Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 413 Filed 06/14/24 Page 1 of 16 PageID #: 38675
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`WIRTGEN AMERICA, INC.
`
`
`Plaintiff/Counterclaim-
`Defendant,
`v.
`
`CATERPILLAR INC.
`
`Defendant/Counterclaim
`Plaintiff.
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 17-770-JDW
`
`
`
`PLAINTIFF’S REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF
`MOTIONS FOR ENHANCED DAMAGES, ATTORNEYS’ FEES,
`INJUNCTION OR ONGOING ROYALTIES, AND OTHER RELIEF
`
`
`
`YOUNG CONAWAY STARGATT &
`TAYLOR, LLP
`
`Adam W. Poff (No. 3990)
`Samantha G. Wilson (No. 5816)
`Rodney Square
`1000 North King Street
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`(302) 571-6600
`apoff@ycst.com
`swilson@ycst.com
`
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff Wirtgen America, Inc.
`
`Dated: June 14, 2024
`
`OF COUNSEL:
`
`Ryan D. Levy
`Seth R. Ogden
`William E. Sekyi
`Mark A. Kilgore
`PATTERSON INTELLECTUAL
`PROPERTY LAW, P.C.
`1600 Division Street, Suite 500
`Nashville, Tennessee 37203
`(615) 242-2400
`rdl@iplawgroup.com
`sro@iplawgroup.com
`wes@iplawgroup.com
`mak@iplawgroup.com
`
`
`- and -
`
`
`Daniel E. Yonan
`Paul A. Ainsworth
`STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C.
`1101 K Street, NW, 10th Floor
`Washington, DC 20005
`(202) 371-2600
`dyonan@sternekessler.com
`painsworth@sternekessler.com
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 413 Filed 06/14/24 Page 2 of 16 PageID #: 38676
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`The Court Should Treble Damages and Award Attorneys’ Fees ....................................... 1
`A.
`Caterpillar’s willful infringement warrants enhancement. ..................................... 1
`B.
`The exceptionality of this case entitles Wirtgen to fees. ........................................ 6
`The Court Should Enjoin Caterpillar’s Infringement ......................................................... 6
`A.
`Irreparable Harm ..................................................................................................... 6
`B.
`Adequate Remedies at Law .................................................................................... 8
`C.
`Balance of Hardships .............................................................................................. 8
`D.
`Public Interest ......................................................................................................... 9
`E.
`Ongoing Royalty ..................................................................................................... 9
`III. Wirtgen is entitled to pre- and post-judgment interest........................................................ 9
`IV. Wirtgen Is Entitled to Damages for Caterpillar’s Infringing Rotary Mixers .................... 10
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- i -
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 413 Filed 06/14/24 Page 3 of 16 PageID #: 38677
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cases
`
`Amgen Inc. v. Hospira, Inc.,
`336 F. Supp. 3d 333 (D. Del. 2018) .........................................................................................10
`
`Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co.,
`258 F. Supp. 3d 1013 (N.D. Cal. 2017) .....................................................................................2
`
`Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co.,
`809 F.3d 633 (Fed. Cir. 2015)............................................................................................7, 8, 9
`
`Bioverativ Inc. v. CSL Behring,
`2020 WL 1332921 (D. Del. Mar. 23, 2020) ..............................................................................2
`
`Carnegie Mellon Univ. v. Marvelle Tech. Grp., Ltd.,
`807 F.3d 1283 (Fed. Cir. 2015)..................................................................................................5
`
`Crystal Semiconductor Corp. v. TriTech Microelecs. Int’l, Inc.,
`246 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2001)............................................................................................4, 10
`
`Douglas Dynamics, LLC v. Buyers Prods. Co.,
`717 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2013)..................................................................................................8
`
`Extang Corp. v. Truck Accessories Grp., LLC,
`2022 WL 607868 (D. Del. Feb. 18, 2022) .................................................................................2
`
`Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Sys., Inc.,
`2016 WL 3880774 (N.D. Cal. July 18, 2016) ........................................................................2, 5
`
`Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Sys., LLC,
`2016 WL 6873541 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 22, 2016) ..........................................................................7
`
`Gen. Motors Corp. v. Devex Corp.,
`461 U.S. 648 (1983) .................................................................................................................10
`
`Golight, Inc. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.,
`355 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2004)..................................................................................................4
`
`Green Mountain Glass LLC v. Saint-Gobain Containers, Inc.,
`300 F. Supp. 3d 610 (D. Del. 2018) ...........................................................................................5
`
`Halo Elecs., Inc. v. Pulse Elecs., Inc.,
`579 U.S. 93 (2016) .....................................................................................................................4
`
`
`
`- ii -
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 413 Filed 06/14/24 Page 4 of 16 PageID #: 38678
`
`i4i Ltd. P’ship v. Microsoft Corp.,
`598 F.3d 831 (Fed. Cir. 2010)....................................................................................................6
`
`Idenix Pharms. LLC v. Gilead Scis., Inc.,
`271 F. Supp. 3d 694 (D. Del. 2017) ...........................................................................................6
`
`Kaufman v. Microsoft Corp.,
`34 F.4th 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2022) ................................................................................................10
`
`MHL Custom, Inc. v. Waydoo USA, Inc.,
`2023 WL 5805889 (D. Del. Sept. 7, 2023) ..............................................................................10
`
`Purewick Corp. v. Sage Prods., LLC,
`666 F. Supp. 3d 419 (D. Del. 2023) .........................................................................................10
`
`Radware, Ltd. v. F5 Networks, Inc.,
`2016 WL 4427490 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 22, 2016) ..........................................................................2
`
`Read Corp. v. Portec, Inc.,
`970 F.2d 816 (Fed. Cir. 1992)................................................................................................4, 5
`
`Riverbed Tech. v. Silver Peak Sys., Inc.,
`2014 WL 4695765 (D. Del. Sept. 12, 2014) ..............................................................................8
`
`Schwendimann v. Arkwright Advanced Coating, Inc.,
`959 F.3d 1065 (Fed. Cir. 2020)................................................................................................10
`
`Stryker Corp. v. Intermedics Orthopedics, Inc.,
`96 F.3d 1409 (Fed. Cir. 1996)................................................................................................3, 4
`
`TEK Glob., S.R.L. v. Sealant Sys. Int’l, Inc.,
`920 F.3d 777 (Fed. Cir. 2019)....................................................................................................6
`
`Tex. Advanced Optoelectronic Sols., Inc. v. Renesas Elecs. Am., Inc.,
`895 F.3d 1304 (Fed. Cir. 2018)..................................................................................................8
`
`U.S. v. U.S. Gypsum Co.,
`333 U.S. 364 (1948) ...................................................................................................................7
`
`Wash World Inc. v. Belanger Inc.,
`666 F. Supp. 3d 808 (E.D. Wisc. 2023) .....................................................................................2
`
`WBIP, LLC v. Kohler Co.,
`2014 WL 585854 (D. Mass. Feb. 12, 2014), aff’d, 829 F.3d 1317 (Fed. Cir.
`2016) ......................................................................................................................................2, 4
`
`WCM Indus. v. IPS Corp.,
`2016 WL 7448709 (W.D. Tenn. May 16, 2016) .......................................................................7
`
`
`
`- iii -
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 413 Filed 06/14/24 Page 5 of 16 PageID #: 38679
`
`I.
`
`The Court Should Treble Damages and Award Attorneys’ Fees
`
`Caterpillar’s disregard for Wirtgen’s patent rights warrants treble damages and attorneys’
`
`fees. Caterpillar’s answering brief (D.I. 389 (“Opp.”)) does nothing to refute that conclusion.
`
`A.
`
`Caterpillar’s willful infringement warrants enhancement.
`
`Caterpillar copied Wirtgen’s patented technologies.
`
`1.
`Caterpillar does little to rebut the overwhelming copying evidence. Instead, Caterpillar
`
`rehashes infringement and invalidity issues the jury already decided. See, e.g., Opp. 5.
`
`Caterpillar’s other arguments misinterpret—and at times rewrite—the record.
`
`Caterpillar claims (at 2, 4) that the infringing functionalities predate the teardowns. But
`
`Caterpillar’s own witness testimony and documents show that every infringing feature was new.
`
`See Trial Tr. (“Tr.”) 415:22–416:1, 418:6–421:5, 421:15–424:13, 425:12–427:9, 428:25–431:1,
`
`431:8–432:17 (Engelmann); Ex. 227A.0021; Ex. 602.0107; Ex. 604.0003, .0005; Ex. 611.0039.
`
`Caterpillar also claims (at 3–4) Wirtgen failed to show the torn-down machines practice
`
`the patents. Wrong: the W210 practices the infringed patents. Tr. 318:1–325:6, 326:15–328:12
`
`(Schmidt). Wirtgen marked its products, including the W210, with the patents. Ex. 2946; Ex.
`
`2949; Tr. 280:15–286:7 (Haehn). Wirtgen’s policy was to patent the inventions on its machines.
`
`Tr. 277:24–280:3, 286:18–287:9 (Haehn). And Wirtgen’s experts concluded the W210 practices
`
`the infringed patents. See Tr. 638:10–639:25 (Lumkes), 676:9–677:3 (Meyer). Caterpillar’s
`
`witnesses admitted they knew this. Tr. 432:22–433:17, 434:3–435:2, 555:9–16 (Engelmann); Tr.
`
`564:18–565:21 (Steffen); Tr. 668:10–17 (Killion); Tr. 1076:24–1077:1 (Sansone).
`
`Although Caterpillar argues it merely benchmarked against Wirtgen’s machines, it went
`
`much further. Caterpillar purchased Wirtgen’s machines, tore them down, photographed and
`
`cataloged every part, and identified desirable features. See Wirtgen’s Opening Brief, D.I. 372
`
`(“Mot.”) 3–5. Caterpillar then categorized those patented features into “catch-up,” “value
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 413 Filed 06/14/24 Page 6 of 16 PageID #: 38680
`
`match,” and “superior” features, and implemented them on its machines. Id. at 4–5.1
`
`Caterpillar suggests (at 3) that its teardowns were irrelevant because they occurred in
`
`2010, before some patents issued. But copying before patent issuance and continuing sales after
`
`it supports enhancement. WBIP, LLC v. Kohler Co., 2014 WL 585854, at *7 (D. Mass. Feb. 12,
`
`2014), aff’d, 829 F.3d 1317, 1339–42 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., 258 F.
`
`Supp. 3d 1013, 1024–25, 1030–31 (N.D. Cal. 2017); cf. Tr. 2086:6–18 (jury instruction noting
`
`that pre-issuance conduct is relevant to willfulness).
`
`Caterpillar’s patent-specific arguments are unpersuasive. For the ’530 patent, Caterpillar
`
`argues that Wirtgen drafted claims to cover Caterpillar’s products but points only to (incorrect)
`
`attorney argument in its estoppel brief for support. The original ’530 patent specification, filed
`
`15 years ago, fully supports the asserted claims, as the Patent Office already concluded when it
`
`allowed the ’530 patent claims. The timeline contradicts Caterpillar’s argument. And the jury
`
`heard substantial evidence that the copying went the other way. Tr. 412:13–413:11, 430:1–6,
`
`451:16–452:7 (Engelmann).
`
`That Caterpillar used the same magnetic component of a position sensor before the ’530
`
`patent issued says nothing about copying the claimed invention. Use of a position sensor on an
`
`unidentified machine for some unidentified purpose is irrelevant. And Caterpillar’s position
`
`sensor would not work with the magnet alone. Tr. 384:4–386:24 (Engelmann). Caterpillar’s own
`
`documents identify the copied sensor arrangement of its infringing machines as a post-teardown
`
`
`1 Caterpillar’s benchmarking cases are unavailing. Cf. Radware, Ltd. v. F5 Networks, Inc., 2016
`WL 4427490 at *6 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 22, 2016) (bought plaintiff’s product after accused product
`release); Wash World Inc. v. Belanger Inc., 666 F. Supp. 3d 808, 827 (E.D. Wisc. 2023) (only
`knew of plaintiff’s product); Extang Corp. v. Truck Accessories Grp., LLC, 2022 WL 607868, at
`*2 (D. Del. Feb. 18, 2022) (only compared products); Bioverativ Inc. v. CSL Behring, 2020 WL
`1332921, at *3 (D. Del. Mar. 23, 2020) (only tracked clinical trials); Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat
`Sys., Inc., 2016 WL 3880774, at *16 (N.D. Cal. July 18, 2016) (only monitored products).
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 413 Filed 06/14/24 Page 7 of 16 PageID #: 38681
`
`“value match” feature. Ex. 611.0039; Ex. 604.0003. That Caterpillar uses “a different type of
`
`sensor” from an exemplary embodiment, Opp. 4, is irrelevant. The relevant copying is of the
`
`patented feature, which encompasses measuring devices of various types. ’530 patent, 3:3–7.
`
`For the ’972 patent, Caterpillar argues that its earlier machines had its own versions of a
`
`parallel-to-surface feature. So what? Caterpillar copied Wirtgen’s PTS feature at issue. At the
`
`time of the teardown, Caterpillar’s comparable machine did not have the infringing PTS feature
`
`(a “catch up” feature). Tr. 554:7–24 (Engelmann); Ex. 604.0003; Ex. 611.0039; Ex. 602.0107.
`
`Caterpillar now points to its outdated prior-model PM465 and PM565 machines—machines not
`
`even considered in designing the PM600 series—as having their own versions of PTS. Tr.
`
`554:25–555:8 (Engelmann). But the jury already rejected this argument, finding no anticipation.
`
`Caterpillar seems to suggest that copying must result in an exact copy to be relevant. But
`
`the Federal Circuit has long rejected this heightened standard. See Stryker Corp. v. Intermedics
`
`Orthopedics, Inc., 96 F.3d 1409, 1414 (Fed. Cir. 1996). Instead, the question is “whether the
`
`infringer deliberately copied the ideas or design of another.” Id. That standard is satisfied here.
`
`For the ’641 patent, Mr. Engelmann testified that the reverse rotor shutoff feature from
`
`the W210 machine ultimately made its way onto Caterpillar’s milling machines. Tr. 426:6–24
`
`(Engelmann). Caterpillar’s reverse shutoff feature was always enabled when driving backwards
`
`with the drum turned on and therefore practiced the claimed method (as the jury found). Tr.
`
`396:24–397:3, 396:24–397:8 (Engelmann), 693:9–25, 694:17–695:13, 705:7–13 (Meyer).
`
`For the ’788 patent, Caterpillar identified the hot swap feature as a “superior” feature.
`
`Ex. 611.0039. Caterpillar argues (at 5) that it did not copy because its infringing machines use
`
`two screens instead of three and that its hot swap feature does not allow manual setting by the
`
`operator. That Wirtgen had a manual option in addition to the automatic option does not change
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 413 Filed 06/14/24 Page 8 of 16 PageID #: 38682
`
`the fact that Caterpillar copied the automatic option. And, by observing Wirtgen’s three screens,
`
`Caterpillar did not need Wirtgen’s software to copy the patented functionality. Contra Opp. 5.
`
`For the ’309 patent, Caterpillar did not have the four-fold floating axle feature, or ride
`
`control, before its teardowns and identified the feature as a “catch up” feature after its teardowns.
`
`Ex. 602.0107; Ex. 604.0005. Copies do not have to be exact copies. See Stryker, 96 F.3d at 1414.
`
`And even Caterpillar admits (at 6) that it took Wirtgen’s patented system and added to it.
`
`Caterpillar had no good-faith belief of invalidity or noninfringement.
`
`2.
`Caterpillar presented no evidence of a good-faith belief of invalidity or non-infringement
`
`other than defenses formulated after being sued. The relevant question is “whether the infringer,
`
`when he knew of the other’s patent protection, investigated…the patent and formed a good faith
`
`belief that it was invalid or that it was not infringed.” Read Corp. v. Portec, Inc., 970 F.2d 816,
`
`827 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (emphasis added). What matters is the defendant’s state of mind at the time
`
`of the misconduct. See Halo Elecs., Inc. v. Pulse Elecs., Inc., 579 U.S. 93, 106 (2016). Proof of
`
`litigation-inspired defenses is not a defense to enhanced damages. WBIP, 829 F.3d at 1341; see
`
`Crystal Semiconductor Corp. v. TriTech Microelecs. Int’l, Inc., 246 F.3d 1336, 1351–52 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2001). Caterpillar (at 7) emphasizes its review process to avoid infringement. But there is no
`
`evidence that it investigated the infringed patents when it learned of them or that its trial
`
`witnesses’ subjective beliefs were shared by Caterpillar’s decision makers. In any event, the jury
`
`plainly rejected any such position.
`
`Caterpillar also offers no evidence that it took appropriate action to avoid infringement
`
`after litigation began. It continued its infringing sales. See Golight, Inc. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.,
`
`355 F.3d 1327, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2004). That Caterpillar obtained patents related to reverse rotor
`
`shut off and ride control is irrelevant. Contra Opp. 8. “Many patents claim products or processes
`
`that supplement or refine, and remain fully covered by, inventions claimed in others’ earlier
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 413 Filed 06/14/24 Page 9 of 16 PageID #: 38683
`
`patents.” Carnegie Mellon Univ. v. Marvelle Tech. Grp., Ltd., 807 F.3d 1283, 1300–01 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2015). Regardless, the jury rejected the relevance of Caterpillar’s patents. Cf. Tr. 2080:4–11.
`
`The remaining factors support enhancement.
`
`3.
`The third and fifth factors (litigation behavior and closeness of the case) favor
`
`enhancement. Caterpillar dropped defenses to the ’309 and ’530 patents. Caterpillar’s experts did
`
`not testify on noninfringement despite providing such opinions throughout discovery. Compare
`
`D.I. 299-6, Ex. 3B, with Tr. 1732:16–19 (Rakow). Caterpillar does not provide evidence of its
`
`good conduct, and its attacks on Wirtgen’s conduct are irrelevant. Cf. Read, 970 F.2d at 827
`
`(third factor is “the infringer’s behavior as a party to the litigation”) (emphasis added).
`
`Caterpillar does not dispute the fourth factor (size), as Caterpillar’s financial condition
`
`certainly supports enhancement. And Wirtgen’s financial condition is irrelevant. See Read, 970
`
`F.2d at 827 (fourth factor is “[d]efendant’s size and financial condition”); contra Opp. 12.
`
`The sixth and seventh factors (duration of infringement and remedial efforts) also favor
`
`enhancement. Caterpillar undisputedly has been infringing since at least 2016. Mot. 9.
`
`Caterpillar’s belated declaration evidence does not overcome the fact that Caterpillar continued
`
`to make and sell the infringing machines for more than two years. Tr. 1879:19–1880:8 (Reed).
`
`And Caterpillar continues to sell other infringing machines to this day.
`
`Finally, Caterpillar’s motivation to harm favors enhancement. Caterpillar targeted
`
`Wirtgen and copied the features customers liked most to directly compete. Tr. 410:15–411:24
`
`(Engelmann), 665:22–666:15 (Killion), 1784:16–1786:6 (Just); Ex. 562.0029–30. Caterpillar
`
`purposefully undercut Wirtgen’s pricing, to the point of causing a reduction of the average sales
`
`price of milling machines industrywide. Tr. 1801:9–1802:10 (Just). Caterpillar did much more
`
`than the parties in the cases Caterpillar cites. Cf. Finjan, 2016 WL 3880774, at *17 (no evidence
`
`of deliberate copying); Green Mountain Glass LLC v. Saint-Gobain Containers, Inc., 300 F.
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 413 Filed 06/14/24 Page 10 of 16 PageID #: 38684
`
`Supp. 3d 610, 630 (D. Del. 2018) (no evidence that defendant’s market gain stemmed from
`
`infringing process); Idenix Pharms. LLC v. Gilead Scis., Inc., 271 F. Supp. 3d 694, 702 (D. Del.
`
`2017) (defendant was motivated to “develop a cure to a devastating, life-threatening disease”).
`
`The exceptionality of this case entitles Wirtgen to fees.
`
`B.
`Where willfulness is egregious—like it is here—an exceptional case finding should
`
`follow. Contra Opp. 14. Caterpillar focuses on Wirtgen’s litigation conduct rather than its own.
`
`But Wirtgen acted reasonably by successfully pursuing its patent rights here and in the ITC,
`
`which enjoined Caterpillar from importing infringing products (an order Caterpillar evaded).
`
`Caterpillar’s egregious infringement forced Wirtgen to assert numerous claims, which Wirtgen
`
`reduced over the course of litigation, as is “expected” in cases like this one. Opp. 11.
`
`II.
`
`The Court Should Enjoin Caterpillar’s Infringement
`
`Caterpillar will infringe so long as it is financially beneficial. If the infringing features
`
`were not valuable to customers, Caterpillar would remove them. Wirtgen’s requested injunctive
`
`relief simply seeks removal of the infringing features, not to stop Caterpillar machine sales. All
`
`four eBay factors are satisfied here, compelling injunctive relief.
`
`Irreparable Harm
`
`A.
`Lost Market Share. When it entered the market, Caterpillar undisputedly gained market
`
`share equal to that lost by Wirtgen. Mot. 18; Tr. 205:9–206:5 (McEvoy). “Past harm to a
`
`patentee’s market share” is relevant to irreparable harm. i4i Ltd. P’ship v. Microsoft Corp., 598
`
`F.3d 831, 861–62 (Fed. Cir. 2010); see TEK Glob., S.R.L. v. Sealant Sys. Int’l, Inc., 920 F.3d
`
`777, 792–93 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (rejecting the argument Caterpillar makes here). The other factors
`
`that Caterpillar claims (at 19) drive demand have always existed; Caterpillar’s market share
`
`increased only when it introduced the infringing machines. Wirtgen regaining market share with
`
`a new machine having additional patented features does not relieve the future harm from
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 413 Filed 06/14/24 Page 11 of 16 PageID #: 38685
`
`competing against Caterpillar’s infringing product at discounted prices that fail to account for
`
`development costs. Tr. 209:17–212:9, 221:10–13, 222:9–13 (McEvoy), 1861:3–12 (Reed); Ex.
`
`2949 (showing additional patented features for new W200 Fi series models).
`
`Nexus. The patented features “impact[] customers’ purchasing decisions.” Apple Inc. v.
`
`Samsung Elecs. Co., 809 F.3d 633, 641 (Fed. Cir. 2015); Mot. 18. Caterpillar wrongly argues (at
`
`18) that the patented features must drive demand to show irreparable harm. The Federal Circuit
`
`rejected that standard; “[s]uch a showing may…be nearly impossible…when the accused devices
`
`have thousands of features, and thus thousands of other potential causes that must be ruled out.”
`
`Apple, 809 F.3d at 641. Caterpillar admits (at 18) that Wirtgen’s evidence comes from
`
`“Caterpillar documents reflecting…consumer surveys.” Such contemporaneous evidence
`
`regarding irreparable harm is entitled to significantly more weight than self-serving analyses of
`
`the marketplace. United States v. U.S. Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364, 396 (1948).
`
`No Pattern of Delay. After learning of Caterpillar’s infringement, Wirtgen diligently
`
`investigated it and filed suit at the ITC, in Italy, and here. Wirtgen’s success at the ITC resulted
`
`in injunctive relief. Yet Caterpillar skirted the ITC exclusion order by moving production to the
`
`U.S. That behavior further supports an injunction. And Caterpillar cites no precedent that failure
`
`to seek a preliminary injunction mandates a finding of no irreparable harm.2
`
`Quantifying Past Damages. The ability to quantify past damages does not preclude a
`
`permanent injunction. In Finjan, the Court denied a preliminary injunction where the patentee
`
`was a non-practicing entity that regularly licensed its patents on a nonexclusive basis. Finjan,
`
`Inc. v. Blue Coat Sys., LLC, 2016 WL 6873541, at *9 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 22, 2016). Caterpillar
`
`
`2 The Ameritox case Caterpillar cites (at 20) found that no eBay factor supported an injunction
`where the only alleged irreparable harm was a single instance of inadvertent infringement at a
`trade show. See WCM Indus. v. IPS Corp., 2016 WL 7448709, at *3 (W.D. Tenn. May 16, 2016).
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 413 Filed 06/14/24 Page 12 of 16 PageID #: 38686
`
`relies on the dissent in Douglas—without any indicative parenthetical—and neglects to inform
`
`the Court that the Federal Circuit reversed the district court and instructed it to enter a permanent
`
`injunction. Douglas Dynamics, LLC v. Buyers Prods. Co., 717 F.3d 1336, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2013).
`
`Adequate Remedies at Law
`
`B.
`Caterpillar does not address the case law demonstrating that unwillingness to license and
`
`engaging in lengthy litigation to protect that decision demonstrate the inadequacy of prospective
`
`monetary damages. Mot. 18–19; Riverbed Tech. v. Silver Peak Sys., Inc., 2014 WL 4695765, at
`
`*13 (D. Del. Sept. 12, 2014). Instead, Caterpillar (at 20) incorrectly asserts that Wirtgen’s
`
`quantification of a royalty at trial precludes an injunction. See Tex. Advanced Optoelectronic
`
`Sols., Inc. v. Renesas Elecs. Am., Inc., 895 F.3d 1304, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (while “[a] patentee
`
`may find a royalty to be the most appropriate remedy for past infringement,” an injunction may
`
`be necessary to prevent other future harms). Caterpillar also does not address Wirtgen’s evidence
`
`demonstrating ecosystem effect. Mot. 19. That damages related to parts can be calculated says
`
`nothing about ecosystem effect for additional road construction machines. See Opp. 21 (noting
`
`that Wirtgen derives revenue “from multiple products such as soil stabilizers and pavers”).
`
`Balance of Hardships
`
`C.
`Infringement that caused lost market share by forcing the patentee to compete against its
`
`own invention “strongly weighs in favor of an injunction” that is narrowly tailored to do no more
`
`than deprive the infringer of the ability to continue to use the patented features. Apple, 809 F.3d
`
`at 646. Caterpillar will not lose out on development and commercialization costs. Contra Opp.
`
`22. It can still sell machines with its noninfringing technology—just not machines with
`
`Wirtgen’s patented features. The only remaining infringing features are software based and
`
`therefore easy to disable, whereafter Caterpillar can redesign at little cost. See, e.g., Ex. 263A
`
`(noting that the cost per machine is $0 for a hot swap redesign (’788 patent) and $800 for a leg
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 413 Filed 06/14/24 Page 13 of 16 PageID #: 38687
`
`sensor redesign (’972 patent)). “[W]hen the infringer ‘has a non-infringing alternative which it
`
`could easily deliver to the market, then the balance of hardships would suggest that it should halt
`
`infringement and pursue a lawful course of market conduct.’” Apple, 809 F.3d at 646.3
`
`Public Interest
`
`D.
`Caterpillar’s argument (at 23) that an injunction will preclude it from selling machines with
`
`its “superior features” lacks support. Caterpillar can sell machines without infringing features. And
`
`because a software update can disable the remaining infringing features, no sunset provision is
`
`needed. Caterpillar has had ample time to implement redesigns; it just chose not to.4
`
`Ongoing Royalty
`
`E.
`According to Caterpillar, the patented features have no value. The jury disagreed. The
`
`law requires that the patentee be compensated with a reasonable royalty. Wirtgen presented an
`
`appropriate per-unit royalty derived directly from the jury award and the royalty base (i.e.,
`
`number of machines Caterpillar sold). Mot. 22; Ex. 3322; Ex. 3332; Tr. 914:12–915:21 (Seth).
`
`This contradicts Caterpillar’s argument (at 24) that “the only per-unit royalty rates offered at trial
`
`that could form the basis of an ongoing royalty” came from its expert.
`
`III. Wirtgen is entitled to pre- and post-judgment interest.
`Wirtgen did not delay in bringing suit. But even if it had, that would be irrelevant because
`
`Caterpillar has shown no prejudice. “[A]bsent prejudice to [Caterpillar], any delay by [Wirtgen]
`
`
`3 There is no “contradiction” between Wirtgen’s damages analysis and argument that the
`remaining redesigns are financially feasible. Contra Opp. 22. The hypothetical negotiation is
`conducted at the time of first infringement. The evidence showed that, at that time, Caterpillar
`believed it could not design around several of the patents. See Ex. 1625.
`4 Mr. Rife presented a demonstrative at trial listing three patents representing redesigns for the
`’972 patent, all filed more than 3 years ago: US 11,105,051 (claim 14); US 11,746,482 (claim
`10); US 11,679,639 (10:13–45). DDX3-2. And Ex. 0263A shows that Caterpillar believed it had
`a hot swap redesign at the time of the ITC exclusion order. Trial. Tr. 443:1–445:14 (Engelmann).
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 413 Filed 06/14/24 Page 14 of 16 PageID #: 38688
`
`does not support the denial of prejudgment interest.” Purewick Corp. v. Sage Prods., LLC, 666 F.
`
`Supp. 3d 419, 450–51 (D. Del. 2023) (quoting Crystal Semiconductor, 246 F.3d at 1361–62); see
`
`also Kaufman v. Microsoft Corp., 34 F.4th 1360, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2022) (undue delay requires
`
`prejudice); MHL Custom, Inc. v. Waydoo USA, Inc., 2023 WL 5805889, at *7 (D. Del. Sept. 7,
`
`2023) (accrual of higher damages due to a delay in filing suit is not prejudicial).
`
`Caterpillar’s prejudgment interest impermissibly delays the start of interest accrual by
`
`applying an annual royalty payment. This cuts against the purpose of prejudgment interest,
`
`which is “to ensure that the patent owner is placed in as good a position as he would have been in
`
`had the infringer entered into a reasonable royalty agreement.” Gen. Motors Corp. v. Devex
`
`Corp., 461 U.S. 648, 655 (1983). Thus, prejudgment interest should run from the earliest date of
`
`infringement. Schwendimann v. Arkwright Advanced Coating, Inc., 959 F.3d 1065, 1076 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2020); Amgen Inc. v. Hospira, Inc., 336 F. Supp. 3d 333, 364 (D. Del. 2018).
`
`IV. Wirtgen Is Entitled to Damages for Caterpillar’s Infringing Rotary Mixers
`Caterpillar argues for the first time (at 25) that, because Wirtgen did not request a verdict
`
`form with separate questions on infringement of Caterpillar’s rotary mixers and cold planers, the
`
`Court should construe the verdict as not finding infringement by those machines. Id. But the
`
`verdict form clearly defines “Accused Products” to include “Caterpillar’s RM600 and RM800
`
`rotary mixer machines,” D.I. 346 at 2, a term that appears throughout the jury verdict form. The
`
`verdict does not limit questions of infringement, invalidity, or damages to cold planers. The jury
`
`checked “Yes” for infringement of claim 22 of the ’530 patent. Id. at 4. That Wirtgen sought no
`
`damages at trial for the few infringing reclaimers that had been sold by the trial date, see Ex.
`
`3332, provides no reason to deny Wirtgen relief for Caterpillar’s continued infringement.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 413 Filed 06/14/24 Page 15 of 16 PageID #: 38689
`
`Dated: June 14, 2024
`
`Of Counsel:
`Ryan D. Levy
`Seth R. Ogden
`William E. Sekyi
`Mark A. Kilgore
`PATTERSON INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW, P.C.
`Roundabout Plaza
`1600 Division Street, Suite 500
`Nashville, Tennessee 37203
`(615) 242-2400
`rdl@iplawgroup.com
`sro@iplawgroup.com
`wes@iplawgroup.com
`mak@iplawgroup.com
`
`YOUNG CONAWAY STARGATT & TAYLOR,
`LLP
`
`/s/ Adam W. Poff
`Adam W. Poff (No. 3990)
`Samantha G. Wilson (No. 5816)
`Rodney Square
`1000 North King Street
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`(302) 571-6600
`apoff@ycst.com
`swilson@ycst.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
` -
`
` and -
`
`
`Daniel E. Yonan
`Paul A. Ainsworth
`R. Wilson Powers III
`William H. Milliken
`Kyle E. Conklin
`Deirdre M. Wells
`Joseph H. Kim
`STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX PLLC
`1101 K Street NW, 10th Floor
`Washington, DC 20005
`(202) 371-2600
`dyonan@sternekessler.com
`painsworth@sternekessler.com
`tpowers@sternekessler.com
`wmilliken@sternekessler.com
`kconklin@sternekessler.com
`dwells@sternekessler.com
`josephk@sternekessler.com
`
`Attorneys for Wirtgen America, Inc.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 413 Filed 06/14/24 Page 16 of 16 PageID #: 38690
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that on June 14, 2024, I caused the foregoing document to be served by
`
`email upon the following counsel:
`
`Bindu A. Palapura
`Andrew L. Brown
`POTTER ANDERSON & CORROON, LLP
`1313 N. Market Street, 6th Floor
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`bpalapura@p