`DISTRICT OF NEVADA
`BEFORE THE HONORABLE ROBERT C. JONES, DISTRICT JUDGE
`---o0o---
`
`ESCO CORPORATION and ESCO
`CANADA LTD.,
`Plaintiffs/Counterclaim
`Defendants,
`-vs-
`CASHMAN EQUIPMENT COMPANY,
`CATERPILLAR GLOBAL MINING
`LLC, CATERPILLAR INC.,
`RAPTOR MINING PRODUCTS
`(USA) INC., and RAPTOR
`MINING PRODUCTS INC.,
`Defendants/Counterclaim
`Plaintiffs.
`
`
`
`
`
`
` :
`
`No. 2:12-CV-1545-RCJ-CWH
`May 5 and 6, 2015
`Reno, Nevada
`
`:::::::::::::::::
`
`TRANSCRIPT OF CLAIM CONSTRUCTION HEARING
`APPEARANCES:
`FOR THE PLAINTIFF
`AND COUNTERCLAIM
`DEFENDANT:
`
`MICHAEL D. ROUNDS
`Attorney at Law
`Reno, Nevada
`CHARLES W. SHIFLEY, BINAL P. PATEL,
`TIMOTHY J. RECHTIEN and STEVE CALOIARO
`Attorneys at Law
`Chicago, Illinois
`GREGORY J. COMMINS, SHAWNNA M.
`YASHAR and MICHAEL E. ANDERSON
`Attorneys at Law
`Washington, D.C.
`
`JOHN L. KRIEGER and JOEL Z. SCHWARZ
`Attorneys at Law
`Las Vegas, Nevada
`
`FOR THE DEFENDANTS
`AND COUNTERCLAIM
`PLAINTIFFS CASHMAN
`AND CATERPILLAR:
`
`FOR DEFENDANTS AND
`COUNTERCLAIM
`PLAINTIFFS RAPTOR
`MINING:
`
`MARGARET E. GRIENER, RDR, CCR NO. 3, OFFICIAL REPORTER
`(775) 329-9980
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Caterpillar v. ESCO IPR2015-01032
`ESCO Exhibit 2028 Page 1
`
`
`
`148
`
`"The lock comprising a body and a locking
`member secured to the body."
`Claim 12 says,
`"The lock of claim 9 wherein the locking
`member includes a head engageable by a tool for
`rotating the locking member between the release and
`the locking positions."
`So what we've argued is ESCO's assertion that
`because a lock is both a device and a function it needs no
`construction is contrary to law. I read their arguments as
`being -- well, as I said this morning, a lock is a lock.
`Everybody knows what a lock is.
`Well, these are particular kinds of locks, and I
`think the jury needs to understand that a lock is not just a
`lock within the space of ground-engaging tools.
`I might note that your Honor has posited
`hypotheticals along the way about, you know, a pin and whether
`a pin would work for a particular application, and you may ask
`me hypotheticals as well.
`But let's keep in mind the field we're talking here
`about here is ground-engaging tools for earth moving
`equipment. As Mr. Shifley pointed out in his tutorial, these
`are high stress environments, these wear parts last oftentimes
`for not very long periods of time.
`I don't remember if I told your Honor, or if
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`MARGARET E. GRIENER, RDR, CCR NO. 3, OFFICIAL REPORTER
`(775) 329-9980
`
`Caterpillar v. ESCO IPR2015-01032
`ESCO Exhibit 2028 Page 2
`
`
`
`149
`
`Mr. Shifley did, but in many cases we're talking about mine
`sites around the world that operate 24 hours, 7 days a week,
`and therefore the equipment needs to be kept in constant
`working order, and that includes not just the engine and the
`operators, et cetera, but the wear tools.
`And so it's important to remember that that's the
`field we're talking about, you know, the high stress, high
`tolerance field we're talking about. So not just any lock
`will work in that environment.
`If a lock were to be a lock then, we argue in our
`brief, that the claims would be so broad as to encompass
`devices far beyond the reach of what ESCO actually invented in
`this circumstance.
`With respect to "body," we say body -- our
`construction is,
`"Part of a lock that contains a rigid
`retaining member and a resilient member part but not
`a locking member."
`And the reason we say that is because the patent
`describes those components as being different. They're not
`the same components.
`And so our concern is that as we sort of go along,
`while the patent discloses and describes very particular
`parts --
`
`THE COURT: But can't you argue that to the
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`MARGARET E. GRIENER, RDR, CCR NO. 3, OFFICIAL REPORTER
`(775) 329-9980
`
`Caterpillar v. ESCO IPR2015-01032
`ESCO Exhibit 2028 Page 3