Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 307-8 Filed 02/02/24 Page 1 of 16 PageID #: 30538
`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 307-8 Filed 02/02/24 Page 1 of 16 PagelD #: 30538
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT 15
`EXHIBIT 15
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 307-8 Filed 02/02/24 Page 2 of 16 PageID #: 30539
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
` C.A. No. 17-770-JDW-MPT
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL-
`OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS’ EYES
`ONLY
`
`) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
`
`WIRTGEN AMERICA, INC.,
`
`Plaintiff/Counterclaim-Defendant,
`
`v.
`
`CATERPILLAR INC.,
`
`Defendant/Counterclaim-Plaintiff.
`
`CATERPILLAR INC.’S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO
`WIRTGEN AMERICA, INC.’S SECOND SET OF INTERROGATORIES (NOS. 23-26
`AND 29)
`
`Pursuant to Rules 26 and 33 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules
`
`of the United States District Court for the District of Delaware (“Local Rules”), Defendant and
`
`Counterclaim-Plaintiff Caterpillar Inc. (“Caterpillar”) hereby supplements its responses to Plaintiff
`
`and Counterclaim-Defendant Wirtgen America, Inc.’s (“Wirtgen America’s”) Second Set of
`
`Interrogatories (Nos. 23-26 and 29) as follows.
`
`RESERVATION OF RIGHTS
`
`Caterpillar’s responses are based on information currently available to Caterpillar.
`
`Caterpillar reserves all rights to supplement, revise, and/or amend these responses should
`
`additional information become available through the discovery process or by other means.
`
`Caterpillar also reserves the right to produce or use any information or documents that are
`
`discovered after service of these responses in support of or in opposition to any motion, in
`
`depositions, or at hearings or trial. In responding to Wirtgen America’s Second Set of
`
`Interrogatories, Caterpillar does not waive any objection on the grounds of privilege,
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 307-8 Filed 02/02/24 Page 3 of 16 PageID #: 30540
`
`Brodie Hutchins, Tim Lewis, Brad McKinney, and Jeff Wiley, and other deposition transcripts and
`
`related exhibits from proceedings between the parties.
`
`Caterpillar also hereby incorporates its forthcoming expert reports and evidence cited
`
`therein.
`
`INTERROGATORY NO. 25: Set forth and describe in detail the factual and legal basis for Your
`Fourth Affirmative Defense that “Wirtgen America’s claims regarding the ’268 patent are barred
`or limited by the doctrine of absolute and equitable intervening rights.”
`
`RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 25:
`
`Caterpillar incorporates all of its general objections and reservations of rights as if
`
`specifically set forth herein. Caterpillar objects to this Interrogatory as overly broad and unduly
`
`burdensome as seeking information related to the requested materials regardless of relevance,
`
`volume, or time, and to the extent it seeks information that is not relevant to the claim or defense
`
`of any party and is not proportional to the needs of the case. Caterpillar objects to this Interrogatory
`
`to the extent it seeks information protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege and/or
`
`work-product doctrine, or any other applicable privilege or protection. Caterpillar further objects
`
`to the extent this Interrogatory seeks a legal conclusion. Caterpillar objects to this Interrogatory as
`
`premature to the extent it seeks information before Caterpillar is required to identify and provide
`
`such information in accordance with the Scheduling Order.
`
`Subject to and without waiving these objections, Caterpillar responds that Wirtgen
`
`America’s claims regarding the ’268 patent are barred or limited by the doctrine of absolute and
`
`equitable intervening rights. Caterpillar incorporates by reference its allegations in Paragraphs 36-
`
`64 of Caterpillar’s Counterclaims (D.I. 62), dated November 18, 2021, as if fully set forth herein.
`
`Caterpillar further responds that its investigation and discovery are ongoing, and it reserves
`
`the right to amend, modify, or supplement this response as new information becomes available in
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 307-8 Filed 02/02/24 Page 4 of 16 PageID #: 30541
`
`accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Local Rules of this Court, and the
`
`Scheduling Order (D.I. 28) entered by the Court.
`
`SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 25:
`
`Subject to and without waiving the foregoing oObjections, Caterpillar supplements its
`
`response as follows: Caterpillar contends that Wirtgen America’s claims regarding Patent No.
`
`RE48,268 are barred or limited by the doctrine of absolute and equitable intervening rights because
`
`Caterpillar had already developed or was in the process of developing its Accused Products prior
`
`to the reissuance of Patent No. RE48,268. Wirtgen America’s unreasonable delay caused
`
`prejudice to Caterpillar.
`
`Caterpillar also hereby incorporates its forthcoming expert reports and evidence cited
`
`therein.
`
`INTERROGATORY NO. 26: Set forth and describe in detail the factual and legal basis for Your
`Sixth Affirmative Defense that “Wirtgen America’s claims are barred by one or more of the
`doctrines of estoppel, waiver, acquiescence, and unclean hands from enforcing, or claiming
`damages with respect to any claim of Wirtgen America’s Asserted Patents.”
`
`RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 26:
`
`Caterpillar incorporates all of its general objections and reservations of rights as if
`
`specifically set forth herein. Caterpillar objects to this Interrogatory as overly broad and unduly
`
`burdensome as seeking information related to the requested materials regardless of relevance,
`
`volume, or time, and to the extent it seeks information that is not relevant to the claim or defense
`
`of any party and is not proportional to the needs of the case. Caterpillar objects to this Interrogatory
`
`to the extent it seeks information protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege and/or
`
`work-product doctrine, or any other applicable privilege or protection. Caterpillar further objects
`
`to the extent this Interrogatory seeks a legal conclusion. Caterpillar objects to this Interrogatory as
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 307-8 Filed 02/02/24 Page 5 of 16 PageID #: 30542
`
`premature to the extent it seeks information before Caterpillar is required to identify and provide
`
`such information in accordance with the Scheduling Order.
`
`Subject to and without waiving these objections, Caterpillar responds that Wirtgen
`
`America’s claims are barred by one or more of the doctrines of estoppel, waiver, acquiescence,
`
`and unclean hands from enforcing, or claiming damages with respect to any claim of Wirtgen
`
`America’s Asserted Patents. Caterpillar incorporates by reference its allegations in Paragraphs 36-
`
`64 of Caterpillar’s Counterclaims (D.I. 62), dated November 18, 2021, as if fully set forth herein.
`
`Caterpillar also incorporates by reference its response to Interrogatory No. 23.
`
`Caterpillar further responds that its investigation and discovery are ongoing, and it reserves
`
`the right to amend, modify, or supplement this response as new information becomes available in
`
`accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Local Rules of this Court, and the
`
`Scheduling Order (D.I. 28) entered by the Court.
`
`SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 26:
`
`Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Caterpillar supplements its
`
`response as follows:
`
`Certain of Wirtgen America’s claims in this litigation are barred by collateral estoppel due
`
`to final written decisions by the Patent Trial and Appeals Board invalidating Wirtgen America’s
`
`patent claims, including, without limitation, IPR2017-02185 and IPR2017-02188, which found
`
`certain claims of Patent Nos. 7,828,309 and 9,656,530 unpatentable, and any other PTAB
`
`proceedings relating to the Asserted Patents. Additionally, Wirtgen America is estopped from
`
`asserting claims that have been denied in prior proceedings, including, without limitation, the
`
`United States International Trade Commission in Investigation No. 337-TA-1067 and Caterpillar
`
`Prodotti Stradali S.R.L. v. ITC, 847 F. App'x 893 (Fed. Cir. 2021). Wirtgen America is also
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 307-8 Filed 02/02/24 Page 6 of 16 PageID #: 30543
`
`estopped from relitigating issues from IPR2017-01091 (pertaining to U.S. Patent No. 8,308,395)
`
`as they apply to related patents asserted in this litigation claiming substantially the same invention.
`
`Wirtgen America has unclean hands for several reasons. First, when Wirtgen America
`
`filed the present U.S. lawsuit, which relates to U.S. patent rights and alleged infringement in the
`
`U.S., it sent an email proposing that Caterpillar remove the allegedly infringing features on a global
`
`basis. See CAT_00028534. Because Wirtgen America only has patent rights in the U.S., this
`
`proposal is an improper extension of its U.S. patent rights. Second, discovery in this matter has
`
`demonstrated that Wirtgen America has been improperly using Caterpillar’s confidential pricing
`
`information. See, e.g., WA-1320276 to WA-1320542; WA-0256368 to WA-0256754; WA-
`
`015037 to WA-0150454; see also, e.g., the Deposition Transcripts and Exhibits of Sandy Draper,
`
`James McEvoy, Brodie Hutchins, Tim Lewis, Brad McKinney, and Jeff Wiley; see also other
`
`deposition transcripts and related exhibits from proceedings between the parties.
`
`Caterpillar also hereby incorporates its forthcoming expert reports and evidence cited
`
`therein.
`
`INTERROGATORY NO. 29: For each Wirtgen America patent, explain the basis if any for
`Caterpillar’s contention that its infringement has not been willful and deliberate, and identify each
`person with knowledge of the foregoing and all documents, by Bates number, relating to the
`foregoing.
`
`RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 29:
`
`Caterpillar incorporates all of its general objections and reservations of rights as if
`
`specifically set forth herein. Caterpillar objects to this Interrogatory as overly broad and unduly
`
`burdensome as seeking information related to the requested materials regardless of relevance,
`
`volume, or time, and to the extent it seeks information that is not relevant to the claim or defense
`
`of any party and is not proportional to the needs of the case. Caterpillar objects to this Interrogatory
`
`to the extent it seeks information protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege and/or
`
`15
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 307-8 Filed 02/02/24 Page 7 of 16 PageID #: 30544
`
`work-product doctrine, or any other applicable privilege or protection. Caterpillar further objects
`
`to the extent this Interrogatory seeks a legal conclusion. Caterpillar objects to this Interrogatory as
`
`premature to the extent it seeks information before Caterpillar is required to identify and provide
`
`such information in accordance with the Scheduling Order.
`
`Subject to and without waiving these objections, Caterpillar responds as follows:
`
`Willfulness requires deliberate or intentional infringement. Eko Brands, LLC v. Adrian
`
`Rivera Maynez Enters., Inc., 946 F.3d 1367, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2020). To establish willfulness, a
`
`patentee must show that the accused infringer had a specific intent to infringe at the time of the
`
`challenged conduct. BASF Plant Sci., LP v. Commonwealth Sci. & Indus. Research Organisation,
`
`28 F.4th 1247, 1274 (Fed. Cir. 2022) (citing Bayer Healthcare LLC v. Baxalta Inc., 989 F.3d 964,
`
`987 (Fed. Cir. 2021)). “Knowledge of the asserted patent and evidence of infringement is
`
`necessary, but not sufficient, for a finding of willfulness.” Bayer Healthcare LLC v. Baxalta Inc.,
`
`989 F.3d 964, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2021). Willfulness “is generally measured against the knowledge of
`
`the actor at the time of the challenged conduct.” Halo Elecs., Inc. v. Pulse Elecs., Inc., 579 U.S.
`
`93, 105 (2016).
`
`Caterpillar served Interrogatory No. 4 on Wirtgen America seeking the factual bases for
`
`Wirtgen America’s “contention that Caterpillar has willfully infringed Wirtgen America’s
`
`Asserted Patents.” Wirtgen America’s response fails to show that Wirtgen America can meet its
`
`burden to show willfulness. Furthermore, Wirtgen America’s response is deficient for many
`
`reasons, including because it does not: (1) identify the timeframe(s) of the challenged conduct; (2)
`
`identify any specific patents or link any accused features to such patents; (3) explain how or why
`
`any features of any Wirtgen America machine are covered by any of Wirtgen America Asserted
`
`Patents; (4) provide any evidence of copying or reverse engineering; (5) analyze any specific
`
`16
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 307-8 Filed 02/02/24 Page 8 of 16 PageID #: 30545
`
`implementation of the accused features in Caterpillar’s machines; (6) account for Caterpillar’s
`
`independent development of its machines, including Caterpillar’s legacy machines with the same
`
`or similar features; and (7) account for prior art machines with the same or similar features. Given
`
`the deficiencies in Wirtgen America’s response, it is not possible for Caterpillar to provide a
`
`complete response to this Interrogatory at this time.
`
`Caterpillar was not aware of at least some of Wirtgen America’s Asserted Patents until
`
`Wirtgen America commenced this litigation. Additionally, some of the patents had not even issued
`
`until after Wirtgen America commenced this litigation.
`
`Wirtgen America’s references to Caterpillar’s purported teardowns of Wirtgen America’s
`
`machines do not support a finding of willfulness because Caterpillar did not copy or reverse
`
`engineer any patented implementation of a feature. Caterpillar engaged in teardowns of both its
`
`own machines and Wirtgen America’s machines for competitive benchmarking and cost
`
`estimation purposes, not copying or reverse engineering. Caterpillar independently developed the
`
`features that Wirtgen America has accused of infringement and did not use the specific
`
`implementation of any feature found in Wirtgen America’s machines or Wirtgen America’s
`
`Asserted Patents. In some instances, Caterpillar’s non-infringing implementation of an accused
`
`feature resulted in better performance than the comparable feature in Wirtgen America’s machines.
`
`See, e.g., Transcript of 2/28/23 Deposition of C. Steffen. Additionally, Caterpillar has received
`
`patents for at least some of the accused features that issued over Wirtgen America’s Asserted
`
`Patents (US 9,797,100; US 9,303,761; US 9,175,449; US 9,103,079; US 8,973,688; US 8,899,689;
`
`US 8,888,194; US 8,874,325; US 8,757,729; US 11,460,052; US 11,453,985; US 11,453,984; US
`
`11,255,059; US 11,225,761; US 11,220,796; US 11,105,051; US 11,091,887; US 11,041,276; US
`
`17
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 307-8 Filed 02/02/24 Page 9 of 16 PageID #: 30546
`
`11,015,305; US 10,975,535; US 10,876,260; US 10,844,557; US 10,776,638; US 10,662,590; US
`
`10,584,450; US 10,563,362; US 10,233,598; DE102021133144A1; DE102014001839A1).
`
`Wirtgen America’s reference to Voice of Customer surveys also does not support
`
`willfulness because Wirtgen America fails to show that any customer valued the specific
`
`implementation of any feature purportedly covered by Wirtgen America’s Asserted Patents, as
`
`opposed to a non-infringing and/or prior art implementation of the feature.
`
`Wirtgen America’s contentions regarding purported “patent search results documents” also
`
`does not support a finding of willfulness. See Bayer Healthcare LLC v. Baxalta Inc., 989 F.3d 964,
`
`988 (Fed. Cir. 2021). Moreover, Caterpillar has an Enterprise Policy regarding intellectual
`
`property rights that sets forth in part:
`
`Caterpillar respects the valid and enforceable IP rights of others and expects that
`others will respect Caterpillar's IP rights. Business Units shall inform Legal
`Services-IP of planned introduction of new technology, products, services and
`processes. Legal Services-IP shall review such new technology, products, services,
`and process for IP protection and the risk of infringement of the IP rights of others
`and take appropriate actions to obtain protection and manage risk.
`
`CAT-770_042848.
`
`Caterpillar has at all times had a good faith belief that it did not infringe any valid claim of
`
`Wirtgen America’s Asserted Patents. As explained above, for example, Caterpillar independently
`
`developed the accused features and did not copy them from Wirtgen America’s Asserted Patents
`
`or machines. Once Wirtgen America commenced this litigation, Caterpillar asserted both non-
`
`infringement and invalidity defenses against Wirtgen America’s Asserted Patents and other
`
`patents, including in this case and in ITC investigation No. 1067. Caterpillar also redesigned
`
`several features that were at issue during the ITC proceedings. Caterpillar requested and obtained
`
`rulings from U.S. Customs and Border Patrol that the redesigned features did not infringe Wirtgen
`
`America’s patents. Moreover, Caterpillar challenged several of Wirtgen America’s Asserted
`
`18
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 307-8 Filed 02/02/24 Page 10 of 16 PageID #: 30547
`
`Patents and other patents in IPR proceedings before the patent office. Each of those proceedings
`
`were instituted and many resulted in a final written decision invalidating Wirtgen America’s patent
`
`claims. E.g., IPR2017-02185, IPR2017-02188, IPR2018-01091, IPR2017-02186, IPR2017-
`
`02187. Other IPRs have been instituted and remain pending. E.g., IPR2022-01278, IPR2022-
`
`01310, IPR2022-01264, IPR2022-01277. Furthermore, Caterpillar has asserted noninfringement
`
`and invalidity defenses in patent proceedings pending in Italy. Caterpillar reserves the right to rely
`
`on all the foregoing proceedings, including the determinations and filing from such proceedings,
`
`to rebut Wirtgen America’s contention of willful infringement.
`
`Caterpillar and CTCT employees and former employees have knowledge regarding the
`
`foregoing, including Eric Engelmann, Nathan Just, Paul Koenen, Tim Lindholm, Tim Sturos, Jim
`
`Domanus, Dario Sansone, Mark Tarvin, Craig Steffen, Ben Schafer, and Daniel Killion.
`
`Caterpillar incorporates by reference its responses to Interrogatory Nos. 1, 19, and 20, as
`
`well as its Initial and Final Invalidity Contentions. Caterpillar may rely on the following
`
`documents and others to rebut willfulness:
`
`CAT_00001414
`
`CAT_00003791
`
`CAT_00010325
`
`CAT_00001463
`
`CAT_00005588
`
`CAT_00010655
`
`CAT_00001498
`
`CAT_00007022
`
`CAT_00010867
`
`CAT_00001598
`
`CAT_00008870
`
`CAT_00011713
`
`CAT_00001986
`
`CAT_00009134
`
`CAT_00012504
`
`CAT_00002111
`
`CAT_00009928
`
`CAT_00013247
`
`CAT_00003097
`
`CAT_00009931
`
`CAT_00014250
`
`CAT_00003319
`
`CAT_00010307
`
`CAT_00014367
`
`CAT_00003384
`
`CAT_00010309
`
`CAT_00014568
`
`19
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 307-8 Filed 02/02/24 Page 11 of 16 PageID #: 30548
`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 307-8 Filed 02/02/24 Page 11 of 16 PagelD #: 30548
`
`CAT_00015090
`CAT_00015090
`
`CAT00034834
`CAT_00034834
`
`CAT_00042502
`CAT_00042502
`
`CAT_00015725
`CAT_00015725
`
`CAT_00036589
`CAT_00036589
`
`CAT00042511
`CAT_00042511
`
`CAT_00015730
`CAT_00015730
`
`CAT00036614
`CAT_00036614
`
`CAT_00042552
`CAT_00042552
`
`CAT_00015761
`CAT_00015761
`
`CAT00037621
`CAT_00037621
`
`CAT_00042884
`CAT_00042884
`
`CAT_00018873
`CAT_00018873
`
`CAT00037623
`CAT_00037623
`
`CAT_00042887
`CAT_00042887
`
`CAT_00019243
`CAT_00019243
`
`CAT_00037669
`CAT_00037669
`
`CAT_00042888
`CAT_00042888
`
`CAT_00027867
`CAT_00027867
`
`CAT00037683
`CAT_00037683
`
`CAT_00042890
`CAT_00042890
`
`CAT_00027884
`CAT_00027884
`
`CAT00038129
`CAT_00038129
`
`CAT00042942
`CAT_00042942
`
`CAT_00029506
`CAT_00029506
`
`CAT00038133
`CAT_00038133
`
`CAT_00043083
`CAT_00043083
`
`CAT_00029508
`CAT_00029508
`
`CAT00038150
`CAT_00038150
`
`CAT_00043193
`CAT_00043193
`
`CAT_00029521
`CAT_00029521
`
`CAT00041187
`CAT_00041187
`
`CAT_00043982
`CAT_00043982
`
`CAT_00030911
`CAT_00030911
`
`CAT00041242
`CAT_00041242
`
`CAT_00046708
`CAT_00046708
`
`CAT_00033025
`CAT_00033025
`
`CAT00041243
`CAT_00041243
`
`CAT_00046710
`CAT_00046710
`
`CAT_00033755
`CAT_00033755
`
`CAT00041249
`CAT_00041249
`
`CAT_00049606
`CAT_00049606
`
`CAT_00033761
`CAT_00033761
`
`CAT00041251
`CAT_00041251
`
`CAT_00050984
`CAT_00050984
`
`CAT_00034038
`CAT_00034038
`
`CAT00041252
`CAT_00041252
`
`CAT_00053633
`CAT_00053633
`
`CAT_00034039
`CAT_00034039
`
`CAT00041253
`CAT_00041253
`
`CAT_00053635
`CAT_00053635
`
`CAT_00034040
`CAT_00034040
`
`CAT00041254
`CAT_00041254
`
`CAT_00053761
`CAT_00053761
`
`CAT_00034041
`CAT_00034041
`
`CAT00041258
`CAT_00041258
`
`CAT_00053762
`CAT_00053762
`
`CAT_00034359
`CAT_00034359
`
`CAT00042035
`CAT_00042035
`
`CAT_00053778
`CAT_00053778
`
`CAT_00034361
`CAT_00034361
`
`CAT00042482
`CAT_00042482
`
`CAT_00055744
`CAT_00055744
`
`CAT_00034792
`CAT_00034792
`
`CAT00042500
`CAT_00042500
`
`CAT_00055745
`CAT_00055745
`
`CAT00034820
`CAT_00034820
`
`CAT00042501
`CAT_00042501
`
`CAT00055787
`CAT_00055787
`
`20
`20
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 307-8 Filed 02/02/24 Page 12 of 16 PageID #: 30549
`
`CAT_00056220
`
`CAT0099138
`
`CAT0125478
`
`CAT_00061506
`
`CAT0112052
`
`CAT0125953
`
`CAT_00061567
`
`CAT0114017
`
`CAT0127253
`
`CAT_00062241
`
`CAT0114079
`
`CAT0128313
`
`CAT_00062258
`
`CAT0114722
`
`CAT0131852
`
`CAT_00087863
`
`CAT0115298
`
`CAT0131864
`
`CAT_0072141
`
`CAT0115700
`
`CAT-770_001209
`
`CAT_0115253
`
`CAT0115827
`
`CAT-770_001323
`
`CAT00052947
`
`CAT0115864
`
`CAT-770_001325
`
`CAT00108364
`
`CAT0115865
`
`CAT-770_001526
`
`CAT0018787
`
`CAT0115869
`
`CAT-770_001547
`
`CAT0033112
`
`CAT0115956
`
`CAT-770_012849
`
`CAT0053069
`
`CAT0116678
`
`CAT-770_026523
`
`CAT0053480
`
`CAT0116864
`
`CAT-770_026557
`
`CAT0058600
`
`CAT0116944
`
`CAT-770_028257
`
`CAT0087933
`
`CAT0117155
`
`CAT-770_029403
`
`CAT0088667
`
`CAT0117240
`
`CAT-770_030634
`
`CAT0097759
`
`CAT0123583
`
`CAT-770_042848
`
`CAT0097763
`
`CAT0124812
`
`Caterpillar further responds that its investigation and discovery are ongoing, and it reserves
`
`the right to amend, modify, or supplement this response as new information becomes available in
`
`accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Local Rules of this Court, and the
`
`Scheduling Order (D.I. 28) entered by the Court.
`
`21
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 307-8 Filed 02/02/24 Page 13 of 16 PageID #: 30550
`
`SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 29:
`
`Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Caterpillar supplements its
`
`response as follows: In addition to the foregoing, Caterpillar also makes the following contentions
`
`regarding its lack of willful infringement:
`
`Wirtgen America lacks evidence that Caterpillar ever knew or should have known of the
`
`Asserted Patents and that the Accused Products, including any redesigns, were infringing.
`
` Wirtgen America failed to give Caterpillar pre-suit notice of Wirtgen America’s
`
`allegations regarding infringement. Wirtgen America either gave Caterpillar (1) no pre-suit notice
`
`whatsoever, (2) an unreasonably short pre-suit notice, or (3) a legally deficient pre-suit notice by
`
`either failing to identify its allegations of infringement or failing to identify the products it alleged
`
`violate the patents. See Wirtgen America’s Response to Caterpillar’s Interrogatory No. 4 and the
`
`Deposition Transcript of Jan Schmidt.
`
`Any conduct that Wirtgen America alleges as indicating willful infringement is consistent
`
`with industry standard practice and not indicative of willful intent. See Deposition Transcript of
`
`Jan Schmidt. Indeed, Wirtgen America itself purchased and analyzed Caterpillar products.
`
`Where Caterpillar has been found to infringe a patent, it has promptly redesigned its
`
`machines to avoid infringement, further demonstrating that Caterpillar is respectful of others’
`
`intellectual property rights. For example, Caterpillar has redesigned several features that were at
`
`issue during the ITC proceedings, as discussed above.
`
`Caterpillar also believes that it independently invented the technology of its own milling
`
`machines, as evidenced by the fact that Caterpillar has had a number of patents issue over Wirtgen
`
`America’s Asserted Patents. For example, the discussion above indicates that Caterpillar received
`
`patents on at least some of the accused features that issued over Wirtgen America’s Asserted
`
`Patents.
`
`- 22 -
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 307-8 Filed 02/02/24 Page 14 of 16 PageID #: 30551
`
`Caterpillar witnesses have testified that they personally had a good faith belief that (1) the
`
`accused Caterpillar designs were different than what is claimed in Wirtgen America’s Asserted
`
`Patents, and (2) that Caterpillar complied with its IP policy and culture of respecting the intellectual
`
`property of others, including the Enterprise Policy regarding intellectual property rights quoted in
`
`part above. See, e.g., Deposition Transcripts and Exhibits of James Aardema, Eric Engelmann,
`
`David Falcione, Corey Hanback, Jeff Hoyle, Nathan Just, Daniel Killion, Nathan Mashek, Jason
`
`Muir, Conwell “Bud” Rife, Dario Sansone, Ben Schafer, Craig Steffen, Mark Tarvin, and Jason
`
`Wilson. CAT_00010867 is also an example of Caterpillar respecting its IP Policy: In this email
`
`chain, Caterpillar employees discussed how their new milling machine, the PM600, should control
`
`grade. When it was suggested that Caterpillar should perform this task in a manner similar to
`
`Wirtgen America, Mark Tarvin instructs his colleagues not to use Wirtgen America’s method
`
`because of Wirtgen America’s patent rights.
`
`Caterpillar had good-faith belief in the invalidity of Wirtgen America’s Asserted Patents.
`
`Evidence of such good-faith belief includes that Caterpillar has secured decisions from the ITC
`
`and the PTAB that have found that (1) Wirtgen America’s patent claims are invalid, or (2)
`
`Caterpillar does not infringe Wirtgen America’s patents. These include the matters referenced
`
`above, such as the listed IPR decisions invalidating Wirtgen America’s patent claims, ITC
`
`investigation No. 1067, and rulings from U.S. Customs and Border Patrol that Caterpillar’s
`
`redesigned features did not infringe Wirtgen America’s patents. All of these decisions indicate
`
`that Caterpillar at all times has had reasonable and good-faith defenses against Wirtgen America’s
`
`infringement claims, including the defenses Caterpillar asserts in the present matter.
`
` The fact that, four years after initiating this litigation, Wirtgen America filed an Amended
`
`Complaint that withdrew its claims that Caterpillar infringes U.S. Patent Nos. 8,308,395,
`
`- 23 -
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 307-8 Filed 02/02/24 Page 15 of 16 PageID #: 30552
`
`9,624,628, and 9,644,340 shows that even Wirtgen America recognizes that infringement
`
`allegations against Caterpillar are not strong, and that Caterpillar has identified strong defenses.
`
`Caterpillar further states that it is Wirtgen America’s burden to prove willfulness.
`
`Caterpillar reserves the right to rely on or rebut any evidence presented by Wirtgen America even
`
`if such reliance or rebuttal comes from documents or evidence not specifically cited herein.
`
`Caterpillar also hereby incorporates its forthcoming expert reports and evidence cited
`
`therein.
`
`Dated: April 7, 2023
`
`WILSON SONSINI GOODRISH ROSATI,
`Professional Corporation
`
`/s/ Ian R. Liston
`Ian R. Liston (#5507)
`Jennifer A. Ward (#6476)
`222 Delaware Avenue, Suite 800
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`(302) 304-7600
`iliston@wsgr.com
`jward@wsgr.com
`
`James C. Yoon
`Ryan R. Smith
`Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, P.C.
`650 Page Mill Road
`Palo Alto, CA 94304
`Tel: (650) 493-9300
`jyoon@wsgr.com
`rsmith@wsgr.com
`
`Lucy Yen
`Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, P.C.
`1301 Avenue of the Americas, 40th Floor
`New York, NY 10019
`Tel: (212) 999-5800
`lyen@wsgr.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendant Caterpillar Inc.
`
`- 24 -
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 307-8 Filed 02/02/24 Page 16 of 16 PageID #: 30553
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that on April 7, 2023, a true and correct copy of the foregoing document
`
`was served via electronic mail upon all counsel of record as follows:
`
`Ryan D. Levy
`Seth R. Ogden
`William E. Sekyi
`Scott M. Douglass
`Dominic A. Rota
`Mark A. Kilgore
`John F. Triggs
`PATTERSON INTELLECTUAL
`PROPERTY
`LAW, P.C.
`1600 Division Street, Suite 500
`Nashville, TN 37203
`rdl@iplawgroup.com
`sro@iplawgroup.com
`wes@iplawgroup.com
`smd@iplawgroup.com
`dar@iplawgroup.com
`mak@iplawgroup.com
`jft@iplawgroup.com
`
`Adam W. Poff
`Pilar G. Kraman
`YOUNG CONAWAY STARGATT &
`TAYLOR, LLP
`Rodney Square
`1000 North King Street
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`apoff@ycst.com
`pkraman@ycst.com
`
`Daniel E. Yonan
`Paul A. Ainsworth
`R. Wilson Powers III
`Kyle E. Conklin
`Deirdre M. Wells
`Davin B. Guinn
`Joseph H. Kim
`STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX,
`PLLC
`1100 New York Ave., NW, Suite 600
`Washington, DC 20005
`dyonan@sternekessler.com
`painsworth@sternekessler.com
`tpowers@sternekessler.com
`kconklin@sternekessler.com
`dwells@sternekessler.com
`dguinn@sternekessler.com
`josephk@sternekessler.com
`
`/s/ Ian R. Liston
`
`Ian R. Liston
`
`- 25 -
`
`