Bridgestone Americas Tire Operations LLC v. Speedways Tyres Ltd

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Bridgestone Americas Tire Operations, LLC (a Delaware limited liability company)
  • Defendant: Speedways Tyres Limited (a foreign corporation), Speedways Rubber Co Limited, SWT Americas, LLC, SWT North American Operations LLC, Speedwaystyres SWT Global Sales LLC, and Route 66 Tire and Rubber, LLC
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP
• Case Identification: 4:22-cv-00145, N.D. Tex., 08/17/2023
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Northern District of Texas because the domestic defendants are incorporated in Texas and have a regular and established place of business in the district, where they have allegedly committed acts of infringement. The foreign defendants do not reside in the United States and may be sued in any judicial district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ non-directional agricultural irrigation tires infringe a patent related to specific tire tread pattern designs.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns non-directional pneumatic tires for agricultural irrigation systems, which are designed to provide equal traction in both forward and reverse directions while minimizing soil disturbance and rutting.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff provided at least one defendant with notice of infringement of the patent-in-suit on July 15, 2020, more than three years prior to the filing of the First Amended Complaint. This allegation may form the basis for the willfulness claim.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2007-10-01	’291 Patent Priority Date
2018-01-23	’291 Patent Issue Date
2019 (early)	Defendants allegedly began offering the Accused Product for sale
2020-07-15	Plaintiff allegedly notified Defendant Speedways Rubber of infringement
2023-08-17	First Amended Complaint Filing Date

II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis

U.S. Patent No. 9,873,291 - Irrigation Tire

Issued: January 23, 2018

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent addresses challenges with tires used on agricultural irrigation systems that frequently move in both forward and reverse directions. Conventional directional tires perform poorly when moving in their non-preferred direction, and heavy, solid rubber tires can cause significant ground damage (’291 Patent, col. 1:20-48). Additionally, directional tires require careful, side-specific mounting, which increases installation time and complexity (’291 Patent, col. 2:9-18).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a non-directional pneumatic tire with a specific tread pattern designed for bi-directional performance. The pattern features multiple rows of "longitudinal protrusions" (lugs) that are substantially parallel to the tire's axis of rotation (’291 Patent, col. 2:61-64). The protrusions in opposing rows are arranged in an alternating, non-overlapping fashion at the tire's centerline, ensuring that "no portion of one longitudinal protrusion circumferentially coincides with or overlaps another" (’291 Patent, Abstract; col. 5:1-5). This design provides consistent traction and minimizes soil disturbance regardless of the direction of travel.
• Technical Importance: This design allows for a pneumatic tire that can be mounted on either side of an irrigation vehicle without regard to orientation, while providing effective traction and reduced soil damage in muddy agricultural fields (’291 Patent, col. 2:5-18).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2, 6, 7, 8, and 10 (Compl. ¶41).
• Independent Claim 1 recites the following essential elements:
  • A non-directional pneumatic tire for an agricultural irrigation system.
  • A non-directional tread pattern with a plurality of "longitudinal protrusions," each substantially parallel to the tire's rotational axis and circumferentially symmetric about its own axis.
  • The protrusions are arranged in a first and second row that are "circumferentially alternating," with a "circumferential spacing" between them so no part of one protrusion extends past an adjacent one.
  • Each protrusion has a contact surface with first and second edges that define "circumferentially symmetrical bulges" on opposite sides of the protrusion's axis.
  • These bulges include a "convex circular arc shaped bulge portion."
  • An end portion of each edge includes a "concave portion."

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The "Agristorm nD2" tire, which is marketed and sold under names including "FarmBoy AgriStorm nD2" and "SWT AgriStorm nD2" (Compl. ¶¶ 14, 37-39).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges the Accused Product is a non-directional irrigation tire that competes directly with Plaintiff's "Champion Hydro ND Tire" (Compl. ¶40). The complaint includes a photograph of the Accused Product labeled "SWT AgriStorm nD2," which depicts its tread pattern (Compl. ¶39). A separate screenshot shows the "Farmboy Agristorm nD2" tire offered for sale online (Compl. ¶37). The complaint alleges the Accused Product features a non-directional tread pattern with longitudinal lugs substantially parallel to the tire's axis of rotation, designed for use in irrigation systems (Compl. ¶40). A photo in the complaint shows the intended environment for such a tire, depicting a similar tire on an irrigation system in a muddy field (Compl. ¶26).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

’291 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1)	Alleged Infringing Functionality	Complaint Citation	Patent Citation
A non-directional pneumatic tire for supporting an agricultural irrigation system...	The Accused Product is a pneumatic tire marketed and sold for use on irrigation systems.	¶14, ¶40, ¶37	col. 2:51-56
a non-directional tread pattern defined on the tire and including a plurality of longitudinal protrusions, each longitudinal protrusion having a protrusion axis substantially parallel to a rotational axis of the tire...	The Accused Product is alleged to feature a non-directional tread pattern with lugs (protrusions) running substantially parallel to the tire's axis of rotation.	¶40	col. 4:36-41
the longitudinal protrusions being arranged in a first row... and a second row... circumferentially alternating with each other and there being a circumferential spacing between adjacent longitudinal protrusions so that no portion of one longitudinal protrusion extends circumferentially past any portion of an adjacent longitudinal protrusion...	The Accused Product's tread pattern, depicted in photographs, shows two rows of lugs that appear to be in an alternating, non-overlapping arrangement.	¶39, ¶41	col. 4:65-5:5
wherein each longitudinal protrusion includes a contact surface having first and second edges... defining first and second circumferentially symmetrical bulges on circumferentially opposite sides of the protrusion axis;	The complaint alleges that the Accused Product possesses all elements of claim 1, which would include the claimed lug geometry. Visuals show the lugs have widened, spade-like heads.	¶39, ¶41	col. 5:40-49
wherein the circumferentially symmetrical bulges each include a convex circular arc shaped bulge portion... and wherein an end portion of each of the first and second edges... includes a concave portion of the respective edge.	The complaint's general allegation of infringement of claim 1 encompasses these specific geometric features of the lug heads. The photograph of the "SWT AgriStorm nD2" tire shows lugs with complex curved profiles.	¶39, ¶41	col. 5:45-53

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: A potential dispute may arise over the term "substantially parallel." The court may need to determine the degree of deviation from parallel that is permissible while still falling within the scope of the claim.
• Technical Questions: The primary technical question is whether the specific geometry of the lugs on the accused Agristorm nD2 tire meets the detailed limitations of claim 1. The claim requires a combination of "circumferentially symmetrical bulges," "convex circular arc shaped" portions, and "concave" edge portions. The infringement analysis will depend on a factual comparison of the accused tire's physical structure against this claimed geometry.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "longitudinal protrusions"

  • Context and Importance: This term defines the fundamental lug structure of the invention. Its construction will determine what shapes and configurations of tire lugs are covered by the patent.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification broadly describes the elements as "longitudinal protrusions positioned substantially parallel with the axis" (’291 Patent, col. 2:62-64). This language could support an interpretation that covers any elongated lug oriented along the tire's circumference.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent's figures and detailed description show very particular shapes, including "substantially spade shaped" protrusions with distinct "bulges" (’291 Patent, Figs. 2, 5; col. 5:40-50). A party could argue the term should be limited to the specific embodiments disclosed.

• The Term: "circumferentially symmetrical bulges"

  • Context and Importance: This term, along with its dependent geometric descriptions ("convex circular arc," "concave portion"), is the most specific limitation defining the shape of the lug heads. Infringement will likely depend heavily on whether the accused tire's lugs can be characterized as having this precise, complex geometry.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The complaint's photographs of the accused tire show lugs with widened, curved heads, which a plaintiff may argue constitute "bulges" in a general sense (Compl. ¶39).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent provides specific definitions and illustrations of these features, such as bulges 46 and 48 in Figure 5, and defines their relationship with concave and convex curves (’291 Patent, col. 5:45-53; Fig. 5). A defendant may argue this requires a multi-part curve with specific inflection points that is not present in its product design.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges active inducement of infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b). The factual basis for this claim is Defendants' alleged acts of "selling, promoting, providing support for, providing instructions for use of, and/or otherwise encouraging their customers and/or end-users to directly infringe" (Compl. ¶48).
• Willful Infringement: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ infringement was and is willful. The claim is based on alleged pre-suit knowledge, specifically that "Bridgestone notified Speedways Rubber that the Accused Product infringed at least claim 1 of the ‘291 Patent" on July 15, 2020 (Compl. ¶50). The complaint alleges that Defendants continued their infringing activities despite this notice (Compl. ¶¶ 50-51).

VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case

• A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the complex, multi-part geometric limitations of Claim 1, particularly the "circumferentially symmetrical bulges" with their specified "convex" and "concave" portions, be construed to read on the physical shape of the lugs on the accused Agristorm nD2 tire?
• A key evidentiary question will be one of technical correspondence: does the accused tire's tread pattern, as a factual matter, satisfy the claim requirement that "no portion of one longitudinal protrusion extends circumferentially past any portion of an adjacent longitudinal protrusion" at the tire's equatorial plane?
• A third central question relates to willfulness: assuming infringement is found, the court will examine the facts surrounding the alleged July 15, 2020 notice of infringement to determine whether Defendants' subsequent conduct was sufficiently egregious to warrant enhanced damages.