Coda Development SRO et al. v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company et al.
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 record
- Patents involved
- US8381784B2US8857484B2US8550137B2US8235081B2US8573270B2US8944126B2US8746306B2US8322036B2US8113254B2US8695661B2US7117731B2US8042586B2US8381785B2
- 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
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- 01Ranked prior artEvery hit source-linked
- 02Claim-level comparisonAgainst your own product
- 03Legal statusAcross 174 jurisdictions
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.
- Legal status
- Active
- Granted
- 26 Feb 2013
- Est. expiry
- 19 Jul 2031
- Validity challenges
- None recorded
- Licences recorded
- None recorded
- Inventors
- DELGADO, ANDRES IGNACIO
- Classification
- B60C23/12
- Prosecution counsel
- THE GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY
- Examiner
- KOTTER, KIP T
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.
- Legal status
- Active
- Granted
- 14 Oct 2014
- Est. expiry
- 30 Aug 2031
- Validity challenges
- None recorded
- Licences recorded
- None recorded
- Inventors
- HINQUE, DANIEL, PAUL, LUC, MARIE
- Classification
- B60C23/12
- Prosecution counsel
- THE GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY
- Examiner
- BELLINGER, JASON
Also asserted in this case
11 moreThe docket lists 13 asserted patents. Full bibliographic detail, drawings and prosecution history for the remaining 11 asserted patents are one query away in Eureka.
- US8550137B2Tire for self-inflating tire system
- US8235081B2In-line pumping assembly for self-inflating tire
- US8573270B2Self-inflating tire and pressure regulator
- US8944126B2Filter for a pneumatic tire
- US8746306B2Self-inflating tire
- US8322036B2Method of manufacturing a self-inflating tire
- US8113254B2Self-inflating tire
- US8695661B2Air maintenance pumping tube and tire assembly
- US7117731B2Device for monitoring maintenance and adjustment of pressure in a tire
- US8042586B2Self-inflating tire assembly
- US8381785B2Self-inflating tire assembly
Parties of record
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
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
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
Related cases
Three questions this record usually leads to. Each one runs against the full litigation and patent corpus, and cites what it finds.
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.
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.