Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 381 Filed 05/10/24 Page 1 of 33 PageID #: 34555
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`C.A. No. 17-770-JDW
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`)))))))))
`
`WIRTGEN AMERICA, INC.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`CATERPILLAR INC.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`CATERPILLAR INC.’S OPENING BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF ITS RENEWED MOTION
`FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW AND MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL
`
`Bindu A. Palapura (#5370)
`Andrew L. Brown (#6766)
`POTTER ANDERSON & CORROON LLP
`Hercules Plaza, 6th Floor
`1313 N. Market Street
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`Tel: (302) 984-6000
`bpalapura@potteranderson.com
`abrown@potteranderson.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendant Caterpillar Inc.
`
`OF COUNSEL:
`
`James C. Yoon
`Ryan R. Smith
`Christopher D. Mays
`WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI, P.C.
`650 Page Mill Road
`Palo Alto, CA 94304
`Tel: (650) 493-9300
`
`Lucy Yen
`Cassie Leigh Black
`WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI, P.C.
`1301 Avenue of the Americas, 40th Floor
`New York, NY 10019
`Tel: (212) 999-5800
`
`Matthew A. Macdonald
`Neil N. Desai
`Naoya Son
`Alex J. Turner
`WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI, P.C.
`953 E. 3rd St., #100
`Los Angeles, California 90013
`Tel: (323) 210-2900
`
`Dated: May 10, 2024
`11501733/11898.00005
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 381 Filed 05/10/24 Page 2 of 33 PageID #: 34556
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`PAGE
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`LEGAL STANDARDS ......................................................................................................1
`
`NO REASONABLE JURY COULD FIND INFRINGEMENT .......................................1
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`D.
`E.
`F.
`
`’641 Patent: No Substantial Evidence of Induced Infringement of Claim 11 .........1
`1. No Direct Infringement by Users ............................................................................ 2
`2. No Inducement ........................................................................................................ 3
`’788 Patent: No Substantial Evidence of Infringement of Claim 5 .........................5
`1. The Accused Products Do Not “Pre-Set” an Operating Parameter ........................ 5
`2. The Accused Products Do Not Have a “Switchover Device” ................................ 6
`3. The Accused Products Do Not Display a “Current Actual Value” ....................... 6
`’972 Patent: No Substantial Evidence of Infringement of Claim 12 .......................7
`’309 Patent: No Substantial Evidence of Infringement of Claim 29 .......................9
`’530 Patent: No Substantial Evidence of Infringement of Claims 5 and 22 ..........10
`No Substantial Evidence of Infringement of Claim 22 by Caterpillar’s RMs .......11
`
`III.THE ’641, ’972, AND ’788 PATENTS ARE INVALID .........................................................12
`
`A.
`B.
`C.
`
`’641 Patent: Claim 11 Was Anticipated by Caterpillar’s PM465 ..........................12
`’972 Patent: Claim 13 Was Anticipated by Caterpillar’s PM565 ..........................13
`’788 Patent: Claim 5 Is Obvious in View of PM465 and Davis ...........................14
`
`IV.THE COURT SHOULD OVERTURN THE WILLFULNESS VERDICTS, OR
`ALTERNATIVELY, GRANT A NEW TRIAL ON WILLFULNESS .............................16
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`1.
`2.
`3.
`4.
`5.
`
`No Substantial Evidence of Willfulness ................................................................16
`’641 Patent (Claim 11) .......................................................................................... 16
`’788 Patent (Claim 5) ............................................................................................ 17
`’972 Patent (Claim 12) .......................................................................................... 17
`’309 Patent (Claim 29) .......................................................................................... 18
`’530 Patent (Claims 5 and 22) .............................................................................. 18
`A New Trial on Willfulness Is Proper ...................................................................19
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 381 Filed 05/10/24 Page 3 of 33 PageID #: 34557
`
`1. Misleading Statements About the ITC Record ..................................................... 19
`2. Other Evidentiary Issues ....................................................................................... 20
`
`V.DESPITE MULTIPLE ATTEMPTS, WIRTGEN FAILED TO PRESENT A LEGALLY
`COGNIZABLE DAMAGES THEORY, AND THE DAMAGES AWARD SHOULD
`BE SET TO ZERO.............................................................................................................20
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Wirtgen Was Already Provided “Enormous Leeway” and “Shifted the
`Goalposts” ..............................................................................................................21
`Wirtgen Never Met the Apportionment Requirement ...........................................22
`1. Dr. Seth’s FPCA Does Not Value Non-Infringing Features................................. 23
`2. Dr. Seth’s Modified Rubinstein Model Does Not Apportion Out Unpatented
`Features ................................................................................................................. 24
`Because Wirtgen Waived Other Damages Theories, Damages Should Be Zero ..24
`
`-ii-
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 381 Filed 05/10/24 Page 4 of 33 PageID #: 34558
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`CASES
`
`PAGE(S)
`
`800 Adept, Inc. v. Murex Sec., Ltd.,
`539 F.3d 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2008)............................................................................................7
`Adrea v. Barnes & Noble, Inc.,
`227 F. Supp. 3d 303 (S.D.N.Y. 2017)................................................................................16
`Alarm.com, Inc. v. SecureNet Techs.,
`C.A. No. 15-807-GMS [94] (D. Del. Apr. 6, 2018).............................................................8
`AOS Holding Co. v. Bradford White Corp.,
`2021 WL 5411103 (D. Del. Mar. 31, 2021) ......................................................................25
`Ball Aerosol & Specialty Container, Inc. v. Ltd. Brands, Inc.,
`555 F.3d 984 (Fed. Cir. 2009)..............................................................................................9
`Brooke Grp. v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp.,
`509 U.S. 209 (1993) ...........................................................................................................11
`Caterpillar Prodotti Stradali S.R.L. v. ITC,
`Fed. Cir. Mar. 15, 2021 [83] ..............................................................................................19
`Cooper Indus. v. Leatherman Tool Grp.oup, Inc.,
`532 U.S. 424 (2001) ...........................................................................................................17
`Cross Med. Prods. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc.,
`424 F.3d 1293 (Fed. Cir. 2005)....................................................................................1, 2, 3
`Deere & Co. v. AGCO Corp.,
`2019 WL 668492 (D. Del. Feb. 19, 2019) .........................................................................16
`Donald M. Durkin Contracting, Inc. v. City of Newark,
`2007 WL 2710451 (D. Del. Sept. 17, 2007) ........................................................................1
`Dynamic Data Techs., LLC v. Brightcove Holdings, Inc.,
`2020 WL 4192613 (D. Del. July 21, 2020) .......................................................................16
`ePlus v. Lawson Software, Inc.,
`700 F.3d 509 (Fed. Cir. 2012)..........................................................................................2, 3
`Ericsson, Inc. v. D-Link Sys., Inc.,
`773 F.3d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2014)..........................................................................................23
`Exergen Corp. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.,
`575 F.3d 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2009)............................................................................................4
`Exmark Mfg. Co. v. Briggs & Stratton Power Prods. Grp., LLC,
`879 F.3d 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2018)..........................................................................................20
`
`-iii-
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 381 Filed 05/10/24 Page 5 of 33 PageID #: 34559
`
`F’Real Foods, LLC v. Hamilton Beach Brands, Inc.,
`457 F. Supp. 3d 434 (D. Del. 2020) .....................................................................................1
`Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Sys., Inc.,
`2015 WL 4272870 (N.D. Cal. July 14, 2015) ....................................................................23
`Fujitsu Ltd. v. Netgear Inc.,
`620 F.3d 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2010)............................................................................................4
`Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Mustek Sys., Inc.,
`340 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2003)............................................................................................8
`Inline Connection Corp. v. Earthlink, Inc.,
`684 F. Supp. 2d 496 (D. Del. 2010) ...................................................................................14
`K-2 Corp. v. Salomon S.A.,
`191 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 1999)............................................................................................6
`Kim v. ConAgra Foods, Inc.,
`465 F.3d 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2006)..........................................................................................10
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007) ...........................................................................................................14
`LaserDynamics, Inc. v. Quanta Comp., Inc.,
`694 F.3d 51 (Fed. Cir. 2012)..............................................................................................23
`Lightning Lube, Inc. v. Witco Corp.,
`802 F. Supp. 1180 (D.N.J. 1992), aff’d, 4 F.3d 1153 (3d Cir. 1993)...................................1
`Microchip Tech. Inc. v. Aptiv Servs. US LLC,
`2020 WL 5203600 (D. Del. Sept. 1, 2020) (Wolson, J.) .............................................22, 23
`ParkerVision v. Qualcomm,
`903 F.3d 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2018)....................................................................................13, 15
`ParkerVision, Inc. v. Qualcomm Inc.,
` 627 F. App’x 921 (Fed. Cir. 2015) .....................................................................................9
`Personalized User Model LLP v. Google Inc.,
`C.A. No. 09-525-LPS [348] (D. Del. Jan. 25, 2012) ...........................................................8
`Power Integrations, Inc. v. Fairchild Semiconductor Int’l, Inc.,
`843 F.3d 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2016)..........................................................................................12
`Promega Corp. v. Life Techs. Corp.,
`875 F.3d 651 (Fed. Cir. 2017)............................................................................................25
`QXMedical, LLC v. Vascular Sols., LLC,
`408 F. Supp. 3d 996 (D. Minn. 2019) ..............................................................................4, 5
`ResQNet.com, Inc. v. Lansa, Inc.,
`594 F.3d 860 (Fed. Cir. 2010)......................................................................................23, 24
`
`-iv-
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 381 Filed 05/10/24 Page 6 of 33 PageID #: 34560
`
`Retailmenot, Inc. v. Honey Sci. Corp.,
`2019 WL 6337719 (D. Del. Nov. 27, 2019) ........................................................................8
`SmithKline Beecham Corp. v. Apotex Corp.,
`247 F. Supp. 2d 1011 (N.D. Ill. 2003) (Posner, J., sitting by designation)........................24
`Studiengesellschaft Kohle, m.b.H. v. Dart Indus.,
`862 F.2d 1564 (Fed. Cir. 1988)..........................................................................................16
`Takeda Pharms. U.S.A., Inc. v. W.-Ward Pharm. Corp.,
`785 F.3d 625 (Fed. Cir. 2015)..............................................................................................4
`TecSec, Inc. v. Adobe Inc.,
`978 F.3d 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2020)....................................................................................24, 25
`Teva Pharms. Int’l GmbH v. Eli Lilly & Co.,
`8 F.4th 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2021) ............................................................................................15
`TI Grp. Auto. Sys. (N. Am.) v. VDO N. Am. L.L.C.,
`2002 WL 31051602 (D. Del. Sep. 4, 2002) .........................................................................1
`Traffix Devices v. Mktg. Displays,
`532 U.S. 23 (2001) .............................................................................................................17
`Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp.,
`632 F.3d 1292 (Fed. Cir. 2011)..........................................................................................24
`STATUTES
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(b) .........................................................................................................................12
`35 U.S.C. §§ 271(a)-(b) ...................................................................................................................2
`
`RULES
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(b) ........................................................................................................................1
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 59 .............................................................................................................................1
`MISCELLANEOUS
`BRITANNICA DICTIONARY ................................................................................................................8
`
`-v-
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 381 Filed 05/10/24 Page 7 of 33 PageID #: 34561
`
`TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS
`
`Abbreviation
`
`’309 patent
`’530 patent
`’641 patent
`’788 patent
`’972 patent
`Daubert Order
`
`Davis
`
`CBP
`Ex.
`FWD
`IPR
`ITC
`JMOL
`OMM
`POSA
`RM
`Wirtgen
`
`Word or Phrase
`U.S. Patent No. 7,828,309
`U.S. Patent No. 9,656,530
`U.S. Patent No. 7,530,641
`U.S. Patent No. 7,946,788
`U.S. Patent No. 8,424,972
`[308] Memorandum Order re Dr. Seth
`Opinions
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No.
`2002/0047301
`Customs and Border Protection
`Exhibits attached to the Opening Brief
`IPR Final Written Decision
`Inter Partes Review
`International Trade Commission
`Judgment as a matter of law
`Operation and Maintenance Manual
`Person of ordinary skill in the art
`Rotary mixer
`Wirtgen Group (including Wirtgen America
`and Wirtgen GmbH working in concert in
`connection with enforcement activities
`directed towards the asserted patents)
`
`*All emphases in the brief are added unless otherwise noted.
`
`-vi-
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 381 Filed 05/10/24 Page 8 of 33 PageID #: 34562
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Caterpillar respectfully requests that the Court grant (1) JMOL of non-infringement for the
`
`’641, ’788, ’972, ’309, and ’530 patents; (2) JMOL of invalidity for the ’641 and ’972 patents; (3)
`
`a finding that the ’788 patent is obvious; (4) JMOL of no willfulness (or a new trial on willfulness);
`
`and (5) JMOL of no damages.
`
`I.
`
`LEGAL STANDARDS
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(b). JMOL is proper under Rule 50(b) where the jury’s findings are not
`
`supported by substantial evidence or the legal conclusions implied by the verdict are unsupported
`
`by those findings. TI Grp. Auto. Sys. (N. Am.) v. VDO N. Am. L.L.C., 2002 WL 31051602, at *1-
`
`2 (D. Del. Sep. 4, 2002) (granting defendant’s renewed motion for JMOL of no infringement). A
`
`mere “scintilla of evidence is not enough to sustain a verdict of liability.” Lightning Lube, Inc. v.
`
`Witco Corp., 802 F. Supp. 1180, 1185 (D.N.J. 1992), aff’d, 4 F.3d 1153 (3d Cir. 1993).
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 59. “A district court . . . has the discretion to order a new trial.” F’Real
`
`Foods, LLC v. Hamilton Beach Brands, Inc., 457 F. Supp. 3d 434, 443 (D. Del. 2020). The Third
`
`Circuit has recognized the following grounds for a new trial: “the verdict is against the clear weight
`
`of the evidence; damages are excessive; the trial was unfair; and [ ] substantial errors were made
`
`in the admission or rejection of evidence or the giving or refusal of instructions.” Donald M.
`
`Durkin Contracting, Inc. v. City of Newark, 2007 WL 2710451, at *2 (D. Del. Sept. 17, 2007)
`
`(quoting Lightning Lube, 802 F. Supp. at 1186).
`
`II.
`
`NO REASONABLE JURY COULD FIND INFRINGEMENT
`
`A.
`
`’641 Patent: No Substantial Evidence of Induced Infringement of Claim 11
`
`For a finding of induced infringement, “the patentee must show, first that there has been
`
`direct infringement, and second, that the alleged infringer knowingly induced infringement and
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 381 Filed 05/10/24 Page 9 of 33 PageID #: 34563
`
`possessed specific intent to encourage another’s infringement.” Cross Med. Prods. v. Medtronic
`
`Sofamor Danek, Inc., 424 F.3d 1293, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2005); see 35 U.S.C. §§ 271(a)-(b). Wirtgen
`
`proved neither. After the ITC determined that claims 1-10 were invalid, Wirtgen pursued induced
`
`infringement of only claim 11, a method claim. But it did not offer any evidence that anyone ever
`
`performed the claimed method using the accused products, yet that performance is required to be
`
`proven for direct infringement of a method claim. See ePlus v. Lawson Software, Inc., 700 F.3d
`
`509, 521 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (reversing denial of JMOL of no infringement where product was merely
`
`“capable of infringing”). Nor was there any evidence that Caterpillar intended for customers to
`
`activate a feature triggered if and only if users failed to follow Caterpillar’s instructions.
`
`1.
`
`No Direct Infringement by Users
`
`The method of claim 11 requires that (1) one of four safety functions (e.g., rotor shutdown)
`
`is triggered “when detecting that the deviation falls below a pre-determined distance between the
`
`milling drum . . . and the ground surface”; and (2) “a distance is monitored between the rotating,
`
`raised milling drum . . . and the ground surface . . . or an obstacle located in front of the milling
`
`drum.” ’641 patent at 8:17-27. At trial, Wirtgen failed to prove a single instance of either of these
`
`steps being performed by the accused machines. See ePlus, 700 F.3d at 521. Because there is no
`
`direct infringement, there can be no induced infringement. Cross Med. Prods., 424 F.3d at 1312.
`
`Wirtgen failed to show the accused machines triggering a safety function “when detecting
`
`that the deviation falls below a pre-determined distance between the milling drum . . . and the
`
`ground surface.” Wirtgen’s expert never defined this “pre-determined distance” between the drum
`
`and the ground. Trial Tr. at 695:20-699:1. Even now, after a full trial and jury verdict, it remains
`
`a mystery whether this pre-determined distance is alleged by Wirtgen to be one inch, one foot, or
`
`some other amount. In reality, there is no pre-determined distance between the drum and the
`
`ground that triggers a rotor shutdown in the accused machines. As the undisputed evidence
`
`-2-
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 381 Filed 05/10/24 Page 10 of 33 PageID #: 34564
`
`showed, the rotor in Caterpillar’s machines will shut down whenever the rotor is exposed,
`
`regardless of the distance between the drum and the ground. Trial Tr. at 394:20-396:14, 530:12-
`
`532:24 (Engelmann). Because Wirtgen presented no evidence on this “pre-determined distance,”
`
`no reasonable jury could find claim 11 infringed.
`
`As to the monitoring requirement, Caterpillar’s accused rotor disengagement feature
`
`prevents unwanted ground contact with the drum but does so by monitoring rotor exposure, not
`
`distance between the drum and the ground. See Trial Tr. at 531:21-532:3 (Engelmann); Trial Ex.
`
`368.0360 (PM620/622 Presentation) (explaining that rotor disengages when “[t]he moldboard
`
`status changes to ‘Not Lowered’ or any side plate is raised above a threshold”); Trial Tr. at 693:9-
`
`19, 694:1-9 (Meyer). Wirtgen argued at trial that the positions of the side plates and moldboard
`
`relative to the milling drum can be used to “indirect[ly]” monitor the distance between the milling
`
`drum and ground. See Trial Tr. at 681:1-6 (Meyer). But even if this were true, there would still
`
`need to be a mathematical calculation (with the positions of the side plates and moldboard as
`
`inputs) to determine the actual distance between the milling drum and the ground. Wirtgen made
`
`no attempt to show that the accused machines perform such a calculation. Thus, at most, Wirtgen
`
`showed only that the accused machines monitor parameters that could be used, theoretically, to
`
`monitor the distance between the drum and the ground. As a matter of law, this is not enough to
`
`prove infringement of a method claim. See ePlus, 700 F.3d at 521. To infringe, the accused
`
`machines must actually determine the distance between the milling drum and the ground.
`
`2.
`
`No Inducement
`
`Inducement requires direct infringement and a “specific intent” to induce customers to
`
`infringe. Cross Med. Prods., 424 F.3d at 1312. Neither the fact that accused machines can be
`
`driven backwards nor the ability of safety features to be triggered if and only if users fail to follow
`
`Caterpillar’s instructions evidence such intent. At trial, the sole evidence on which Wirtgen relied
`
`-3-
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 381 Filed 05/10/24 Page 11 of 33 PageID #: 34565
`
`for such intent is a mere description in Caterpillar’s manual as to the design of the reverse rotor
`
`shutoff feature. Trial Tr. at 1138:20-22. This is insufficient as a matter of law. See, e.g., Takeda
`
`Pharms. U.S.A., Inc. v. W.-Ward Pharm. Corp., 785 F.3d 625, 631 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“describ[ing]
`
`an infringing mode is not the same as recommending, encouraging, or promoting an infringing
`
`use”) (cleaned up); Fujitsu Ltd. v. Netgear Inc., 620 F.3d 1321, 1328-29 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (no direct
`
`infringement where default settings on accused products were non-infringing despite manuals
`
`“show[ing] that the products are capable of infringing”); see also Trial Tr. at 1139:11-13 (“THE
`
`COURT: I mean, so it is an induced infringement claim, right. It’s not just enabling, it’s a step
`
`beyond that, right? It’s promoting.”).
`
`Wirtgen’s reliance on the instruction manual is particularly unavailing given that in the
`
`same manual, Caterpillar has for years been instructing users to “raise the rotor to clear all the
`
`obstacles,” such that the rotor disengagement feature never gets activated by the obstacles. Trial
`
`Ex. 4627 (Sept. 2020 PM620/622 OMM) at .0033; see Trial Tr. at 1097:17-1098:18 (Klopp) (“I
`
`think [Caterpillar was] basically telling their customers [not to use the reverse shut off feature] . .
`
`. because the instruction manual for the machine says something to the effect of when traveling in
`
`reverse, raise the machine to clear all obstacles”); Trial Tr. at 517:24-518:3 (Engelmann).
`
`Caterpillar’s instructions render the reverse rotor shut-off feature unnecessary, and the
`
`“possibility” that the accused feature could be activated—if a user violated the manufacturer’s
`
`instructions—cannot support inducement. See, e.g., Exergen Corp. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 575
`
`F.3d 1312, 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (reversing verdict of induced infringement where customer who
`
`“actually followed the accompanying instructions” would not perform infringing method);
`
`QXMedical, LLC v. Vascular Sols., LLC, 408 F. Supp. 3d 996, 1013 (D. Minn. 2019) (granting
`
`summary judgment where instructions described both infringing and non-infringing uses but
`
`-4-
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 381 Filed 05/10/24 Page 12 of 33 PageID #: 34566
`
`“specifically instructs surgeons not to use” in infringing manner) (emphasis in original).
`
`B.
`
`’788 Patent: No Substantial Evidence of Infringement of Claim 5
`
`1.
`
`The Accused Products Do Not “Pre-Set” an Operating Parameter
`
`The road-milling machines at issue in this case have several available sensors that may be
`
`used when positioning their milling drum while milling. But not all these sensors are actively used
`
`at the same time. Claim 5 describes one specific design for toggling between sensors—it recites
`
`pre-selecting
`
`a
`
`replacement
`
`sensor
`
`and
`
`pre-setting
`
`an
`
`operating parameter prior
`
`to
`
`effecting the switchover. As
`
`shown in Figure 6A (shown with
`
`annotations),
`
`the ’788 patent
`
`does this by adding a third screen
`
`(highlighted) between screens representing the left and
`
`right sides of the machine. This way, the operator may
`
`“pre-select” and “pre-set” the replacement sensor’s
`
`target value before pressing the switchover device to
`
`swap sensors.
`
`Caterpillar’s accused products lack a third
`
`screen or any other mechanism for pre-setting an
`
`operating parameter. Trial Tr. at 1195:24-1198:2
`
`(Smith). As shown in Trial Ex. 264A (shown with
`
`annotations), the target value is not set until after the
`
`block labeled “Swap Senor,” which represents the last
`
`-5-
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 381 Filed 05/10/24 Page 13 of 33 PageID #: 34567
`
`user input before swapping sensors. Referring to this flow chart, Dr. Valerdi, Wirtgen’s source
`
`code expert, acknowledged that (1) Caterpillar’s sensor swap is initiated after the user’s input
`
`(Trial Tr. at 763:14-764:8 (Valerdi); Trial Ex. 264A at .0012); and (2) the replacement sensor’s
`
`operating parameter is not “set” until immediately before the final step of switchover. See id. at
`
`769:15-771:4, 774:16-775:8 (Valerdi); 862:9-863:2 (Rahn). Dr. Valerdi thus confirmed a
`
`replacement sensor’s operating parameter is not pre-set “prior to” effecting the switchover but is
`
`instead set after the user initiated switchover.
`
`Wirtgen’s infringement theory impermissibly renders the distinction between “pre-set” and
`
`“set” meaningless. K-2 Corp. v. Salomon S.A., 191 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (rejecting
`
`reading of “permanently affixed” which “would effectively expunge the term ‘permanently’ from
`
`the claim language”). It is also inconsistent with Wirtgen’s position on another one of claim 5’s
`
`requirements—“pre-selecting”—where Wirtgen recognized that the prefix “pre” means “before
`
`you want to make the swap.” Trial Tr. at 820:17-821:5 (Rahn).
`
`As shown by undisputed evidence, the accused products do not pre-set a sensor’s operating
`
`parameters, and a reasonable fact finder could not find otherwise.
`
`2.
`
`The Accused Products Do Not Have a “Switchover Device”
`
`To make the sensor swap possible, the alleged invention uses a “switchover device”
`
`construed by the Court as a “a controller input and output switch.” D.I. 182. Caterpillar’s accused
`
`products lack “a controller input and output switch.” Instead, the accused products require
`
`pressing multiple buttons on the user interface to swap sensors. Trial Tr. at 866:9-867:14 (Rahn).
`
`There is no one digital “controller input and output switch” effectuating the switchover. Id.
`
`3.
`
`The Accused Products Do Not Display a “Current Actual Value”
`
`Claim 1, from which claim 5 depends, requires a plurality of indication and setting devices
`
`that are operable to indicate the current actual value” of an associated sensor. The Court construed
`
`-6-
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 381 Filed 05/10/24 Page 14 of 33 PageID #: 34568
`
`“current actual value” as “currently measured actual value.” D.I. 168. Each indication and setting
`
`device must, therefore, display the same current actual value measured by an associated sensor.
`
`Trial Tr. at 868:18-20 (Rahn). However, the accused machines use a complex system of controllers
`
`and processors that convert, merge, and process sensor values, all of which take time. See Trial
`
`Tr. at 529:13-530:10 (Engelmann). As a result, the values shown on the screen for each device
`
`cannot be “current” or “actual” values measured by the sensor. Id. Indeed, Wirtgen’s source code
`
`expert (Dr. Valerdi) conceded that the values shown on the screen are different from the values
`
`needed to control whether the milling machine is on grade (i.e., the current actual values). Trial
`
`Tr. at 785:20-786:5 (Valerdi); see also id. at 868:21-869:12 (Rahn) (admitting uncertainty about
`
`values shown on operator’s screen).
`
`Wirtgen thus failed to establish that a current actual value measured by a sensor—rather
`
`than a value derived from such measurement—is displayed on an indication and setting device.
`
`C.
`
`’972 Patent: No Substantial Evidence of Infringement of Claim 12
`
`Wirtgen failed to present substantial evidence that the accused products “automatically”
`
`control the height of at least one lifting column “to establish a parallel orientation.” The unrebutted
`
`evidence before the jury established that the feature allegedly meeting this limitation—the “creep-
`
`to-inclination” feature—is not automatic but requires user intervention. Wirtgen’s failure to meet
`
`this “automatic” limitation dooms its infringement case. See 800 Adept, Inc. v. Murex Sec., Ltd.,
`
`539 F.3d 1354, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (reversing denial of JMOL on non-infringement because of
`
`failure to meet “assigning” limitations).
`
`Dr. Valerdi, Wirtgen’s software expert, acknowledged that “[b]efore using the creep-to-
`
`inclination feature, the operator is required to first calibrate the track angle sensors” and must
`
`do so “to ensure that the milling machine is operating parallel to the ground surface.” Trial Tr. at
`
`788:3-10 (Valerdi). Dr. Valerdi also agreed that “during the creep-to-inclination operation, this
`
`-7-
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 381 Filed 05/10/24 Page 15 of 33 PageID #: 34569
`
`stored value, the one that’s been established through the calibration is then used to drive the rear
`
`legs until the sensor reads the same value again.” Id. at 788:16-21 (Valerdi); see also id. at 612:20-
`
`618:2 (Lumkes) (identifying creep-to-inclination as feature by which accused products allegedly
`
`“automatically . . . establish a parallel orientation”). “[I]t is too late at the JMOL stage” for Wirtgen
`
`to attempt to redefine “automatically” to capture an accused feature requiring user intervention;1
`
`“[t]he verdict must be tested by the charge actually given and by giving the ordinary meaning of
`
`the language of the jury instruction.” Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Mustek Sys., Inc., 340 F.3d 1314,
`
`1321 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (reversing denial of JMOL where verdict was contrary to ordinary meaning
`
`of unconstrued term).
`
`Not only does Wirtgen fail to address the “automatic” requirement, but it also cannot
`
`establish that the accused products with track angle sensors are able to discern “the orientation of
`
`the machine frame relative to the ground surface in the direction of travel,” as required by claim
`
`12. See Trial Tr. at 1907:10-11 (Lumkes) (“controller [of claim 1] needs to be able to know what
`
`the orientation is”). But while track angle sensors know the “angle between the leg going up and
`
`the track itself,” id. at 612:6-8 (Lumkes), they do not know the orientation of the machine frame
`
`relative to the ground surface. Yet, the manual calibration value is “required” to “ensure that the
`
`milling machine is operating parallel to the ground surface.” Id. at 788:7-10 (Valerdi). As such,
`
`if an operator failed to calibrate the machine or did so incorrectly, the controller would not
`
`1 See, e.g., Trial Tr. at 693:20-23 (Meyer) (defining “automatic” to mean “there is nothing an
`operator has to turn on”); Personalized User Model LLP v. Google Inc., C.A. No. 09-525-LPS
`[348] (“‘automatic’ means ‘without human intervention.’”) (D. Del. Jan. 25, 2012); Retailmenot,
`Inc. v. Honey Sci. Corp., 2019 WL 6337719, at *18 (D. Del. Nov. 27, 2019) (“automatically”
`means “without human intervention”); Alarm.com, Inc. v. SecureNet Techs., No. 15-807-GMS
`[94] (D. Del. Apr. 6, 2018) (“automatically” and variants construed as “without user input”); see
`also BRITANNICA DICTIONARY (“automatic” means “having controls that allow something to work
`or happen without being directly controlled by a person”).
`
`-8-
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 381 Filed 05/10/24 Page 16 of 33 PageID #: 34570
`
`necessarily orient the machine at a parallel orientation.
`
`For this additional reason, the infringement verdict cannot be sustained.
`
`D.
`
`’309 Patent: No Substantial Evidence of Infringement of Claim 29
`
`Claim 29 requires that “the machine has a four-sided stability pattern.” Wirtgen failed to
`
`prove that the accused products actually have the “four-sided stability pattern” limitation. At most,
`
`Wirtgen attempted to prove that the accused products could potentially form a “four-sided stability
`
`pattern” when the “ride control” function was active. See, e.g., Trial Tr. at 595:14-22 (Lumkes).
`
`This is insu