Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 230-10 Filed 10/05/23 Page 1 of 23 PageID #: 24081
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Exhibit 87
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Exhibit 87
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 230-10 Filed 10/05/23 Page 2 of 23 PageID #: 24082
`
`7/28/2023
`
`Wirtgen America Inc. v. Caterpillar Inc.
`Confidential
`
`Paul Bartkowski
`
`Page 1
`
` IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
` FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`---------------------------------x
`WIRTGEN AMERICA, INC., :
` Plaintiff/Counterclaim-Deft. :
` V. : C.A. No.
`CATERPILLAR, INC., : 17-770-JDW-MPT
` Defendant/Counterclaim-Plf. :
`---------------------------------x
`
` CONFIDENTIAL
`
` VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF PAUL BARTKOWSKI
` Friday, July 28, 2023
` 9:36 a.m. Eastern Daylight Time
`
`REPORTER: Sherry L. Brooks,
` Certified LiveNote Reporter
`______________________________________________________
` DIGITAL EVIDENCE GROUP
` 1730 M Street, NW, Suite 812
` Washington, D.C. 20036
` (202) 232-0646
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com Digital Evidence Gorup C'rt 2023
`
`202-232-0646
`
`
`
`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 230-10 Filed 10/05/23 Page 3 of 23 PageID #: 24083
`
`7/28/2023
`
`Wirtgen America Inc. v. Caterpillar Inc.
`Confidential
`
`Paul Bartkowski
`
`Page 7
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`12th.
` Q. And you brought these documents with you?
` A. Correct.
` Q. Have you ever prepared an expert report
`before?
` A. I have not appeared as an expert before.
`I've been involved in preparing expert reports as
`part of my practice.
` Q. What -- can you give -- let me withdraw
`that question.
` Can you summarize what the opinions are
`that you're providing in this matter?
` A. I think it's probably difficult to do so.
`It's a lengthy report. I would say that what I tried
`to do was provide a summary of what happened at the
`ITC, including an explanation of the procedures at
`the ITC and how that all fits together to form an
`understanding and provide an understanding of what
`happened between the parties in that proceeding as it
`relates to the current proceeding in Delaware.
` Q. So when you talk about a summary of what
`happened at the ITC, you effectively are summarizing
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com Digital Evidence Gorup C'rt 2023
`
`202-232-0646
`
`
`
`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 230-10 Filed 10/05/23 Page 4 of 23 PageID #: 24084
`
`7/28/2023
`
`Wirtgen America Inc. v. Caterpillar Inc.
`Confidential
`
`Paul Bartkowski
`
`Page 9
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`your opinions?
` A. I'm hesitant to say yes or no without
`looking through it to see if I can find it, but that
`doesn't jump out as something that I specifically
`provided. I'll go ahead and answer the other
`question about an example of an opinion.
` In paragraph 200 after describing, you
`know, what amounted to a very lengthy procedural
`history at the ITC and at customs and -- basically
`that ended -- that procedural history ended with
`Caterpillar redesigning its products successfully, at
`least in customs' view, to avoid the infringement
`that was found at the ITC.
` In paragraph 200 as an example of an
`opinion is that Caterpillar's prompt and effective
`redesigns are also indicative of a party that
`vigorously presented meritorious defenses to
`infringement allegations (and infringement findings).
`That would be one example.
` Q. So your opinion is that because
`Caterpillar redesigned that they vigorously presented
`a meritorious defense to infringement?
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com Digital Evidence Gorup C'rt 2023
`
`202-232-0646
`
`
`
`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 230-10 Filed 10/05/23 Page 5 of 23 PageID #: 24085
`
`7/28/2023
`
`Wirtgen America Inc. v. Caterpillar Inc.
`Confidential
`
`Paul Bartkowski
`
`Page 10
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
` MR. LISTON: Object to the form.
` A. So the opinion says what it says and I
`would say that there also in that paragraph 200
`really correlates this opinion to prior opinions that
`relate to the defenses that were presented to the
`infringement allegations.
` I think that the -- the opinion here is
`more directed to the prompt and effective redesigns
`which customs confirmed were noninfringing and that I
`understand are not accused of infringement by -- by
`Wirtgen, and that is a meritorious defense to an
`infringement finding.
` So, in other words, the ITC made an
`infringement finding. Caterpillar promptly and
`effectively resigned, which I opine is indicative of
`a party that vigorously presented meritorious
`defenses to that infringement finding. The
`infringement allegations relate to the earlier
`defenses.
` Q. So you're adding flavor through expert
`opinion as to what Caterpillar did?
` MR. LISTON: Object to the form.
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com Digital Evidence Gorup C'rt 2023
`
`202-232-0646
`
`
`
`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 230-10 Filed 10/05/23 Page 6 of 23 PageID #: 24086
`
`7/28/2023
`
`Wirtgen America Inc. v. Caterpillar Inc.
`Confidential
`
`Paul Bartkowski
`
`Page 11
` A. I don't know that I would characterize it
`exactly that way. I'm taking a lengthy and complex
`procedural history at the ITC and summarizing it and
`then providing opinions about what I'm seeing having
`dealt with too many to count ITC cases where I have
`seen cases litigated in different ways by different
`parties.
` I've seen different types of decisions
`rendered and then I'm rendering opinions based on
`what I've seen in analyzing that history.
` BY MR. YONAN:
` Q. What's the point of this opinion?
` MR. LISTON: Object to the form.
` A. I think I've answered that, is to provide
`an explanation of what happened in the ITC, to aid
`the factfinder in understanding what happened, and to
`provide my opinions of what I'm seeing having been
`involved in and read and studied, as I mentioned, too
`many cases to count at the ITC.
` BY MR. YONAN:
` Q. Well, is your opinion intended to help
`Caterpillar negate a willfulness allegation?
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com Digital Evidence Gorup C'rt 2023
`
`202-232-0646
`
`
`
`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 230-10 Filed 10/05/23 Page 7 of 23 PageID #: 24087
`
`7/28/2023
`
`Wirtgen America Inc. v. Caterpillar Inc.
`Confidential
`
`Paul Bartkowski
`
`Page 12
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
` MR. LISTON: Object to the form.
` A. In terms of -- I understand that the
`report is effectively in response to allegations of
`willful infringement by Caterpillar including
`allegations that relate to the history and the
`underlying dispute at the ITC and how Caterpillar
`defended against that and comported itself in that
`case.
` BY MR. YONAN:
` Q. So the point of your report is to rebut
`allegations of willfulness being made by Wirtgen; is
`that right?
` MR. LISTON: Object to the form.
` A. I don't know that I would put it that way.
`I think that the report lays out its particular -- at
`least the particular request that was made of me.
`And I don't think it phrases it that way and I don't
`think that's the way I would exactly phrase it.
` It does, as I understand it, relate to
`allegations of willful infringement.
` BY MR. YONAN:
` Q. But you're not providing a rebuttal for
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com Digital Evidence Gorup C'rt 2023
`
`202-232-0646
`
`
`
`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 230-10 Filed 10/05/23 Page 8 of 23 PageID #: 24088
`
`7/28/2023
`
`Wirtgen America Inc. v. Caterpillar Inc.
`Confidential
`
`Paul Bartkowski
`
`Page 14
` A. I don't know that I would exactly put it
`that way. I think what I said and what I think is
`accurate is paragraph 2 provides what I was asked to
`do. The -- and the substantive portion of the report
`does that, and I understand that it relates to
`allegations of willfulness.
` Whether the judge or a factfinder would
`find it -- that it satisfies the criteria that you
`mentioned is just not something that I've had an
`occasion to render an opinion on.
` BY MR. YONAN:
` Q. Are you putting yourself forward in this
`case as an expert on willfulness?
` A. I wouldn't put it that way. I would say
`that my background and the background that I'm
`relying on to, you know, create this report and
`present this report is one of a private attorney that
`has worked in the field of ITC section 337 litigation
`for quite some time.
` But also I've worked at the ITC. I've
`worked on the rules and regulations, which are quite
`convoluted, which can be difficult for even seasoned
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com Digital Evidence Gorup C'rt 2023
`
`202-232-0646
`
`
`
`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 230-10 Filed 10/05/23 Page 9 of 23 PageID #: 24089
`
`7/28/2023
`
`Wirtgen America Inc. v. Caterpillar Inc.
`Confidential
`
`Paul Bartkowski
`
`Page 15
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`patent attorneys and even some seasoned ITC
`litigators to understand, applying that background to
`the, you know, facts and procedural history of the
`case, to summarize and distill down what happened in
`that case in an effort to assist the factfinder in
`determining what happened as it relates to
`willfulness accusations.
` Q. So I didn't understand your answer and I
`don't think you're answering my question. Let me try
`to ask this differently.
` My understanding is you're putting (sic)
`yourself out in this case as an expert on ITC
`practice and procedure. Is my understanding
`incorrect?
` A. I think that's certainly part of it, yes.
` Q. What is the full scope of the expertise
`you intend to provide in this case?
` A. I'm struggling a little bit to craft that
`answer.
` Q. You don't know what you're an expert in?
`Is that what you're telling me?
` MR. LISTON: Object to the form.
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com Digital Evidence Gorup C'rt 2023
`
`202-232-0646
`
`
`
`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 230-10 Filed 10/05/23 Page 10 of 23 PageID #: 24090
`
`7/28/2023
`
`Wirtgen America Inc. v. Caterpillar Inc.
`Confidential
`
`Paul Bartkowski
`
`Page 17
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`and answered.
` A. Yeah. I think I've answered that. And we
`could -- I suppose could look at the CV. I'm not
`exactly sure how -- what more you're looking for than
`what I just answered, but I'm happy to try.
` BY MR. YONAN:
` Q. Are you holding yourself out as an expert
`on ITC practice?
` A. I don't know that it's necessarily
`accurate to say that I'm holding myself out that way.
`I think it's a question for the judge to determine
`whether my background satisfies the criteria for me
`to give opinion testimony on particular areas.
` I certainly relied on my expertise in ITC
`practice and procedure in crafting this report and I
`believe that I meet that criteria.
` Q. Are you holding yourself out as an expert
`on ITC procedure?
` A. I think it's the same answer. I included
`that in my prior answer, but I think it's the same
`answer.
` Q. Are you holding yourself out as an expert
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com Digital Evidence Gorup C'rt 2023
`
`202-232-0646
`
`
`
`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 230-10 Filed 10/05/23 Page 11 of 23 PageID #: 24091
`
`7/28/2023
`
`Wirtgen America Inc. v. Caterpillar Inc.
`Confidential
`
`Paul Bartkowski
`
`Page 20
` Q. Look at the first page. It says Rebuttal
`Expert Report.
` Do you see that?
` A. I do.
` Q. Whose expert report are you rebutting?
` A. This relates a little bit to what we were
`just discussing. It doesn't respond to a particular
`expert but rather provides -- you know, the report is
`provided in response to allegations of willful
`infringement.
` Q. Who specifically are you rebutting from
`the Wirtgen side?
` A. I don't know that I have a name for you.
` Q. You don't know whose expert report from
`the Wirtgen side you're rebutting?
` A. No. I just answered that. So the report
`is styled as a rebuttal because it is part of and
`provided to -- part of a response and provided to
`respond to allegations of willful infringement.
` Q. Which expert from Wirtgen made the
`allegations of willful infringement that you're
`rebutting?
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com Digital Evidence Gorup C'rt 2023
`
`202-232-0646
`
`
`
`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 230-10 Filed 10/05/23 Page 12 of 23 PageID #: 24092
`
`7/28/2023
`
`Wirtgen America Inc. v. Caterpillar Inc.
`Confidential
`
`Paul Bartkowski
`
`Page 21
` A. I think I've answered that. There's no
`specific expert report that this responds to.
` Q. How can it be a rebuttal report if it's
`not responding to a specific report submitted by
`Wirtgen?
` MR. LISTON: Object to the form.
` A. I can provide my understanding of that,
`but ultimately that's going to be, I think, a
`question for the judge, which is -- it's styled as a
`rebuttal report because of the burdens of proof
`regarding infringement, willful infringement, and
`responses thereto.
` Here this report is part of and will, as I
`understand it, be used to assess Wirtgen's claims of
`willful infringement on which Wirtgen bears the
`burden, which then, as I understand it, makes it
`appropriate to address that in a rebuttal expert
`report from Caterpillar.
` BY MR. YONAN:
` Q. So that's your belief as to why this is
`captioned as a rebuttal report, what you just
`explained?
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com Digital Evidence Gorup C'rt 2023
`
`202-232-0646
`
`
`
`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 230-10 Filed 10/05/23 Page 13 of 23 PageID #: 24093
`
`7/28/2023
`
`Wirtgen America Inc. v. Caterpillar Inc.
`Confidential
`
`Paul Bartkowski
`
`Page 34
` Have you ever been an expert in a case
`before?
` A. No.
` Q. And not certainly then it goes for your
`ITC expertise or 337 expert?
` A. That's correct. This is my first expert
`report that's drafted and submitted in my name.
` Q. When were you first contacted by
`Caterpillar?
` A. I don't have the date.
` Q. Generally?
` A. I think it was perhaps early spring.
` Q. Of last year?
` A. I'm sorry. No, early spring of 2023.
` Q. And what did they ask you to do?
` A. At that time I presume the first thing
`they asked -- it's been a while -- I presume the
`first thing they asked me to do would be to run
`conflicts.
` Q. And what did -- what did they want you to
`provide an expert opinion on?
` MR. LISTON: Object to the extent it calls
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com Digital Evidence Gorup C'rt 2023
`
`202-232-0646
`
`
`
`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 230-10 Filed 10/05/23 Page 14 of 23 PageID #: 24094
`
`7/28/2023
`
`Wirtgen America Inc. v. Caterpillar Inc.
`Confidential
`
`Paul Bartkowski
`
`Page 35
`for privileged information, but you can answer to the
`extent that it doesn't.
` A. I want to just be clear. So I testified
`that my recollection is that the first contact was
`sometime in early spring. Ultimately, what they
`asked me to submit a report on is described in
`paragraph 2.
` I just don't recall whether that request
`was -- really when that specific request was made.
`But in terms of what they asked me do, I summarize
`that in paragraph 2.
` BY MR. YONAN:
` Q. In paragraph 2, you used the words "area
`of technical expertise."
` Do you see that?
` A. Yes.
` Q. You're not providing any expert opinions
`on the technical aspects of this dispute, are you,
`the substantive technical patent aspects?
` A. I don't think that's the right reading of
`that -- of that phrase. I do happen to have a
`background in chemical engineering. I do happen to
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com Digital Evidence Gorup C'rt 2023
`
`202-232-0646
`
`
`
`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 230-10 Filed 10/05/23 Page 15 of 23 PageID #: 24095
`
`7/28/2023
`
`Wirtgen America Inc. v. Caterpillar Inc.
`Confidential
`
`Paul Bartkowski
`
`Page 36
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`be a patent attorney, and I do happen to have
`technical expertise.
` But that's not the right reading of that
`particular phrasing, which I think focuses on the
`expertise, including the practices and procedures of
`the International Trade Commission.
` Q. Okay. You've read a lot of the prior art
`from the 1067 investigation, right?
` A. I've certainly reviewed it and that's
`reflected in the materials reviewed in the report,
`yes.
` Q. Right. These were materials you
`considered, right?
` A. Correct. Yes.
` Q. You're not providing any opinions
`regarding any of those technical references, are you?
` A. Regarding is a broad term. The report
`does not get into the substantive disputes regarding
`individual issues within the case such as invalidity
`and whether a certain patent does or does not
`disclose, for example, a feature of the asserted
`claims.
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com Digital Evidence Gorup C'rt 2023
`
`202-232-0646
`
`
`
`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 230-10 Filed 10/05/23 Page 16 of 23 PageID #: 24096
`
`7/28/2023
`
`Wirtgen America Inc. v. Caterpillar Inc.
`Confidential
`
`Paul Bartkowski
`
`Page 48
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`Are you with me?
` A. I'm following, yes.
` Q. In your expert opinion, is waiting to file
`a 177 proceeding for 15 months prompt?
` MR. LISTON: Object to the form.
` A. There's a -- there's a few things that
`impact that. The first is that in order to present
`and have customs rule on a redesign you need to have
`-- you need to plan an importation of the actual
`product.
` In other words, customs as a practice
`doesn't issue what we might call advisory decisions
`or decisions on hypothetical products that might or
`might not be imported.
` If you couple that with the size, the
`complexity, and the cost and really the limited
`number of these machines that exist in the United
`States when contrasted to something like a routine
`consumer product, I think it is a prompt redesign,
`which is informed, too, by the fact that it was
`effective.
` To come up with a prompt redesign that
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com Digital Evidence Gorup C'rt 2023
`
`202-232-0646
`
`
`
`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 230-10 Filed 10/05/23 Page 17 of 23 PageID #: 24097
`
`7/28/2023
`
`Wirtgen America Inc. v. Caterpillar Inc.
`Confidential
`
`Paul Bartkowski
`
`Page 49
`doesn't work in a complex machine wouldn't be -- it
`wouldn't be better than taking the time to make the
`changes that are necessary to avoid infringement in
`as expeditious a manner as a party can do.
` My assessment of this record, including
`the factors that I just -- that I just enunciated,
`yeah, I think that that's certainly consistent with a
`prompt and effective redesign.
` BY MR. YONAN:
` Q. So 15 months -- waiting to file a 177
`proceeding after 15 months is prompt, in your
`opinion?
` MR. LISTON: Object to the form.
` A. Yeah. So the waiting to file is something
`that I think I'd have to disagree with because it
`suggests that they could have filed in month zero or
`month one, and I don't have an understanding that
`that was the case.
` Instead, what I've seen, what I've
`reviewed suggests that they took the time to redesign
`the actual machines, get ready to import them, and
`then promptly took those redesigns to customs who
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com Digital Evidence Gorup C'rt 2023
`
`202-232-0646
`
`
`
`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 230-10 Filed 10/05/23 Page 18 of 23 PageID #: 24098
`
`7/28/2023
`
`Wirtgen America Inc. v. Caterpillar Inc.
`Confidential
`
`Paul Bartkowski
`
`Page 79
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`Caterpillar filed against it?
` MR. LISTON: Object to the form.
` A. I believe that that case, too, had a bit
`of a mixed result with either side prevailing on
`certain aspects of the case and not prevailing on
`others. I'm not sure that I'm exactly following.
` BY MR. YONAN:
` Q. Sitting here today, Wirtgen has no
`exclusion order entered against it, correct?
` A. I'd honestly have to -- I don't know that
`I could categorically agree with that without going
`back to the record of that particular case.
` My focus was more on the Caterpillar case,
`but perhaps there's a -- yeah. I don't know that I
`can agree with you just sitting here right here
`today. There's been a lot that I've reviewed.
` Q. So you don't know what happened,
`ultimately, in the 1088 investigation, the
`retaliatory investigation filed by Caterpillar
`against Wirtgen?
` MR. LISTON: Object to the form.
` A. I think -- I have to say I don't know. I
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com Digital Evidence Gorup C'rt 2023
`
`202-232-0646
`
`
`
`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 230-10 Filed 10/05/23 Page 19 of 23 PageID #: 24099
`
`7/28/2023
`
`Wirtgen America Inc. v. Caterpillar Inc.
`Confidential
`
`Paul Bartkowski
`
`Page 80
`think what I said was just sitting here today do I
`immediately recall the procedural result of that
`case. It looks like footnote 13 on page 54 might
`answer that. Give me a moment. I'll take a look.
` Yeah, what I see in footnote 13 is all but
`one of Caterpillar's asserted claims were withdrawn,
`found not infringed, and/or found invalid. That's
`what I was recalling. I honestly don't recall what
`happened with that one claim. I would need to check
`the record.
` BY MR. YONAN:
` Q. Are you aware of an IPR invalidating that
`one claim as part of many?
` MR. LISTON: Object to the form.
` A. Sitting here today, I remember looking
`through some IPR proceedings. But no -- I'm not sure
`if that's exactly what happened to that one claim or
`not. I just don't recall.
` BY MR. YONAN:
` Q. The focus of your analysis was not on what
`Caterpillar did to Wirtgen, right? It was what
`Wirtgen did to Caterpillar by way of litigation in
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com Digital Evidence Gorup C'rt 2023
`
`202-232-0646
`
`
`
`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 230-10 Filed 10/05/23 Page 20 of 23 PageID #: 24100
`
`7/28/2023
`
`Wirtgen America Inc. v. Caterpillar Inc.
`Confidential
`
`Paul Bartkowski
`
`Page 81
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`the ITC?
` A. Yeah. I might -- I wouldn't use the words
`what they did to each other, but the focus -- the
`majority of the effort I put into reviewing their
`records was -- it was certainly on the offensive case
`brought by Wirtgen against Caterpillar, which I think
`is the 1067 case.
` Q. Why didn't you look at the other side of
`it, the Caterpillar side of it?
` A. Well, as I said, I did look at it. What
`I'm saying is that the bulk of the analysis was
`related to the 1067 case, the offensive case, brought
`by Wirtgen.
` MR. YONAN: Is this a good opportunity for
`a break? Let's go off the record.
` THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Okay. The time is
`11:29 a.m. We're going off the record.
` (A break was taken.)
` THE VIDEOGRAPHER: The time is 11:40 a.m.
`We're back on the record.
` BY MR. YONAN:
` Q. Exhibit 1 we've been talking about at
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com Digital Evidence Gorup C'rt 2023
`
`202-232-0646
`
`
`
`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 230-10 Filed 10/05/23 Page 21 of 23 PageID #: 24101
`
`7/28/2023
`
`Wirtgen America Inc. v. Caterpillar Inc.
`Confidential
`
`Paul Bartkowski
`
`Page 101
`
`1
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
` CERTIFICATE OF NOTARY PUBLIC
` I, SHERRY L. BROOKS, the officer before
`whom the foregoing deposition was taken, do hereby
`certify that the witness whose testimony appears in
`the foregoing deposition was duly sworn by me; that
`the testimony of said witness was taken by me in
`stenotype and thereafter reduced to typewriting under
`my direction; that said deposition is a true record
`of the testimony given by said witness; that I am
`neither counsel for, related to, nor employed by and
`of the parties to the action in which this deposition
`was taken; and, further, that I am not a relative or
`employee of any counsel or attorney employed by the
`parties hereto, nor financially or otherwise
`interested in the outcome of this action.
`
` SHERRY L. BROOKS
` Notary Public in and for
` District of Columbia
`
`My commission expires: November 30, 2025
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com Digital Evidence Gorup C'rt 2023
`
`202-232-0646
`
`
`
`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 230-10 Filed 10/05/23 Page 22 of 23 PageID #: 24102
`
`7/28/2023
`
`Wirtgen America Inc. v. Caterpillar Inc.
`Confidential
`
`Paul Bartkowski
`
`Page 103
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
` Digital Evidence Group, L.L.C.
` 1730 M Street, NW, Suite 812
` Washington, D.C. 20036
` (202) 232-0646
`
` SIGNATURE PAGE
` Case: Wirtgen America Inc. v. Caterpillar Inc.
` Witness Name: Paul Bartkowski
` Deposition Date: July 28, 2023
`
` I do hereby acknowledge that I have read
` and examined the foregoing pages
` of the transcript of my deposition and that:
`
` (Check appropriate box):
` ( ) The same is a true, correct and
` complete transcription of the answers given by
` me to the questions therein recorded.
` ( ) Except for the changes noted in the
` attached Errata Sheet, the same is a true,
` correct and complete transcription of the
` answers given by me to the questions therein
` recorded.
`
` _____________ _________________________
` DATE WITNESS SIGNATURE
`
`
`
` _____________ __________________________
` DATE NOTARY
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com Digital Evidence Gorup C'rt 2023
`
`202-232-0646
`
`
`
`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 230-10 Filed 10/05/23 Page 23 of 23 PageID #: 24103
`
`7/28/2023
`
`Wirtgen America Inc. v. Caterpillar Inc.
`Confidential
`
`Paul Bartkowski
`
`Page 104
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
` Digital Evidence Group, LLC
` 1730 M Street, NW, Suite 812
` Washington, D.C. 20036
` (202)232-0646
`
` ERRATA SHEET
`
` Case: Wirtgen America Inc. v. Caterpillar Inc.
` Witness Name: Paul Bartkowski
` Deposition Date: July 28, 2023
` Page No. Line No. Change
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` ___________________________ _____________
` Signature Date
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com Digital Evidence Gorup C'rt 2023
`
`202-232-0646
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
