Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 240-1 Filed 10/19/23 Page 1 of 9 PageID #: 24345
`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 240-1 Filed 10/19/23 Page 1 of 9 PagelD #: 24345
`
`EXHIBIT 22
`EXHIBIT 22
`
`
`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 240-1 Filed 10/19/23 Page 1 of 9 PagelD #: 24345
`
`EXHIBIT 22
`EXHIBIT 22
`
`
`
`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 240-1 Filed 10/19/23 Page 2 of 9 PageID #: 24346
`
`8/11/2023
`
`Wirtgen America Inc. v. Caterpillar Inc.
`
`Dr. John Lumkes
`
` IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
` FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`Page 1
`
`---------------------------------x
`WIRTGEN AMERICA, INC., :
` Plaintiff/Counterclaim-Deft. :
` V. : C.A. No.
`CATERPILLAR, INC., : 17-770-JDW-MPT
` Defendant/Counterclaim-Plf. :
`---------------------------------x
`
` VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF DR. JOHN LUMKES
` Friday, August 11, 2023
` 9:10 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.comDigital Evidence Group C'rt 2023
`
`202-232-0646
`
`
`
`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 240-1 Filed 10/19/23 Page 3 of 9 PageID #: 24347
`
`8/11/2023
`
`Wirtgen America Inc. v. Caterpillar Inc.
`
`Dr. John Lumkes
`
`Page 164
`
`the information, no.
` Q. And the dimensions aren't included
`anywhere else in your report?
` A. I don't believe that the actual dimensions
`are.
` Q. When -- when do you think this phone call
`was when this unidentified person opened up the CAD
`file?
` A. I'd have to look back. I am not sure.
` Q. Was this in connection with the ICT case
`or more recently?
` A. More recently, I believe this version was.
`I think we had looked at some earlier ones in the
`ITC, but I think this one was done later.
` Q. How did you know this was for the PM620?
` A. The identification file structure for the
`JT files.
` Q. What do you mean by that?
` A. Well, it's -- if I remember right, it was
`on like a tree system of files that you -- I don't
`remember if it was by model or on build. But if I
`remember right, the file structure is a tree that
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.comDigital Evidence Group C'rt 2023
`
`202-232-0646
`
`
`
`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 240-1 Filed 10/19/23 Page 4 of 9 PageID #: 24348
`
`8/11/2023
`
`Wirtgen America Inc. v. Caterpillar Inc.
`
`Dr. John Lumkes
`
`Page 165
`went down and you click on different files in the
`machine for the PM620.
` Q. And do you know which build this is for?
` A. I don't know that right now, no.
` Q. And you understand there's some builds
`that had the accused ride control function and some
`builds that did not, right?
` A. That is correct. I believe the dimensions
`of the machine relative in this analysis are
`identical.
` Q. But you don't know if this CAD drawing is
`for a build of the PM620 with ride control or without
`it?
` A. I am not sure of the detail that I can
`recall. But, again, the dimensions of those machines
`in the model line are identical, so it wouldn't
`matter to this analysis.
` Q. How do you know the dimensions are
`identical?
` A. Because the structure of the machine in
`the build part, it's the same machine with or without
`ride control which does not change the frame length
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.comDigital Evidence Group C'rt 2023
`
`202-232-0646
`
`
`
`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 240-1 Filed 10/19/23 Page 5 of 9 PageID #: 24349
`
`8/11/2023
`
`Wirtgen America Inc. v. Caterpillar Inc.
`
`Dr. John Lumkes
`
`Page 168
`patent, you'd agree that that dash line in the middle
`of this CAD drawing has to be within the footprint of
`the roller?
` A. Yes. The dash line representing the
`widest transverse direction falls within the
`footprint of the working roller -- or rotor.
` Q. And you'd agree that that dash line is not
`in the middle of the roller for this particular CAD
`drawing?
` A. It's not in the middle of the -- of the
`rotor, correct.
` Q. How much further -- strike that.
` How much further back would the roller
`have to be moved in order to not practice claim 29?
` A. That dimension is not included on there,
`so I'd have to go back to the drawing and measure
`that. But it's clearly within the footprint of the
`working rotor.
` Q. Is there any reason why the machine
`couldn't have been designed such that the roller was
`a little bit further back and therefore didn't touch
`the dash line?
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.comDigital Evidence Group C'rt 2023
`
`202-232-0646
`
`
`
`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 240-1 Filed 10/19/23 Page 6 of 9 PageID #: 24350
`
`8/11/2023
`
`Wirtgen America Inc. v. Caterpillar Inc.
`
`Dr. John Lumkes
`
`Page 210
` Q. Okay. Let's go back to I think it's page
`89 of your opening report. And does this show the --
`on page 89, does this show -- strike that.
` On page 89 under paragraph 200, is there a
`diagram showing the sensor used in the leg for the
`PM600 series?
` A. Correct.
` Q. What kind of sensor does -- strike that.
` What kind of sensor did the PM600 series
`use in its leg?
` A. I believe they were magnetorestrictive
`linear position sensors.
` Q. Does the diagram under paragraph 200 show
`how the sensor you just described is attached to the
`lifting column?
` A. It shows how they are coupled to elements
`of the lifting column, particularly the hydraulic
`cylinder of the lifting column.
` Q. And can you kind of describe how the
`sensor is connected to the lifting column at the
`bottom of the lifting column?
` MR. CONKLIN: Objection. Form.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.comDigital Evidence Group C'rt 2023
`
`202-232-0646
`
`
`
`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 240-1 Filed 10/19/23 Page 7 of 9 PageID #: 24351
`
`8/11/2023
`
`Wirtgen America Inc. v. Caterpillar Inc.
`
`Dr. John Lumkes
`
`Page 211
` A. So part of the sensor is connected to the
`cylinder rod, which is connected to the lower part of
`the lifting column.
` BY MR. SMITH:
` Q. Is the cylinder rod labeled here?
` A. Not called out separately that I see in
`this diagram.
` Q. Okay. Is there any other connection
`between the lifting column and the sensors shown
`under paragraph 200?
` A. Could you repeat that?
` Q. Other than this connection you just
`described, are there any other connections between
`the sensor depicted under paragraph 200 and its
`associated lifting column?
` A. That's the only figure provided in
`paragraph 200, but I can go to the references if you
`want more --
` Q. Well, I'm just wondering. The number and
`ways that the sensor is connected to the lifting
`cylinder, aside from the connection you just talked
`about, is there any other connection between the
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.comDigital Evidence Group C'rt 2023
`
`202-232-0646
`
`
`
`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 240-1 Filed 10/19/23 Page 8 of 9 PageID #: 24352
`
`8/11/2023
`
`Wirtgen America Inc. v. Caterpillar Inc.
`
`Dr. John Lumkes
`
`Page 216
`
` Q. Well, you never -- strike that.
` I think you said it wouldn't be feasible
`to basically take apart a leg in the PM600. I'm
`wondering if you ever attempted to get a leg sensor
`as a spare part so that you could take that apart and
`see how it was really connected?
` A. No, I did not. I'm familiar with the use
`of those internal to cylinders and have used those
`before and saw it function in that role where it
`would have to be attached and moved.
` Q. Were you able to determine how the magnet
`was connected to the cylinders movable rod?
` A. By visual inspection of an actual cylinder
`that was on the machine, no.
` Q. I think one other, and I think it's come
`up here, is the use of PID control?
` A. Um-hum.
` Q. And it's your belief that there's PID
`control and a CAD controller, which is used to reduce
`leg overshoot; is that right? I suppose we could
`look at -- if you want to go to paragraph 33 of your
`reply report.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.comDigital Evidence Group C'rt 2023
`
`202-232-0646
`
`
`
`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 240-1 Filed 10/19/23 Page 9 of 9 PageID #: 24353
`
`8/11/2023
`
`Wirtgen America Inc. v. Caterpillar Inc.
`
`Dr. John Lumkes
`
`Page 274
`
` 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
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.comDigital Evidence Group 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
