`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 338 Filed 02/13/24 Page 1 of 2 PagelD #: 31060
`
`IN THE UNITED STATESDISTRICT COURT
`
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`C.A. No. 17-770-JDW
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`) )
`
`) )
`
`) )
`
`) )
`
`)
`
`WIRTGEN AMERICA,INC.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`CATERPILLAR INC.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`ORDER REGARDINGIPR ESTOPPEL
`
`WHEREAS, on February 6, 2024, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) issued a
`
`Final Written Decision in IPR2022-01310 (“the 1310 IPR”) in which Caterpillar Inc.
`
`(“Caterpillar”) challenged claims 1, 12, 15, 16, 22, 23, and 26 of U.S. Patent No. 8,424,972 (“the
`
`“972 Patent’).
`
`WHEREAS,the PTAB determined that Caterpillar proved that claims 1, 15, 16, 22, and
`
`26 are unpatentable, and that Caterpillar did not prove that claims 12 or 23 of the ‘972 Patent are
`
`unpatentable.
`
`WHEREAS,Wirtgen America,Inc. (“Wirtgen”) is currently asserting claims 12 and 13
`
`of the ‘972 Patent in this litigation.
`
`WHEREAS,Wirtgen, in connection with the asserted ‘530 and ‘309 patents, previously
`
`moved for summary judgment that Caterpillar is estopped from raising invalidity grounds based
`
`on references that could have been reasonably raised in its IPRs on those patents. D.I. 217.
`
`WHEREAS,this Court concluded that “[w]hen a party relies on a printed publication
`
`before the PTAB andthenrelies on a physical device in court, it relies on the same ‘ground’ if
`
`the printed publication and the physical device provide the same information.” D-I. 272 at 23.
`
`
`
`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 338 Filed 02/13/24 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 31061
`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 338 Filed 02/13/24 Page 2 of 2 PagelD #: 31061
`
`WHEREAS,this Court found that “Wirtgen has shown that the physical products on
`
`which Caterpillar seeks to rely are ‘entirely cumulative’ of the printed publications,” and
`
`accordingly granted Wirtgen’s motion for summary judgment that IPR estoppel applies. D.I. 272
`
`at 25.
`
`WHEREAS,with regards to claim 12 of the ‘972 Patent, Caterpillar’s position is that
`
`every limitation of that claim is disclosed in the Caterpillar PM-565 and PM-465 cold planar
`
`machines.
`
`WHEREAS, without waivingits right to appeal, Caterpillar does not dispute that
`
`pursuant to the grounds set forth in the Court’s summary judgement decision, IPR estoppel
`
`applies against Caterpillar with regards to claim 12 of the ‘972 Patent.
`
`IT IS HEREBY ORDEREDTHAT,for the reasonsset forth in the Court’s prior
`
`summary judgement decision (D.I. 272), IPR estoppel applies with regard to claim 12 of the ‘972
`
`Patent.
`
`11318956
`
`IT IS SO ORDERED,this
`
`13th
`
`day of _February
`
`, 2024.
`
`/s/ Joshua D. Wolson
`
`U.S.D.J.
`
`