• All Courts
  • Federal Courts
  • Bankruptcies
  • PTAB
  • ITC
Track Search
Export
Download All
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

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

No. 464 STIPULATION AND ORDER: All judgments, orders, rulings, and case deadlines shall be stayed for ...

Document Wirtgen America, Inc. v. Caterpillar, Inc., 1:17-cv-00770, No. 464 (D.Del. Oct. 1, 2024)
WHEREAS Plaintiff/Counterclaim-Defendant Wirtgen America, Inc. (“Plaintiff” or “Wirtgen America”), and Defendant/Counterclaim-Plaintiff Caterpillar Inc. (“Defendant” or “Caterpillar”) have reached an agreement to settle the above-captioned action (“Action”); WHEREAS, the Parties have agreed to the terms of a binding settlement agreement and are presently working on preparing all necessary papers required by the agreement, including appropriate papers to dismiss this Action; and WHEREAS, entry of the Court’s Order of a Permanent Injunction and the Court’s decision on the entry of a Partial Judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ.
P. 54(b) are pending; WHEREAS, deadlines remain pending relating to Caterpillar’s counterclaims for patent infringement against Wirtgen America; WHEREAS, the Parties respectfully request the Court stay entry of any Permanent Injunction, Final Judgment, and further case deadlines while the Parties prepare appropriate papers for dismissal of all claims in this Action; NOW THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by the undersigned counsel for Plaintiff and Defendant, subject to the approval of the Court, that:
(1)—All judgments, orders, rulings, and case deadlines shall be stayed for 14 days while the Parties prepare appropriate papers for dismissalofall claims in this Action; and
Atthe conclusion of 14 days, the parties shall file a Stipulation of Dismissalor shall file a brief update with the Court addressing whetherthe stay of this Action should be continued.
SO ORDEREDthis Ist day of_October , 2024.
cite Cite Document

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

No. 457 ORDER: Wirtgen America, Inc's Motion For Judgment As A Matter Of Law Pursuant To Federal Rule ...

Document Wirtgen America, Inc. v. Caterpillar, Inc., 1:17-cv-00770, No. 457 (D.Del. Sep. 17, 2024)
Motion for Judgment as a Matter of LawDenied
Wirtgen America, Inc’s Motion For Judgment As A Matter Of Law Pursuant To Federal Rule Of Civil Procedure 50(b), Or, In the Alternative, A New Trial Pursuant To Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59 (D.I.
To the extent that the Parties do not agree, neither side may submit more than five pages of double-spaced argument in favor of its proposal, and I will not accept additional, responsive briefs.
On or before October 11, 2024, Caterpillar shall provide to Wirtgen an accounting of Caterpillar’s sales of infringing products through September 30, 2024.
On or before October 18, 2024, Wirtgen shall file a calculation of its updated damages based on the information that it receives from Caterpillar.
It is FURTHER ORDERED that the Parties should confer on whether I should enter a partial judgment in this case pursuant to Fed. R. Civ.
cite Cite Document

No. 455 STIPULATION AND ORDER regarding D.I. 454 STIPULATION and [Proposed] Order re schedule

Document Wirtgen America, Inc. v. Caterpillar, Inc., 1:17-cv-00770, No. 455 (D.Del. Sep. 4, 2024)
SO ORDEREDthis 4th dayof September , 2024.
cite Cite Document

No. 453

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

cite Cite Document

No. 450

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

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