• All Courts
  • Federal Courts
  • Bankruptcies
  • PTAB
  • ITC
Track Search
Export
Download All
Active Filters1
1,245 results

Caterpillar Inc. v. Wirtgen America, Inc.

Docket IPR2022-01277, Patent Trial and Appeal Board (July 21, 2022)
Barry Grossman, James Mayberry, Richard Marschall, presiding
Case TypeInter Partes Review
Patent
9879391
Patent Owner Wirtgen America, Inc.
Petitioner Caterpillar Inc.
cite Cite Docket
Analyze

No. 466 STIPULATION AND ORDER dismissing with prejudice

Document Wirtgen America, Inc. v. Caterpillar, Inc., 1:17-cv-00770, No. 466 (D.Del. Oct. 9, 2024)
WHEREAS: (1) Plaintiff Wirtgen America, Inc. and Defendant Caterpillar Inc., (“the Parties”) have reached a mutually satisfactory resolution of all issues between them that were the subject of this action; and (2) the Parties have caused to be executed on October 8, 2024 a Settlement Agreement (“Agreement”) resolving those issues; subject to the terms and conditions of the Agreement, the Parties jointly request and stipulate to the entry of an Order providing that:
All claims and counterclaims asserted by and between the Parties are dismissed with prejudice; and
Each of the Parties shall bear its own costs and attorneys’ fees.
Dated: October 9, 2024 11818987 / 11898.00005 SO ORDEREDthis 9th day of October , 2024.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 464

Document Wirtgen America, Inc. v. Caterpillar, Inc., 1:17-cv-00770, No. 464 (D.Del. Oct. 1, 2024)

cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 456 MEMORANDUM OPINION

Document Wirtgen America, Inc. v. Caterpillar, Inc., 1:17-cv-00770, No. 456 (D.Del. Sep. 17, 2024)
One district judge explained this seemingly-obvious point: “‘automatic’ operation does not preclude any user involvement, such as in physically connecting devices or providing electrical power.” Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG v. Apple Inc., No. 6:15-CV-01095, 2017 WL 897172, at *18 (E.D.
In reviewing a JMOL on obviousness, I “presume the jury resolved underlying factual disputes in favor of the verdict winner and leave those presumed findings undisturbed if supported by substantial evidence.” Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs.
Invalidity With obviousness, I “presume the jury resolved underlying factual disputes in favor of the verdict winner and leave those presumed findings undisturbed if supported by substantial evidence.” Apple Inc., 839 F.3d at 1047.
Third, Caterpillar argues it could not have copied Wirtgen because certain technologies (parallel to surface feature, reverse rotor shut off, and hot swap) were present in its earlier generation of cold planers.
“Head-to-head competition and lost market share tend to evidence irreparable harm.” Id. Caterpillar and Wirtgen are “direct competitors in a limited market.” Broadcom Corp. v. Emulex Corp., 732 F.3d 1325, 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2013); see also Peach State Labs, Inc. v. Env't Mfg.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 457

Document Wirtgen America, Inc. v. Caterpillar, Inc., 1:17-cv-00770, No. 457 (D.Del. Sep. 17, 2024)

cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 455

Document Wirtgen America, Inc. v. Caterpillar, Inc., 1:17-cv-00770, No. 455 (D.Del. Sep. 4, 2024)

cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 453

Document Wirtgen America, Inc. v. Caterpillar, Inc., 1:17-cv-00770, No. 453 (D.Del. Aug. 29, 2024)

cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 450

Document Wirtgen America, Inc. v. Caterpillar, Inc., 1:17-cv-00770, No. 450 (D.Del. Aug. 28, 2024)

cite Cite Document
Analyze
1 2 3 4 5 ... >>