Federal Circuit Vacates $64M Trade Secret Verdict

A recent decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit illustrates how trade secret claims can fail after trial when the asserted secrets are not defined with adequate precision during discovery. In the dispute between Coda Development s.r.o., Coda Innovations s.r.o., and inventor Frantisek Hrabal (collectively, Coda) and Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. and Goodyear employee Robert Benedict (collectively, Goodyear), the appellate court affirmed a district court order setting aside a substantial jury verdict tied to self-inflating tire technology.

Following a September 2022 jury trial in the Northern District of Ohio, jurors found Goodyear liable for misappropriating five alleged trade secrets and awarded Coda $2.8 million in compensatory damages and $61.2 million in punitive damages. After trial, however, the district court entered judgment as a matter of law for Goodyear under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50(b), concluding that key trade secrets were not sufficiently definite, not secret, or lacked proof of use and disclosure. The Federal Circuit affirmed on December 8, 2025, holding that no reasonable jury could find all elements of misappropriation satisfied for each asserted secret.

The ruling places renewed emphasis on a foundational principle of trade secret litigation: a plaintiff must identify the specific protectable information with enough detail that a court can evaluate trade secret status and determine whether misappropriation occurred. In practical terms, a verdict may not survive post-trial scrutiny if trade secrets were articulated as high-level functions, broad concepts, or lists of components rather than discrete, enabling know-how.

Background of the Self-Inflating Tire Dispute

The case arises from work on self-inflating tire (SIT) systems—technology intended to maintain tire pressure using internal pumping mechanisms. Coda alleged that Goodyear accessed confidential information and later incorporated the substance of Coda’s SIT development into Goodyear’s internal designs and patent-related activity. The litigation included state-law trade secret claims under the Ohio Uniform Trade Secrets Act (OUTSA) and an equitable claim seeking correction of inventorship on Goodyear’s U.S. Patent No. 8,042,586.

Under OUTSA, “trade secret” is defined as information that derives independent economic value from not being generally known or readily ascertainable and is subject to reasonable efforts to maintain secrecy. To prove misappropriation, a plaintiff generally must show (1) the existence of a trade secret, (2) acquisition through a confidential relationship or improper means, and (3) unauthorized use. In addition, courts applying uniform trade secret principles require a plaintiff to define the information for which protection is sought with sufficient definiteness to distinguish it from what is publicly known and to allow adjudication of alleged misappropriation.

This additional requirement—trade secret identification with sufficient particularity—often becomes a focal point in technical cases, especially when plaintiffs describe secrets as combinations of technical features. Courts are willing to protect combinations, but they generally require a clear articulation of what combination is claimed and why it is not readily known.

Why the Verdict Was Set Aside

The Federal Circuit’s affirmance rested on three recurring deficiencies: lack of secrecy due to public disclosures, lack of definiteness, and insufficient evidence of use. The court evaluated each asserted trade secret as defined by Coda’s interrogatory responses, which were intended to provide a closed list of secrets “with particularity” as ordered by the district court.

One example was TS 24, described as Coda’s knowledge of the “optimal location” for a pump in a tire, specifically in the sidewall close to and above the rim where cyclic deformation occurs. The Federal Circuit agreed with the district court that Coda publicly disclosed this pump-placement concept in a 2007 international patent application publication and a 2008 Tire Technology article. Once a concept is disclosed in that manner, it generally cannot qualify as a trade secret because it lacks the required secrecy. The court also rejected attempts to narrow the definition at trial with extra limiting language not present in the interrogatory definition, reasoning that post hoc refinements highlight, rather than cure, the problem of inadequate identification.

Three other asserted secrets—TS 7, TS 11, and TS 20—were found insufficiently definite because they read primarily as functional descriptions and “undifferentiated” lists of components. TS 7, for instance, was framed as an interface that could perform a broad list of functions, but it did not specify the concrete design or development knowledge that would enable a person to build the interface. TS 11 and TS 20 suffered from similar issues, with lists of technical elements described at a high level without identifying the specific engineering details that were claimed as proprietary.

Even where a trade secret theory can tolerate some breadth, courts typically insist that the plaintiff separate protected information from general industry knowledge. When definitions include vague language, expansive feature lists, or publicly known concepts, courts may conclude the description is too broad to be enforceable.

Finally, the court addressed proof of unauthorized use. For TS 23—described as test results showing a SIT pump’s ability to generate specified pressure levels—the Federal Circuit agreed there was inadequate evidence that Goodyear used the full scope of the alleged testing information. The record reflected a 2009 email with limited results, but not the full set of results described in TS 23. Timing evidence that Goodyear continued its SIT project was not enough, standing alone, to support an inference that Goodyear used the asserted secret.

Discovery Timing and Litigation Strategy Implications

Beyond the outcome in this specific dispute, the decision highlights how early discovery obligations can determine the viability of trade secret claims. A key point echoed in commentary about the case is that courts increasingly treat interrogatory responses and early disclosures as the anchor for what will be tried. As Kaempf stated, “It affirmed the decision of no sufficient identification, and it was based in part on the notion that the trade secret plaintiff had not identified their trade secrets with particularity during discovery as part of the interrogatory responses.” She added that the decision is “essentially saying you need to identify your trade secrets with particularity during a discovery and you can't supplement after that.”

Those statements reflect a practical reality: defendants often seek early, detailed disclosures to narrow the case and prevent a moving target, while plaintiffs may try to preserve flexibility as technical understanding evolves. The Federal Circuit’s approach underscores that courts may not permit plaintiffs to rely on later trial testimony or attorney argument to supply missing details that were not included in ordered discovery disclosures.

The decision also suggests heightened focus on the mechanics of trade secret identification. Candido observed: “The weight of identification is going to fall much more on interrogatory requests.” That framing aligns with the court’s reliance on the trade secret definitions as provided in interrogatory responses and its skepticism toward later efforts to introduce additional specificity. For plaintiffs, the implication is that trade secret definitions should include enabling details tied to the alleged confidential know-how, while still being careful not to over-disclose or inadvertently concede public-domain elements. For defendants, the ruling supports aggressive early motion practice and structured discovery designed to lock in a plaintiff’s theory before expert reports and trial.

Related Patent Inventorship Claim and What Comes Next

Coda also pursued an equitable claim seeking correction of inventorship for Goodyear’s U.S. Patent No. 8,042,586. The Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s rejection of that claim as well. In the appeal, Coda’s inventorship arguments largely depended on its challenge to the trade secret judgment as a matter of law. With the trade secret ruling affirmed, the appellate court concluded the inventorship claim failed on the same footing. The court further noted that the district court’s inventorship analysis did not improperly contradict jury findings because the jury was not tasked with comparing the scope of the patent claims to the asserted trade secret definitions.

From a broader policy perspective, the decision reinforces a consistent judicial theme: trade secret cases often turn less on whether a technology is innovative and more on whether the claimed secret is precisely defined, demonstrably secret, and shown to have been used. Even sizeable verdicts can be vulnerable if these threshold requirements are not met on the record. As litigants evaluate forum selection and pleading strategies for state and federal trade secret claims, the case offers a concrete example of how particularity, public disclosures, and discovery discipline can be outcome-determinative.

Case Details

Case Name: CODA Development S.R.O. v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company
Court Name: (United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit)
Case Number: 2023-1880 (appeal); N.D. Ohio No. 5:15-cv-01572-SL
Plaintiff Attorney(s): Steptoe LLP
Defense Attorney(s): Jones Day