Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 299-1 Filed 01/29/24 Page 1 of 12 PageID #: 29897
`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 299-1 Filed 01/29/24 Page 1 of 12 PagelD #: 29897
`
`EXHIBIT 1A
`EXHIBIT 1A
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 299-1 Filed 01/29/24 Page 2 of 12 PageID #: 29898
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`WIRTGEN AMERICA, INC.,
`
`
`
`
`
`CATERPILLAR INC.,
`
`
`
`Plaintiff/Counterclaim-Defendant,
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Civil Action No. 1:17-cv-00770-JDW
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`Defendant/Counterclaim-Plaintiff.
`
`
`EXHIBIT 1A
`WIRTGEN AMERICA’S STATEMENT OF CONTESTED FACTS TO BE LITIGATED
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 299-1 Filed 01/29/24 Page 3 of 12 PageID #: 29899
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`ISSUES ON WHICH WIRTGEN AMERICA BEARS THE BURDEN OF PROOF .......2
`A.
`Infringement of Wirtgen America’s Asserted Patents ...........................................2
`1.
`Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,828,309 (“the ’309 patent”) .................2
`2.
`Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 9,656,530 (“the ’530 patent”) .................2
`3.
`Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,424,972 (“the ’972 patent”) .................2
`4.
`Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,530,641 (“the ’641 patent”) .................2
`5.
`Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,946,788 (“the ’788 patent”) .................2
`6.
`Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,690,474 (“the ’474 patent”) .................3
`7.
`Infringement of U.S. Patent No. RE48,268 (“the ’268 patent”) .................3
`B. Wirtgen America’s Remedies ...............................................................................3
`1.
`Damages...................................................................................................3
`2.
`Enhanced Damages, Treble Damages, Attorneys’ Fees, Interest,
`and Costs ..................................................................................................4
`Permanent Injunction ................................................................................4
`3.
`RESPONSES TO ISSUES ON WHICH CATERPILLAR BEARS THE BURDEN
`OF PROOF ......................................................................................................................4
`A.
`Validity of Wirtgen America’s Asserted Patents ...................................................4
`1.
`Validity of the ’972 Patent ........................................................................4
`2.
`Validity of the ’641 Patent ........................................................................5
`3.
`Validity of the ’788 Patent ........................................................................6
`4.
`Validity of the ’474 Patent ........................................................................7
`5.
`Validity of the ’268 Patent ........................................................................7
`Caterpillar’s Equitable Defenses ..........................................................................8
`1.
`Prosecution History Estoppel or Disclaimer ..............................................8
`2.
`Prosecution Laches ...................................................................................8
`3.
`Intervening Rights ....................................................................................9
`4.
`Equitable Estoppel ....................................................................................9
`5.
`Collateral Estoppel ...................................................................................9
`
`B.
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 299-1 Filed 01/29/24 Page 4 of 12 PageID #: 29900
`
`Plaintiff Wirtgen America, Inc. respectfully submits this Statement of Contested Facts to
`
`Be Litigated, which is based on Wirtgen America’s claims, its current understanding of
`
`Defendant Caterpillar Inc.’s defenses, and the proceedings in this action to date. To the extent
`
`Wirtgen America’s Statement of Issues of Law to Be Litigated set forth in Exhibit 2A contains
`
`issues of fact, those issues are incorporated herein by reference. Likewise, should the Court
`
`determine that any issue identified below is more appropriately considered an issue of law,
`
`Wirtgen America incorporates such issues by reference into Exhibit 2A.
`
`By including a fact below, Wirtgen America does not assume the burden of persuasion or
`
`production with regard to that fact. Wirtgen America reserves the right to revise this statement in
`
`light of the Court’s rulings, in response to Caterpillar’s positions, or as otherwise may be
`
`appropriate. The following statements are not exhaustive, and Wirtgen America reserves the
`
`right to prove any matters identified in its pleadings, infringement contentions, interrogatory
`
`responses, and expert reports. Wirtgen America also intends to offer evidence as to the issues of
`
`fact and issues of law identified in this Joint Pretrial Order. Wirtgen America further intends to
`
`offer evidence to rebut evidence offered by Caterpillar and to argue that Caterpillar is precluded
`
`from offering evidence in support of theories and claims not adequately disclosed in accordance
`
`with the Scheduling Order and amendments thereto (D.I. 28, D.I. 88, D.I. 159, D.I. 187, D.I. 199,
`
`D.I. 204, D.I. 269). Wirtgen America incorporates by reference its expert reports in support of
`
`any proof to be presented by expert testimony.
`
`As used herein, the term “Accused Products” shall collectively refer to Caterpillar’s
`
`PM300 series cold milling machines, including the PM310, PM312, and PM313 model
`
`machines; Caterpillar’s PM600 and PM800 series cold milling machines, including the PM620,
`
`PM622, PM820, PM822, and PM825 model machines; and Caterpillar’s rotary mixer machines,
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 299-1 Filed 01/29/24 Page 5 of 12 PageID #: 29901
`
`including the RM600 and RM800 rotary mixer machines.
`
`I.
`
`ISSUES ON WHICH WIRTGEN AMERICA BEARS THE BURDEN OF PROOF
`
`A.
`
`Infringement of Wirtgen America’s Asserted Patents
`
`1.
`
`Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,828,309 (“the ’309 patent”)
`
`1.
`
`Whether Caterpillar has directly infringed, literally or under the doctrine of
`
`equivalents, claims 10 and 29 of the ’309 patent, by making, using, offering for sale, selling, or
`
`importing the Accused Products.
`
`2.
`
`Whether Caterpillar has willfully infringed the ’309 patent.
`
`2.
`
`Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 9,656,530 (“the ’530 patent”)
`
`3.
`
`Whether Caterpillar has directly infringed claims 5, 13, 16, and 22 of the ’530
`
`patent, by making, using, offering for sale, selling, or importing the Accused Products.
`
`4.
`
`Whether Caterpillar has willfully infringed the ’530 patent.
`
`3.
`
`Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,424,972 (“the ’972 patent”)
`
`5.
`
`Whether Caterpillar has directly infringed claims 12, 13, 15, and 27 of the ’972
`
`patent, by making, using, offering for sale, selling, or importing the Accused Products.
`
`6.
`
`Whether Caterpillar has willfully infringed the ’972 patent.
`
`4.
`
`Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,530,641 (“the ’641 patent”)
`
`Whether Caterpillar has indirectly infringed claims 11 and 18 of the ’641 patent.
`
`Whether Caterpillar has willfully infringed the ’641 patent.
`
`5.
`
`Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,946,788 (“the ’788 patent”)
`
`Whether Caterpillar has directly infringed, literally or under the doctrine of
`
`7.
`
`8.
`
`9.
`
`equivalents, claim 5 of the ’788 patent, by making, using, offering for sale, selling, or importing
`
`the Accused Products.
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 299-1 Filed 01/29/24 Page 6 of 12 PageID #: 29902
`
`10. Whether Caterpillar can show that Wirtgen America’s doctrine-of-equivalents
`
`theory of infringement of the ’788 patent is barred under the doctrine of prosecution history
`
`estoppel.
`
`11. Whether Caterpillar has willfully infringed the ’788 patent.
`
`6.
`
`Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,690,474 (“the ’474 patent”)
`
`12. Whether Caterpillar has directly infringed, literally or under the doctrine of
`
`equivalents, claims 19 and 21 of the ’474 patent, by making, using, offering for sale, selling, or
`
`importing the Accused Products.
`
`13. Whether Caterpillar can show that Wirtgen America’s doctrine-of-equivalents
`
`theory of infringement of the ’474 patent is barred under the doctrine of prosecution history
`
`estoppel.
`
`14. Whether Caterpillar has willfully infringed the ’474 patent.
`
`7.
`
`Infringement of U.S. Patent No. RE48,268 (“the ’268 patent”)
`
`15. Whether Caterpillar has directly infringed claims 1, 23, 30, and 32 of the ’268
`
`patent, by making, using, offering for sale, selling, or importing the Accused Products.
`
`16. Whether Caterpillar has indirectly infringed claims 1, 23, 30, and 32 of the ’268
`
`patent.
`
`17. Whether Caterpillar has willfully infringed the ’268 patent.
`
`B. Wirtgen America’s Remedies
`Damages
`1.
`
`18.
`
`If Caterpillar is found to have infringed valid claim(s) of Wirtgen America’s
`
`Asserted Patents, the amount of damages in reasonable royalties that Wirtgen America is owed
`
`from Caterpillar due to Caterpillar’s infringement of Wirtgen America’s Asserted Patents
`
`through the date of the verdict.
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 299-1 Filed 01/29/24 Page 7 of 12 PageID #: 29903
`
`2.
`
`Enhanced Damages, Treble Damages, Attorneys’ Fees, Interest, and
`Costs
`
`19. Whether Wirtgen America is entitled to enhanced damages pursuant to 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 284, and if so, in what amount.
`
`20. Whether Wirtgen America is entitled to treble damages pursuant to 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 284.
`
`21. Whether this is an exceptional case pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 285.
`
`22. Whether Wirtgen America is entitled to attorneys’ fees, and if so, in what amount.
`
`23. Whether Wirtgen America is entitled to awards of pre-judgment interest, post-
`
`judgment interest, and costs, and if so, the amount of each.
`
`24. Whether Wirtgen America is entitled to an award of ongoing royalties for sales
`
`after entry of judgment that infringe any Asserted Patents still in force as of the date of judgment.
`
`25. Whether Wirtgen America can prove it is entitled to any other relief that the Court
`
`deems just and proper.
`
`26. Whether Caterpillar can prove that it is entitled to an award of attorneys’ fees.
`
`3.
`
`Permanent Injunction
`
`27. Whether Wirtgen America is entitled to a permanent injunction pursuant to
`
`35 U.S.C. § 283.
`
`II.
`
`RESPONSES TO ISSUES ON WHICH CATERPILLAR BEARS THE BURDEN
`OF PROOF
`
`A.
`
`Validity of Wirtgen America’s Asserted Patents
`
`1.
`
`Validity of the ’972 Patent
`
`28. Whether Caterpillar can prove by clear and convincing evidence that the PM-465
`
`and PM-565, as inspected in Italy, are prior art to the ’972 patent.
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 299-1 Filed 01/29/24 Page 8 of 12 PageID #: 29904
`
`29. Whether Caterpillar can prove by clear and convincing evidence that claims 13
`
`and 27 of the ’972 patent are invalid as anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102 by the PM-465, PM-
`
`565, or RX-500.
`
`30. Whether Caterpillar can prove by clear and convincing evidence that claim 15 of
`
`the ’972 patent is invalid as anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102 by the PM-465.
`
`31. Whether Caterpillar can prove by clear and convincing evidence that claim 15 of
`
`the ’972 patent is invalid as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over the PM-465 in view of the
`
`RX-500 or the PM-565.
`
`32. Whether Caterpillar can prove by clear and convincing evidence that claim 12 of
`
`the ’972 patent is invalid as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over the PM-465, the PM-565, or the
`
`RX-500 in view of the knowledge of a person having ordinary skill in the art.
`
`33. Whether evidence of objective indicia, including copying, demonstrates that the
`
`asserted claims of the ’972 patent are not obvious.
`
`2.
`
`Validity of the ’641 Patent
`
`34. Whether Caterpillar can prove by clear and convincing evidence that the PM-465
`
`and PM-565, as inspected in Italy, are prior art to the ’641 patent.
`
`35. Whether Caterpillar can prove by clear and convincing evidence that claim 11 of
`
`the ’641 patent is invalid as anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102 by the PM-465.
`
`36. Whether Caterpillar can prove by clear and convincing evidence that claim 11 of
`
`the ’641 patent is invalid as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 in view of the PM-465 and the
`
`knowledge of a person having ordinary skill in the art.
`
`37. Whether Caterpillar can prove by clear and convincing evidence that claim 11 of
`
`the ’641 patent is invalid as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 in view of the PM-565 and the
`
`knowledge of a person having ordinary skill in the art.
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 299-1 Filed 01/29/24 Page 9 of 12 PageID #: 29905
`
`38. Whether Caterpillar can prove by clear and convincing evidence that claim 11 of
`
`the ’641 patent is invalid as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over the PM-465 or the PM-565 in
`
`view of U.S. Patent No. 4,929,121 to K. Lent, et al. (“Lent”) and the knowledge of a person
`
`having ordinary skill in the art.
`
`39. Whether Caterpillar can prove by clear and convincing evidence that claims 11
`
`and 18 of the ’641 patent are invalid as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over the PM-465 or the
`
`PM-565 in view of Lent or U.S. Patent No. 6,152,648 to G. Gfroerer, et al. (“Gfroerer”) or
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,879,056 to T. Breidenbach (“Breidenbach”) and the knowledge of a person
`
`having ordinary skill in the art.
`
`40. Whether evidence of objective indicia, including copying and industry praise,
`
`demonstrates that the asserted claims of the ’641 patent are not obvious.
`
`41. Whether Caterpillar can prove by clear and convincing evidence that claim 11 of
`
`the ’641 patent is invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 112 as indefinite.
`
`3.
`
`Validity of the ’788 Patent
`
`42. Whether Caterpillar can prove by clear and convincing evidence that the PM-465
`
`and PM-565, as inspected in Italy, are prior art to the ’788 patent.
`
`43. Whether Caterpillar can prove by clear and convincing evidence that claim 5 of
`
`the ’788 patent is invalid as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over the PM-465 or the PM-565 in
`
`view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2002/0047301 to Davis (“Davis”).
`
`44. Whether Caterpillar can prove by clear and convincing evidence that claim 5 of
`
`the ’788 patent is invalid as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Davis in view of U.S. Patent
`
`Application Publication No. 2002/015948 to Brabec (“Brabec”).
`
`45. Whether Caterpillar can prove by clear and convincing evidence that claim 5 of
`
`the ’788 patent is invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 112 because it is not adequately described.
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 299-1 Filed 01/29/24 Page 10 of 12 PageID #: 29906
`
`46. Whether Caterpillar can prove by clear and convincing evidence that claim 5 of
`
`the ’788 patent is invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 112 because it is not enabled.
`
`4.
`
`Validity of the ’474 Patent
`
`47. Whether Caterpillar can prove by clear and convincing evidence that the PM-465
`
`and PM-565, as inspected in Italy, are prior art to the ’474 patent.
`
`48. Whether Caterpillar can prove by clear and convincing evidence that claims 19
`
`and 21 of the ’474 patent are invalid as anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102 by the PM-465 or the
`
`PM-565.
`
`49. Whether Caterpillar can prove by clear and convincing evidence that claims 19
`
`and 21 of the ’474 patent are invalid as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Davis in view of
`
`Brabec.
`
`50. Whether Caterpillar can prove by clear and convincing evidence that claims 19
`
`and 21 of the ’474 patent are invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 112 because they are not adequately
`
`described.
`
`51. Whether Caterpillar can prove by clear and convincing evidence that claims 19
`
`and 21 of the ’474 patent are invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 112 because they are not enabled.1
`
`5.
`
`Validity of the ’268 Patent
`
`52. Whether Caterpillar can prove by clear and convincing evidence that the PM-465
`
`and PM-565, as inspected in Italy, are prior art to the ’268 patent.
`
`
`1 Wirtgen America maintains that Caterpillar has waived its arguments that the asserted
`claims of the ’474 patent are invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 112.
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 299-1 Filed 01/29/24 Page 11 of 12 PageID #: 29907
`
`53. Whether Caterpillar can prove by clear and convincing evidence that claims 1, 23,
`
`30, and 32 of the ’268 patent are invalid as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over the PM-465 or
`
`the PM-565 and the knowledge of a person having ordinary skill in the art.
`
`54. Whether Caterpillar can prove by clear and convincing evidence that claims 1 and
`
`30 of the ’268 patent are invalid as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over the PM-465 or the
`
`PM-565 in view of U.S. Patent 5,687,809 to Braud (“Braud”) and the knowledge of a person
`
`having ordinary skill in the art.
`
`55. Whether Caterpillar can prove by clear and convincing evidence that claims 23
`
`and 32 of the ’268 patent are invalid as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over the PM-465 or the
`
`PM-565 in view of Braud, the knowledge of a person having ordinary skill in the art, U.S. Patent
`
`No. 5,545,090 to Kirschey (“Kirschey”), or U.S. Patent Application Publication No.
`
`2004/0081014 to Chanasyk and McNeilly (“Chanasyk”).
`
`56. Whether Caterpillar can prove by clear and convincing evidence that claims 1, 23,
`
`30, and 32 of the ’268 patent are invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 112 as indefinite.
`
`B.
`
`Caterpillar’s Equitable Defenses
`
`1.
`
`Prosecution History Estoppel or Disclaimer
`
`57. Whether Caterpillar can prove by clear and convincing evidence that Wirtgen
`
`America’s infringement claims are barred under the doctrine of prosecution history estoppel or
`
`disclaimer.
`
`2.
`
`Prosecution Laches
`
`58. Whether Caterpillar can prove by clear and convincing evidence that the ’268
`
`patent is unenforceable under the doctrine of prosecution laches.2
`
`
`2 Caterpillar’s prosecution laches defense, to the extent it has been preserved at all,
`applies only to the ’268 patent. See Ex. 6B, ¶ 64 (“Proof that Wirtgen America’s claims of
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 299-1 Filed 01/29/24 Page 12 of 12 PageID #: 29908
`
`3.
`
`Intervening Rights
`
`59. Whether Caterpillar can prove by clear and convincing evidence that Wirtgen
`
`America’s claims for infringement of the ’268 patent are barred or limited by the doctrine of
`
`absolute or equitable intervening rights.
`
`4.
`
`Equitable Estoppel
`
`60. Whether Caterpillar can prove by clear and convincing evidence that Wirtgen
`
`America’s infringement or damages claims are barred by the doctrine of equitable estoppel.
`
`5.
`
`Collateral Estoppel
`
`61. Whether Caterpillar can prove by clear and convincing evidence that Wirtgen
`
`America is collaterally estopped from arguing that claims 10 and 29 of the ’309 patent are valid.
`
`
`alleged infringement of the asserted claims of the ’268 Patent against Caterpillar are barred due
`to prosecution laches.”).
`
`9
`
`