Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 218 Filed 10/05/23 Page 1 of 44 PageID #: 16481
`
`WIRTGEN AMERICA, INC.
`
`
`Plaintiff/Counterclaim-Defendant,
`
`
`CATERPILLAR INC.
`
`
`v.
`
`Defendant/Counterclaim-Plaintiff.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`C.A. No. 17-770-JDW-MPT
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`WIRTGEN AMERICA, INC.’S OPENING BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF ITS
`COMBINED MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND
`MOTION TO EXCLUDE INADMISSIBLE EXPERT TESTIMONY
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 218 Filed 10/05/23 Page 2 of 44 PageID #: 16482
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES.........................................................................................1
`
`STATEMENT OF FACTS ..................................................................................................1
`
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`III. MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ......................................................................2
`
`A.
`
`There are no genuine material disputes of fact that Caterpillar’s Accused
`Products Infringe Wirtgen’s Asserted ’530, ’309, and ’641 patents........................2
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Caterpillar’s PM600 and PM800 series machines with leg position
`sensors (01A builds and 02A, 02B, and 02C builds before any
`redesigns) infringe claims 5, 16, and 22 of the ’530 patent. ........................3
`
`Caterpillar’s PM600 and PM800 series machines with the ride
`control feature (01A builds and 02A, 02B, and 02C builds before
`any redesigns) infringe claim 29 of the ’309 patent. ...................................7
`
`Caterpillar’s PM300, PM600, and PM800 series machines with
`original reverse rotor shutoff software (01A builds and 02A, 02B,
`and 02C builds before any redesigns) infringe claims 11, 17, and
`18 of the ’641 patent. .................................................................................10
`
`B.
`
`Caterpillar is estopped from raising invalidity grounds based on references
`that could have reasonably been raised in its IPRs ................................................16
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Pertinent Legal Authority ..........................................................................17
`
`Caterpillar’s product literature documents are references that could
`have reasonably been raised in their IPRs. ................................................18
`
`The PM-465, PM-565, and RX-500 product literature disclose all
`the relevant features of the PM-465, PM-565, and RX-500 physical
`machines. ...................................................................................................20
`
`C.
`
`There was no improper broadening of the RE’268 patent claims .........................22
`
`D. Wirtgen does not infringe asserted claims 1 and 8 of Caterpillar’s ’618
`patent as a matter of law ........................................................................................26
`
`IV. MOTION TO EXCLUDE CATERPILLAR’S LEGAL EXPERT ....................................30
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Mr. Bartowski is a lawyer with no qualifying technical or industry
`knowledge. .............................................................................................................32
`
`Mr. Bartowski is merely a vehicle for narrating the prior ITC litigation
`between the parties—subject matter that is not properly presented through
`an expert. ................................................................................................................33
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 218 Filed 10/05/23 Page 3 of 44 PageID #: 16483
`
`C.
`
`Mr. Bartowski improperly opines on Caterpillar’s state of mind. .........................34
`
`V.
`
`CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................................36
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 218 Filed 10/05/23 Page 4 of 44 PageID #: 16484
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases
`
`360Heroes, inc. v. Gopro, Inc.,
`No. 17-1302-MFK-CJB, 2022 WL 1746854 (D. Del. May 31, 2022) ....................................29
`
`3G Licensing, S.A., et al. v. HTC Corp.,
`No. 1:17-cv-00083-LPS, Dkt. No. 615, slip op. (D. Del. Mar. 30, 2022) ...............................35
`
`In re Amos,
`953 F.2d 613 (Fed. Cir. 1991)............................................................................................22, 23
`
`Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.,
`477 U.S. 242 (1986) ...................................................................................................................2
`
`AstraZeneca LP v. Tap Pharm. Prods., Inc.,
`444 F. Supp. 2d 278 (D.Del. 2006) ..........................................................................................34
`
`Baldwin Graphic Sys., Inc. v. Siebert, Inc.,
`512 F.3d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2008)................................................................................................25
`
`Becton, Dickinson and Co. v. Tyco Healthcare Grp., LP,
`616 F.3d 1249 (Fed. Cir. 2010)....................................................................................27, 28, 29
`
`Berckeley Inv. Grp., Ltd. v. Colkitt,
`455 F.3d 195 (3d Cir. 2006).....................................................................................................34
`
`BorgWarner, Inc. v. Honeywell Int’l, Inc.,
`750 F. Supp. 2d 596 (W.D.N.C. 2010) ....................................................................................34
`
`Boston Fog, LLC v. Ryobi Techs., Inc.,
`2020 WL 1532372 (D. Del. Mar. 31, 2020) ............................................................................28
`
`Caterpillar Inc. v. Wirtgen America, Inc.,
`IPR2017-02185 ..................................................................................................................18, 19
`
`Caterpillar Inc. v. Wirtgen America, Inc.,
`IPR2017-02188 ........................................................................................................................19
`
`Caterpillar Inc. v. Wirtgen America, Inc.,
`IPR2018-00155 ........................................................................................................................19
`
`Caterpillar Inc. v. Wirtgen America, Inc.,
`IPR2022-01264, Paper 1 ..........................................................................................................19
`
`Caterpillar Prodotti Stradali S.R.L. v. Int'l Trade Comm'n,
`847 F. App'x 893 (Fed. Cir. 2021) ...........................................................................................12
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 218 Filed 10/05/23 Page 5 of 44 PageID #: 16485
`
`Celotex Corp. v. Catrett,
`477 U.S. 317 (1986) ...................................................................................................................2
`
`Certain Road Milling Machines and Components Thereof,
`Inv. No. 337-TA-1067 .............................................................................................................33
`
`Comark Communications v. Harris,
`156 F.3d 1182 (Fed. Cir. 1998)................................................................................................30
`
`Comcast Cable Commcn’s, LLC v. Promptu Sys. Corp.,
`838 F.Appx. 551 (Fed. Cir. 2021) ............................................................................................28
`
`CR Bard Inc. v. AngioDynamics, Inc.,
`979 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2020)................................................................................................15
`
`Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.,
`509 U.S. 579 (1993) ...........................................................................................................30, 31
`
`Exigent Tech., Inc. v. Atrana Solutions, Inc.,
`442 F.3d 1301 (Fed. Cir. 2006)................................................................................................26
`
`Gen. Elec. Co. v. Joinder,
`522 U.S. 136 (1997) ...................................................................................................................6
`
`Gustafson, Inc. v. Intersystems Indus. Prods., Inc.,
`897 F.2d 508 (Fed. Cir. 1990)..................................................................................................34
`
`Halo Elecs., Inc. v. Pulse Elecs., Inc.,
`579 U.S. 93 (2016) ...................................................................................................................30
`
`High Point Design LLC v. Buyers Direct, Inc.,
`730 F.3d 1301 (Fed. Cir. 2013)................................................................................................32
`
`HTC Corp. v. Cellular Commc'ns Equip., LLC,
`701 F. App’x 978 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ..........................................................................................28
`
`IOENGINE, LLC v. PayPal Holdings, Inc.,
`607 F. Supp. 3d 464 (D. Del. 2022) ...................................................................................18, 20
`
`Iridex Corp. v. Synergetics, Inc.,
`05-cv-01916, 2006 WL 6869408 (E.D. Mo. Dec. 8, 2006) .....................................................34
`
`Isom v. Howmedica, Inc.,
`No. 00-cv-05872, 2002 WL 1052030 (N.D. Ill. May 22, 2002) ..............................................35
`
`Lucent Techs., Inc. v. Gateway, Inc.,
`580 F.3d 1301 (Fed. Cir. 2009)................................................................................................16
`
`v
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 218 Filed 10/05/23 Page 6 of 44 PageID #: 16486
`
`Luitpold Pharms., Inc. v. Ed. Geistlich Sohne A.G. Fur Chemische Industrie,
`2015 WL 5459662 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 16, 2015) .........................................................................33
`
`Micro Chem., Inc. v. Lextron, Inc.,
`317 F.3d 1387 (Fed. Cir. 2003)................................................................................................31
`
`Microchip Tech. Inc. v. Aptiv Servs. US LLC,
`2020 WL 4335519 (D. Del. Jul. 28, 2020) ........................................................................19, 21
`
`Neville v. Foundation Constructors, Inc.,
`972 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 29020)..............................................................................................29
`
`Oxford Gene Tech., Ltd. v. Mergen Ltd.,
`345 F. Supp. 2d 431 (D. Del. 2004) .....................................................................................6, 34
`
`Padillas v. Stork–Gamco, Inc.,
`186 F.3d 412 (3d Cir. 1999).....................................................................................................31
`
`Panduit Corp. v. Dennison Mfg. Co.,
`836 F.2d 1329 (Fed. Cir. 1987)..................................................................................................2
`
`In re Paoli R.R. Yard PCB Litig.,
`35 F.3d 717 (3rd Cir. 1994) .....................................................................................................31
`
`Pernix Ireland Pain Dac v. Alvogen Malta Operations Ltd.,
`316 F.Supp.3d 816 (D. Del. 2018) .............................................................................................7
`
`Philips Electronics North America Corp. v. Contec Corp.,
`411 F.Supp.2d 470 (D.Del. 2006) ......................................................................................15, 16
`
`Power Integrations, Inc. v. Fairchild Semiconductor Int’l, Inc.,
`843 F.3d 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2016)................................................................................................15
`
`Rolls-Royce Ltd. v. GTE Valeron Corp.,
`800 F.2d 1101 (Fed. Cir. 1986)................................................................................................34
`
`Schneider v. Fried,
`320 F.3d 396 (3d Cir. 2003).....................................................................................................31
`
`Slimfold Mfg. Co., Inc. v. Kinkead Industries, Inc.,
`810 F.2d 1113 (Fed. Cir. 1987)................................................................................................25
`
`SmithKline Diagnostics, Inc. v. Helena Lab. Corp.,
`859 F.2d 878 (Fed. Cir. 1988)............................................................................................3, 5, 6
`
`Star Envirotech, Inc. v. Redline Detection, LLC,
`2015 WL 4744394 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 29, 2015) ..........................................................................21
`
`vi
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 218 Filed 10/05/23 Page 7 of 44 PageID #: 16487
`
`Sundance, Inc. v. DeMonte Fabricating Ltd.,
`550 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2008)................................................................................................31
`
`Tillotson, Ltd. v. Walbro Corp.,
`831 F.2d 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1987)....................................................................................24, 25, 26
`
`Toshiba Corp. v. Imation Corp.,
`681 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2012)................................................................................................16
`
`Trading Techs. Int’l Inc. v. IBG LLC,
`10-cv-00715, 2020 WL 12309206 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 21, 2020) ...................................................34
`
`United States v. Univar USA, Inc.,
`294 F. Supp. 3d 1314 (U.S.I.T.C. Mar. 2, 2018) .....................................................................32
`
`Vas-Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar,
`935 F.2d (Fed. Cir. 1991)...................................................................................................22, 23
`
`Wasica Fin. GmbH v. Schrader Int'l, Inc.,
`432 F. Supp. 3d 448 (D. Del. 2020) .............................................................................17, 18, 20
`
`XY, LLC v. Trans Ova Genetics, LC,
`13-cv-00876, 2016 WL 97788 (D. Colo. Jan. 8, 2016) ...........................................................34
`
`Zimmer Surgical, Inc. v. Stryker Corp.,
`365 F. Supp. 3d 466 (D. Del. 2019) .........................................................................................35
`
`Statutes
`
`28 U.S.C. § 1659(b) .........................................................................................................................7
`
`35 U.S.C. § 251 ..............................................................................................................................22
`
`35 U.S.C. § 271(a) ...........................................................................................................................2
`
`35 U.S.C. § 315(e) ...............................................................................................................1, 17, 20
`
`Other Authorities
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c) ........................................................................................................................2
`
`Fed. R. Evid. 702(a)-(d) ...........................................................................................................30, 31
`
`Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(2)(B) ...........................................................................................................7, 9
`
`Fed. R. Evid. 703 ...........................................................................................................................30
`
`Merriam-Webster Dictionary, https://www.merriam-
`webster.com/dictionary/mount.................................................................................................29
`
`vii
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 218 Filed 10/05/23 Page 8 of 44 PageID #: 16488
`
`Wirtgen America, Inc. (“Wirtgen”) seeks partial summary judgment of infringement of
`
`certain claims, non-infringement of other claims, and seeks to exclude the testimony of
`
`Caterpillar, Inc.’s (“Caterpillar”) purported expert witness.
`
`I.
`
`STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES
`
`(A) Wirtgen seeks summary judgment that certain Caterpillar accused products infringe
`
`certain asserted claims of the ’530, ’309, and ’641 patents as set forth below:
`
`’530 patent,
`claims 5, 16, 22
`’309 patent,
`claim 29
`’641 patent,
`claims 11, 17, 18
`
`PM600 and PM800 series with leg position sensors (01A builds and 02A,
`02B, and 02C builds before any redesign)
`PM600 and PM800 series with ride control (01A builds and 02A, 02B,
`and 02C builds before any redesign)
`PM300, PM600, and PM800 series with original reverse rotor shutoff
`software (01A builds and 02A, 02B, and 02C builds before any redesign)
`
`(B) Wirtgen seeks summary judgment that Caterpillar is estopped from pursuing its
`
`
`
`invalidity claims against Wirtgen’s ’530 and ’309 patents under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e).
`
`(C) Wirtgen seeks summary judgment that the claim scope in its asserted ’268 reissue
`
`patent is not broader than the claim scope of the originally issued U.S. Pat. No. 8,408,659.
`
`(D) Wirtgen seeks summary judgment that the accused Wirtgen W207 Fi, W 210 Fi, W
`
`220 Fi, and W250 Fi milling machines do not infringe Caterpillar’s asserted ’618 patent.
`
`(E) Wirtgen seeks to exclude the testimony of Caterpillar’s proffered willfulness expert—
`
`a lawyer with no relevant technical or industry expertise who narrates portions of the ITC record
`
`and provides legal opinions on Caterpillar’s state of mind.
`
`II.
`
`STATEMENT OF FACTS
`
`The undisputed facts material to the issues raised in the motions for summary judgment,
`
`Caterpillar’s responses to those facts, and Wirtgen’s replies are attached as Exhibit A.
`
`Additionally, the facts relevant to Wirtgen’s motion to exclude the testimony of Caterpillar’s
`
`expert witness Paul Bartowski are set forth in Section IV, below.
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 218 Filed 10/05/23 Page 9 of 44 PageID #: 16489
`
`III. MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`Summary judgment is appropriate if “there is no genuine issue as to material fact and the
`
`moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). When the party
`
`seeking summary judgment demonstrates the absence of a genuine dispute over any material
`
`fact, the burden shifts to the non-movant to show that there is a genuine factual issue for trial.
`
`Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323-24 (1986). “[A] dispute about a material fact is
`
`‘genuine’ if the evidence is sufficient to permit a reasonable jury to return a verdict for the
`
`nonmoving party.” Id. The mere existence of some evidence in support of the nonmoving party
`
`will not be sufficient for denial of a motion for summary judgment. See Anderson v. Liberty
`
`Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 249 (1986).
`
`A.
`
`There are no genuine material disputes of fact that Caterpillar’s Accused
`Products Infringe Wirtgen’s Asserted ’530, ’309, and ’641 patents
`
`There are no genuinely disputed issues of fact concerning the structure, configuration, or
`
`operation of the accused Caterpillar milling machines pertinent to the issues of infringement of
`
`the ’530, ’309, and ’641 patents. With respect to the ’530 and ’309 patents, Caterpillar quibbles
`
`with the sufficiency of Wirtgen’s expert testimony but does not offer evidence to dispute the
`
`material facts. With respect to the ’641 patent, Caterpillar’s expert does not dispute how the
`
`accused milling machines operate, but instead makes thinly veiled claim construction arguments
`
`that are appropriately resolved on summary judgment.
`
`A patent is infringed when a person “without authority makes, uses or sells any patented
`
`invention, within the United States . . . during the term of the patent.” 35 U.S.C. § 271(a). Literal
`
`infringement occurs where each limitation of at least one claim of the patent is found exactly in
`
`the alleged infringer’s product. Panduit Corp. v. Dennison Mfg. Co., 836 F.2d 1329, 1330 n. 1
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 218 Filed 10/05/23 Page 10 of 44 PageID #: 16490
`
`(Fed. Cir. 1987). Infringement is proven by a preponderance of the evidence. SmithKline
`
`Diagnostics, Inc. v. Helena Lab. Corp., 859 F.2d 878, 889 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
`
`In 2017, following a full evidentiary investigation and trial, the ITC found that
`
`Caterpillar’s accused machines (the same machines at issue in this motion) infringed certain
`
`claims of Wirtgen’s ’530 and ’309 patents (the same claims at issue in this motion). That
`
`determination was affirmed by the Federal Circuit. The ITC initially found that operation of
`
`Caterpillar’s machines directly infringed the certain claims of the ’641 patent (the same claims at
`
`issue in this motion) but that Wirtgen did not show inducement. The Federal Circuit affirmed the
`
`direct infringement finding and reversed on inducement, remanding for the ITC to issue a
`
`remedy consistent with indirect infringement liability. SUMF 2. The ITC then issued a Limited
`
`Exclusion Order prohibiting Caterpillar from importing the accused machines into the US. Id.
`
`Meanwhile, Wirtgen had filed the present litigation in this Court, seeking damages for
`
`Caterpillar’s sales of these same infringing machines, as well as infringing machines
`
`manufactured in the US (to circumvent the exclusion order). SUMF 3. Caterpillar has presented
`
`no genuine dispute of material fact contesting infringement and no basis for this Court to depart
`
`from the ITC’s thorough, well-reasoned opinion for these machines. SUMF 2-3. Wirtgen is
`
`entitled to the requested summary judgment.
`
`1.
`
`Caterpillar’s PM600 and PM800 series machines with leg position
`sensors (01A builds and 02A, 02B, and 02C builds before any redesigns)
`infringe claims 5, 16, and 22 of the ’530 patent.
`
`There is no genuine dispute of fact concerning the structure or operation of Caterpillar’s
`
`PM600 series (PM620, PM622) and PM800 series (PM820, PM822, PM825) machines with leg
`
`position sensors (01A builds and 02A, 02B, and 02C builds before any redesigns) that is material
`
`to infringement of asserted dependent claims 5, 16, and 22 of the ’530 patent. Caterpillar raises a
`
`single purported dispute, alleging that Caterpillar’s parts manual does not conclusively establish
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 218 Filed 10/05/23 Page 11 of 44 PageID #: 16491
`
`that a portion of claim element [1g] is met. SUMF 41, 57-58, 60 (purporting to dispute the
`
`“lifting position sensor” limitation). In so doing, Caterpillar simply buries its head in the sand
`
`and disregards sworn testimony from its own engineering manager and its own technical expert
`
`in the ITC Investigation. Such games should not defeat summary judgment.
`
`The ’530 patent relates to a road-milling machine with hydraulic cylinders in the legs that
`
`raise and lower the frame of the machine relative to the ground. The legs include lifting position
`
`sensors that help regulate the machine height. Undisputedly, the accused Caterpillar machines
`
`are road construction machines (preamble [1pre]) (SUMF 18, 20) that include a machine frame
`
`(element [1a]) (SUMF 22, 23), a working drum (element [1b]) (SUMF 25, 26), four ground-
`
`engaging track or caterpillar assemblies (element [1c]) (SUMF 28, 29), four lifting columns each
`
`with telescoping tubes and a hydraulic cylinder (elements [1d], [1e], and [1f]) (SUMF 31,32, 34,
`
`35), and four lifting position sensors each connected to a respective leg hydraulic cylinder
`
`(elements [1g] and [1h]) (SUMF 38-46, 57). It is also undisputed that the accused Caterpillar
`
`machines include a controller that regulates the machine height based on signals received from
`
`the lifting position sensors (claim 2) (SUMF 62, 63, 64, 65). And there is no dispute that the
`
`accused machines satisfy all limitations of claims 5 (SUMF 68-72), 16 (SUMF 73-75), and 22
`
`(SUMF 77-79).
`
`Wirtgen’s expert Dr. Lumkes shows that magnetostrictive position sensors in the accused
`
`machines’ lifting columns satisfy the “lifting position sensors” limitation of claim element [1g].
`
`SUMF 41. Dr. Lumkes’ opinion is based on documentary evidence, inspection of the accused
`
`machines, and is supported by testimony from Caterpillar’s own witnesses regarding the
`
`structure and function of the magnetostrictive sensors. SUMF 42-46, 55, 56.
`
`In response, Caterpillar notes that according to the Court’s construction, “[e]ach lifting
`
`position sensor is coupled to two or more components within its respective lifting column.”
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 218 Filed 10/05/23 Page 12 of 44 PageID #: 16492
`
`SUMF 41. Caterpillar argues that this construction requires two attachment points where the
`
`sensor is coupled to the lifting column. Id. Caterpillar does not contend that the accused
`
`machines lack two attachment points. Rather, its position is that its own parts manual is
`
`ambiguous in its depiction of the second attachment point. SUMF 49; see also SUMF 41, 47.
`
`There’s no ambiguity in the record here, simply willful blindness by Caterpillar’s expert.
`
`Caterpillar’s engineering manager (Mr. Engelmann), Caterpillar’s technical expert from
`
`the ITC trial (Dr. Alleyne), and Caterpillar’s current technical expert (Dr. Rakow) all admit that
`
`Caterpillar’s magnetostrictive sensors (pictured below) include (1) a sensor transducer (red and
`
`labeled “5”) and a sensor magnet (blue and labeled “4”). SUMF 42-44, 46.
`
`The sensor
`
`
`
`
`
`. SUMF 46. Wirtgen’s expert (Dr. Lumkes) and Caterpillar’s
`
`expert (Dr. Rakow) agree upon the first attachment point between the sensor transducer and the
`
`hydraulic cylinder. SUMF 52, 54; see also SUMF 53. Dr. Lumkes identified the second
`
`attachment point between the sensor magnet and the leg cylinder’s movable piston rod (yellow
`
`above). SUMF 55. Specifically,
`
` SUMF 56.
`
`Caterpillar’s expert Dr. Rakow neither agreed nor disagreed with Dr. Lumkes on this point.
`
`SUMF 48-49. Rather, Dr. Rakow testified only that he could not tell “from the evidence
`
`available to him” whether or not there was a second attachment point, and opined that Wirtgen
`
`therefore did not meet its evidentiary burden. Id.
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 218 Filed 10/05/23 Page 13 of 44 PageID #: 16493
`
`Importantly, Dr. Rakow did not opine that Caterpillar’s magnetostrictive sensor lacked a
`
`second attachment point within the lifting column. SUMF 48. Moreover, Dr. Rakow conceded
`
`that he did not have all the relevant evidence “available to [him]” that Dr. Lumkes had in
`
`rendering his infringement opinion. Specifically, Dr. Rakow did not review Mr. Englemann’s
`
`testimony describing the configuration of the sensor magnet and the cylinder’s movable rod—
`
`evidence that speaks directly to the second attachment point. SUMF 50. While Dr. Rakow could
`
`have asked Mr. Engelmann, who is a Caterpillar engineering manager, for details about how
`
`Caterpillar’s magnetostrictive sensors were configured during their conversations, he chose not
`
`to do so. SUMF 51. He also chose not to inspect an accused machine for himself to see whether
`
`there was a second point of attachment. Id.
`
`Remaining willfully ignorant of material evidence of infringement and then concluding
`
`that infringement is not clear one way or the other from the evidence “available” does not create
`
`a material and genuine dispute of fact. It is the purpose of experts to investigate the facts and
`
`present competing evidence to the jury. It is not the purpose of experts to opine on how they
`
`would weigh the movant’s evidence were they in the jury box. Oxford Gene Tech., Ltd. v.
`
`Mergen Ltd., 345 F. Supp. 2d 431, 435 (D. Del. 2004) (finding expert testimony “that constitutes
`
`mere personal belief as to the weight of the evidence invades the province of the fact-finder”).
`
`Caterpillar cannot thwart summary judgment by having its expert do the latter rather than the
`
`former. Dr. Rakow’s “opinion” that Dr. Lumkes did not satisfy the burden of proof on
`
`infringement is not a proper opinion nor does it create a genuine material dispute of fact. See
`
`Gen. Elec. Co. v. Joinder, 522 U.S. 136, 146 (1997) (rejecting the ipse dixit of an expert to
`
`establish a proposition).
`
`Caterpillar’s attempt to manufacture a failure-of-proof defense by withholding material
`
`evidence from its expert is especially egregious considering that Caterpillar’s expert at the ITC,
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 218 Filed 10/05/23 Page 14 of 44 PageID #: 16494
`
`who had seen the material evidence, admitted that the magnetostrictive system included (1) a
`
`sensor transducer attached to a hydraulic cylinder and (2) a magnet embedded in the cylinder’s
`
`movable piston rod. SUMF 42, 46. On this basis, the ITC found the limitation met, and found
`
`infringement of claims 5, 16, and 22, which Caterpillar did not challenge on appeal. SUMF 45,
`
`59. That sworn testimony is admissible in this proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 1659(b), and is not
`
`hearsay evidence under at least Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(2)(B). SUMF 42, 46; Pernix Ireland Pain
`
`Dac v. Alvogen Malta Operations Ltd., 316 F.Supp.3d 816, 823–24 (D. Del. 2018) (collecting
`
`cases finding that an expert’s statement admissible as an adoptive statement under Rule
`
`801(d)(2)(B)). Caterpillar’s attempt to pivot to a different expert and shield that expert from
`
`material evidence of infringement is no reason for the Court here to try this issue to a jury and
`
`reach a different outcome. All the evidence of record supports summary judgment of
`
`infringement of the ’530 patent.
`
`2.
`
`Caterpillar’s PM600 and PM800 series machines with the ride control
`feature (01A builds and 02A, 02B, and 02C builds before any redesigns)
`infringe claim 29 of the ’309 patent.
`
`There is no genuine dispute of fact regarding the structure and operation of Caterpillar’s
`
`PM600 series (PM620, PM622) and PM800 series (PM820, PM822, PM825) machines with the
`
`ride control feature (01A builds and 02A, 02B, and 02C builds before any redesigns) that is
`
`material to infringement of claim 29 of the ’309 patent. Caterpillar raises a single purported
`
`dispute alleging that Wirtgen’s expert’s opinion does not conclusively establish infringement,
`
`because the expert did not personally insert the annotations in one of his demonstratives. SUMF
`
`111. As discussed below, that argument does not establish any genuine dispute of material fact
`
`nor defeat summary judgment of infringement.
`
`The ’309 patent relates to a road-milling machine with improved stability against tip over
`
`on uneven ground. Specifically, the claims recite a four-sided stability pattern in which the
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 218 Filed 10/05/23 Page 15 of 44 PageID #: 16495
`
`widest transverse dimension falls within the milling rotor footprint. Undisputedly, the accused
`
`Caterpillar machines are road-building machines (preamble [26pre]) (SUMF 85) that include a
`
`chassis (element [26a]) (SUMF 86, 87, 107), two front and two rear caterpillar assemblies
`
`(element [26b]) (SUMF 89, 90, 107), four leg hydraulic working cylinders having working
`
`chambers filled with a pressure medium for adjusting the machine height (elements [26c] and
`
`[26e]) (SUMF 92, 93, 98, 99, 107), coupling lines that positively couple the hydraulic leg
`
`cylinders (element [26f]) (SUMF 101-103, 105, 107), and a working rotor (element [26d])
`
`(SUMF 95, 96, 107). It is also undisputed that the accused Caterpillar machines form a four-
`
`sided stability pattern (a portion of claim 29). SUMF 108-110.
`
`In the accused Caterpillar machines, there is no genuine dispute that the widest transverse
`
`dimension of the stability pattern falls within the milling rotor footprint (the other portion of
`
`claim 29), as depicted below:
`
`
`
`The blue solid lines represent the 4-sided stability pattern. The dashed blue line shows the widest
`
`transverse dimension of that stability pattern, which falls within the milling drum footprint
`
`(gray). The only issue Caterpillar’s expert purports to dispute is whether Dr. Lumkes’ opinion
`
`satisfies Wirtgen’s burden of proof regarding the location of the widest transverse dimension of
`
`the stability pattern relative to the milling drum. SUMF 111.
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 218 Filed 10/05/23 Page 16 of 44 PageID #: 16496
`
`Wirtgen’s expert Dr. Lumkes opined that the widest transverse dimension of the stability
`
`pattern in the accused products falls within the footprint of the rotor based on a CAD file
`
`produced by Caterpillar. SUMF 111-112. The CAD file shows that when the ride-control feature
`
`of the representative PM620 (01A build) is active, the resulting four-sided stability pattern’s
`
`widest dimension transverse to the forward direction of the chassis falls within the footprint of
`
`the rotating milling drum—just as claim 29 requires. SUMF 111. Caterpillar admitted that this
`
`Caterpillar-produced CAD file accurately represents the PM620 machine, and Dr. Lumkes relied
`
`on that representation in forming his various opinions. SUMF 113-114. There is no evidence to
`
`the contrary.
`
`As with the ’530 patent, Caterpillar’s expert Dr. Rakow does not opine on rebuttal that
`
`the accused L