Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 305-3 Filed 02/02/24 Page 1 of 26 PageID #: 30349
`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 305-3 Filed 02/02/24 Page 1 of 26 PagelD #: 30349
`
`EXHIBIT 3
`EXHIBIT 3
`
`
`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 305-3 Filed 02/02/24 Page 1 of 26 PagelD #: 30349
`
`EXHIBIT 3
`EXHIBIT 3
`
`
`
`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 305-3 Filed 02/02/24 Page 2 of 26 PageID #: 30350
`
`3/29/2023
`
`Wirtgen America Inc. v. Caterpillar Inc.
`Confidential - Attorneys' Eyes Only
`
`Jan Schmidt 30(b)(6)
`
`Page 1
`
` IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
` FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`____________________________________
`WIRTGEN AMERICA, INC., )
` Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant )
`vs. ) Case No.
`CATERPILLAR, INC., ) 1:17-cv-00770-JDW
` Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff. )
`____________________________________)
`
` CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY
` Video Recorded Deposition of:
` JAN SCHMIDT
` Rule 30(b)(6) Designee of Wirtgen America, Inc.
` Taken on behalf of the Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff
` Wednesday, March 29, 2023
`
`Court Stenographer:
`Virginia Dodge, RDR, CRR, LCR
`______________________________________________________
` 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 305-3 Filed 02/02/24 Page 3 of 26 PageID #: 30351
`
`3/29/2023
`
`Wirtgen America Inc. v. Caterpillar Inc.
`Confidential - Attorneys' Eyes Only
`
`Jan Schmidt 30(b)(6)
`
`Page 33
`what features, what capabilities, what functionalities
`the machine incorporates or includes, then I'm sure any
`machine that we have an opportunity to look at in our
`yard that we take as a trade or in a dealer's yard or
`potentially even in a customer's yard would be looked
`at and would be learned about to understand its full
`feature and capability spectrum.
` Q. And would that include operating the machine
`to understand how those features work?
` A. Absolutely.
` Q. Has Wirtgen America ever obtained any Roadtec
`milling machines?
` A. Yes.
` Q. And has Wirtgen America ever performed any
`competitive intelligence on any Roadtec milling
`machines it's obtained?
` A. If we're speaking in the context that I
`previously described as related to a Caterpillar
`product, yes, as we would have done with a Roadtec, a
`BOMAG, any other competitive machines that we would be
`exposed to.
` Q. Mr. Schmidt, if we could turn to page 10 of
`
`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 305-3 Filed 02/02/24 Page 4 of 26 PageID #: 30352
`
`3/29/2023
`
`Wirtgen America Inc. v. Caterpillar Inc.
`Confidential - Attorneys' Eyes Only
`
`Jan Schmidt 30(b)(6)
`
`Page 34
`Exhibit 60, topic number 4, do you understand that you
`are designated to testify on behalf of Wirtgen
`America's knowledge about this topic?
` A. Yes.
` Q. And are you prepared to testify on behalf of
`Wirtgen America's knowledge on this topic?
` A. I believe so.
` Q. And with respect to topic number 4, what did
`you do to prepare to testify on this topic today?
` A. Again, I reviewed my previous deposition
`statement and other documents that were collected in
`preparation for that particular deposition.
` Q. What were the documents that you reviewed in
`preparation for your testimony on topic 4 today?
` A. There were machine population lists,
`inventory lists, parts, sales, summaries, pricing --
`parts pricing documentation.
` Q. Did you review any of the Wirtgen America
`asserted patents as defined in topic 4?
` A. No.
` Q. Did you review any of the file histories for
`the applications corresponding to Wirtgen America's
`
`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 305-3 Filed 02/02/24 Page 5 of 26 PageID #: 30353
`
`3/29/2023
`
`Wirtgen America Inc. v. Caterpillar Inc.
`Confidential - Attorneys' Eyes Only
`
`Jan Schmidt 30(b)(6)
`
`Page 38
`
` ATTORNEY LEVY: Objection. Form.
` A. When you say what role, can you be more
`specific as to what you mean by the role?
` Q. (By Attorney Mays) Who at Wirtgen America
`was involved in conceiving the claims of the '530
`patent that is Exhibit 16?
` ATTORNEY LEVY: Objection. Form.
` A. Sorry. Can you repeat the -- in conceiving
`what?
` Q. (By Attorney Mays) Who at Wirtgen America
`was involved in conceiving the claims of this patent,
`the '530 patent that's Exhibit 16?
` ATTORNEY LEVY: Same objection.
` A. We filed or we asked our attorneys to submit
`and apply for the patent. I don't know that anybody at
`Wirtgen America would have been directly -- I mean we
`don't have any engineering capacity. We don't have any
`patent experts.
` Q. (By Attorney Mays) And, Mr. Schmidt, what
`does Wirtgen America know about who, specifically what
`entity, filed for this patent?
` A. What do you mean by what entity?
`
`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 305-3 Filed 02/02/24 Page 6 of 26 PageID #: 30354
`
`3/29/2023
`
`Wirtgen America Inc. v. Caterpillar Inc.
`Confidential - Attorneys' Eyes Only
`
`Jan Schmidt 30(b)(6)
`
`Page 39
` Q. Well, for example, if you see on the left-
`hand column, a few lines down, the line 73 refers to
`assignee Wirtgen GmbH. Do you see that?
` A. Yes.
` Q. So it was Wirtgen GmbH that filed for this
`patent, not Wirtgen America, correct?
` A. I mean that's what the document states.
` Q. And do you have any reason to disagree with
`that statement on the document?
` A. Again, we don't design. We don't engineer at
`Wirtgen America. But we are a business entity in the
`U.S. So as the representative business entity in the
`U.S., I would expect that we -- that it is our role to
`apply for any patents in that environment.
` Q. What's the basis of your expectation that
`it's Wirtgen America's role to apply for patents?
` A. Because it's a United States patent.
` Q. And what's your basis for understanding that
`the fact that it's a United States patent means that
`it's Wirtgen America that applied for this patent?
` A. Because Wirtgen America is located and has a
`business presence in the United States.
`
`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 305-3 Filed 02/02/24 Page 7 of 26 PageID #: 30355
`
`3/29/2023
`
`Wirtgen America Inc. v. Caterpillar Inc.
`Confidential - Attorneys' Eyes Only
`
`Jan Schmidt 30(b)(6)
`
`Page 40
`
` Q. And in preparing for your testimony on
`topic 4, did you review the actual initial application
`for the patent application that became Exhibit 16?
` A. I did not.
` Q. So did you actually review the name of the
`entity that was filing for this patent in preparing for
`your testimony on topic 4?
` A. I did not.
` Q. So if in fact the individuals that filed for
`this patent were in fact Wirtgen GmbH employees, would
`that surprise you?
` A. I wouldn't know.
` Q. If we could look at line 72 of Exhibit 16, it
`refers to two individuals. Do you see that?
` A. The inventors?
` Q. Yes.
` A. Yes.
` Q. Do you -- does Wirtgen America know who Peter
`Busley is?
` A. Peter Busley used to be an engineer with
`Wirtgen. I believe he's retired.
` Q. Was he an engineer with Wirtgen America?
`
`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 305-3 Filed 02/02/24 Page 8 of 26 PageID #: 30356
`
`3/29/2023
`
`Wirtgen America Inc. v. Caterpillar Inc.
`Confidential - Attorneys' Eyes Only
`
`Jan Schmidt 30(b)(6)
`
`Page 41
`
` A. No, with Wirtgen GmbH.
` Q. And who is Gunter Tewes?
` A. I'm not sure. Don't know him.
` Q. In preparing for your deposition today, did
`you speak with either of the inventors listed on this
`patent?
` A. I did not.
` Q. How were the claims of the '530 patent that's
`Exhibit 16, how were the claims conceived?
` ATTORNEY LEVY: Object to form.
` A. Since again we don't have the engineering or
`design functionality at Wirtgen America, I can't speak
`to that.
` Q. (By Attorney Mays) So is your testimony then
`that Wirtgen America does not have knowledge as to the
`conception of the '530 patent?
` A. Can you repeat that?
` Q. Would you agree with me that Wirtgen America
`itself does not have knowledge as to how the claims of
`the '530 patent were conceived?
` A. No. I mean we again are directly in daily
`communication with customers, with end users. We see
`
`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 305-3 Filed 02/02/24 Page 9 of 26 PageID #: 30357
`
`3/29/2023
`
`Wirtgen America Inc. v. Caterpillar Inc.
`Confidential - Attorneys' Eyes Only
`
`Jan Schmidt 30(b)(6)
`
`Page 47
`
`patent?
` ATTORNEY LEVY: Objection. Form.
` A. I didn't say that I conveyed this
`specifically to Peter Busley, but I know I've had
`conversations with other colleagues at Wirtgen Germany
`who might have conveyed it to Peter Busley, and I know
`that other individuals at Wirtgen America, yeah, would
`have probably had more direct dialogue with Peter and
`could have been that conduct -- or that -- sorry --
`that channel to get that information to Peter.
` Or again, as I said, it could have been one
`of my conversations with another colleague at Wirtgen
`Germany about these kind of subjects. Or one of my
`colleagues on the service side. I don't know
`specifically.
` Q. (By Attorney Mays) In your answer,
`Mr. Schmidt, respectfully, I heard the word "could"
`quite a bit. I'm not asking about what could have
`happened. I'm asking about what did happen.
` How did Peter Busley first conceive of the
`ideas claimed in the '530 patent?
` ATTORNEY LEVY: 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 305-3 Filed 02/02/24 Page 10 of 26 PageID #: 30358
`
`3/29/2023
`
`Wirtgen America Inc. v. Caterpillar Inc.
`Confidential - Attorneys' Eyes Only
`
`Jan Schmidt 30(b)(6)
`
`Page 48
` A. I'm not Peter Busley. I don't know that.
` Q. (By Attorney Mays) Has the information about
`how Peter Busley first conceived of the claimed
`invention of the '530 ever been communicated to Wirtgen
`America?
` A. No.
` Q. And has the information about how Gunter
`Tewes first conceived of the claimed inventions of the
`'530 patent ever been communicated to Wirtgen America?
` A. Actually, I'm going to correct my answer to
`your question, to your previous question about Peter
`and Gunter Tewes. So product changes, product
`improvements, product modifications that end up in
`patents are regularly communicated to us, but we're not
`always necessarily informed that this is done in form
`of a patent.
` Some of these -- I don't know -- you know,
`come across as a product refresh as a product
`improvement, as a generational upgrade. But we are
`not, again, given information which one of those
`features has been part of a patent application or will
`become part of a patent application.
`
`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 305-3 Filed 02/02/24 Page 11 of 26 PageID #: 30359
`
`3/29/2023
`
`Wirtgen America Inc. v. Caterpillar Inc.
`Confidential - Attorneys' Eyes Only
`
`Jan Schmidt 30(b)(6)
`
`Page 49
` Q. Well, and I respect that, and I respect that
`your role is as product support. But, Mr. Schmidt,
`you've been specifically designated as to how the
`claims of the '530 patent itself were conceived. And
`so what I'm asking about is not products. I'm asking
`about how the claims were conceived, the claims of the
`patent itself are conceived.
` And it's my understanding from what you're
`saying is that that particular information has never
`been conveyed to Wirtgen America. Am I understanding
`correctly?
` A. If you're asking me if myself or somebody at
`Wirtgen America knows the exact means of what triggered
`either one of those individuals to come out with the
`idea, the concept and the request to turn this into a
`patent, then I have to say no.
` Q. And turning now to the concept of reduction
`to practice, has the information about how the claims
`of the '530 patent were reduced to practice, has that
`information ever been conveyed to Wirtgen America?
` A. If you're asking me if this was implemented
`in a product, yes.
`
`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 305-3 Filed 02/02/24 Page 12 of 26 PageID #: 30360
`
`3/29/2023
`
`Wirtgen America Inc. v. Caterpillar Inc.
`Confidential - Attorneys' Eyes Only
`
`Jan Schmidt 30(b)(6)
`
`Page 53
`
` A. I can't speak to that.
` Q. (By Attorney Mays) And we're about to move
`on to another patent so I'll just throw a final open-
`ended question to you, Mr. Schmidt.
` Is there anything else that Wirtgen America,
`any other information regarding conception or reduction
`to practice of the claims of the '530 patent that
`Wirtgen America has?
` A. I can't speak to that.
` ATTORNEY MAYS: I'm about to move on. This
`might be a good time for a break.
` ATTORNEY LEVY: Perfect.
` THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Going off record at 10:29.
` (A recess was taken.)
` THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Back on record, 10:44.
` ATTORNEY LEVY: Chris, before we get started,
`can I just go ahead and designate this deposition as
`confidential - attorneys' eyes only?
` ATTORNEY MAYS: Sure.
` ATTORNEY LEVY: Thank you.
` Q. (By Attorney Mays) Mr. Schmidt, I have
`handed you what I've previously marked as Defendant's
`
`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 305-3 Filed 02/02/24 Page 13 of 26 PageID #: 30361
`
`3/29/2023
`
`Wirtgen America Inc. v. Caterpillar Inc.
`Confidential - Attorneys' Eyes Only
`
`Jan Schmidt 30(b)(6)
`
`Page 65
`about the development process that -- I'm sorry. Let
`me restate that. I said the wrong entity.
` What information does Wirtgen America have
`about how the inventions claimed in the '871 patent
`went from concept to actual implementation in the
`machine? In other words, the specific steps and
`activities that Mr. Busley and Mr. Tewes took to
`implement those and get them working.
` A. The specific steps, we don't have direct
`information.
` Q. And same question with respect to Exhibit 16.
`What information does Wirtgen America have about how
`Mr. Busley and Mr. Tewes went from concept to
`implementation of the inventions in the '53 -- I'm
`sorry -- '530 patent? Same answer?
` A. Specific information, we do not have. Or I
`do not have.
` Q. Is your answer -- with regards to the
`question I just asked, is your answer the same with
`respect to all of Wirtgen America's asserted patents?
`In other words, Wirtgen America doesn't know how the
`inventors of those patents went from concept to
`
`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 305-3 Filed 02/02/24 Page 14 of 26 PageID #: 30362
`
`3/29/2023
`
`Wirtgen America Inc. v. Caterpillar Inc.
`Confidential - Attorneys' Eyes Only
`
`Jan Schmidt 30(b)(6)
`
`Page 68
`
` Q. What is Wirtgen America's basis for
`contending that the '592 patent is entitled to the
`filing date of German patent 10 2005 044 211?
` ATTORNEY LEVY: Objection. Form.
` A. I have not seen that patent, so I can't speak
`to that.
` Q. (By Attorney Mays) Has Wirtgen America ever
`reviewed the German '211 patent listed on the face of
`the '592 patent?
` A. I have not.
` Q. We can set that aside.
` Mr. Schmidt, I'm handing you what's been
`previously marked as Defendant's Exhibit 19 and a copy
`to counsel. This is United States Patent 7,946,788.
` Do you see that, Mr. Schmidt?
` A. B2. Yes.
` Q. And the '788 patent, which is also
`Exhibit 19, do you see that there are three individuals
`listed as inventors? Jaroslaw Jurasz, Gunter Hahn and
`Gunter Tewes? Do you see that?
` A. Yes, I do.
` Q. Do you know who the first individual listed
`
`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 305-3 Filed 02/02/24 Page 15 of 26 PageID #: 30363
`
`3/29/2023
`
`Wirtgen America Inc. v. Caterpillar Inc.
`Confidential - Attorneys' Eyes Only
`
`Jan Schmidt 30(b)(6)
`
`Page 69
`
`as an inventor is?
` A. I do not.
` Q. And Gunter Hahn, that's Dr. Hahn that we've
`been speaking about a little bit earlier?
` A. Yes.
` Q. And in preparing for your testimony today on
`topic 4, you didn't speak with Gunter Hahn, correct?
` A. I did not.
` Q. He's still employed by Wirtgen GmbH?
` A. Yes, he is.
` Q. Presumably, you could have called him if you
`felt you needed to, though, correct?
` ATTORNEY LEVY: Objection. Form.
` A. His availability is severely limited, but I
`could have tried to set up a conference call.
` Q. (By Attorney Mays) Do you have any or does
`Wirtgen America have any specific knowledge about how
`Mr. Jurasz, Dr. Hahn or Mr. Tewes conceived of the
`specific claimed inventions of the '788 patent?
` A. Other than I'm going to refer to my previous
`statements, but specific knowledge, I do not, we do
`not.
`
`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 305-3 Filed 02/02/24 Page 16 of 26 PageID #: 30364
`
`3/29/2023
`
`Wirtgen America Inc. v. Caterpillar Inc.
`Confidential - Attorneys' Eyes Only
`
`Jan Schmidt 30(b)(6)
`
`Page 70
`
` Q. And Wirtgen America does not have any
`specific knowledge from Dr. Hahn himself regarding how
`he believes he conceived of these ideas, does it?
` A. That's correct.
` Q. And in terms of moving from conception to
`actual implementation in a machine, what specific
`information does Wirtgen America have regarding how
`these claims of the '788 patent came to be implemented?
` A. So we saw some early forms of this grade
`control system that allowed parallel use of two
`different sensors by turning one into standby mode and
`setting it or calibrating it while the other sensor was
`still live and then just being able to switch that over
`early on. And then obviously we were trained and shown
`how to utilize that functionality so that we could turn
`around and train our dealers and end users in how to
`use the functionality.
` Q. And about when did you see these early forms
`of the grade control system?
` A. I don't recall.
` Q. Could it have been before 2006?
` A. No, I don't think so.
`
`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 305-3 Filed 02/02/24 Page 17 of 26 PageID #: 30365
`
`3/29/2023
`
`Wirtgen America Inc. v. Caterpillar Inc.
`Confidential - Attorneys' Eyes Only
`
`Jan Schmidt 30(b)(6)
`
`Page 84
`nugget of conception regarding the ideas claimed in the
`'474 patent, correct?
` ATTORNEY LEVY: Objection. Form.
` A. Let me review the specific invention. Make
`sure that is the case.
` Q. (By Attorney Mays) And while you're doing
`that, you've not seen this patent before today; is that
`correct?
` A. I have not.
` Yeah. I would refer to my previous answers.
` Q. And just so the record's clear, my -- because
`I had kind of stepped on your toes, so to speak.
` Wirtgen America does not know how Jaroslav
`Jurasz first had the nugget of the conception regarding
`the ideas conceived in the '474 patent, correct?
` ATTORNEY LEVY: Objection. Form.
` A. We do not.
` Q. (By Attorney Mays) And Wirtgen America does
`not know how Dr. Hahn had the nugget of conception
`regarding the ideas conceived in the -- or claimed in
`the '474 patent, correct?
` ATTORNEY LEVY: 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 305-3 Filed 02/02/24 Page 18 of 26 PageID #: 30366
`
`3/29/2023
`
`Wirtgen America Inc. v. Caterpillar Inc.
`Confidential - Attorneys' Eyes Only
`
`Jan Schmidt 30(b)(6)
`
`Page 85
` A. Other than what I've already previously
`stipulated, we don't have any specific knowledge of
`what day and when he decided to pursue this.
` Q. (By Attorney Mays) And Wirtgen America does
`not have any knowledge about how Gunter Tewes had the
`nugget of conception of the ideas claimed in the '474
`patent, correct?
` A. Same answer.
` Q. And Wirtgen America does not have information
`regarding the development process for the ideas claimed
`in the '474 patent, correct?
` A. Can you repeat that?
` Q. Wirtgen America does not have information
`regarding the specific development process that the
`inventors followed in reducing the claimed ideas of the
`'474 patent to practice, correct?
` A. If you're referring to, again, a day-to-day
`progress, no, but we certainly had an understanding of
`the concept and its, let's say, generational
`development.
` Q. When you say "generational development," what
`do you mean by 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 305-3 Filed 02/02/24 Page 19 of 26 PageID #: 30367
`
`3/29/2023
`
`Wirtgen America Inc. v. Caterpillar Inc.
`Confidential - Attorneys' Eyes Only
`
`Jan Schmidt 30(b)(6)
`
`Page 86
` A. Well, where you go from idea or inception or
`conception, concept, whatever, to, okay, how do we --
`what do we -- what part of the idea do we implement?
`How far do we go with it? How can we make it work?
`And then how do we make it easily usable? And then how
`do we verify that it does what we need it to do and is
`reliable?
` Q. I'm handing you what has been previously
`marked as Defendant's Exhibit 22 with a copy to
`counsel.
` And, Mr. Schmidt, Exhibit 22 is a U.S. patent
`labeled 7,530,641. Three inventors listed. One is a
`Christian Berning. I believe we've already spoken
`about him.
` Then there's a Herbert Lange. Do you see
`that?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Do you know who Herbert Lange is?
` A. He's an engineer.
` Q. Is he still employed with Wirtgen GmbH?
` A. I'm not sure.
` Q. Is he employed by any Wirtgen Group entity?
`
`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 305-3 Filed 02/02/24 Page 20 of 26 PageID #: 30368
`
`3/29/2023
`
`Wirtgen America Inc. v. Caterpillar Inc.
`Confidential - Attorneys' Eyes Only
`
`Jan Schmidt 30(b)(6)
`
`Page 88
`the drum off, wait till the drum came to a complete
`stop. Then being able to back up. Then having to
`reengage the clutch again, waiting for it to come up to
`speed before you could sit down.
` So I mean that -- again, that was a
`conversation for many, many years prior to probably
`this being invented or being applied for.
` Q. (By Attorney Mays) Okay. And did those
`conversations actually involve Christian Berning?
` A. They would have involved Dieter Simons for
`sure, and at some point in time, they would have
`involved Christian.
` Q. And so Wirtgen America's knowledge about how
`Christian Berning conceived of the claimed ideas is
`based on these conversations; is that right?
` ATTORNEY LEVY: Objection. Form.
` A. Not only the conversations, but also the
`product that was developed and tested and different
`iterations of the final solution provided for different
`types of milling machines.
` Q. (By Attorney Mays) Maybe we're getting
`conflated here. I'm not asking about the development
`
`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 305-3 Filed 02/02/24 Page 21 of 26 PageID #: 30369
`
`3/29/2023
`
`Wirtgen America Inc. v. Caterpillar Inc.
`Confidential - Attorneys' Eyes Only
`
`Jan Schmidt 30(b)(6)
`
`Page 89
`and the testing of the final solution. I'm asking
`about again what knowledge does Wirtgen America have
`about how Christian Berning came up with that nugget of
`conception, the very first idea of conception?
` ATTORNEY LEVY: Objection. Form.
` A. I'm not Christian Berning, so I can't speak
`to that.
` Q. (By Attorney Mays) And same question. How
`did Herbert Lange first have that nugget of conception
`regarding the ideas claimed in the '641 patent?
` A. Same answer.
` Q. And is the answer the same with respect to
`Dieter Simons?
` A. It is.
` Q. Okay. And to the best of your knowledge, is
`that answer the same with respect to all the various
`patents that Wirtgen America is asserting in this case?
` A. I'd rather not give a general answer.
` Q. Okay. What knowledge does Wirtgen America
`have about the development process going from
`conception to reduction to practice of the ideas
`claimed in the '641 patent?
`
`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 305-3 Filed 02/02/24 Page 22 of 26 PageID #: 30370
`
`3/29/2023
`
`Wirtgen America Inc. v. Caterpillar Inc.
`Confidential - Attorneys' Eyes Only
`
`Jan Schmidt 30(b)(6)
`
`Page 91
` And I'm handing you what's been previously
`marked as Defendant's Exhibit 23, United States Patent
`7,828,309.
` Mr. Schmidt, I'm going to basically be asking
`you the same questions as before so --
` Well, first, do we know who -- or does
`Wirtgen America know who Markus Schäfer is?
` A. I do not.
` Q. Wirtgen America doesn't know one way or
`another whether Markus Schäfer is still employed --
` A. I do not.
` Q. -- at Wirtgen?
` So same questions as before. How did
`Christian Berning first have the nugget of conception
`regarding the ideas claimed in the '309 patent?
` ATTORNEY LEVY: Objection. Form.
` A. So this is another subject that had regular
`or frequent dialogue amongst many individuals within
`the Wirtgen Group global organization, including the
`factories, about the ability to keep a machine from
`operating outside of safe operational limits when it
`came to excessive slope or grades that it was exposed
`
`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 305-3 Filed 02/02/24 Page 23 of 26 PageID #: 30371
`
`3/29/2023
`
`Wirtgen America Inc. v. Caterpillar Inc.
`Confidential - Attorneys' Eyes Only
`
`Jan Schmidt 30(b)(6)
`
`Page 100
` Q. And, Mr. Schmidt, do you remember the time
`frame of those conversations?
` A. Probably early -- late '90s, early 2000s.
`But I'm --
` Q. Does Wirtgen America have any other knowledge
`regarding how the claims of the '268 patent were
`conceived?
` A. No.
` Q. And does Wirtgen America have any other
`information regarding how the inventors went from
`conception to actually getting the invention to work?
` A. No.
` Q. We can set that aside.
` Handing you what's been previously marked as
`United States -- or I'm sorry -- Defendant's
`Exhibit 27. Sorry. Copy for counsel. United States
`Patent 9,879,391.
` And one question for you, Mr. Schmidt. I
`think you said before that Christian Berning is still
`with Wirtgen. Is that correct?
` A. That is correct.
` Q. But you haven't had any conversations with
`
`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 305-3 Filed 02/02/24 Page 24 of 26 PageID #: 30372
`
`3/29/2023
`
`Wirtgen America Inc. v. Caterpillar Inc.
`Confidential - Attorneys' Eyes Only
`
`Jan Schmidt 30(b)(6)
`
`Page 109
`
`tool.
` Q. And I'm not asking you about the benefits of
`the invention. I'm asking you how these individuals
`came up with the idea. And it sounds to me what you're
`saying is that Wirtgen America at least doesn't have
`the details about how these two first came up with this
`idea. Is that right?
` A. No. You asked me how they conceived of it,
`and I keep telling or answering the same. I can't tell
`you exact -- I'm not in their head. I don't know when
`they decided to act on this, but the subject, the
`accomplishments that were reached with the patent and
`the features that it enabled were conversations of --
`were the subject of many conversations within our
`community.
` Q. And again, I'm not asking about conversations
`that might have happened in the community. I'm asking
`about these particular individuals. How did these
`particular individuals come up with the idea claimed in
`the '972 patent?
` A. I can't speak to that.
` Q. And are you aware of any -- let me rephrase
`
`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 305-3 Filed 02/02/24 Page 25 of 26 PageID #: 30373
`
`3/29/2023
`
`Wirtgen America Inc. v. Caterpillar Inc.
`Confidential - Attorneys' Eyes Only
`
`Jan Schmidt 30(b)(6)
`
` C E R T I F I C A T E
`
`Page 258
`
` I, Virginia Dodge, Registered Diplomate
`Reporter and Tennessee Licensed Court Reporter and
`Notary Public, do hereby certify that I recorded to the
`best of my skill and ability by machine shorthand the
`deposition contained herein, that same was reduced to
`computer transcription by myself, and that the
`foregoing is a true, accurate and complete transcript
`of the deposition testimony heard in this cause.
` I further certify that the witness was first
`duly sworn by me and that I am not an attorney or
`counsel of any of the parties, nor a relative or
`employee of any attorney or counsel connected with the
`action, nor financially interested in the action.
` This 6th day of April, 2023.
`
` ___________________________________
` Virginia Dodge
` My Commission Expires: 8/23/2026
` Tennessee LCR No. 734, Exp: 6/30/24
` Tennessee CCR No. 0499, Exp: 6/30/24
` RDR/CRR #835835
`
`1
`
`23
`
`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 305-3 Filed 02/02/24 Page 26 of 26 PageID #: 30374
`
`3/29/2023
`
`Wirtgen America Inc. v. Caterpillar Inc.
`Confidential - Attorneys' Eyes Only
`
`Jan Schmidt 30(b)(6)
`
`Page 259
`
` Jan Schmidt 30(b)(6), c/o
` Patterson Intellectual Property Law, P.C.
` 1600 Division Street, Suite 500
` Nashville, TN 37203
`
` Case: Wirtgen America Inc. v. Caterpillar Inc.
` Date of deposition: March 29, 2023
` Deponent: Jan Schmidt 30(b)(6)
`
` Please be advised that the transcript in the above
` referenced matter is now complete and ready for signature.
` The deponent may come to this office to sign the transcript,
` a copy may be purchased for the witness to review and sign,
` or the deponent and/or counsel may waive the option of
` signing. Please advise us of the option selected.
` Please forward the errata sheet and the original signed
` signature page to counsel noticing the deposition, noting
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
