Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 299-10 Filed 01/29/24 Page 1 of 14 PageID #: 30290
`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 299-10 Filed 01/29/24 Page 1 of 14 PagelD #: 30290
`
`EXHIBIT 6A
`EXHIBIT 6A
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 299-10 Filed 01/29/24 Page 2 of 14 PageID #: 30291
`
`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 6A
`WIRTGEN AMERICA’S STATEMENT OF INTENDED PROOFS
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 299-10 Filed 01/29/24 Page 3 of 14 PageID #: 30292
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`INFRINGEMENT OF WIRTGEN AMERICA’S ASSERTED PATENTS ......................2
`A.
`Infringement of the ’309 Patent ............................................................................2
`B.
`Infringement of the ’530 Patent ............................................................................2
`C.
`Infringement of the ’972 Patent ............................................................................3
`D.
`Infringement of the ’641 Patent ............................................................................3
`E.
`Infringement of the ’788 Patent ............................................................................4
`F.
`Infringement of the ’474 Patent ............................................................................4
`G.
`Infringement of the ’268 Patent ............................................................................4
`VALIDITY AND ENFORCEABILITY OF WIRTGEN AMERICA’S ASSERTED
`PATENTS .......................................................................................................................5
`A.
`Validity of the ’972 Patent ...................................................................................5
`B.
`Validity of the ’641 Patent ...................................................................................6
`C.
`Validity of the ’788 Patent ...................................................................................7
`D.
`Validity of the ’474 Patent ...................................................................................7
`E.
`Validity of the ’268 Patent ...................................................................................8
`CATERPILLAR’S EQUITABLE DEFENSES ................................................................9
`A.
`Prosecution History Estoppel or Disclaimer .........................................................9
`B.
`Prosecution Laches ..............................................................................................9
`C.
`Intervening Rights .............................................................................................. 10
`D.
`Equitable Estoppel ............................................................................................. 10
`E.
`Collateral Estoppel ............................................................................................. 10
`IV. WIRTGEN AMERICA’S REMEDIES .......................................................................... 10
`A.
`Damages ............................................................................................................ 10
`B.
`Enhanced Damages, Attorneys’ Fees, Interest, and Costs ................................... 10
`C.
`Permanent Injunction ......................................................................................... 11
`
`III.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 299-10 Filed 01/29/24 Page 4 of 14 PageID #: 30293
`
`Pursuant to Delaware Local Rule 16.3(c)(8), Wirtgen America, Inc. hereby submits the
`
`following Statement of Intended Proofs. Wirtgen America currently asserts the following
`
`patents against Defendant Caterpillar, Inc.: U.S. Patent No. 7,828,309 (“the ’309 patent”),
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,656,530 (“the ’530 patent”), U.S. Patent No. 8,424,972 (“the ’972 patent”),
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,530,641 (“the ’641 patent”), U.S. Patent No. 7,946,788 (“the ’788 patent”),
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,690,474 (“the ’474 patent”), and U.S. Patent No. RE48,268 (“the ’268
`
`patent”) (collectively, the “Asserted Patents”). Wirtgen America asserts the following patent
`
`claims against Caterpillar: claims 10 and 29 of the ’309 patent; claims 5, 13, 16, and 22 of the
`
`’530 patent; claims 12, 13, 15, and 27 of the ’972 patent; claims 11 and 18 of the ’641 patent;
`
`claim 5 of the ’788 patent; claims 19 and 21 of the ’474 patent; and claims 1, 23, 30, and 32 of
`
`the ’268 patent (collectively, the “Asserted Claims”).
`
`Wirtgen America accuses Caterpillar’s PM620, PM622, PM820, PM822, PM825,
`
`PM310, PM312, PM313 01A, PM313 02A, and PM313 02B builds before any implemented
`
`redesigns; Caterpillar’s PM620, PM622, PM820, PM822, PM825 PM310, PM312, PM313
`
`02A, PM313 02B, and PM313 02C builds after any implemented redesigns; and Caterpillar’s
`
`RM600 and RM800 machines (collectively, the “Accused Products”) of infringing the Asserted
`
`Patents.
`
`Wirtgen America’s Statement of Intended Proofs is based on Wirtgen America’s claims,
`
`its current understanding of Caterpillar’s defenses, and the proceedings in this action to date.
`
`This statement is not intended to be exhaustive, and Wirtgen America reserves the right to
`
`prove any matters identified in the pleadings, fact and expert discovery, and any of the
`
`accompanying statements of facts and legal issues to be litigated at trial. With respect to proof
`
`to be presented by expert testimony, Wirtgen America incorporates by reference the reports and
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 299-10 Filed 01/29/24 Page 5 of 14 PageID #: 30294
`
`depositions of Wirtgen America’s expert witnesses addressing the issues identified below.
`
`To the extent Wirtgen America asserts that Caterpillar has failed to meet its burden of
`
`proof on any issue, such statements do not constitute an admission that Wirtgen America has any
`
`obligation to prove or disprove any element or any part of any claim or defense on which
`
`Caterpillar bears the burden of persuasion or production. Wirtgen America does not assume the
`
`burden of persuasion or production as to any matter set forth below unless required to do so by
`
`law. Wirtgen America reserves the right to modify or supplement its pretrial order materials,
`
`including this statement of intended proofs, in response to any additional disclosures by
`
`Caterpillar.
`
`Wirtgen America further reserves the right to amend or supplement this statement to the
`
`extent necessary to respond to issues raised by Caterpillar and to rebut any alleged proof(s)
`
`offered by Caterpillar before and during trial, in response to rulings by the Court, or for any other
`
`reason.
`
`I.
`
`INFRINGEMENT OF WIRTGEN AMERICA’S ASSERTED PATENTS
`
`A.
`
`1.
`
`Infringement of the ’309 Patent
`
`Wirtgen America will prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Caterpillar
`
`has 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.
`
`Wirtgen America will prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Caterpillar
`
`has willfully infringed claims 10 and 29 of the ’309 patent.
`
`B.
`
`3.
`
`Infringement of the ’530 Patent
`
`Wirtgen America will prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Caterpillar
`
`has infringed claims 5, 13, 16, and 22 of the ’530 patent by making, using, offering for sale,
`
`selling, or importing the Accused Products.
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 299-10 Filed 01/29/24 Page 6 of 14 PageID #: 30295
`
`4.
`
`Wirtgen America will prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Caterpillar
`
`has willfully infringed claims 5, 13, 16, and 22 of the ’530 patent.
`
`C.
`
`5.
`
`Infringement of the ’972 Patent
`
`Wirtgen America will prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Caterpillar
`
`has infringed claims 12, 13, 15, and 27 of the ’972 patent by making, using, offering for sale,
`
`selling, or importing the Accused Products.
`
`6.
`
`Wirtgen America will prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Caterpillar
`
`has willfully infringed claims 12, 13, 15, and 27 of the ’972 patent.
`
`D.
`
`7.
`
`Infringement of the ’641 Patent
`
`Wirtgen America will prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Caterpillar
`
`has infringed claims 11 and 18 of the ’641 patent by making, using, offering for sale, selling, or
`
`importing the Accused Products.
`
`8.
`
`Wirtgen America will prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Caterpillar
`
`has induced others to infringe claims 11 and 18 of the ’641 patent and was aware that its actions
`
`would induce infringement or was willfully blind to the fact that its actions would induce
`
`infringement.
`
`9.
`
`Wirtgen America, to the extent necessary, will introduce evidence to rebut
`
`Caterpillar’s untimely assertion that the term “deviation” requires “units of length, i.e., inches,
`
`feet, meters, millimeters, etc.”1
`
`10. Wirtgen America will prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Caterpillar
`
`has willfully infringed claims 11 and 18 of the ’641 patent.
`
`
`1 Wirtgen America objects to the presentation of claim construction issues to the jury. See
`D.I. 287 (Wirtgen America’s Motion in Limine No. 3).
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 299-10 Filed 01/29/24 Page 7 of 14 PageID #: 30296
`
`E.
`
`Infringement of the ’788 Patent
`
`11. Wirtgen America will prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Caterpillar
`
`has infringed, literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, claim 5 of the ’788 patent by making,
`
`using, offering for sale, selling, or importing the Accused Products.
`
`12. Wirtgen America will prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Caterpillar
`
`has willfully infringed claim 5 of the ’788 patent.
`
`13. Wirtgen America, to the extent necessary, will introduce evidence to rebut
`
`Caterpillar’s assertion that Wirtgen America’s doctrine-of-equivalents theory of infringement of
`
`the ’788 patent is barred under the doctrine of prosecution history estoppel.
`
`F.
`
`Infringement of the ’474 Patent
`
`14. Wirtgen America will prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Caterpillar
`
`has 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.
`
`15. Wirtgen America will prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Caterpillar
`
`has willfully infringed claims 19 and 21 of the ’474 patent.
`
`16. Wirtgen America, to the extent necessary, will introduce evidence to rebut
`
`Caterpillar’s assertion that Wirtgen America’s doctrine-of-equivalents theory of infringement of
`
`the ’474 patent is barred under the doctrine of prosecution history estoppel.
`
`G.
`
`Infringement of the ’268 Patent
`
`17. Wirtgen America will prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Caterpillar
`
`has infringed claims 1, 23, 30, and 32 of the ’268 patent by making, using, offering for sale,
`
`selling, or importing the Accused Products.
`
`18. Wirtgen America will prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Caterpillar
`
`has induced others to infringe claims 1, 23, 30, and 32 of the ’268 patent and was aware that its
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 299-10 Filed 01/29/24 Page 8 of 14 PageID #: 30297
`
`actions would induce infringement or was willfully blind to the fact that its actions would induce
`
`infringement.
`
`19. Wirtgen America will prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Caterpillar
`
`has willfully infringed claims 1, 23, 30, and 32 of the ’268 patent.
`
`II.
`
`VALIDITY AND ENFORCEABILITY OF WIRTGEN AMERICA’S ASSERTED
`PATENTS
`
`A.
`
`20.
`
`Validity of the ’972 Patent
`
`Caterpillar bears the burden of establishing by clear and convincing evidence that
`
`claims 13 and 27 of the ’972 patent are invalid as anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102 on the basis
`
`of either (1) Caterpillar’s PM465 or PM565 cold milling machines or (2) Roadtec’s RX-500 cold
`
`milling machine. Wirtgen America, to the extent necessary, will introduce evidence to rebut
`
`Caterpillar’s assertion that claims 13 and 27 of the ’972 patent are anticipated under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 102 based on the prior art listed above.
`
`21.
`
`Caterpillar bears the burden of establishing by clear and convincing evidence that
`
`claim 12 of the ’972 patent is invalid as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on either:
`
`(1) Caterpillar’s PM565 or PM465 cold milling machines in view of a person of ordinary skill in
`
`the art; (2) Caterpillar’s PM565 cold milling machine in view of Caterpillar’s PM465 cold
`
`milling machine; (3) Roadtec’s RX-500 cold milling machine in view a person of ordinary skill
`
`in the art; or (4) Roadtec’s RX-500 cold milling machine in view of Caterpillar’s PM465 cold
`
`milling machine.
`
`22. Wirtgen America, to the extent necessary, will introduce evidence to rebut
`
`Caterpillar’s assertion that claim 12 of the ’972 patent is obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on
`
`the prior art combinations listed above, including evidence of objective indicia of non-
`
`obviousness such as copying.
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 299-10 Filed 01/29/24 Page 9 of 14 PageID #: 30298
`
`B.
`
`23.
`
`Validity of the ’641 Patent
`
`Caterpillar bears the burden of establishing by clear and convincing evidence that
`
`claim 11 of the ’641 patent is invalid as anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102 on the basis of either
`
`(1) Caterpillar’s PM465 cold milling machine or (2) Caterpillar’s PM565 cold milling machine.
`
`Wirtgen America, to the extent necessary, will introduce evidence to rebut Caterpillar’s assertion
`
`that claim 11 of the ’641 patent is anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102 based on the prior art listed
`
`above.
`
`24.
`
`Caterpillar bears the burden of establishing by clear and convincing evidence that
`
`the asserted claims of the ’641 patent are invalid as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on
`
`either: (1) Caterpillar’s PM465 or PM565 cold milling machines in view of the knowledge of a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art; (2) Caterpillar’s PM465 or PM565 cold milling machines in
`
`view of U.S. Patent No. 4,929,121 to K. Lent, et al. (“Lent”) and the knowledge of a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art; or (3) Caterpillar’s PM465 or PM565 cold milling machines 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 of ordinary
`
`skill in the art. Wirtgen America, to the extent necessary, will introduce evidence to rebut
`
`Caterpillar’s assertion that the asserted claims of the ’641 patent are obvious under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 103 based on the prior art combinations listed above, including evidence of objective indicia of
`
`non-obviousness such as commercial success, praise of others, and copying.
`
`25.
`
`Caterpillar bears the burden of establishing by clear and convincing evidence that
`
`the asserted claims of the ’641 patent are invalid for indefiniteness under 35 U.S.C. § 112.
`
`Wirtgen America, to the extent necessary, will introduce evidence to rebut Caterpillar’s assertion
`
`that the asserted claims of the ’641 patent are indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112.
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 299-10 Filed 01/29/24 Page 10 of 14 PageID #: 30299
`
`C.
`
`26.
`
`Validity of the ’788 Patent
`
`Caterpillar bears the burden of establishing by clear and convincing evidence that
`
`the asserted claim of the ’788 patent is invalid as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on either:
`
`(1) Caterpillar’s PM565 machine in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication
`
`No. 2002/0047301 to Davis (“Davis”); (2) Caterpillar’s PM465 machine in view of Davis; or
`
`(3) Davis in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2002/015948 to Brabec (“Brabec”).
`
`Wirtgen America, to the extent necessary, will introduce evidence to rebut Caterpillar’s assertion
`
`that the asserted claim of the ’788 patent is obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on the prior art
`
`combinations listed above.
`
`27.
`
`Caterpillar bears the burden of establishing by clear and convincing evidence that
`
`the asserted claim of the ’788 patent is invalid for lack of sufficient written description under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112. Wirtgen America, to the extent necessary, will introduce evidence to rebut
`
`Caterpillar’s assertion that the asserted claim of the ’788 patent lacks sufficient written
`
`description under 35 U.S.C. § 112.
`
`28.
`
`Caterpillar bears the burden of establishing by clear and convincing evidence that
`
`the asserted claim of the ’788 patent is invalid for lack of enablement under 35 U.S.C. § 112.
`
`Wirtgen America, to the extent necessary, will introduce evidence to rebut Caterpillar’s assertion
`
`that the asserted claim of the ’788 patent is not enabled under 35 U.S.C. § 112.
`
`D.
`
`29.
`
`Validity of the ’474 Patent
`
`Caterpillar bears the burden of establishing by clear and convincing evidence that
`
`the asserted claims of the ’474 patent are invalid as anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102 on the
`
`basis of either (1) Caterpillar’s PM465 cold milling machine or (2) Caterpillar’s PM565 cold
`
`milling machine. Wirtgen America, to the extent necessary, will introduce evidence to rebut
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 299-10 Filed 01/29/24 Page 11 of 14 PageID #: 30300
`
`Caterpillar’s assertion that the asserted claims of the ’474 patent are anticipated under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 102 based on the prior art listed above.
`
`30.
`
`Caterpillar bears the burden of establishing by clear and convincing evidence that
`
`the asserted claims of the ’474 patent are invalid as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on
`
`Davis in view of Brabec. Wirtgen America, to the extent necessary, will introduce evidence to
`
`rebut Caterpillar’s assertion that the asserted claims of the ’474 patent are obvious under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 103 based on the prior art combinations listed above.
`
`31.
`
`Caterpillar bears the burden of establishing by clear and convincing evidence that
`
`the asserted claims of the ’474 patent are invalid for lack of sufficient written description under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112. Wirtgen America, to the extent necessary, will introduce evidence to rebut
`
`Caterpillar’s assertion that the asserted claims of the ’474 patent lack sufficient written
`
`description under 35 U.S.C. § 112.
`
`32.
`
`Caterpillar bears the burden of establishing by clear and convincing evidence that
`
`the asserted claims of the ’474 patent are invalid for lack of enablement under 35 U.S.C. § 112.
`
`Wirtgen America, to the extent necessary, will introduce evidence to rebut Caterpillar’s assertion
`
`that the asserted claims of the ’474 patent are not enabled under 35 U.S.C. § 112.2
`
`E.
`
`33.
`
`Validity of the ’268 Patent
`
`Caterpillar bears the burden of establishing by clear and convincing evidence that
`
`the asserted claims of the ’268 patent are invalid as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on
`
`either: (1) Caterpillar’s PM565 or PM465 cold milling machines in view of the knowledge of a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art; (2) Caterpillar’s PM465 or PM565 cold milling machines in
`
`
`2 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.
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 299-10 Filed 01/29/24 Page 12 of 14 PageID #: 30301
`
`combination with U.S. Patent 5,687,809 to Braud (“Braud”) and in view of the knowledge of a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art; or (3) Caterpillar’s PM465 or PM565 cold milling machines in
`
`combination with Braud and/or U.S. Patent No. 5,545,090 to Kirschey (“Kirschey”) and/or U.S.
`
`Patent Application Publication No. 2004/0081014 to Chanasyk and McNeilly (“Chanasyk”) in
`
`view of the knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the art. Wirtgen America, to the extent
`
`necessary, will introduce evidence to rebut Caterpillar’s assertion that the asserted claims of the
`
`’268 patent are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on the prior art combinations listed above,
`
`including evidence of objective indicia of non-obviousness such as copying.
`
`34.
`
`Caterpillar bears the burden of establishing by clear and convincing evidence that
`
`the asserted claims of the ’268 patent are invalid for indefiniteness under 35 U.S.C. § 112.
`
`Wirtgen America, to the extent necessary, will introduce evidence to rebut Caterpillar’s assertion
`
`that the asserted claims of the ’268 patent are indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112.
`
`III. CATERPILLAR’S EQUITABLE DEFENSES
`Prosecution History Estoppel or Disclaimer
`A.
`
`35. Wirtgen America, to the extent necessary, will introduce evidence to rebut
`
`Caterpillar’s assertion that Wirtgen America’s infringement claims are barred under the doctrine
`
`of prosecution history estoppel or disclaimer.
`
`B.
`
`Prosecution Laches
`
`36. Wirtgen America, to the extent necessary, will introduce evidence to rebut
`
`Caterpillar’s assertion that the asserted claims of the ’268 patent are unenforceable under the
`
`doctrine of prosecution laches.3
`
`
`3 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
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 299-10 Filed 01/29/24 Page 13 of 14 PageID #: 30302
`
`C.
`
`Intervening Rights
`
`37. Wirtgen America, to the extent necessary, will introduce evidence to rebut
`
`Caterpillar’s assertion that the asserted claims of the ’268 patent are barred or limited by the
`
`doctrine of absolute or equitable intervening rights.
`
`D.
`
`Equitable Estoppel
`
`38. Wirtgen America, to the extent necessary, will introduce evidence to rebut
`
`Caterpillar’s assertion that Wirtgen America’s infringement claims and damages claims are
`
`barred by the doctrine of equitable estoppel.
`
`E.
`
`Collateral Estoppel
`
`39. Wirtgen America, to the extent necessary, will introduce evidence to rebut
`
`Caterpillar’s assertion that Wirtgen America is collaterally estopped from arguing that claims 10
`
`and 29 of the ’309 patent are valid.
`
`IV. WIRTGEN AMERICA’S REMEDIES
`
`A.
`
`Damages
`
`40. Wirtgen America will prove by a preponderance of the evidence the amount of
`
`damages in reasonable royalties that Wirtgen America is owed from Caterpillar due to
`
`Caterpillar’s infringement of the Asserted Claims through the date of the verdict.
`
`B.
`
`Enhanced Damages, Attorneys’ Fees, Interest, and Costs
`
`41. Wirtgen America will prove by a preponderance of the evidence that it is entitled
`
`to enhanced damages pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284 and the amount of such enhanced damages.
`
`42. Wirtgen America will prove by a preponderance of the evidence that this is an
`
`exceptional case pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 285. Wirtgen America will prove by a preponderance of
`
`
`alleged infringement of the asserted claims of the ’268 Patent against Caterpillar are barred due
`to prosecution laches.”).
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 299-10 Filed 01/29/24 Page 14 of 14 PageID #: 30303
`
`the evidence the amount of attorneys’ fees and expenses it is entitled to pursuant to 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 285.
`
`43. Wirtgen America will prove by a preponderance of the evidence the amount of
`
`pre-judgment interest and post-judgment interest it is entitled to pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284.
`
`44. Wirtgen America will prove by a preponderance of the evidence the amount of
`
`costs it is entitled to pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1920 and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d).
`
`45. Wirtgen America, to the extent necessary, will introduce evidence to rebut
`
`Caterpillar’s assertion that it is entitled to an award of attorneys’ fees.
`
`C.
`
`Permanent Injunction
`
`46. Wirtgen America will prove that it is entitled to a permanent injunction enjoining
`
`Caterpillar, its officers, agents, servants, employees, and those persons acting in active concert or
`
`participation with all or any of them from manufacturing, using, offering to sell, selling, or
`
`importing the Accused Products prior to the expiration of the Asserted Patents pursuant to
`
`35 U.S.C. § 283.
`
`11
`
`