Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 239 Filed 10/19/23 Page 1 of 46 PageID #: 24296
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`C.A. No. 17-770-JDW
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`)))))))))
`
`WIRTGEN AMERICA, INC.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`CATERPILLAR INC.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`CATERPILLAR INC.’S BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO WIRTGEN AMERICA, INC.’S
`COMBINED MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND
`MOTION TO EXCLUDE EXPERT TESTIMONY
`
`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: October 19, 2023
`11121888/11898.00005
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 239 Filed 10/19/23 Page 2 of 46 PageID #: 24297
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`PAGE
`
`INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 1
`
`ARGUMENT .................................................................................................................................. 3
`
`I.
`
`WIRTGEN AMERICA IS NOT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF
`INFRINGEMENT OF CLAIMS 5, 16, AND 22 OF THE ’530 PATENT ........................ 3
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Wirtgen America Failed to Show that Each Lifting Position Sensor Has
`Two Attachment Points to Its Respective Lifting Column ..................................... 4
`
`The Experts Dispute Whether the Magnet Is Part of the Claimed Sensor .............. 6
`
`II.
`
`WIRTGEN AMERICA IS NOT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF
`INFRINGEMENT OF CLAIM 29 OF THE ’309 PATENT .............................................. 8
`
`III. WIRTGEN AMERICA IS NOT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF
`INFRINGEMENT OF CLAIMS 11, 17, AND 18 OF THE ’641 PATENT .................... 11
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Claim 11: The Parties Dispute Whether Caterpillar’s Reverse Shut-Off
`Feature Measures the Distance Between the Drum and the Ground .................... 12
`
`Claims 17 and 18: Caterpillar Does Not Infringe and Is Entitled to
`Summary Judgment of Non-Infringement ............................................................ 14
`
`Caterpillar Does Not Induce Infringement of the ’641 Patent .............................. 17
`
`IV. WIRTGEN AMERICA IS NOT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF
`IPR ESTOPPEL REGARDING THE PM-465, PM-565, AND RX-500
`MACHINES ...................................................................................................................... 19
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`No Estoppel as to Physical Device Prior Art ........................................................ 19
`
`Wirtgen America Failed to Establish That the Allegedly Cumulative
`Printed Publications Constituted Prior Art That Could Have Been Raised
`in Prior IPR Proceedings ....................................................................................... 20
`
`Wirtgen America Failed to Establish that the Product Prior Art References
`Match the Product Literature ................................................................................ 22
`
`V.
`
`CLAIMS 1 AND 23 OF THE REISSUE ’268 PATENT WERE IMPROPERLY
`BROADENED AND THEREFORE INVALID .............................................................. 24
`
`VI. WIRTGEN AMERICA IS NOT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF
`NON-INFRINGEMENT OF THE ’618 PATENT ........................................................... 26
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 239 Filed 10/19/23 Page 3 of 46 PageID #: 24298
`
`VII.
`
`THE COURT SHOULD DENY WIRTGEN AMERICA’S MOTION TO
`EXCLUDE PAUL BARTKOWSKI ................................................................................. 29
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Mr. Bartkowski Is Qualified to Testify on ITC Practices and Procedures ........... 30
`
`Mr. Bartkowski’s Expert Opinions Relate Directly to Wirtgen America’s
`Willfulness Claims and Will Provide Helpful Context for the Jury ..................... 31
`
`Mr. Bartkowski’s Opinions Are Properly the Subject of Expert Testimony ........ 33
`
`CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................. 36
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 239 Filed 10/19/23 Page 4 of 46 PageID #: 24299
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`PAGE(S)
`
`CASES
`Acceleration Bay, LLC v. Activision Blizzard Inc.,
`908 F.3d 765 (Fed. Cir. 2018)............................................................................................20
`
`Am. Cruise Lines, Inc. v. HMS Am. Queen Steamboat Co. LLC,
`C.A. No. 13-324 (RGA), 2017 WL 3528606 (D. Del. Aug. 16, 2017) .............................32
`
`Amgen, Inc. v. ARIAD Pharm., Inc.,
`577 F. Supp. 2d 695 (D. Del. 2008) ...................................................................................17
`
`Ancho v. Pentek Corp.,
`157 F.3d 512 (7th Cir. 1998) .............................................................................................33
`
`Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.,
`477 U.S. 242 (1986) ...........................................................................................................13
`
`Atturo Tire Corp. v. Toyo Tire Corp.,
`No. 14-CV-0206, 2021 WL 3814800 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 26, 2021) .................................31, 33
`
`Biotec Biologische Naturverpackungen GmbH & Co. KG v. Biocorp, Inc.,
`249 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2001)..........................................................................................25
`
`California Inst. of Tech. v. Broadcom Ltd.,
`No. CV 16-3714-GW(AGRx), 2019 WL 8192255 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 9, 2019) ...................22
`
`Chemours Co. FC, LLC v. Daikin Indus., Ltd.,
`C.A. No. 17-1612 (MN), 2022 WL 2643517 (D. Del. July 8, 2022) ..........................19, 20
`
`Commissariat a l'Energie Atomique v. Samsung Elecs. Co.,
`524 F. Supp. 2d 534 (D. Del. 2007) ...................................................................................18
`
`Crown Packaging Tech., Inc. v. Ball Metal Bev. Container Corp.,
`635 F.3d 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2011)......................................................................................6, 11
`
`DSU Med. Corp. v. JMS Co.,
`471 F.3d 1293 (Fed. Cir. 2006)....................................................................................17, 18
`
`Ecolab, Inc. v. FMC Corp.,
`569 F.3d 1335, 366 F. App’x 154 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ...........................................................18
`
`Edwards v. Philadelphia,
`860 F.2d 568 (3d Cir. 1988)...............................................................................................25
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 239 Filed 10/19/23 Page 5 of 46 PageID #: 24300
`
`Elekta Instrument S.A. v. O.U.R. Sci. Int'l, Inc.,
`214 F.3d 1302 (Fed. Cir. 2000)..........................................................................................16
`
`Exigent Tech. v. Atrana Sols., Inc.,
`442 F.3d 1301 (Fed. Cir. 2006)............................................................................................3
`
`Finish Eng’g Co., Inc. v. Zerpa Indus., Inc.,
`806 F.2d 1041 (Fed. Cir. 1986)............................................................................................8
`
`Gen. Am. Transp. Corp. v. Cryo-Trans, Inc.,
`93 F.3d 766 (Fed. Cir. 1996)..............................................................................................16
`
`Guidotti v. Legal Helpers Debt Resolution, LLC,
`716 F.3d 764 (3d Cir. 2013)...............................................................................................13
`
`Hoechst Celanese Corp. v. BP Chemicals Ltd.,
`78 F.3d 1575 (Fed. Cir. 1996)............................................................................................29
`
`Ideal Dairy Farms, Inc. v. John Labatt, Ltd.,
`90 F.3d 737 (3d Cir. 1996).................................................................................................10
`
`In re Steel Antitrust Litig.,
`No. 08 C 5214, 2015 WL 5304629 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 9, 2015) .............................................33
`
`Intel Corp. v. Qualcomm Inc.,
`21 F.4th 801 (Fed. Cir. 2021) ............................................................................................25
`
`Intell. Prop. Dev., Inc. v. UA-Columbia Cablevision of Westchester, Inc.,
`336 F.3d 1308 (Fed. Cir. 2003)..........................................................................................29
`
`Ironburg Inventions Ltd. v. Valve Corp.,
`64 F.4th 1274 (Fed. Cir. 2023) ..........................................................................................22
`
`Johns Hopkins Univ. v. Alcon Labs., Inc.,
`C.A. No. 15-525-SLR-SRF, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 70403 (D. Del. Mar.
`1, 2018) ..............................................................................................................................18
`
`Kim v. ConAgra Foods, Inc.,
`465 F.3d 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2006)............................................................................................4
`
`Kinetic Concepts, Inc. v. Blue Sky Med. Grp., Inc.,
`554 F.3d 1010 (Fed. Cir. 2009)..........................................................................................18
`
`Luitpold Pharms., Inc. v. Ed. Geistlich Sohne A.G. Fur Chemische Industrie,
`No. 11-CV-681 (KBF), 2015 WL 5459662 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 16, 2015) ............................35
`
`Ma v. Equifax Info. Servs., LLC,
`288 F. Supp. 3d 1360 (N.D. Ga. 2017) ..............................................................................34
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 239 Filed 10/19/23 Page 6 of 46 PageID #: 24301
`
`Marx & Co., Inc. v. Diners’ Club, Inc.,
`550 F.2d 505 (2d Cir. 1977)...............................................................................................34
`
`Merck & Co. v. Teva Pharm. USA, Inc.,
`395 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2005)....................................................................................16, 25
`
`Microchip Tech. Inc. v. Aptiv Servs. US LLC,
`C.A. No.17-01194-JDW, 2020 WL 4335519 (D. Del. July 28, 2020)
`(Wolson, J.) ....................................................................................................................2, 19
`
`Nace v. Faith Christian Acad.,
`No. CV 15-333, 2019 WL 1429575 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 29, 2019) ..........................................33
`
`Pact XPP Schweiz AG v. Intel Corp.,
`C.A. No.19-01006-JDW, 2023 WL 2631503 (D. Del. Mar. 24, 2023)
`(Wolson, J.) ..................................................................................................................19, 22
`
`Pernix Ir. Pain DAC v. Alvogen Malta Operations Ltd.,
`316 F. Supp. 3d 816 (D. Del. 2018) .....................................................................................7
`
`Roberts v. Wilson,
`No. 3:15-cv-01607, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 56015 (M.D. Pa. Mar. 30, 2018) .................13
`
`Sonos, Inc. v. D & M Holdings Inc.,
`297 F. Supp. 3d 501 (D. Del. 2017) .............................................................................33, 34
`
`Sunoco Partners Mktg. & Terminals L.P. v. Powder Springs Logistics, LLC,
`C.A. No. 17-1390-LPS-CJB, 2020 WL 3060458 (D. Del. June 9, 2020) .........................11
`
`Tex. Instruments Inc. v. Cypress Semiconductor Corp.,
`90 F.3d 1558 (Fed. Cir. 1996)............................................................................................14
`
`U.S. ex rel. Palmer v. C & D Techs., Inc.,
`No. 12-907, 2015 WL 4470291 (E.D. Pa. July 22, 2015) .................................................32
`
`United States v. Univar USA, Inc.,
`294 F. Supp. 3d 1314 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2018) .....................................................................34
`
`Vehicle IP, LLC v. AT&T Mobility LLC,
`227 F. Supp. 3d 319 (D. Del. 2016) ...................................................................................18
`
`Via v. Taylor,
`C.A. No. 97-4-JJF, 2002 WL 31115613 (D. Del. Sept. 11, 2002) ....................................34
`
`Viamedia, Inc. v. Comcast Corp.,
`951 F.3d 429 (7th Cir. 2020) .............................................................................................35
`
`v
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 239 Filed 10/19/23 Page 7 of 46 PageID #: 24302
`
`Wasica Fin. GmbH v. Schrader Int’l.,
`432 F. Supp. 3d 448 (D. Del. 2020) ...................................................................................20
`
`Welker Bearing Co. v. PHD, Inc.,
`550 F.3d 1090 (Fed. Cir. 2008)............................................................................................3
`
`ZF Meritor LLC v. Eaton Corp.,
`646 F. Supp. 2d 663 (D. Del. 2009) ...................................................................................10
`
`Zimmer Surgical, Inc. v. Stryker Corp.,
`365 F. Supp. 3d 466 (D. Del. 2019) .............................................................................35, 36
`
`STATUTES
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) ...............................................................................................................20, 21
`
`35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) .....................................................................................................................19
`
`RULES
`
`FED. R. CIV. P. 56(c)(2) ..............................................................................................................1, 10
`
`FED. R. EVID. 702 .......................................................................................................................6, 33
`
`vi
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 239 Filed 10/19/23 Page 8 of 46 PageID #: 24303
`
`TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS
`
`ABBREVIATION
`
`Caterpillar
`Wirtgen America
`’309 Patent
`’641 Patent
`’530 Patent
`’788 Patent
`’474 Patent
`’268 Patent
`’972 Patent
`’659 Patent
`Dr. Lumkes
`
`Dr. Meyer
`
`Dr. Rahn
`
`Dr. Seth
`
`Dr. Valerdi
`
`Dr. Rakow
`
`Mr. Reed
`
`Accused Products
`
`Accused Wirtgen America Machines
`
`Asserted Patents
`
`REFERENCE
`
`Caterpillar Inc.
`Wirtgen America, Inc.
`U.S. Patent 7,828,309
`U.S. Patent 7,530,641
`U.S. Patent 9,656,530
`U.S. Patent 7,946,788
`U.S. Patent 8,690,474
`U.S. Patent RE48,268
`U.S. Patent 8,424,972
`U.S. Patent 8,408,659
`Dr. John Lumkes
`Wirtgen America’s expert on ’309, ’530, and
`’972 Patents
`Dr. John Meyer
`Wirtgen America’s expert on ’641 Patent
`Dr. Christopher David Rahn
`Wirtgen America’s expert on ’268, ’788, and
`’474 Patents
`Dr. Pallavi Seth
`Wirtgen America’s expert on damages
`Dr. Ricardo Valerdi
`Wirtgen America’s expert on source code
`Dr. Joseph F. Rakow
`Caterpillar’s technical expert on ’309 and
`’530 Patents
`Brett L. Reed
`Caterpillar’s expert on damages
`The products identified on a patent-by-
`patent basis in the table in D.I. 211 at 1-2.
`The Wirtgen America products accused of
`infringing Caterpillar’s ’618 Patent and
`identified at Wirtgen America, Inc.’s Opening
`Brief in Support of Its Combined Motion for
`Partial Summary Judgment and Motion to
`Exclude Inadmissible Expert Testimony at 1,
`§ I.(D): W207 Fi, W210 Fi, W220 Fi, and
`W250 Fi.
`The patents identified in D.I. 211 at 1-2.
`
`vii
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 239 Filed 10/19/23 Page 9 of 46 PageID #: 24304
`
`ABBREVIATION
`
`CAT’s SUF
`
`CAT’s SUF Ex.__
`
`ITC
`Kim Dec.
`
`Kim Dec. Ex.
`Rakow Dec.
`
`Yen Dec.
`
`Yen Opp. Dec.
`
`REFERENCE
`D.I. 226 [SEALED] Parties’ Joint Compiled
`Statement of Material Facts in Relation to
`Caterpillar’s Motions
`to Exclude Certain
`Expert Testimony and for Summary Judgment
`Exhibits to D.I. 226 Parties’ Joint Compiled
`Statement of Material Facts in Relation to
`Caterpillar’s Motions to Exclude Certain
`Expert Testimony and for Summary Judgment
`International Trade Commission
`D.I. 220 Declaration of J. Kim in Support of
`Wirtgen America’s Combined Motion for
`Partial Summary Judgment and Motion to
`Exclude Inadmissible Expert Testimony
`D.I. 221 Exhibits in Support of D.I. 220
`Declaration of Dr. Joseph Rakow in
`Opposition to Wirtgen America’s Combined
`Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and
`Motion to Exclude Inadmissible Expert
`Testimony
`D.I. 213 [SEALED] Declaration of L. Yen in
`Support of Caterpillar’s Motion for Summary
`Judgment and Motion to Exclude Certain
`Expert Testimony and Supporting Exhibits
`Yen Declaration in Opposition to Wirtgen
`America’s Combined Motion for Partial
`Summary Judgment and Motion to Exclude
`Inadmissible Expert Testimony
`
`WA’s Op. Br.
`
`D.I. 212-5 [SEALED] Wirtgen America, Inc.’s
`Opening Brief in Support of Its Combined
`Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and
`Motion to Exclude Inadmissible Expert
`Testimony
`D.I. 212-4 [SEALED] Wirtgen America’s
`Statement of Undisputed Material Facts
`** All emphases herein are added, and all internal citations and quotations are omitted unless
`otherwise noted.
`
`WA’s SUF
`
`viii
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 239 Filed 10/19/23 Page 10 of 46 PageID #: 24305
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Wirtgen America’s Motions for Summary Judgment highlight disputed material facts,
`
`ignore disagreements among the experts, and rely on inconsistent fact testimony. These are
`
`precisely the grounds that preclude summary judgment.
`
`For example, Wirtgen America moves for summary judgment of infringement of claims 5,
`
`16, and 22 of the ’530 Patent even though the parties’ experts offer conflicting positions on
`
`fundamental claim elements, including (1) whether the position sensor is coupled to two or more
`
`components, and (2) the makeup of components that can be considered part of the position sensor.
`
`Wirtgen America seeks to overcome these material disputes by challenging Caterpillar to disprove
`
`infringement. But it is Wirtgen America who not only must prove infringement, but must do so
`
`based on undisputed material facts.
`
`Similarly, Wirtgen America seeks summary judgment of infringement of claim 29 of the
`
`’309 Patent based on a wholly unsubstantiated document: an annotated CAD drawing for which
`
`neither Wirtgen America nor its expert can establish any foundation. A motion for summary
`
`judgment must be based on competent evidence. See, e.g., FED. R. CIV. P. 56(c)(2). Yet, the
`
`centerpiece of Wirtgen America’s infringement case on claim 29 is an annotated drawing of
`
`unknown origin. Wirtgen America cannot use its expert to substantiate a drawing for which no
`
`information has ever been provided about its creator or the circumstances under which it was
`
`created.
`
`With respect to claim 11 of the ’641 Patent, Wirtgen America charges ahead with its
`
`motion for summary judgment of infringement, although the premise on which it is based – that
`
`Caterpillar’s reverse travel shutoff measures the distance between the drum and the ground – is
`
`directly disputed between the parties. With respect to claims 17 and 18, as demonstrated in
`
`Caterpillar’s own Cross-Motion (D.I. 211 at 23-25), it is Caterpillar who is entitled to summary
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 239 Filed 10/19/23 Page 11 of 46 PageID #: 24306
`
`judgment of non-infringement given that there is no evidence that the Accused Products raise the
`
`milling drum by “a pre-determined amount.”
`
`Wirtgen America’s attempt to escape invalidation of the ’309 and ’530 Patents through its
`
`motion for summary judgment of IPR estoppel fails both legally and factually. This Court
`
`previously ruled that an IPR petitioner “can only raise invalidity grounds based on patents and
`
`printed publications” and “cannot raise physical device prior art.” Microchip Tech. Inc. v. Aptiv
`
`Servs. US LLC, C.A. No. 17-01194-JDW, 2020 WL 4335519, at *4 (D. Del. July 28, 2020)
`
`(Wolson, J.). Additionally, Wirtgen America failed to establish that the written materials at issue
`
`could have been reasonably located, and even assuming they could have been, whether they are
`
`sufficiently cumulative of the machine inspections to trigger IPR estoppel.
`
`Wirtgen America’s motion that claims 1 and 23 of the ’268 Patent were not improperly
`
`broadened is unsupportable. As set forth in Caterpillar’s Cross-Motion on this issue (D.I. 211 at
`
`39-40), Wirtgen America’s expert admitted that the amended language permits an alternative
`
`connection that would not have infringed the ’659 Patent given that “in a rigid manner” and “a
`
`second spring stiffness being relatively higher than a first spring stiffness” are not synonymous.
`
`With respect to Wirtgen America’s motion for non-infringement of the ’618 Patent, the
`
`parties dispute whether Accused Wirtgen America Machines have a “water reservoir mounted on
`
`the frame.” Wirtgen America also relies on new and unsupported claim constructions that were
`
`never previously raised in this case.
`
`Finally, Wirtgen America’s Daubert motion on Mr. Bartkowski fares no better. Mr.
`
`Bartkowski is not seeking to opine on Caterpillar’s mental state, but rather providing context on
`
`the parties’ prior disputes before the ITC. If Wirtgen America chooses to affirmatively cite a
`
`separate proceeding covering products not even accused in this case, Caterpillar should be entitled
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 239 Filed 10/19/23 Page 12 of 46 PageID #: 24307
`
`to respond by explaining the procedural background, history, and context for a specialized
`
`administrative proceeding being raised by Wirtgen America.
`
`Accordingly, Caterpillar respectfully requests that the Court deny Wirtgen America’s
`
`motions for partial summary judgment and Daubert motion on Mr. Bartkowski.
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`I.
`
`WIRTGEN AMERICA IS NOT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF
`INFRINGEMENT OF CLAIMS 5, 16, AND 22 OF THE ’530 PATENT
`
`There are at least two material factual disputes precluding summary judgment of
`
`infringement of claims 5, 16, and 22 of the ’530 Patent. Specifically, Wirtgen America failed to
`
`establish that (1) the alleged “lifting position sensor” is coupled to two or more components of the
`
`lifting column; and (2) a person of ordinary skill in the art would consider the “magnet” within the
`
`Accused Products to be part of the sensor. After considering the underlying information, the
`
`parties’ experts1 reached opposite conclusions. Wirtgen America attempts to circumvent the
`
`dispute by improperly shifting its burden of proving infringement and requiring Caterpillar to
`
`disprove infringement. See, e.g., WA’s Op. Br. at 6 (“Dr. Rakow did not opine that Caterpillar’s
`
`magnetostrictive sensor lacked a second attachment point within the lifting column”). But “the
`
`burden remains with [Wirtgen America] to prove infringement, not on [Caterpillar] to disprove it.”
`
`See Welker Bearing Co. v. PHD, Inc., 550 F.3d 1090, 1095 (Fed. Cir. 2008); see also Exigent
`
`Tech. v. Atrana Sols., Inc., 442 F.3d 1301, 1307-08 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (defendant “did not have to
`
`support its motion with evidence of non-infringement”).
`
`1 In this instance, Wirtgen America’s expert was Dr. Lumkes, and Caterpillar’s experts were Drs.
`Rakow and Sorini.
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 239 Filed 10/19/23 Page 13 of 46 PageID #: 24308
`
`A.
`
`Wirtgen America Failed to Show that Each Lifting Position Sensor Has Two
`Attachment Points to Its Respective Lifting Column
`
`Claims 5, 16, and 22 depend on claim 1.2 Consequently, to prove infringement, Wirtgen
`
`America must demonstrate that the Accused Products practice each and every limitation of claim 1
`
`in addition to the limitations provided by the various dependent limitations. See Kim v. ConAgra
`
`Foods, Inc., 465 F.3d 1312, 1316, n.1 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (failure to prove infringement of
`
`independent claim necessarily results in failure to prove infringement of the dependent claim).
`
`Claim 1 includes the following limitation with an agreed-upon construction:
`
`Claim 1 Language
`“each lifting position sensor being coupled
`with elements of one of the lifting columns,
`which elements are capable of being
`displaced relative
`to one another
`in
`accordance with the lifting position of the
`lifting column in such a manner that a
`signal including information on a current
`lifting position of the lifting column is
`produced by the lifting position sensor”
`
`Stipulated Construction
`“each lifting position sensor is coupled to two
`or more components within its respective
`lifting column, these components are capable
`of being displaced relative to one another such
`that their displacement reflects the lifting
`position of the lifting column, the lifting
`position sensor generates a signal that contains
`information about the lifting position of the
`column based on the displacement of the
`components”
`D.I. 116 at 4. Thus, each asserted claim requires that each lifting position sensor be coupled “to
`
`two or more components within its respective lifting column.”
`
`To show that this limitation is met, Wirtgen America contends that in the diagram depicted
`
`below, “[t]he sensor transducer [labeled ‘5’ below] and magnet [labeled ‘4’ below] form the lifting
`
`position sensor and work together to determine the machine position.” WA’s Op. Br. at 5.
`
`2 Claims 5 and 16 depend on claim 2, which depends on claim 1. Claim 22 depends on claim 1
`directly. See ’530 Patent Cls. 2, 5, 16, 22.
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 239 Filed 10/19/23 Page 14 of 46 PageID #: 24309
`
`In response, Caterpillar’s experts opined that Dr. Lumkes failed to identify evidence of a
`
`second coupling to the lifting column. Kim Dec. Ex. 6 (Rakow-Sorini Rebuttal Rpt.) ¶¶ 69-73.
`
`Indeed, at his deposition, Dr. Lumkes admitted that there was no direct attachment between what
`
`he called the “sensor” and the bottom of the lifting column. Yen Opp. Dec. Ex. 22 (Lumkes Tr.)
`
`210:19-211:3 (“Q. And can you kind of describe how the sensor is connected to the lifting column
`
`at the bottom of the lifting column? [objection omitted] A. So part of the sensor is connected to
`
`the cylinder rod, which is connected to the lower part of the lifting column.”). In other words,
`
`what Dr. Lumkes calls the “sensor” is not itself coupled to the lifting column. Rather, the “sensor”
`
`is connected to a “rod” which Dr. Lumkes contends is coupled to the lifting column.
`
`Caterpillar’s experts also dispute Dr. Lumkes’ assertion that the “rod” is attached to the
`
`lifting column. Dr. Lumkes never showed how the magnet is connected to a “movable rod” or
`
`how, in turn, the “movable rod” is coupled to the lifting column. Kim Dec. Ex. 6 (Rakow-Sorini
`
`Rebuttal Rpt.) ¶ 71. At his deposition, Dr. Lumkes conceded that he did not call out these
`
`components in his expert report or otherwise substantiate his opinion. Yen Opp. Dec. Ex. 22
`
`(Lumkes Tr. 211:5-7) (“Q. Is the cylinder rod labeled here? A. Not called out separately that I see
`
`in this diagram.”). Despite Wirtgen America bearing the burden of proving “coupling” of the
`
`sensor to the lifting column, Dr. Lumkes never actually examined these key components on any
`
`Accused Product itself. Id. 216:11-14 (“Q. Were you able to determine how the magnet was
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 239 Filed 10/19/23 Page 15 of 46 PageID #: 24310
`
`connected to the cylinders movable rod? A. By visual inspection of an actual cylinder that was on
`
`the machine, no.”).
`
`Wirtgen America’s argument regarding the evidence considered or not considered by Drs.
`
`Rakow and Sorini (see WA’s Op. Br. at 6) is procedurally improper and should be rejected.
`
`Wirtgen America’s challenge speaks to Dr. Rakow’s methodology and is improper because
`
`Wirtgen America failed to raise this argument in its Daubert motion as required by the Court’s
`
`policies. See Judge Wolson’s Policies and Procedures § II.B.5 (“[T]he party may not simply
`
`include arguments about expert inadmissibility within the summary judgment briefing. They must
`
`be the subject of a separate motion.”); see also FED. R. EVID. 702 (Daubert challenge can be based
`
`on whether opinion is “based on sufficient facts or data”).
`
`In short, the experts disagree as to whether the evidence shows the existence of a movable
`
`rod, a connection between the magnet and such a rod, or a coupling between the rod and the lifting
`
`column. This is a classic dispute between the experts that renders summary judgment improper.
`
`See Crown Packaging Tech., Inc. v. Ball Metal Bev. Container Corp., 635 F.3d 1373, 1384 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2011) (“Where there is a material dispute as to the credibility and weight that should be
`
`afforded to conflicting expert reports, summary judgment is usually inappropriate.”).
`
`B.
`
`The Experts Dispute Whether the Magnet Is Part of the Claimed Sensor
`
`There is also a factual dispute between the experts whether the “magnet” which Dr. Lumkes
`
`references can even be considered part of the claimed lifting sensor. As Drs. Rakow and Sorini
`
`note, the technical documents for the Accused Products treat the sensor transducer and magnet as
`
`distinct and separate components. What Dr. Lumkes calls a “sensor transducer” is specifically
`
`referred to as a sensor itself. See Kim Dec. Ex. 6 (Rakow & Sorini Rebuttal Rpt.) ¶ 72 (“The
`
`PM620 Parts Manual also identifies element 4 as labeled in the diagram as a ‘SENSOR GP-
`
`POSITION (LINEAR)’”). In his ITC testimony, Mr. Engelmann clearly delineated between the
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 239 Filed 10/19/23 Page 16 of 46 PageID #: 24311
`
`“sensor” and the “magnet.” Kim Dec. Ex. 11 (Inv. No. 337-TA-1067 H’rg Tr.) at 710:6-15. He
`
`never agreed that the “sensor” included the “magnet.”
`
`For his part, Dr. Lumkes never explains why the magnet—a distinct component from the
`
`“sensor” identified in the documents—should be considered part of the claimed lifting position
`
`sensors. Dr. Lumkes’ failure is material, particularly where he is expressly relying on the magnet’s
`
`purported connection to a “movable rod” to provide the second coupling to the lifting column
`
`required by the claim limitation.
`
`Wirtgen America incorrectly claims that Caterpillar’s Engineering Manager (Eric
`
`Engelmann) and its expert witness from another case (Dr. Alleyne) agreed that the magnet is
`
`considered part of the sensor. See WA’s Op. Br. At 5. In fact, Caterpillar’s Engineering Manager
`
`testified to exactly the opposite, identifying the sensor as distinct from the magnet. See Kim Dec.
`
`Ex. 11 (Inv. No. 337-TA-1067 H’rg Tr.) at 709:14-21 (“Q. And there is an item marked number 5
`
`and an item marked number 4; correct? A. Correct. Q. And item 5 is labeled as a sensor, correct?
`
`A. Item 5 is labeled sensor group, yes. Q. And label 4 is – or item 4 is pointing to the magnet,
`
`correct? A. That’s correct.”). At his deposition, Dr. Rakow similarly characterized the magnet as
`
`being associated with the sensor, but not necessarily part of the sensor itself. Id. Ex. 10 (Rakow
`
`Tr.) 133:13-134:3 (A. “the way this sort of sensor works, there is a – a magnet associated with
`
`it.”). Dr. Alleyne’s testimony was in accord with Mr. Engelmann’s.3
`
`Dr. Lumkes devises a claimed second coupling only through his assumption that the
`
`magnet is part of the sensor. Drs. Rakow and Sorini disagree with both the conclusion and manner
`
`3 In any event, Dr. Alleyne’s testimony is inadmissible. Wirtgen America (not Caterpillar)
`solicited the testimony in question from Dr. Alleyne, and, therefore, must lay a foundation for
`admission. Wirtgen America fails to do so. See Pernix Ir. Pain DAC v. Alvogen Malta Operations
`Ltd., 316 F. Supp. 3d 816, 825 (D. Del. 2018) (explaining circumstances under which “direct
`testimony” of a party’s own witness may be offered against that same party).
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 239 Filed 10/19/23 Page 17 of 46 PageID #: 24312
`
`in which Dr. Lumkes reaches that conclusion – these material disputes preclude summary
`
`judgment.
`
`II. WIRTGEN AMERICA IS NOT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF
`INFRINGEMENT OF CLAIM 29 OF THE ’309 PATENT
`
`The Court should deny summary judgment of infringement of claim 29 of the ’309 Patent
`
`because the parties dispute whether the Accused Products include “a four-sided stability pattern in
`
`which the widest transverse dimension falls within the milling rotor footprint.” See Finish Eng’g
`
`Co., Inc. v. Zerpa Indus., Inc., 806 F.2d 1041, 1043 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (“[W]here ‘there are genuinely
`
`disputed issues of material fact, summary judgement cannot be utilized as the tool for deciding
`
`those issues.’”). Wirtgen America’s analysis of this ele