On December 8, 2025, the Federal Circuit affirmed the Northern District of Ohio’s judgment as a matter of law wiping out a $64 million jury verdict in Coda Development s.r.o. v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., No. 23-1880 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 8, 2025). The court concluded that no reasonable jury could have found Goodyear liable for trade secret misappropriation under Ohio law and likewise upheld the district court’s rejection of Coda’s correction-of-inventorship claim directed to Goodyear’s U.S. Patent No. 8,042,586.
The decision is a careful, methodical application of trade secret doctrine, but it also fits into a broader pattern of Federal Circuit cases from the past two years in which jury verdicts in IP cases have been set aside on post-trial motions. At its core, Coda v. Goodyear reinforces a lesson that courts have been increasingly unwilling to soften: trade secrets must be defined with precision, anchored in secrecy, and proven to have been actually used. Aspirational descriptions and lists of desired functions will not survive judicial scrutiny.
Background and Procedural Posture
Coda Development and its related entities developed self-inflating tire (SIT) technology and engaged in discussions with Goodyear regarding potential collaboration. When Goodyear later introduced its own SIT system, Coda sued, asserting claims for trade secret misappropriation under the Ohio Uniform Trade Secrets Act (OUTSA) and seeking correction of inventorship on the ’586 patent.
After a September 2022 jury trial, Coda appeared to have achieved a resounding victory. The jury found misappropriation of five alleged trade secrets and awarded $2.8 million in compensatory damages and $61.2 million in punitive damages. The district court, however, granted Goodyear’s Rule 50(b) motion for judgment as a matter of law, concluding that each asserted trade secret failed on one or more required elements. The court also denied Coda’s correction-of-inventorship claim following a bench determination based on written submissions.
On appeal, Coda challenged nearly every aspect of those rulings. The Federal Circuit affirmed across the board.
The Governing Legal Framework
Because the trade secret claims arose under Ohio law, the Federal Circuit applied Sixth Circuit precedent interpreting the OUTSA. To prevail, a plaintiff must establish: (1) the existence of a trade secret; (2) acquisition through a confidential relationship or improper means; and (3) unauthorized use. Critically, courts also require that the alleged trade secret be defined with sufficient definiteness to allow adjudication of secrecy and misappropriation.
The panel emphasized that this definiteness requirement is not a technicality. Without a concrete definition, courts cannot distinguish protected information from general industry knowledge or public disclosures.
TS 24 and the Problem of Public Disclosure
Trade Secret 24 became the focal point of the appeal. Coda defined TS 24 as knowledge regarding the optimal placement of a pump in a tire, specifically “in the sidewall close to, and above, the rim where the tire cyclically deforms.”
The Federal Circuit had little difficulty affirming the district court’s conclusion that this information was publicly disclosed years earlier. Coda’s own 2007 PCT application and a 2008 Tire Technology article described pump placement in the tire sidewall near the rim. Trial testimony from Coda’s principal inventor confirmed that this placement concept was public.
Faced with this record, Coda attempted to narrow TS 24 on appeal by arguing that its trade secret concerned placement in a “conventional” or “standard” tire sidewall, not merely any sidewall. The court rejected this reframing outright. The operative trade secret definition was the one Coda provided in response to court-ordered interrogatories, which were expressly “closed.” Post-hoc attempts to add limiting language through testimony or argument could not salvage an otherwise public disclosure.
The panel’s analysis here is instructive. Once a trade secret plaintiff commits to a definition, courts will hold it to that definition. Elasticity cuts against secrecy.
TS 7, TS 11, and TS 20: Functional Descriptions Are Not Trade Secrets
The court next addressed three trade secrets that suffered from a different, but related, flaw. TS 7, TS 11, and TS 20 were each framed as combinations of components or lists of functions associated with self-inflating tire systems.
For example, TS 7 described a “multi-purpose interface” capable of performing ten separate functions, including connecting various components, routing air, and holding filters. What it did not describe was the underlying design or development knowledge that enabled those functions.
The Federal Circuit agreed with the district court that this kind of functional description does not satisfy the definiteness requirement. A trade secret must identify the protectable knowledge itself, not merely the result it achieves. Lists of capabilities or end goals are indistinguishable from general engineering aspirations unless tethered to specific, non-public implementation details.
TS 11 and TS 20 fared no better. Each consisted of long lists of features, geometries, and system concepts, but none articulated how those elements were designed, selected, or combined in a way that would meaningfully separate secret knowledge from what was already known in the field.
The court’s reasoning echoes a growing body of appellate authority rejecting “laundry list” trade secrets. Courts expect plaintiffs asserting complex technical trade secrets to do the hard work of separating the secret from the surrounding noise.
Failure of Proof on “Use”
Even if the asserted trade secrets had been valid, the Federal Circuit concluded that Coda failed to present sufficient evidence that Goodyear actually used them.
Coda relied heavily on expert testimony asserting that Goodyear’s patents and internal documents reflected substantial portions of its trade secrets. But the court characterized this testimony as conclusory and unsupported. Identifying one or two overlapping concepts from a multi-element trade secret does not establish use of a “substantial portion,” particularly where those concepts were themselves publicly disclosed.
This aspect of the decision underscores a practical litigation reality: use must be proven with specificity. Generalized comparisons and thematic similarities will not carry a verdict through post-trial review.
TS 23 and the Limits of Inference
Trade Secret 23 concerned test results purportedly demonstrating that Coda’s pump designs could generate pressure exceeding tire cavity pressure. The only evidence of alleged disclosure and use was a January 2009 email summarizing certain test results.
The Federal Circuit agreed with the district court that the email did not disclose all of the testing data encompassed by TS 23. Coda’s argument that Goodyear’s subsequent project advancement permitted an inference of reliance on the trade secret was deemed insufficient. Temporal proximity, without a clear evidentiary bridge, could not support a finding of use.
Correction of Inventorship: Trade Secrets Are Not a Substitute for Conception
Coda’s correction-of-inventorship claim rose or fell with its trade secret case. Because the court affirmed the JMOL ruling, there was no factual predicate left to support inventorship correction.
The panel also rejected the argument that the district court improperly disregarded jury findings. The jury had never been asked to compare the scope of TS 24 with the claims of the ’586 patent. The district court’s conclusion that the alleged trade secret did not establish conception of the claimed invention therefore did not conflict with any jury determination.
The court reiterated a fundamental principle of patent law: conception requires possession of every feature of the claimed invention. Trade secret allegations, particularly those found indefinite or publicly disclosed, cannot fill that gap.
Broader Implications
Coda v. Goodyear is less about hostility to juries than about judicial insistence on doctrinal discipline. Trade secret law offers powerful remedies, but only for plaintiffs willing to define their secrets narrowly, protect them rigorously, and prove their misuse with precision.
Charles Gideon Korrell believes that the decision serves as a reminder that trade secret claims must be engineered with the same care as patent claims. Charles Gideon Korrell notes that overbroad definitions may play well before a jury but are vulnerable on post-trial review. Charles Gideon Korrell also observes that courts increasingly expect trade secret plaintiffs to articulate something closer to a “specification-level” disclosure when the technology is complex.
For companies navigating collaborations, joint development discussions, or exploratory partnerships, the case reinforces the importance of disciplined information management. For litigators, it underscores the need to lock down trade secret definitions early and live with them through trial and appeal.
In the end, Coda v. Goodyear stands as a cautionary tale: when everything is a trade secret, nothing is.
