Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 328 Filed 02/09/24 Page 1 of 52 PageID #: 30750
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`
`WIRTGEN AMERICA, INC.,
`
`Plaintiff/Counterclaim-Defendant,
`
`v.
`
`CATERPILLAR INC.,
`
`Defendant/Counterclaim-Plaintiff.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Civil Action No. 1:17-cv-00770-JDW
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`JOINT PRETRIAL ORDER
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 328 Filed 02/09/24 Page 2 of 52 PageID #: 30751
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I. 
`
`II. 
`III. 
`
`IV. 
`
`Nature of the Action ............................................................................................................ 1 
`A. 
`Summary Judgment & Daubert Rulings ................................................................ 2 
`B. 
`Motions In Limine ................................................................................................... 5 
`C. 
`The Section 337 Investigation at the International Trade Commission .................. 5 
`D. 
`The Inter Partes Review Proceedings at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board ....... 10 
`Jurisdiction ........................................................................................................................ 11 
`Issues of Fact ..................................................................................................................... 12 
`A. 
`Uncontested Facts ................................................................................................. 12 
`1. 
`Parties ........................................................................................................ 12 
`2. 
`Wirtgen America’s Asserted Patents ........................................................ 12 
`3. 
`Accused Products ...................................................................................... 24 
`4. 
`Representative Products ............................................................................ 25 
`5. 
`Documents ................................................................................................ 26 
`Contested Facts ..................................................................................................... 26 
`B. 
`Claim Construction ........................................................................................................... 27 
`A. 
`Agreed-Upon Claim Constructions (D.I. 167, 168, 182) ...................................... 27 
`B. 
`Court’s Constructions of the Disputed Terms (D.I. 167, 168) .............................. 28 
`Issues of Law .................................................................................................................... 28 
`V. 
`VI.  Witnesses .......................................................................................................................... 29 
`VII.  Exhibits ............................................................................................................................. 31 
`VIII.  Statements of Intended Proofs .......................................................................................... 35 
`IX. 
`Amendment of the Pleadings ............................................................................................ 35 
`X. 
`Additional Matters ............................................................................................................ 35 
`A. 
`Demonstrative Exhibits ......................................................................................... 35 
`B. 
`Procedures for the Timely Exchange of Evidence ................................................ 36 
`1. 
`Opening Statements .................................................................................. 36 
`2. 
`Closing Arguments ................................................................................... 37 
`3. 
`Direct Examination ................................................................................... 37 
`4. 
`Cross Examination .................................................................................... 39 
`5. 
`Testimony by Deposition .......................................................................... 39 
`6. 
`Miscellaneous ........................................................................................... 41 
`Treatment of ITC Proceedings .............................................................................. 41 
`Number of Jurors and Juror Selection Process ..................................................... 42 
`
`C. 
`D. 
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 328 Filed 02/09/24 Page 3 of 52 PageID #: 30752
`
`E. 
`Length of Trial ...................................................................................................... 42 
`Order of Presentation of Evidence ........................................................................ 43 
`F. 
`Jury Notes ............................................................................................................. 44 
`G. 
`Handling of Protected Information at Trial .......................................................... 44 
`H. 
`Set-Up of Electronic Equipment ........................................................................... 45 
`I. 
`Federal Judicial Center’s Patent Video ................................................................. 45 
`J. 
`Order to Control Course of Action ....................................................................... 45 
`K. 
`Settlement ......................................................................................................................... 46 
`
`
`
`XI. 
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 328 Filed 02/09/24 Page 4 of 52 PageID #: 30753
`
`INDEX OF EXHIBITS
`
`STATEMENT OF CONTESTED FACTS TO BE LITIGATED
`
`Wirtgen America
`
`Caterpillar
`
`--
`
`--
`
`STATEMENT OF ISSUES OF LAW TO BE LITIGATED
`
`Wirtgen America
`
`Caterpillar
`
`TRIAL WITNESSES LISTS
`
`Wirtgen America
`
`Caterpillar
`
`--
`
`--
`
`--
`
`--
`
`STATEMENT OF INTENDED PROOFS
`
`Wirtgen America
`
`Caterpillar
`
`
`
`--
`
`--
`
`Exhibit 1A
`
`Exhibit 1B
`
`Exhibit 2A
`
`Exhibit 2B
`
`Exhibit 3A
`
`Exhibit 3B
`
`Exhibit 6A
`
`Exhibit 6B
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 328 Filed 02/09/24 Page 5 of 52 PageID #: 30754
`
`Plaintiff Wirtgen America, Inc. (“Wirtgen America”) and Defendant Caterpillar Inc.
`
`(“Caterpillar”) submit this Joint Pretrial Order governing trial of this action. This Joint Pretrial
`
`Order is being submitted in advance of the Final Pretrial Conference scheduled for February 8,
`
`2024. Jury selection and trial are scheduled to begin on February 12, 2024 at 9:30 a.m.1
`
`This order shall control the subsequent course of the action, unless modified by the Court
`
`to prevent manifest injustice. The parties reserve the right to seek leave to supplement or amend
`
`this Joint Pretrial Order based on the Court’s forthcoming rulings, other subsequent events, or by
`
`agreement.
`
`I.
`
`NATURE OF THE ACTION
`
`1.
`
`Plaintiff and Counterclaim-Defendant Wirtgen America, Inc. filed this lawsuit
`
`against Defendant and Counterclaim-Plaintiff Caterpillar Inc. on June 16, 2017, asserting claims
`
`of patent infringement. Wirtgen America filed an amended complaint on September 2, 2021.
`
`2.
`
`In the amended complaint, Wirtgen America alleged that Caterpillar infringes U.S.
`
`Patent Nos. 7,828,309 (“the ’309 patent”), 8,118,316 (“the ’316 patent”), 7,530,641 (“the ’641
`
`patent”), 8,113,592 (“the ’592 patent”), 9,010,871 (“the ’871 patent”), 9,656,530 (“the ’530
`
`patent”), 7,946,788 (“the ’788 patent”), 8,511,932 (“the ’932 patent”), 8,690,474 (“the ’474
`
`patent”), RE48,268 (“the ’268 patent”), 8,424,972 (“the ’972 patent”), 9,879,390 (“the ’390
`
`patent”), and 9,879,391 (“the ’391 patent”). The products accused of infringement are Caterpillar’s
`
`large milling machines (including the PM600 and PM800 series machines), small milling
`
`machines (including the PM300 series machines), and rotary mixer machines (including the
`
`RM600 and RM800 series machines).
`
`
`1 Unless otherwise indicated, all times referenced in this Joint Pretrial Order are to local
`time in Wilmington, Delaware. Unless otherwise indicated, all days are in calendar days.
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 328 Filed 02/09/24 Page 6 of 52 PageID #: 30755
`
`3.
`
`On October 14, 2021, Caterpillar filed an answer and counterclaims asserting
`
`infringement of the U.S. Patent Nos. 9,371,618 (“the ’618 patent”), 9,975,538 (“the ’538 patent”),
`
`and 9,523,995 (“the ’995 patent”). On November 18, 2021, Caterpillar filed an amended answer.
`
`4.
`
`On April 10, 2023, the parties filed a stipulation to stay the proceedings with respect
`
`to Wirtgen America’s ’390 and ’391 patents due to the institution of IPR proceedings concerning
`
`most of the asserted claims in these patents. D.I. 185. Likewise, the parties filed a stipulation to
`
`stay the proceedings with respect to Caterpillar’s ’538 and ’995 patents due to the institution of
`
`IPR proceedings on most of the asserted claims in these patents. Id.
`
`5.
`
`On April 28, 2023, Wirtgen America and Caterpillar narrowed the number of
`
`asserted patents and claims pursuant to the Modified Scheduling Order, D.I. 187, and instructions
`
`provided during the Court’s teleconference with the parties on April 20, 2023. D.I. 194 and 195.
`
`The Court later instructed Wirtgen America, by sua sponte motion, to reduce its number of asserted
`
`claims to no more than 20, with no more than four per patent, and Caterpillar to reduce its invalidity
`
`references to no more than 20. D.I. 197.
`
`6.
`
`Pursuant to the Court’s Order requiring the parties to reduce the number of asserted
`
`claims, on May 12, 2023, Wirtgen America narrowed its asserted patents and claims to claims 10
`
`and 29 of the ’309 patent; claims 5, 13, 16, and 22 of the ’530 patent; claims 12, 13, 15, and 27 of
`
`the ’972 patent; claims 11, 17, and 18 of the ’641 patent; claim 5 of the ’788 patent; claims 19 and
`
`21 of the ’474 patent; and claims 1, 23, 30, and 32 of the ’268 patent.
`
`Summary Judgment & Daubert Rulings
`
`On October 5, 2023, Wirtgen America moved for partial summary judgment
`
`A.
`
`7.
`
`seeking:
`
`a.
`
`Summary judgment that certain Caterpillar accused products infringe
`
`certain asserted claims of the ’530, ’309, and ’641 patents;
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 328 Filed 02/09/24 Page 7 of 52 PageID #: 30756
`
`b.
`
`Summary judgment that Caterpillar is estopped from pursuing its invalidity
`
`claims against Wirtgen America’s ’530 and ’309 patents under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e);
`
`c.
`
`Summary judgment that the claim scope in the ’268 patent is not broader
`
`than the claim scope of the originally issued U.S. Patent No. 8,408,659; and
`
`d.
`
`Summary judgment that the accused Wirtgen America W 207 Fi, W 210 Fi,
`
`W 220 Fi, and W 250 Fi milling machines do not infringe Caterpillar’s asserted ’618
`
`patent.
`
`See D.I. 217.
`
`8.
`
`On October 5, 2023, Caterpillar moved for partial summary judgment seeking:
`
`patent;
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`d.
`
`Summary judgment of non-infringement of claims 17 and 18 of the ’641
`
`Summary judgment of non-infringement of claim 10 of the ’309 patent;
`
`Summary judgment of non-infringement of claim 13 of the ’972 patent;
`
`Summary judgment of non-infringement of the asserted claims of the ’474
`
`and/or ’788 patents;
`
`e.
`
`f.
`
`See D.I. 209.
`
`Summary judgment of no willful infringement of the Asserted Patents; and
`
`Summary judgment of invalidity of claim 1[c] of the ’268 patent.
`
`9.
`
`On January 4, 2024, the Court resolved the pending motions for summary
`
`judgment. See D.I. 272. The Court held that:
`
`a.
`
`Wirtgen America is entitled to summary judgment that it does not infringe
`
`Claims 1 and 8 of the ’618 patent.
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 328 Filed 02/09/24 Page 8 of 52 PageID #: 30757
`
`b.
`
`Caterpillar is entitled to summary judgment that it does not infringe Claim
`
`17 of the ’641 patent.
`
`c.
`
`d.
`
`e.
`
`IPR estoppel will apply against Caterpillar.
`
`There was no improper broadening of the ’268 patent.
`
`The remaining issues raised by the parties’ summary judgment motions will
`
`proceed to the jury.
`
`See id. at 26.
`
`10.
`
`On October 5, 2023, Wirtgen America moved to exclude the testimony of
`
`Caterpillar’s proffered willfulness expert, Paul Bartkowski. See D.I. 217.
`
`11.
`
`On October 5, 2023, Caterpillar moved to exclude the testimony of:
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`Dr. Pallavi Seth’s opinions regarding Wirtgen America’s damages;
`
`Wirtgen America’s experts’ opinions that Wirtgen-branded machines
`
`practice the Asserted Patents;
`
`c.
`
`Wirtgen America’s experts’ opinions regarding mental state or subjective
`
`intent; and
`
`d.
`
`Wirtgen America’s experts’ opinions regarding the doctrine of equivalents.
`
`12.
`
`On January 16, 2024, the Court resolved certain pending Daubert Motions. See D.I.
`
`283. That Memorandum and Order did not address the admissibility of Dr. Seth’s testimony. The
`
`Court held that:
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`Mr. Bartkowski’s testimony would be excluded;
`
`Dr. Meyer’s opinion on the doctrine of equivalents would be excluded;
`
`And denied the motions to exclude in all other respects.
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 328 Filed 02/09/24 Page 9 of 52 PageID #: 30758
`
`13.
`
`On February 5, 2024, the Court held that Dr. Seth’s expert report violated principles
`
`of apportionment but gave Wirtgen the opportunity to disclose aspects of Dr. Seth’s opinion that
`
`it still believed to be admissible. See D.I. 309. Wirtgen served a supplemental expert report.
`
`Caterpillar moved for its exclusion. See D.I. 320. On February 9, 2024, the Court denied
`
`Caterpillar’s motion to exclude Dr. Seth’s testimony. See D.I. 325, 326.
`
`B. Motions In Limine
`
`14.
`
`On January 19, 2024, Wirtgen America moved in limine to (a) preclude Caterpillar
`
`from introducing at trial new theories, expert opinions, or evidence not previously disclosed;
`
`(b) preclude Caterpillar from presenting evidence or eliciting testimony regarding a purported
`
`belief of non-infringement; (c) preclude Caterpillar from arguing claim construction to the jury;
`
`(d) preclude Caterpillar from discussing claims and patents not at issue; and (e) preclude
`
`Caterpillar from presenting statements or findings regarding cancelled claims from the PTAB’s
`
`Final Written Decision concerning the ’972 patent. D.I. 287.
`
`15.
`
`On January 19, 2024, Caterpillar moved in limine to (a) limit certain evidence
`
`related to Wirtgen GmbH; (b) limit certain prejudicial evidence related to Certain Road Milling
`
`Machines and Components Thereof, ITC-337-TA-1067; and (c) preclude unsubstantiated
`
`allegations of “tip-over” incidents. D.I. 289.
`
`16.
`
`On February 7, 2024, the Court resolved Wirtgen and Caterpillar’s Motions in
`
`limine. See D.I. 319. The Court granted Wirtgen’s Motions in limine to the extent that Dr. Rakow
`
`testifies at trial that the magnet and the sensor are two separate components and denied the Motions
`
`in all other respects. The Court denied Caterpillar’s Motions in limine in their entirety.
`
`C.
`
`17.
`
`The Section 337 Investigation at the International Trade Commission
`
`On July 19, 2017, Wirtgen America filed a complaint pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 1337
`
`with the United States International Trade Commission (“ITC”) alleging that Caterpillar Inc.,
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 328 Filed 02/09/24 Page 10 of 52 PageID #: 30759
`
`Caterpillar Paving Products, Inc., Caterpillar Prodotti Stradali S.r.L., Caterpillar Bitelli SpA, and
`
`Caterpillar Americas CV unlawfully imported road milling machines that infringe Wirtgen
`
`America’s patents. That complaint asserted the ’641, ’309, and ’530 patents along with U.S. Patent
`
`Nos. 9,624,628 (“the ’628 patent”) and 9,644,340 (“the ’340 patent”).
`
`18.
`
`On August 25, 2017, the ITC instituted a Section 337 investigation, Investigation
`
`No. 337-TA-1067 (“the 1067 Investigation”), to determine whether there was a violation of
`
`subsection (a)(1)(B) of 19 U.S.C. § 1337 by the importation into the United States, sale for
`
`importation, or sale within the United States after importation of Caterpillar’s milling machines
`
`and components thereof that infringe one or more of claims 1, 2, 4, 6–8, 11, 12, and 15–17 of the
`
`’641 patent; claims 1–3, 5–24, and 26–36 of the ’309 patent; claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 9–22, and 27–29 of
`
`the ’628 patent; claims 1–5, 7–12, and 14–17 of the ’340 patent; and claims 1–7, 13–24, and 26 of
`
`the ’530 patent.
`
`19.
`
`After institution, the Court stayed this action as to the patents asserted in the 1067
`
`Investigation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1659 and exercised its discretion to stay the case as to the
`
`other patents asserted in the Complaint. See D.I. 9.
`
`20.
`
`On February 5, 2018, pursuant to an unopposed motion by Wirtgen America, an
`
`ITC Administrative Law Judge issued an Initial Determination permitting Wirtgen America to
`
`terminate the investigation as to multiple asserted claims. This left the following claims at issue:
`
`(a) claims 1, 7, 8, 11, 12, and 17 of the ’641 patent; (b) claims 1, 6, 10, 11, 13, 14, 17, 26, 29, and
`
`36 of the ’309 patent; (c) claims 1, 5, 6, 11, 14, 15, 16, 18, and 19 of the ’628 patent; (d) claims 1,
`
`4, 5, 7, 9, 11, 12, and 17 of the ’340 patent; and (e) claims 1–3, 5, 15–18, and 22–24 of the ’530
`
`patent.
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 328 Filed 02/09/24 Page 11 of 52 PageID #: 30760
`
`21.
`
`On March 15, 2018, pursuant to another unopposed motion by Wirtgen America,
`
`an ITC Administrative Law Judge issued an Initial Determination permitting Wirtgen America to
`
`terminate the investigations as to multiple asserted claims. This left the following claims at issue:
`
`(a) claims 1, 7, 11, and 17 of the ’641 patent; (b) claims 10, 29, and 36 of the ’309 patent; (c) claims
`
`1, 11, 15, 18, and 19 of the ’628 patent; (d) claims 4, 5, 9, and 12 of the ’340 patent; and (e) claims
`
`2, 5, 16, and 23 of the ’530 patent.
`
`22.
`
`On March 27, 2018, pursuant to another unopposed motion by Wirtgen America,
`
`an ITC Administrative Law Judge issued an Initial Determination permitting Wirtgen America to
`
`terminate the investigations as to multiple asserted claims. This left the following claims at issue:
`
`(a) claims 1, 7, 11, and 17 of the ’641 patent; (b) claims 10, 29, and 36 of the ’309 patent; (c) no
`
`claims of the ’628 patent; (d) claims 4, 5, 9, and 12 of the ’340 patent; and (e) claims 2, 5, 16, and
`
`23 of the ’530 patent.
`
`23.
`
`Regarding the claims and patents ultimately tried, on October 1, 2018, an ITC
`
`Administrative Law Judge issued a Final Initial Determination (“FID”) concluding (1) that
`
`Caterpillar failed to show that claims 10, 29, and 36 of the ’309 patent are invalid; (2) that the
`
`PM600 and PM 800 series machines did not infringe claim 10 of the ’309 patent; (3) that the
`
`PM600 and PM800 series machines infringe claims 29 and 36 of the ’309 patent; (3) that
`
`Caterpillar failed to show that claims 11 and 17 of the ’641 patent are invalid; (4) that, “the
`
`[PM300, PM600, and PM800 series machines] practice limitations 11[a]–11[g] when they are
`
`driven in reverse” and “practice the steps of claim[] 17 when the milling drum is raised and they
`
`are driven in reverse,” but that Wirtgen America failed to prove induced infringement of those
`
`claims; (5) that Caterpillar showed claims 1 and 7 of the ’641 patent are indefinite; (6) that
`
`Caterpillar failed to show that claims 2, 5, 16, and 23 of the ’530 patent are invalid; (7) that the
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 328 Filed 02/09/24 Page 12 of 52 PageID #: 30761
`
`PM600 and PM800 series machines infringe claims 2, 5, 16, and 23 of the ’530 patent; (8) that the
`
`PM620 machine infringes claims 4, 5, 9, and 12 of the ’340 patent; and (9) that Caterpillar showed
`
`that claims 4, 5, 9, and 12 of the ’340 patent are obvious. The Administrative Law Judge therefore
`
`found a violation of Section 337 with respect to the ’309 patent and the ’530 patent. The 1067
`
`Investigation, FID at 175–76, 435–38 (Oct. 1, 2018).
`
`24.
`
`On July 18, 2019, the ITC issued its Final Determination; a limited exclusion order
`
`precluding importation of road milling machines (e.g., the PM600 and PM800 series machines)
`
`and components thereof covered by claim 29 of the ’309 patent or claims 2, 5, 16, or 23 of the
`
`’530 patent; and a cease and desist order precluding “any of the following activities in the United
`
`States: importing, selling, offering for sale, marketing, advertising, distributing, transferring
`
`(except for exportation) and soliciting United States agents or distributors for road milling machine
`
`and components thereof that infringe one or more of claim 29 of [the ’309 patent] or claims 2, 5,
`
`16, or 23 of [the ’530 patent].” The 1067 Investigation, Cease and Desist Order at 1 (July 18,
`
`2019). The ITC did not find sufficient evidence that Caterpillar induced customers to infringe
`
`claims 11 and 17 of the ’641 patent.
`
`25.
`
`The parties then appealed certain findings of the ITC’s Final Determination in the
`
`1067 Investigation to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Caterpillar
`
`appealed the finding of a violation with respect to the ’530 and ’309 patents, and Wirtgen America
`
`appealed the ITC’s determination that Caterpillar’s acts did not induce infringement of the ’641
`
`patent by Caterpillar’s customers.
`
`26.
`
`On March 15, 2021, the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in Caterpillar Prodotti
`
`Stradali S.r.L. et al. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n et al., No. 2019-2445, and Wirtgen America, Inc. v.
`
`Int’l Trade Comm’n et al., No. 2019-1911. The Federal Circuit affirmed the ITC’s decision as to
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 328 Filed 02/09/24 Page 13 of 52 PageID #: 30762
`
`the ’309 and ’530 patents, reversed the ITC’s finding that Wirtgen America had failed to prove the
`
`knowledge required for inducement, and vacated the finding of no induced infringement of the
`
`’641 patent with respect to the PM600 and PM800 series machines. The Federal Circuit affirmed
`
`the ALJ’s findings (adopted by the ITC) that Wirtgen America failed to prove that Caterpillar’s
`
`PM300 series machines infringed claims 11 and 17 of the ’641 patent because Wirtgen America
`
`failed to show that a PM300 machine had been used in the United States in any infringing manner.
`
`See Caterpillar Prodotti Stradale S.r.L. v. ITC, 847 F. App’x 893, 900 (Fed. Cir. 2021). The
`
`Federal Circuit remanded for further proceedings related to the ’641 patent.
`
`27.
`
`On November 4, 2021, the Commission issued a modified limited exclusion order
`
`and two modified cease and desist orders covering claims 11 and 17 of the ’641 patent.
`
`28.
`
`The ITC’s and Federal Circuit’s decisions in the 1067 Investigation that the PM600
`
`and PM800 series machines infringe certain valid claims of the ’309, ’530, and ’641 patents and
`
`that the PM300 series machines infringe certain valid claims of the ’641 patent are final. And the
`
`ITC has issued a limited exclusion order prohibiting Caterpillar from importing infringing
`
`machines and components thereof prior to the expiration of those patents.
`
`29.
`
`Caterpillar updated its PM600 and PM800 Series machines (collectively, the “2019
`
`and 2020 PM600 and PM800 Redesigned Machines”) in 2019 and 2020 related to the features
`
`found to infringe the ’530 and ’309 patents. Caterpillar again updated the machines (collectively,
`
`the “2021 PM600 and PM800 Redesigned Machines”) in 2021 related to the features found to
`
`infringe the ’641 patent. On May 19, 2021, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“Customs”)
`
`determined that the 2019 and 2020 PM600 and PM800 Redesigned Machines did not infringe the
`
`valid claims found infringed by the legacy PM600 and PM800 Series machines with respect to the
`
`’530 and ’309 patents as a result of ITC Investigation No. 337-TA-1067, and therefore that the
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 328 Filed 02/09/24 Page 14 of 52 PageID #: 30763
`
`2019 and 2020 PM600 and PM800 Redesigned Machines were not subject to the limited exclusion
`
`order issued prior to the end of that investigation. On April 2, 2022, Customs also determined that
`
`the 2021 PM600 and PM800 Redesigned Machines did not infringe the valid claims found
`
`infringed by the legacy PM600 and PM800 Series machines with respect to the ’641 patent as a
`
`result of ITC Investigation No. 337-TA-1067, and therefore that the 2021 PM600 and PM800
`
`Redesigned Machines were not subject to the limited exclusion order issued at the end of the
`
`investigation.
`
`30.
`
`On May 27, 2021, this Court lifted the stay with respect to all of the patents asserted
`
`in the 1067 Investigation, except the ’641 patent pending remand. D.I. 25. Following the
`
`Commission’s decision on remand, on January 20, 2022, this Court lifted the stay with respect to
`
`the ’641 patent. D.I. 78. The record of the 1067 Investigation is admissible pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
`
`§ 1659(b), but none of its findings are binding in this case.
`
`D.
`
`31.
`
`The Inter Partes Review Proceedings at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`
`During the pendency of this action and the 1067 Investigation, Caterpillar
`
`petitioned the Patent Trial and Appeal Board of the United States Patent and Trademark Office
`
`(“PTAB”) for inter partes review (“IPR”) of the ’309 and ’530 patents.
`
`32.
`
`On October 19, 2017, Caterpillar petitioned for IPR of the ’309 patent, seeking a
`
`decision from the PTAB that claims 1–3, 5–24, and 26–36 are unpatentable. On July 11, 2019, the
`
`PTAB entered a revised Final Written Decision determining that Caterpillar established that claims
`
`1–3, 5–9, 11–16, 21–24, 26–28, and 33–36 are unpatentable and that Caterpillar had failed to
`
`establish that claims 10, 17–20, and 29–32 are unpatentable. On August 15, 2019, Caterpillar filed
`
`an appeal of that decision as to, inter alia, the PTAB’s findings that claims 10, 17–20, and 29–32
`
`of the ’309 patent are not unpatentable. On August 28, 2019, Wirtgen America filed a cross appeal
`
`as to the PTAB’s findings that claims 1–3, 5–9, 11–16, 21–24, 26–28, and 33–36 are unpatentable.
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 328 Filed 02/09/24 Page 15 of 52 PageID #: 30764
`
`On February 3, 2021, the Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB without opinion pursuant to Federal
`
`Circuit Rule 36.
`
`33.
`
`Also on October 19, 2017, Caterpillar petitioned for IPR of the ’530 patent, seeking
`
`a decision from the PTAB that claims 1–7, 13–24, and 26 are unpatentable. On May 22, 2019, the
`
`PTAB entered a final written decision determining that Caterpillar had failed to establish that
`
`claims 1–7, 13–24, and 26 are unpatentable. On July 23, 2019, Caterpillar filed an appeal of that
`
`decision as to, inter alia, the PTAB’s findings that claims 1–7, 13–24, and 26 of the ’530 patent
`
`are not unpatentable. On February 3, 2021, the Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB without opinion
`
`pursuant to Federal Circuit Rule 36.
`
`34.
`
`The PTAB’s and Federal Circuit’s decisions finding claims 10, 17–20, and 29–32
`
`of the ’309 patent and claims 1–7, 13–24, and 26 of the ’530 patent not unpatentable are final.
`
`35.
`
`On August 4, 2022, Caterpillar petitioned for IPR of the ’972 patent, seeking a
`
`decision from the PTAB that claims 1, 12, 15, 16, 22, 23, and 26 are unpatentable. On February 7,
`
`2023, the PTAB issued a decision instituting IPR on all requested claims. As of January 29, 2024,
`
`a final written decision has not been entered.
`
`II.
`
`JURISDICTION
`
`36.
`
`This action for patent infringement arises under the patent laws of the United States,
`
`Title 35, United States Code. This Court has jurisdiction over those claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
`
`§ 1338, which directs that United States District Courts shall have original jurisdiction of any civil
`
`action arising under any Act of Congress relating to patents, and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331,
`
`which pertains to civil actions arising under the laws of the United States.
`
`37.
`
`Personal jurisdiction and venue over Caterpillar are proper in this District because
`
`Caterpillar, a Delaware corporation, resides in this District.
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 328 Filed 02/09/24 Page 16 of 52 PageID #: 30765
`
`38.
`
`The parties agree that this Court has jurisdiction over the proceedings and that
`
`venue is proper.
`
`III.
`
`ISSUES OF FACT
`A.
`
`Uncontested Facts
`
`39.
`
`The facts detailed below are uncontested and require no proof at trial. Any party,
`
`with prior notice to all other parties, may read any or all of the uncontested facts to the jury and
`
`will be charged for the time used to do so. Any fact so read will become part of the evidentiary
`
`record in this case.
`
`1.
`
`Parties
`
`40. Wirtgen America is a Tennessee corporation with its principal place of business at
`
`6030 Dana Way, Antioch, Tennessee, 37013-3116.
`
`41.
`
`Caterpillar is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business at 5205
`
`North O'Connor Blvd, Suite 100, Irving, Texas 75039.
`
`2. Wirtgen America’s Asserted Patents
`(a)
`
`The ’309 patent
`
`42.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,828,309, entitled “Road-building Machine,” issued November 9,
`
`2010.
`
`43. Wirtgen America owns all right, title, and interest in the ’309 patent.
`
`44.
`
`The ’309 patent has three named inventors, Christian Berning, Dieter Simons, and
`
`Markus Schäfer.
`
`45.
`
`Claim 1 of the ’309 patent is presented below:
`
`1. A road-building machine, of which a left front wheel or caterpillar, right front
`wheel or caterpillar, left rear wheel or caterpillar and right rear wheel or caterpillar
`is connected to a chassis of the road-building machine by means of an actuating
`member and is adjustable in height with respect to a frame of the road-building
`machine, the individual actuating members being connected rigidly to the chassis
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 328 Filed 02/09/24 Page 17 of 52 PageID #: 30766
`
`and being positively coupled to one another in such a way that the left front wheel
`or caterpillar and the right rear wheel or caterpillar can be adjusted in height in the
`same direction and in the opposite direction to the right front wheel or caterpillar
`and the left rear wheel or caterpillar, and the actuating members being designed as
`double-acting working cylinders with a first and a second working chamber which
`are filled with a pressure medium, the working cylinders being connected to one
`another via coupling lines.
`
`46.
`
`Claim 9 of the ’309 patent is presented below:
`
`9. The road-building machine as claimed in claim 1, characterized in that the
`coupling lines can be connected to a pressure medium source and/or a pressure
`medium sump via working lines with the aid of a valve control.
`
`47.
`
`48.
`
`Claim 9 of the ’309 patent depends from independent claim 1.
`
`Claim 10 of the ’309 patent is presented below:
`
`10. The road-building machine as claimed in claim 9, characterized in that the valve
`control is designed such that all the wheels are raised in a first operating mode and
`are lowered in a second operating mode, this taking place in each case by the same
`amount.
`
`49.
`
`50.
`
`Claim 10 of the ’309 Patent depends from dependent claim 9.
`
`Claim 26 of the ’309 patent is presented below:
`
`26. A road-building machine, comprising:
`
`a chassis having a forward direction;
`
`a left front wheel or caterpillar;
`
`a right front wheel or caterpillar;
`
`a left rear wheel or caterpillar;
`
`a right rear wheel or caterpillar;
`
`a first working cylinder rigidly connected to the chassis and connected to the left
`front wheel or caterpillar for adjusting a height of the left front wheel or caterpillar
`relative to the chassis;
`
`a second working cylinder rigidly connected to the chassis and connected to the
`right front wheel or caterpillar for adjusting a height of the right front wheel or
`caterpillar relative to the chassis;
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 328 Filed 02/09/24 Page 18 of 52 PageID #: 30767
`
`a third working cylinder rigidly connected to the chassis and connected to the left
`rear wheel or caterpillar for adjusting a height of the left rear wheel or caterpillar
`relative to the chassis;
`
`a fourth working cylinder rigidly connected to the chassis and connected to the right
`rear wheel or caterpillar for adjusting a height of the right rear wheel or caterpillar
`relative to the chassis;
`
`a rotating working roller or rotor supported from the chassis between the front
`wheels or caterpillars and the rear wheels or caterpillars and extending transversely
`to the forward direction;
`
`each of the working cylinders including at least one working chamber filled with a
`pressure medium; and
`
`coupling lines connecting the working cylinders