Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 250-14 Filed 10/25/23 Page 1 of 12 PageID #: 25644
`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 250-14 Filed 10/25/23 Page 1 of 12 PagelD #: 25644
`
`EXHIBIT 14
`EXHIBIT 14
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 250-14 Filed 10/25/23 Page 2 of 12 PageID #: 25645
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`
`)
`
`WIRTGEN AMERICA, INC.,
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`v. )
`
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`CATERPILLAR INC.,
`
`
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`)
`________________________________
`)
`
`C.A. No. 17-770-JDW
`
`REBUTTAL EXPERT REPORT OF JOSEPH RAKOW, Ph.D., P.E., F.A.S.M.E.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 250-14 Filed 10/25/23 Page 3 of 12 PageID #: 25646
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
`
`PM825 machines before any redesigns were implemented in 02A build, 02B build, or by
`
`service letters.”19 I understand that the Joint Stipulation Regarding Representative Accused
`
`Products specifies the PM622 02B build as the representative product for “PM620, PM622,
`
`PM820, PM822, PM825 machines after redesigns were implemented in 02A build, 02B
`
`build, 02C build or by service letters.”20
`
`35.
`
`The following background section on the Accused Products focuses on the products
`
`identified as the representative products in the Joint Stipulation Regarding Representative
`
`Accused Products.21
`
`1.
`
`Timeline
`
`36.
`
`I understand that the PM600 and PM800 series cold planers were preceded by prior
`
`Caterpillar cold planer machines, including PM465, PM565, and PM200 series machines.
`
`Testimony regarding the PM565 indicates that the machine first went on sale in the United
`
`States in 1992 as Caterpillar’s first front-material discharge machine.22 The PM465
`
`followed, being released in 1997.23 Both machines were sold throughout the 1990s and
`
`2000s.24 I understand that Caterpillar has produced several invoices showing sales of
`
`specific machines in the United States during the 1990s.25 Testimony indicates that
`
`Caterpillar acquired Italian cold planer manufacturer Bitelli in 2000 and updated a pre-
`
`existing Bitelli cold planer model into the PM200 series machine.26 I understand that the
`
`PM200 series cold planer machine was the preceding Caterpillar cold planer machine
`
`
`19 Joint Stipulation Regarding Representative Accused Products, April 12, 2023.
`20 Joint Stipulation Regarding Representative Accused Products, April 12, 2023.
`21 Joint Stipulation Regarding Representative Accused Products, April 12, 2023.
`22 RX-0984C, p. 36/60.
`23 RX-0985C, p. 120/239.
`24 RX-0985C, p. 120/239; RX-0987C, p. 10/14.
`25 RX-0987C, p. 10/14.
`26 Deposition of Mr. Eric Engelmann, taken March 17, 2023, pp. 309:20-22 – 310:1-5.
`13
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
`2111403.000 - 1791
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 250-14 Filed 10/25/23 Page 4 of 12 PageID #: 25647
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
`
`model prior to the release of the PM600 and PM800 series machines. Testimony indicates
`
`that Caterpillar’s “cold planer project” including “development of the PM600, 800, and
`
`300 machines” started in 2010.27
`
`37.
`
`The PM620 01A and PM622 01A builds were first shipped in May of 2016. 28 The PM620
`
`01A and PM622 01A builds are representative of the Large Milling Machines “before any
`
`redesigns were implemented in 02A build, 02B build, or by service letters.”29 The first
`
`shipment date of the 02A build occurred in June and July of 2019 for the PM600 and
`
`PM800 series, respectively. The PM622 02B build, representative of the Large Milling
`
`Machines “after redesigns were implemented,” was first shipped in November of 2020.30
`
`Testimony regarding the Accused Products is generally consistent with the dates provided
`
`above.31,32,33
`
`2.
`
`Inspection
`
`38.
`
`As part of our investigation in this matter, I inspected multiple Caterpillar Large Milling
`
`Machines. I inspected a PM622 02B build34 on August 3, 2022 in Minnesota and a PM822
`
`02B build35 on August 4, 2022 in Virginia, as well as a PM622 02B build36 and PM822
`
`02A build37 on December 12-13, 2022 in Texas.
`
`
`27 Deposition of Mr. Eric Engelmann, taken March 16, 2023, pp. 17:16-22 – 18:1-7.
`28 Defendant Caterpillar Inc.’s Objections and Responses to Wirtgen America, Inc.’s Third Set of Interrogatories,
`p. 4/6.
`29 Joint Stipulation Regarding Representative Accused Products, April 12, 2023.
`30 Defendant Caterpillar Inc.’s Objections and Responses to Wirtgen America, Inc.’s Third Set of Interrogatories,
`p. 4/6.
`31 Deposition of Mr. Jeffrey Hoyle, taken March 16, 2023, p. 70:2-6.
`32 Deposition of Mr. Eric Engelmann, taken March 17, 2023, p. 297:8-11.
`33 Deposition of Mr. Eric Engelmann, taken March 16, 2023, p. 29:15-19.
`34 Product identification number CAT00PM6TTPH00300 (EXPONENT_0006181).
`35 Product identification number CAT00PM8EEE200311 (EXPONENT_0005718).
`36 Product identification number CAT00PM6PXS600330 (EXPONENT_0005719).
`37 Product identification number CAT00PM8CEE200107 (EXPONENT_0005720).
`14
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
`2111403.000 - 1791
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 250-14 Filed 10/25/23 Page 5 of 12 PageID #: 25648
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
`
`V. Non-infringement Analysis of Asserted Patents
`A. Summary of non-infringement opinions
`[10] The road-building machine as claimed in claim 9, characterized in that the
`valve control is designed such that all the wheels are raised in a first operating
`mode and are lowered in a second operating mode, this taking place in each case
`by the same amount.
`
`
`1.
`
`All the wheels are raised or lowered
`
`53.
`
`As discussed above, I understand that the patentee has the burden of proving infringement,
`
`and that literal infringement is established only if each and every element of a claim is
`
`shown to be present in the accused product or process. Dr. Lumkes has not shown that the
`
`Large Milling Machines practice each and every element of Claim 10.
`
`54.
`
`Dr. Lumkes states that, “Each track assemblies (undercarriages) of the Accused Ride
`
`Control Machines have a planetary drive and idler component, each having a round pulley
`
`or gear around which the track pads rotate […] This round pulley or gear is a wheel. For
`
`each of the track assemblies, the round pulley is raised in the first operating mode and are
`
`[sic] lowered in the second operating mode.”95 The “planetary drive” and “idler
`
`component” that Dr. Lumkes references are shown in Figure 16.96 The PM620 Parts
`
`Manual refers to the component labeled as element 1 as a “PLANEARY GP – FINAL
`
`DRIVE” and the component labeled as element 2 as an “IDLER GP – TRACK.”
`
`55.
`
`In my opinion, a PHOSITA would not consider the “planetary drive and idler component”
`
`each having a “round pulley or gear” to be a wheel. Dr. Lumkes asserts that each track
`
`assembly of the Accused Products performs substantially the same function as a wheel,
`
`which he asserts is to “engage the ground surface.”97 Neither the planetary drive nor the
`
`
`95 Lumkes Initial Expert Report, ¶142.
`96 CAT-770_004719, pp. 505-506/894.
`97 Lumkes Initial Expert Report, ¶144.
`
`29
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
`
`2111403.000 - 1791
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 250-14 Filed 10/25/23 Page 6 of 12 PageID #: 25649
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
`
`idler component engage the ground surface. The function of the planetary drive is to modify
`
`the gear speed ratio to ensure proper track speed is maintained. The function of the idler
`
`component is to provide an axis about which the tracks can rotate as well as maintain track
`
`alignment. Neither the planetary drive nor the idler component is a wheel that engages the
`
`ground surface.
`
`
`
`Figure 16. Diagram of 01A build track assembly with planetary drive and idler
`components annotated.
`
`
`56.
`
`Dr. Lumkes also asserts that the track assemblies of the Accused Products achieve
`
`substantially the same result as wheels, which he asserts is that “the machines moves.”98
`
`Dr. Lumkes does not explain how a planetary drive or the idler component are used to
`
`“move” the machine.
`
`
`98 Lumkes Initial Expert Report, ¶144.
`
`30
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
`
`2111403.000 - 1791
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 250-14 Filed 10/25/23 Page 7 of 12 PageID #: 25650
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
`
`57.
`
`Dr. Lumkes then states that, “To the extent this limitation is not literally present, this claim
`
`is still infringed under the doctrine of equivalents in my opinion. In the context of the ’309
`
`patent, the track assemblies of the Accused Ride Control Machines perform substantially
`
`the same function (engage the ground surface) in substantially the same way (hydraulically
`
`powered to rotate) to achieve substantially the same result (the machine moves) as a
`
`wheel.”99 Dr. Lumkes seems to be describing a hypothetical scenario in which the track
`
`assemblies of the PM620 are replaced by wheels.
`
`58.
`
`A PHOSITA at the time of the alleged infringement would understand that a track assembly
`
`does not perform substantially the same function as a wheel in substantially the same way
`
`to achieve substantially the same result. A PHOSITA would understand that track
`
`assemblies are selected as an alternative to wheels during design processes because track
`
`assemblies and wheels have substantially different capabilities and functions as
`
`acknowledged in literature.100,101,102,103 The function of a track assembly is substantially
`
`different from a wheel whereas, for example, elements of the track assembly engage and
`
`disengage with each other as the vehicle travels, while a wheel or tire would typically not
`
`disengage.
`
`59.
`
`A track assembly achieves substantially different results from a wheel in at least two
`
`additional ways. First, a track assembly functions to distribute the weight of a machine
`
`over a dispersed area while engaging the ground.104,105 A wheel concentrates the same
`
`weight of a machine over a smaller area while engaging the ground. A PHOSITA would
`
`
`99 Lumkes Initial Expert Report, ¶144.
`100 Wheels vs. Tracks - A Fundamental Evaluation from the Traction Perspective. (EXPONENT_0006382).
`101 Analysis of Track and Wheel Soil Compaction. (EXPONENT_0006089).
`102 Do I Need Equipment with Tracks or Wheels? (EXPONENT_0006078).
`103 Benjamin Holt and the Invention of the Track-Type Tractor (EXPONENT_0005743).
`104 Benjamin Holt and the Invention of the Track-Type Tractor (EXPONENT_0005743), p. 2/19.
`105 A New Caterpillar Development (EXPONENT_0005741), p. 1/2.
`31
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
`
`2111403.000 - 1791
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 250-14 Filed 10/25/23 Page 8 of 12 PageID #: 25651
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
`
`understand that pavement, over which the Accused Products must traverse, is susceptible
`
`to damage from elevated and concentrated loadings,106,107,108 and the track assembly can
`
`function to decrease potential damage to the pavement from the weight of the machine
`
`while engaging the ground when compared to a wheel. Figure 17 shows an illustrative
`
`schematic that qualitatively shows the difference in the pressure experienced by the
`
`pavement from the weight of the machine as transferred through either a track assembly
`
`(left) or wheel (right). As can be seen in Figure 17, the wheel produces a more concentrated
`
`load on the pavement, potentially increasing the likelihood that the pavement will be
`
`damaged when compared to the track assembly. The track assembly achieves a different
`
`result by distributing the weight of the machine over a larger area.
`
`
`106 Assessment of Damage Caused to Pavements by Heavy Trucks in New England. (EXPONENT_0006069).
`107 Quantifying Incremental Pavement Damage Caused by Overweight Trucks (EXPONENT_0005721), p. 1/20.
`108 Mechanistic-Empirical Study of Effects of Truck Tire Pressure on Pavement. (EXPONENT_0006372).
`32
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
`
`2111403.000 - 1791
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 250-14 Filed 10/25/23 Page 9 of 12 PageID #: 25652
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
`
`
`
`Figure 17. Illustrative schematic demonstrating that a track assembly functions
`substantially different and produces a substantially different result while
`engaging the ground. The weight of the machine is distributed over a larger
`area for the track assembly compared to the wheel, thereby decreasing
`potential damage to the pavement.
`
`
`60.
`
`Second, a track assembly generally enables traversal over rougher or looser terrain109,110,111
`
`when compared to a wheel. A track assembly engages the ground with a larger surface
`
`area, increasing the stability and traction of the machine when compared to a wheel. With
`
`the machine operating in and around construction sites and milled roadways, a PHOSITA
`
`would understand that track assemblies function to establish the stable and firm traversal
`
`
`109 Benjamin Holt and the Invention of the Track-Type Tractor (EXPONENT_0005743), p. 2/19.
`110 A New Caterpillar Development (EXPONENT_0005741), p. 1/2.
`111 Do I Need Equipment with Tracks or Wheels? (EXPONENT_0006078), p. 5/11.
`33
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
`
`2111403.000 - 1791
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 250-14 Filed 10/25/23 Page 10 of 12 PageID #: 25653
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
`
`of the machine over rough or loose terrain better than wheels would.112 The track assembly
`
`achieves a different result by distributing the weight of the machine over a larger area,
`
`achieving enhanced stability, traction, and traversal capabilities.
`
`61.
`
`Therefore, Dr. Lumkes is incorrect in alleging that “any differences between the tracks of
`
`the Accused Ride Control Machines and the recited wheel are insubstantial.”113
`
`62.
`
`Dr. Lumkes also does not explain how a track assembly performs the “function” of
`
`“engag[ing] the ground surface” to achieve the “result” of “the machine moves.”
`
`Dr. Lumkes also does not explain how the “way” of “hydraulically powered to rotate” is
`
`used to perform the “function” of “engag[ing] the ground surface.”
`
`63.
`
`Dr. Lumkes references the ’309 Patent when he quotes, “When a front wheel is referred to
`
`hereinafter, this is also understood to mean a caterpillar.”114,115 Dr. Lumkes then incorrectly
`
`states, “Using this express definition of ‘wheels,’ the Accused Ride Control Machines’
`
`track assembly constitute a ‘wheel,’ as recited in claim 10.”116 Dr. Lumkes is
`
`misinterpreting the purpose of this statement in the patent. Rather, this statement appears
`
`to be utilized because the discussion of one embodiment, which focuses on wheels, applies
`
`equally to an alternate embodiment, with track assemblies (i.e., caterpillars), even though
`
`that alternative embodiment is not necessarily discussed in all respects.
`
`64.
`
`The ’309 Patent expressly uses the phrase “wheel or caterpillar” in other parts of the
`
`specification117 and claims.118 If wheel and caterpillar are interchangeable, then the term
`
`
`112 Mechanistic-Empirical Study of Effects of Truck Tire Pressure on Pavement (EXPONENT_0006362), p. 3/10.
`113 Lumkes Initial Expert Report, ¶144.
`114 Lumkes Initial Expert Report, ¶144.
`115 ’309 patent, 2:32-33.
`116 Lumkes Initial Expert Report, ¶144.
`117 See for example, ’309 patent, 1:10-15, 2:28-32, and 4:54-59.
`118 ’309 patent, Claims 1 and 26.
`
`34
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
`
`2111403.000 - 1791
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 250-14 Filed 10/25/23 Page 11 of 12 PageID #: 25654
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
`
`“wheel or caterpillar” as used in Claims 1 and 26 would be redundant. Dr. Lumkes
`
`incorrectly broadens the scope of Claim 10.
`
`65.
`
`As discussed in the prior section and shown in Figure 18,119 the Accused Products engage
`
`the ground via four track assemblies, not wheels. Therefore, the Accused Products do not
`
`practice “all the wheels are raised in a first operating mode and are lowered in a second
`
`operating mode.”
`
`66.
`
`Accordingly, Dr. Lumkes has not shown that the Large Milling Machines practice each
`
`and every element of Claim 10 for at least the reasons described above.
`
`
`
`Figure 18. Annotated image of a PM620 01A showing four track assemblies;
`two front track assemblies and two rear track assemblies.
`
`
`
`119 CAT_00037701, p. 7/24.
`
`
`
`35
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
`2111403.000 - 1791
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 250-14 Filed 10/25/23 Page 12 of 12 PageID #: 25655
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY 
`
`VIII. Conclusion
`
`90.
`
`For at least the reasons stated above, it is my opinion that that the Accused Products do not
`
`infringe on  the Asserted Claims  based  on  the  evidence  provided by  Dr.  Lumkes  in  his
`
`Initial Expert Report.
`
`I declare under the penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. 
`
`Executed on June 16, 2023 at Menlo Park, California 
`
`Joseph Rakow, Ph.D., P.E., F.A.S.M.E. 
`
`48
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY 
`2111403.000 - 1791
`
`