Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW-MPT Document 189 Filed 04/14/23 Page 1 of 9 PageID #: 15542
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`
`
`
`
`C.A. No. 17-770-JDW-MPT
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`)))))))))
`
`
`
`WIRTGEN AMERICA, INC.,
`
`
`
`
`
`CATERPILLAR INC.,
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DEFENDANT CATERPILLAR INC.’S OPENING BRIEF IN SUPPORT
`OF ITS MOTION TO EXCLUDE DISCOVERY FROM WIRTGEN GmbH WITNESSES
`
`
`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
`Christopher D. Mays
`WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI, P.C.
`650 Page Mill Road
`Palo Alto, CA 94304
`Telephone: (650) 493-9300
`
`Ryan R. Smith
`WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI, P.C.
`701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 5100
`Seattle, WA 98104
`Telephone: (206) 883-2500
`
`Lucy Yen
`WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI, P.C.
`1301 Avenue of the Americas, 40th Floor
`New York, NY 10019
`Telephone: (212) 999-5800
`
`Dated: April 14, 2023
`10756193 / 11898.00005
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW-MPT Document 189 Filed 04/14/23 Page 2 of 9 PageID #: 15543
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................1
`
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND ..............................................................................................1
`
`LEGAL STANDARD ..........................................................................................................3
`
`ARGUMENT .......................................................................................................................3
`
`A. Wirtgen America’s Untimely Disclosure Is Not Justified ...........................4
`
`B. Wirtgen America’s Untimely Disclosure Prejudices Caterpillar .................4
`
`CONCLUSION ....................................................................................................................5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW-MPT Document 189 Filed 04/14/23 Page 3 of 9 PageID #: 15544
`
`
`
`CASES
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`Newman v. GHS Osteopathic, Inc.,
`60 F.3d 153 (3d Cir. 1995).........................................................................................................3
`
`State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. New Horizont, Inc.,
`250 F.R.D. 203 (E.D. Pa. 2008) .................................................................................................4
`
`Styer v. Frito-Lay, Inc.,
`2015 WL 1243423 (M.D. Pa. Mar. 18, 2015)............................................................................3
`
`RULES
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a) ........................................................................................................................3
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6)................................................................................................................1, 4
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 37 ......................................................................................................................... 3-4
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c)(1) ....................................................................................................................3
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW-MPT Document 189 Filed 04/14/23 Page 4 of 9 PageID #: 15545
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`There is only one Plaintiff in this case: Wirtgen America. Wirtgen America is a
`
`Nashville-based corporation responsible for the sales and marketing of road construction
`
`machines developed and manufactured exclusively by Wirtgen GmbH, based in Germany. From
`
`the outset of this case, Plaintiff Wirtgen America steadfastly obstructed discovery originating
`
`from Wirtgen GmbH, including from the German inventors of Wirtgen America’s Asserted
`
`Patents (collectively, the “Inventors”), while concurrently consulting with the Inventors to
`
`prepare its case. Then at the close of fact discovery, Wirtgen America suddenly changed course
`
`by seeking to rely on two of the previously undisclosed Inventors, but maintained that (1)
`
`Caterpillar should not be entitled to ESI discovery from the Inventors; and (2) the Inventors
`
`should be allowed to testify at trial on a wide variety of topics beyond the technology of their
`
`patents, such as industry practices and alleged harm caused by Caterpillar.
`
`Because Wirtgen America deliberately withheld discovery, lacks any substantial
`
`justification for doing so, and imposed irreparable prejudice, the Inventors should be stricken
`
`from Wirtgen America’s Initial Disclosures, and Wirtgen America should be precluded from
`
`using the Inventors to supplement or contradict the Rule 30(b)(6) testimony of Wirtgen America
`
`representatives, or otherwise relying on the Inventors at trial.
`
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND
`
`Wirtgen America’s thirteen Asserted Patents identify at least six Inventors, each of
`
`whom resides in Germany. The thirteen Asserted Patents were assigned from Wirtgen GmbH to
`
`Wirtgen America on the eve of litigation for the express purpose of assertion against Caterpillar.
`
`Wirtgen GmbH is far from disinterested. It develops and manufactures the relevant products;
`
`possesses information about the purported inventions, manufacturing processes, and competition
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW-MPT Document 189 Filed 04/14/23 Page 5 of 9 PageID #: 15546
`
`
`with Caterpillar; actively monitors and manages this litigation; and insisted on participating in
`
`settlement discussions. See, e.g., Ex. A (Dep. Tr. Schmidt) 44:17-45:1 (Wirtgen America and
`
`Wirtgen GmbH have a close relationship); Ex. B (Dep. Tr. Wiley 87:16-88:19; 93:7-95:5)
`
`(owner of Wirtgen GmbH informed CEO of Wirtgen America of lawsuit and Wirtgen GmbH
`
`employees report on lawsuit to Wirtgen America employees).
`
`Nonetheless, Wirtgen America deliberately shielded its sibling corporation from
`
`discovery obligations, by disclaiming any reliance on the Inventors, claiming that Wirtgen
`
`America has no ability to collect responsive documents from Wirtgen GmbH, and refusing to
`
`offer relevant witnesses from Wirtgen GmbH for deposition. Here, even though the German
`
`Inventors have indisputably discoverable information, were involved in compiling information
`
`for Wirtgen America’s interrogatory responses, and have testified on behalf of Wirtgen America
`
`in prior ITC proceedings between the parties, Wirtgen America did not include any of the
`
`Inventors in its Initial Disclosures for over a year. See, e.g. Ex. A (Dep. Tr. Schmidt) 116:16-21
`
`(Inventors were involved in answering Wirtgen America's Interrogatories). This was not an
`
`inadvertent omission, but a deliberate choice, confirmed again and again during fact discovery,
`
`and even after Caterpillar asked directly about Wirtgen GmbH’s involvement in the parties’
`
`dispute. See, e.g., Exs. C-D (failing to identify Inventors in Initial Disclosures served in
`
`October 2021 and First Amended Initial Disclosures served in February 2023). Additionally,
`
`despite multiple requests and the Delaware Default Standard for Discovery, Wirtgen America
`
`repeatedly refused to undergo any systematic collection of ESI from the Inventors, leaving
`
`Caterpillar only with a scattershot of documents that Wirtgen America determined was in its
`
`interest to produce. Ex. E (February 10, 2022 letter from Wirtgen America counsel re: search
`
`terms and custodians).
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW-MPT Document 189 Filed 04/14/23 Page 6 of 9 PageID #: 15547
`
`
`Given Wirtgen America’s positions from the date it filed its Complaint, Caterpillar was
`
`caught off guard when, less than a month before the end of fact discovery, Wirtgen America
`
`added two of the seven Inventors, Günter Hähn and Christian Berning, to its Second Amended
`
`Initial disclosures served on March 1, 2023. See Ex. F. In response, Caterpillar immediately
`
`renewed its request for ESI discovery and requested a deposition in the United States of Günter
`
`Hähn and Christian Berning. Wirtgen America again objected to searching for and producing
`
`ESI, refused to agree to any limitations on the trial testimony of the newly disclosed witnesses,
`
`and only offered depositions in London, to take place weeks after the close of discovery.
`
`LEGAL STANDARD
`
`
`
`The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are designed to facilitate openness, transparency,
`
`and candor. Styer v. Frito-Lay, Inc., 2015 WL 1243423, at *5 (M.D. Pa. Mar. 18, 2015)
`
`(“Gamesmanship, ambush, surprise, and concealment have no place in federal practice”).
`
`Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(c)(1) requires that “[i]f a party fails to provide information or
`
`identify a witness as required by Rule 26(a) or (e), the party is not allowed to use that
`
`information or witness to supply evidence on a motion, at a hearing, or at a trial, unless the
`
`failure was substantially justified or harmless.” Rule 37 is mandatory. Newman v. GHS
`
`Osteopathic, Inc., 60 F.3d 153, 156 (3d Cir. 1995) (“Rule 37 is written in mandatory terms, and
`
`is designed to provide a strong inducement for disclosure of Rule 26(a) material.”). It is the
`
`burden of the party proffering a witness to prove that its failure to disclose was substantially
`
`justified or harmless. Id.
`
`As demonstrated below, Wirtgen America’s failure is neither justified nor harmless.
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`Wirtgen America cannot obstruct all manners of discovery into the Inventors, while
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW-MPT Document 189 Filed 04/14/23 Page 7 of 9 PageID #: 15548
`
`
`reserving the right to have them testify freely at trial. This sword-and-shield tactic is precisely
`
`the type of gamesmanship that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37 prohibits.
`
`A. Wirtgen America’s Untimely Disclosure Is Not Justified
`
`Wirtgen America is the Plaintiff, asserting infringement of thirteen patents. Yet, for over
`
`a year – in order to deny Caterpillar relevant discovery – Wirtgen America chose not to identify
`
`any of the Inventors on its Initial Disclosures, first served in October 2021 and then amended
`
`again in February 2023. Having made that choice throughout fact discovery, Wirtgen America
`
`must live with its decision not to timely disclose their reliance on the Inventors. The Inventors
`
`should be stricken from Wirtgen America’s belatedly served amended disclosures.
`
`B. Wirtgen America’s Untimely Disclosure Prejudices Caterpillar
`
`By representing throughout fact discovery that it did not intend to rely on the Inventors,
`
`Wirtgen America hampered Caterpillar’s efforts to prepare its defense. First, Caterpillar could
`
`not depose the Inventors. Instead, Wirtgen America offered up a wholly unprepared and
`
`unknowledgeable 30(b)(6) witness on the Asserted Patents. Wirtgen America’s designated
`
`witness admitted that Wirtgen America itself had no knowledge of the development of the
`
`Asserted Patents (yet he did not have a single communication with the Inventors to prepare to
`
`testify on relevant topics including conception and reduction to practice, despite admitting that
`
`he had access to these inventors and could have contacted them if he chose to.). Ex. A (Dep. Tr.
`
`Schmidt) 9:17-10:3; 100:22-101:8; id. at 116:16-21 (explaining Inventors would be involved in
`
`collecting any information relevant to the patents). With fact discovery closed, and after all Rule
`
`30(b)(6) testimony, it is too late for Wirtgen America to try to rectify (through Wirtgen GmbH)
`
`the inadequate, but binding, testimony of Wirtgen America’s corporate representatives. See
`
`State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. New Horizont, Inc., 250 F.R.D. 203, 213 n.6 (E.D. Pa. 2008)
`
`(“If the [30(b)(6)] designee testifies that H&V does not know the answer to plaintiffs’ questions,
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW-MPT Document 189 Filed 04/14/23 Page 8 of 9 PageID #: 15549
`
`
`H&V will not be allowed effectively to change its answer by introducing evidence at trial.”).
`
`Second, Wirtgen America’s cavalier proposal that Caterpillar should simply proceed with
`
`the depositions of Günter Hähn and Christian Berning in London falls far short of curing any
`
`prejudice to Caterpillar: (1) the depositions would take place after the close of fact discovery,
`
`which does not allow Caterpillar adequate opportunity to seek follow-on discovery from the
`
`other Inventors or any other source; (2) Wirtgen America refuses to provide ESI discovery from
`
`the Inventors on whom they are now expressly relying; and (3) Wirtgen America provided no
`
`explanation for its sudden ability to make available two Wirtgen GmbH Inventors, while
`
`continuing to block depositions of other individuals employed at Wirtgen GmbH.
`
`Third, Caterpillar could not adequately conduct discovery into the “development,
`
`conception [and] reduction to practice” of the Asserted Patents, and the “design, development,
`
`testing, [and] manufacture” of products that embody those patents. Indeed, in response to
`
`Caterpillar’s Requests for Production, Wirtgen America responded, “Wirtgen America did not
`
`engage or participate in, nor has it engaged or participated in the development of the subject
`
`matter of Wirtgen America’s asserted patents” or “the design, development, or testing of any
`
`Wirtgen America products” that embody the patented technology. Having taken that position,
`
`Wirtgen America cannot produce cherry-picked documents purportedly evidencing inventorship
`
`and make available certain Inventors, while withholding all other ESI and depriving Caterpillar
`
`access to information and individuals that Plaintiff has admitted to be relevant and material.
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`For the foregoing reasons, Caterpillar respectfully requests that the Inventors be stricken
`
`from Wirtgen America’s Initial Disclosures and that Wirtgen America be precluded from
`
`soliciting, producing, or relying on any evidence from the Inventors.
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW-MPT Document 189 Filed 04/14/23 Page 9 of 9 PageID #: 15550
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`POTTER ANDERSON & CORROON LLP
`
`By: /s/ Bindu A. Palapura
`Bindu A. Palapura (#5370)
`Andrew L. Brown (#6766)
`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
`Christopher D. Mays
`WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI, P.C.
`650 Page Mill Road
`Palo Alto, CA 94304
`Telephone: (650) 493-9300
`
`Ryan R. Smith
`WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI, P.C.
`701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 5100
`Seattle, WA 98104
`Telephone: (206) 883-2500
`
`Lucy Yen
`WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI, P.C.
`1301 Avenue of the Americas, 40th Floor
`New York, NY 10019
`Telephone: (212) 999-5800
`
`Dated: April 14, 2023
`10756193 / 11898.00005
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`