throbber
Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 307-1 Filed 02/02/24 Page 1 of 5 PageID #: 30472
`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 307-1 Filed 02/02/24 Page 1 of 5 PagelD #: 30472
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT 8
`EXHIBIT 8
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 307-1 Filed 02/02/24 Page 2 of 5 PageID #: 30473
`
`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 307-1 Filed 02/02/24 Page 3 of 5 PageID #: 30474
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
`
`using a tilt table.135 Testimony supports this understanding of the document from which
`
`Dr. Lumkes extracted Figure 20.136
`
`Figure 21. Additional context provided in the remainder of the document referenced
`by Dr. Lumkes regarding the alleged diamond-shaped stability pattern.
`
`75.
`
`Dr. Lumkes’ analysis lacks valid references and calculations regarding the nature, shape,
`
`and placement of the stability pattern of the Accused Products. Accordingly, Dr. Lumkes
`
`has not shown that the Large Milling Machines practice each and every element of Claim
`
`29 for at least the reasons described above.
`
`135 CAT_00055857, p. 8/13.
`136 Deposition of Jeffrey Hoyle, taken March 16, 2023, p. 167:15-19.
`40
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
`2111403.000 - 1791
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 307-1 Filed 02/02/24 Page 4 of 5 PageID #: 30475
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
`
`VI. Non-Infringing Alternatives
`
`76.
`
`I understand that that the International Trade Commission found that Caterpillar infringed
`
`Claims 29 and 36 of the ’309 Patent137,138 and issued a Limited Exclusion Order139
`
`preventing Caterpillar from importing PM600 and PM800 series machines that possessed
`
`the Ride Control feature. I understand that the International Trade Commission found that
`
`Caterpillar did not infringe Claim 10 of the ’309 Patent.140
`
`77.
`
`I understand that Caterpillar considered two alternatives to comply with the exclusion
`
`order. The first alternative involved adding accumulators to the hydraulic circuit.141 The
`
`second alternative involved removal of the hydraulic circuit components that enact the Ride
`
`Control feature.142
`
`78.
`
`I understand that Caterpillar chose the second alternative and removed the Ride Control
`
`feature. I understand that the Ride Control feature was removed during production of the
`
`02A build of the PM600 and PM800 series machines.143,144 I understand that Wirtgen
`
`America is not asserting that the PM600 and PM800 series machines without Ride Control
`
`infringe Claims 10 and 29 of the Asserted Patent. I inspected Caterpillar PM600 and
`
`PM800 series build 02B machines produced without Ride Control,
`
`including
`
`Representative Product PM622 02B. See Section IV.A.2.
`
`137 Eric Engelmann Exhibit 36, p. 79/446.
`138 Eric Engelmann Exhibit 36, p. 84/446.
`139 EXPONENT_0005572.
`140 Eric Engelmann Exhibit 36, p. 72/446.
`141 Deposition of Eric Engelmann Vol. II, taken March 17, 2023, p. 364:2-7.
`142 Deposition of Eric Engelmann Vol. II, taken March 17, 2023, p. 367:12-16.
`143 Deposition of Eric Engelmann Vol. I, taken March 16, 2023, p. 31:5-12.
`144 Jeffrey Hoyle Exhibit 1.
`
`41
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
`2111403.000 - 1791
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 307-1 Filed 02/02/24 Page 5 of 5 PageID #: 30476
`
`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
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

throbber

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket