgment is entered in favor of defendants Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company and Robert Benedict on Counts One, Two, and Four of the First Amended Complaint. Count Five of the First Amended Complaint is dismissed.1 This case is dismissed in its entirety. IT IS SO ORDERED.”

Case 5:15-cv-01572 · N.D. Ohio · closed 31 March 2023
Source: case record, verbatim. The quoted paragraph is the basis-of-termination text as filed.

Related cases

Three questions this record usually leads to. Each one runs against the full litigation and patent corpus, and cites what it finds.

FAQ

Frequently asked questions

What is case 5:15-cv-01572?

5:15-cv-01572 is a patent infringement action brought by Coda Development SRO against Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, filed on 9 Aug 2015 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio. The case closed on 31 March 2023.

Which patents were asserted in 5:15-cv-01572?

US8381784B2 (“Air maintenance pumping assembly and tire”), assigned to GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY, THE, currently active; US8857484B2 (“Self-inflating tire”), assigned to GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY, THE, currently active; US8550137B2 (“Tire for self-inflating tire system”), assigned to GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY, THE; US8235081B2 (“In-line pumping assembly for self-inflating tire”), assigned to GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY, THE; US8573270B2 (“Self-inflating tire and pressure regulator”), assigned to GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY, THE; US8944126B2 (“Filter for a pneumatic tire”), assigned to GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY, THE; US8746306B2 (“Self-inflating tire”), assigned to GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY, THE; US8322036B2 (“Method of manufacturing a self-inflating tire”), assigned to GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY, THE; US8113254B2 (“Self-inflating tire”), assigned to GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY, THE; US8695661B2 (“Air maintenance pumping tube and tire assembly”), assigned to GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY, THE; US7117731B2 (“Device for monitoring maintenance and adjustment of pressure in a tire”), assigned to SITHOLD S.R.O.; US8042586B2 (“Self-inflating tire assembly”), assigned to GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY, THE; US8381785B2 (“Self-inflating tire assembly”), assigned to GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY, THE. The record also lists Air maintenance pumping assembly and tire, Air maintenance pumping tube and tire assembly, Device for monitoring maintenance and adjustment of pressure in a tire, Filter for a pneumatic tire, In-line pumping assembly for self-inflating tire, Method of manufacturing a self-inflating tire, Self-inflating tire, Self-inflating tire and pressure regulator, Self-inflating tire assembly and Tire for self-inflating tire system.

How was case 5:15-cv-01572 terminated?

The recorded basis of termination is judgment on the merits for defendant. The termination text reads: “For the reasons set forth in the Memorandum Opinion and Order on Defendants’ Renewed Rule 50 Motion (Doc. No. 393) and the separately issued Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order (Doc. No. 394) judgment is entered in favor of defendants Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company and Robert Benedict on Counts One, Two, and Four of the First Amended Complaint. Count Five of the First Amended Complaint is dismissed.1 This case is dismissed in its entirety. IT IS SO ORDERED.”

What does judgment on the merits mean?

A judgment on the merits decides the substance of the claims, as opposed to ending the case on procedural grounds.

How long did case 5:15-cv-01572 take?

2791 calendar days, from filing on 9 Aug 2015 to closure on 31 March 2023.

Who were the attorneys and the judge in 5:15-cv-01572?

Chief Judge Sara Lioi presided. Abdulrahman Althebaity, Alexander B. Reich, Boyd T. Cloern, David H. Kwasniewski, Dwight J. Draughon, Emily K. Anglewicz, Erica L. Fruiterman, J. Michael Wilson, James R. Nuttall, Jeremy S. Goldkind, Jessica A. Lopez, John M. Caracappa, Joseph F. Ecker, Julie C. Amadeo, Kassandra M. Officer, Katherine D. Cappaert, Kevin M. Pasquinelli, Leah M. Quadrino, Lindsey E. Sacher, Michael E. Flynn-O’Brien, Michael Simons, Mitchell G. Blair, Paul J. Zoeller, Ronald S. Kopp, Scott M. Richey, Stacie R. Hartman, Stephen W. Funk, Steven C. Carlson, Timothy P. McAnulty, Tracy Scott Johnson and William F. Abrams are recorded as counsel for plaintiff Coda Development SRO. Calvin P. Griffith, David M. Maiorana, Gregory A. Castanias, John Charles Evans, Kerry A. Barrett, Michael P. Atkins, Thomas R. Goots, Thomas S. Koglman and Tracy A. Stitt appear for defendant Goodyear Tire & Rubber.

Answers reproduce fields from the case record for 5:15-cv-01572 and do not constitute legal advice. Ask your own question

Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 5:15-cv-01572 and is provided for general information and reference only. It is not legal advice and must not be relied upon as such.

Docket data has limits. Records are drawn from a snapshot and may lag the live docket. Sealed filings, amended complaints, counterclaims and post-closure motions may not be reflected. Party names, attorney names and firm affiliations are reproduced as recorded and may contain omissions. Where a field is absent from the record, this page marks it as not recorded rather than inferring a value.

No characterisation of the parties or the outcome. This page reports what the record contains. Nothing here should be read as an assertion that any party infringed, that any patent is valid or invalid, that any settlement occurred, or that any party prevailed.

No FTO or validity opinion. Nothing on this page constitutes a freedom-to-operate, novelty, validity or infringement opinion. Any decision touching a live patent dispute should be verified independently and reviewed with qualified patent counsel.

Related Litigation Cases

Help us improve this page

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