Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 366 Filed 04/12/24 Page 1 of 28 PageID #: 33277
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`C.A. No. 17-770-JDW
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`)))))))))
`
`WIRTGEN AMERICA, INC.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`CATERPILLAR INC.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`CATERPILLAR INC.’S PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT
`AND PROPOSED CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
`
`Bindu A. Palapura (#5370)
`Andrew L. Brown (#6766)
`POTTER ANDERSON & CORROON LLP
`Hercules Plaza, 6th Floor
`1313 N. Market Street
`Wilmington, Delaware 19801
`Tel: (302) 984-6000
`bpalapura@potteranderson.com
`abrown@potteranderson.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendant Caterpillar Inc.
`
`OF COUNSEL:
`
`James C. Yoon
`Ryan R. Smith
`Christopher D. Mays
`WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI, P.C.
`650 Page Mill Road
`Palo Alto, CA 94304
`Tel: (650) 493-9300
`
`Lucy Yen
`Cassie Leigh Black
`WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI, P.C.
`1301 Avenue of the Americas, 40th Floor
`New York, NY 10019
`Tel: (212) 999-5800
`
`Matthew A. Macdonald
`Neil N. Desai
`Naoya Son
`Alex J. Turner
`WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI, P.C.
`953 E. 3rd St., #100
`Los Angeles, California 90013
`Tel: (323) 210-2900
`
`Dated: April 12, 2024
`11445393/11898.00005
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 366 Filed 04/12/24 Page 2 of 28 PageID #: 33278
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`CATERPILLAR’S PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT ................................................................1
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`WIRTGEN TOOK INCONSISTENT POSITIONS ON THE ’309 PATENT ....................1
`A.
`The ’309 Patent ........................................................................................................1
`B.
`Before the Patent Office, Wirtgen Successfully Argued that the Four-
`Sided Stability Pattern Is Not Inherent ....................................................................2
`At Trial, Wirtgen Argued that the Four-Sided Stability Is Inherent ........................3
`C.
`WIRTGEN UNREASONABLY DELAYED IN SEEKING ’530 PATENT
`CLAIMS COVERING LEGS THAT ARE NOT EACH INDIVIDUALLY
`ADJUSTABLE ....................................................................................................................4
`A.
`Caterpillar’s Legacy Machines ................................................................................5
`B.
`The ’530 Patent Family ............................................................................................5
`C.
`Caterpillar’s PM600 Series Cold Planers ................................................................6
`III. WIRTGEN’S REISSUED ’268 PATENT CLAIMS SIGNIFICANTLY
`POSTDATE CATERPILLAR’S SUBSTANTIAL INVESTMENT IN THE
`DEVELOPMENT OF PM600 AND PM800 MACHINES .................................................7
`A.
`The Predecessor ’659 Patent and the Reissued ’268 Patent ....................................8
`INVALIDATED CLAIM 1 OF THE ’395 PATENT IS INDISTINGUISHABLE
`FROM CLAIM 5 OF THE ’788 PATENT UNDER WIRTGEN’S
`INFRINGEMENT THEORY ADVANCED AT TRIAL ....................................................8
`A.
`The ’395 and ’788 Patents .......................................................................................8
`B.
`Claim 5 of the ’788 Patent Presents the Identical Issue of Invalidity as
`Invalidated Claim 1 of the ’395 Patent ....................................................................9
`1.
`Claims 1 of the ’788 and’395 Patents Are Identical ................................... 9
`2.
`Claim 5 of the ’788 Patent Adds Only Obvious Limitations to
`Claim 1 of the ’788 Patent ........................................................................ 10
`CATERPILLAR’S PROPOSED CONCLUSIONS OF LAW ......................................................11
`
`IV.
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`WIRTGEN IS JUDICIALLY ESTOPPED FROM TAKING INCONSISTENT
`POSITIONS ON THE ’309 PATENT ...............................................................................12
`A.
`Legal Standards for Judicial Estoppel ....................................................................12
`B.
`The Patent Office Adopted Wirtgen’s Prior Position, and Bad Faith Can
`Be Inferred .............................................................................................................13
`Judicial Estoppel Is Tailored to Address the Harm ...............................................14
`C.
`THE ’530 PATENT IS UNENFORCEABLE DUE TO PROSECUTION
`LACHES ............................................................................................................................14
`A.
`Legal Standards for Prosecution Laches ................................................................14
`B.
`Wirtgen’s Delay in Prosecuting Broadened Claims for the ’530 Patent
`Was Unreasonable .................................................................................................15
`
`-i-
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 366 Filed 04/12/24 Page 3 of 28 PageID #: 33279
`
`Caterpillar Suffered Prejudice Attributable to Wirtgen’s Delay ............................17
`C.
`THE ’268 PATENT IS UNENFORCEABLE AGAINST CATERPILLAR
`BECAUSE OF EQUITABLE INTERVENING RIGHTS ................................................18
`A.
`Legal Standards for Equitable Intervening Rights .................................................18
`B.
`Caterpillar Launched New Products in Good Faith and Has Intervening
`Rights .....................................................................................................................19
`COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL BARS WIRTGEN FROM ASSERTING CLAIM 5
`OF THE ’788 PATENT .....................................................................................................20
`A.
`Legal Standards for Collateral Estoppel ................................................................20
`B.
`Claim 5 of the ’788 Patent Adds Only Obvious, Legally Immaterial
`Limitations to Claim 1 of the ’788 Patent ..............................................................21
`CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................................22
`
`III.
`
`IV.
`
`V.
`
`-ii-
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 366 Filed 04/12/24 Page 4 of 28 PageID #: 33280
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`CASES
`
`Akamai Techs. v. Limelight Networks,
`805 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2015)..........................................................................................11
`Aspex Eyewear, Inc. v. Marchon Eyewear, Inc.,
`672 F.3d 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2012)..........................................................................................20
`BIC Leisure Prod. v. Windsurfing Int’l,
`1 F.3d 1214 (Fed. Cir. 1993)..............................................................................................19
`Biogen Int’l GmbH v. Amneal Pharms. LLC,
`487 F. Supp. 3d 254 (D. Del. 2020) .............................................................................19. 20
`Biogen Int’l GmbH v. Mylan Pharms. Inc.,
`No. 1:17-cv-116, 2020 WL 3317105 (N.D. W.Va. June 18, 2020) ...................................11
`Cancer Research Tech. Ltd. v. Barr Labs., Inc.,
`625 F.3d 724 (Fed Cir. 2010).............................................................................................14
`Caterpillar Inc. v. Wirtgen Am., Inc.,
`Case No. 19-2294, D.I. 79 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 3, 2021) .............................................................3
`Eberle v. Harris,
`No. 03-cv-5809 (FLW), 2010 WL 6281563 (D.N.J. June 30, 2010).................................18
`Eli Lilly & Co. v. Hospira, Inc.,
`933 F.3d 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2019)..........................................................................................17
`Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co.,
`535 U.S. 722 (2002) ...........................................................................................................14
`Google LLC v. Hammond Dev. Int’l, Inc.,
`54 F.4th 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2022) ..........................................................................................20
`Hyatt v. Hirshfeld,
`998 F.3d 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2021)..............................................................................13, 14, 16
`IMEG Corp. v. Patel,
`C.A. No. 20-111-CFC, 2021 WL 184407 (D. Del. Jan. 19, 2021) ....................................13
`John Bean Techs. Corp. v. Morris & Assocs., Inc.,
`No. 4:14-CV-00368-BRW, 2019 WL 7176779 (E.D. Ark. Sept. 23, 2019),
`aff’d, 988 F.3d 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2021) ..........................................................................17, 18
`Krystal Cadillac-Oldsmobile GMC Truck, Inc. v. GMC.,
`337 F.3d 314 (3d Cir. 2003)...............................................................................................11
`
`-iii-
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 366 Filed 04/12/24 Page 5 of 28 PageID #: 33281
`
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007) .............................................................................................................9
`Miller v. Brass Co.,
`104 U.S. 350 (1881) ...........................................................................................................13
`Montrose Med. Grp. v. Bulger,
`243 F.3d 773 (3d Cir. 2001)...............................................................................................12
`New Hampshire v. Maine,
`532 U.S. 742 (2001) ...........................................................................................................11
`Ohio Willow Wood Co. v. Alps South.,
`LLC, 735 F.3d 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2013) ................................................................................20
`Par Pharm., Inc. v. TWi Pharms., Inc.,
`773 F.3d 1186 (Fed. Cir. 2014)............................................................................................4
`Personalized Media Commc’ns, LLC v. Apple Inc.,
`57 F.4th 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2023) ..........................................................................................14
`Predicate Logic, Inc. v. Distributive Software, Inc.,
`544 F.3d 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2008)..........................................................................................19
`Reiffin v. Microsoft Corp.,
`270 F. Supp. 2d 1132 (N.D. Cal. 2003) .................................................................14, 15, 16
`Shire Labs, Inc. v. Corepharma, LLC,
`No. CIV. A. 06-2266 SRC, 2008 WL 4822186 (D.N.J. Nov. 3, 2008) .......................12, 13
`Sonos, Inc. v. Google LLC,
`No. C 20-06754 WHA, 2023 WL 6542320 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 6, 2023) .........................15, 16
`Trs. in Bankr. of N. Am. Rubber Thread Co. v. United States,
`593 F.3d 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2010)..........................................................................................11
`Trs. of Columbia Univ. in N.Y. v. NortonLifeLock, Inc.,
`No. 3:13-CV-808, 2019 WL 7040931 (E.D. Va. Dec. 20, 2019) ......................................12
`U.S. Ethernet Innovations, LLC v. Tex. Instruments Inc.,
`No. 6:11-cv-491, 2014 WL 2740383 (E.D. Tex. June 15, 2014) ......................................12
`Wang Labs., Inc. v. Applied Comp. Scis., Inc.,
`958 F.2d 355 (Fed. Cir. 1992)............................................................................................11
`Webster Elec. Co. v. Splitdorf Elec. Co.,
`264 U.S. 463 (1924) ...........................................................................................................13
`Woodbridge v. United States,
`263 U.S. 50 (1923) .............................................................................................................13
`STATUTES
`35 U.S.C. § 252 ..............................................................................................................................17
`
`-iv-
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 366 Filed 04/12/24 Page 6 of 28 PageID #: 33282
`
`CATERPILLAR’S PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT
`
`I.
`
`WIRTGEN TOOK INCONSISTENT POSITIONS ON THE ’309 PATENT
`
`A.
`
`1.
`
`The ’309 Patent
`
`When a typical roadbuilding machine travels over an obstacle with only one wheel,
`
`that wheel (and its supporting cylinder) may be raised by the obstacle, causing instability. See
`
`Engelmann Decl. ¶¶ 3, 8.1 The ’309 patent purports to provide an improved suspension system
`
`whereby all four supporting cylinders are “positive[ly] couple[d]” so that, when going over an
`
`obstacle, they all adjust in response: “the left front wheel and the right rear wheel are adjusted in
`
`height in the opposite direction to the right front wheel and the left rear wheel, the left front wheel
`
`and the right rear wheel being adjusted in height in the same direction.” Ex. 382 (’309 patent) at
`
`6:54-59. The ’309 patent goes on to explain that this positive coupling results in an enhanced,
`
`four-sided stability pattern, as depicted in Figure 7:
`
`1 The Engelmann Decl. is incorporated by reference in its entirety.
`2 Exhibit citations refer to the exhibits attached to the Declaration of Naoya Son in Support of
`Caterpillar’s Opening Brief on Estoppel Defenses.
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 366 Filed 04/12/24 Page 7 of 28 PageID #: 33283
`
`B.
`
`2.
`
`Before the Patent Office, Wirtgen Successfully Argued that the Four-Sided
`Stability Pattern Is Not Inherent
`
`Caterpillar brought an IPR challenge to the ’309 patent based on the combination
`
`of two prior art sources: Swisher (which disclosed a road milling machine) and Neumeier (which
`
`disclosed a front loader machine with the four-way positively coupled actuating members, or
`
`cylinders, as described in claim 26 of the ’309 patent). Caterpillar argued that a POSA would have
`
`been motivated to modify a road milling machine to incorporate Neumeier’s hydraulic cylinder
`
`system.
`
`3.
`
`To address the four-sided-stability pattern depicted in the ’309 patent, Caterpillar
`
`argued that this was an inherent feature of the ’309 patent’s four-way positive coupling described
`
`above. See id. at 6:54-59.
`
`4.
`
`In response, Wirtgen argued that the four-sided stability pattern was not inherent:
`
`[T]he ’309 patent does not acknowledge the claim feature is inherent. Caterpillar
`selectively relies on the ’309 patent’s teachings, ignoring those teachings that show
`the missing element is not necessarily present. The ’309 patent states that “[i]f all
`of the actuating members are designed identically … the height adjustment takes
`place essentially by equal amounts on all the wheels.” [’309 patent] 2:55-58. But
`the ’309 patent adds that this is only theoretical “on the precondition that, for
`example, the machine frame is indefinitely rigid, the contact area is totally
`inflexible and the oil is fully incompressible.” [Id.] at 2:58-63. “In practice,
`however, minor deviations cannot be avoided.” [Id.] at 2:63-64. Deviations will
`influence the tilting behavior, and thus the stability pattern, of the road-building
`machine. [Id.] 2:64-67. Caterpillar ignored these factors in making its inherency
`argument.
`
`Ex. 1 (’309 POS) at 47-48.34
`
`5.
`
`The Patent Office accepted Wirtgen’s non-inherency arguments. Although the
`
`Patent Office found claim 26 (describing the four-way positive coupling) of the ’309 patent
`
`3 All emphases are added unless otherwise noted.
`4 Along the same lines, Wirtgen pointed to “Caterpillar’s European patent EP 0940274 B1
`(‘Bitelli’) [which] show[ed] that the location of a stability pattern’s apex between two coupled
`cylinders is not inherent.” Id.
`
`-2-
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 366 Filed 04/12/24 Page 8 of 28 PageID #: 33284
`
`obvious, see Ex. 12 (IPR2017-02185 Final Written Decision) at 42, it sided with Wirtgen on claim
`
`29, endorsing Wirtgen’s non-inherency theory: “While it is possible that the proposed
`
`Swisher/Neumeier combination may have a four-sided stability pattern as recited in [claim 29], a
`
`mere possibility is not enough . . . a preponderance of the evidence does not establish that the
`
`Swisher/Neumeier combination inherently has a four-sided stability pattern . . . .” Id. at 54-55.
`
`The Federal Circuit affirmed this finding. See Caterpillar Inc. v. Wirtgen Am., Inc., Case No. 19-
`
`2294, D.I. 79 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 3, 2021) (Judgment).
`
`C.
`
`6.
`
`At Trial, Wirtgen Argued that the Four-Sided Stability Is Inherent
`
`At the trial in this case, Wirtgen adopted a wholly different position. Without any
`
`supporting testimony from inventors or engineers, Wirtgen presented its entire infringement case
`
`for the “four-sided stability” limitation of the ’309 patent through a single conclusory opinion of
`
`its technical expert, Dr. John Lumkes:
`
`Q. Professor, when the ride control is active, could you explain why this
`is in fact four-sided stability pattern?
`
`A. So when the ride control is active and those lines are hooked together,
`and one cylinder has to move up and one cylinder has to move down, it
`creates a four-sided stability pattern that is shown here. […]
`
`Q. […] How do you determine whether the four-sided stability pattern
`having a widest transverse dimension transverse to the forward direction of
`the chassis fell within the footprint of Wirtgen rotor?
`
`A. Yes. So I was provided a CAD, or I think you have heard the term in
`here, computer-aided design file, a complete parts drawing of the machine,
`that parts file model, computer model machine and all the dimensions of the
`machine. From that, I was able to determine the stability pattern, it has to
`occur at the midpoints of the legs, since all the cylinders are equal value,
`one goes up and one goes down, it's going to pivot and that is going to cause
`that pivot point to be in the middle of those legs. Whether it goes up and
`down, that’s the pivoting access of the drawing, the diagram of the center
`of the point between the front legs, the front to back legs and the rear legs,
`you get that triangular shape, from that CAD file it has all these documents
`in there, you see those midpoint lines, draw the stability pattern or the four-
`side shape and actually look on the CAD file and say yes, it does or doesn't
`
`-3-
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 366 Filed 04/12/24 Page 9 of 28 PageID #: 33285
`
`fall within the working rotor.
`
`D.I. 353 (Trial Tr.) at 595:14-596:24. Dr. Lumkes concluded that “since all the cylinders [i.e., the
`
`actuating members] are equal value,” the accused machines must have a four-sided stability
`
`pattern. He did no testing to verify that Caterpillar’s machines in fact had that stability pattern: he
`
`did not verify that the “machine frame is indefinitely rigid,” that “the contact area is totally
`
`inflexible,” or that “the oil is fully incompressible.” Cf. Ex. 1 (’309 POS) at 47-48. Nor did he do
`
`anything to rule out the possibility of “[d]eviations . . . influenc[ing] the tilting behavior and thus
`
`the stability pattern” of the PM600 series. Id. Instead, he stated that because the cylinders were
`
`allegedly “of equal value,” the four-way stability pattern “necessarily must be present.” See
`
`Pharma., 773 F.3d at 1195-96. That is precisely the opposite of what Wirtgen advocated before
`
`the Patent Office.
`
`II. WIRTGEN UNREASONABLY DELAYED IN SEEKING ’530 PATENT CLAIMS
`COVERING LEGS THAT ARE NOT EACH INDIVIDUALLY ADJUSTABLE
`
`7.
`
`Wirtgen held out to the world for over a decade that its purported lifting column
`
`invention required each machine’s legs to be individually adjustable. Nearly a decade later, after
`
`Wirtgen continued to file multiple serial applications on this invention, nearly a year after
`
`Caterpillar launched a new product (having invested many millions of dollars on development),
`
`and nine days after Wirtgen acquired and undertook unknown analysis of Caterpillar’s new cold
`
`planer, Wirtgen broadened its claimed invention to cover machines with legs that are not
`
`individually adjustable:
`
`-4-
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 366 Filed 04/12/24 Page 10 of 28 PageID #: 33286
`
`A.
`
`8.
`
`Caterpillar’s Legacy Machines
`
`Since the 1990s, two of Caterpillar’s machines – the PM465 and PM565 – had rear
`
`legs that raised and lowered together “with a single manual toggle switch” and were not
`
`individually adjustable. See Engelmann Decl. ¶¶ 2-4; Ex. 2 (CAT-770_065297) at 065409
`
`(PM565); see also Ex. 3 (CAT-770_048408) at 048412 (PM465: “There is a single raise solenoid
`
`and a single lower solenoid for simultaneously controlling both rear legs.”). Wirtgen knew about
`
`Caterpillar’s leg design; Wirtgen’s machines competed against both the PM465 and PM565 in the
`
`1990s, Ex. 4 (Wiley 2023 Dep. Tr.) at 106:16-19, and Wirtgen took some of Caterpillar’s machines
`
`in trade. See id. at 330:6-20.
`
`B.
`
`9.
`
`The ’530 Patent Family
`
`The ’530 patent is the youngest member of a three-patent family that includes
`
`the ’592 patent and the ’871 patent (collectively, the ’530 Family).5 Each patent claims the general
`
`components of a road construction machine such as a machine frame, a milling drum, and ground
`
`engaging supports with telescoping legs (or cylinders) that may be adjusted. According to Wirtgen,
`
`its invention was the inclusion of leg sensors inside the cylinders. The applications for these
`
`patents were initiated over 15 years ago: (1) the ’592 patent application on March 12, 2008; (2)
`
`5 The ’530 Patent Family also relies on an International Application filed September 12, 2006, and
`two German patent applications filed in September 2005. See Ex. 6 (’592 patent cover page).
`
`-5-
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 366 Filed 04/12/24 Page 11 of 28 PageID #: 33287
`
`the ’871 patent application on January 17, 2012; and (3) the ’530 patent application on April 10,
`
`2015.
`
`10.
`
`During the initial ’530 application and for all claims granted in the ’592 and ’871
`
`patents, Wirtgen limited its claims to require that each leg of the road construction machine was
`
`“individually adjustable.” See Ex. 5 (’592 FH Sept. 28, 2010 office action response); Ex. 6 (’592
`
`patent) at claim 1; Ex. 7 (’871 patent at claim 1); Ex. 8 (’530 FH 2015-04-10 filing); Ex. 9 (’530
`
`2015-07-31 preliminary amendment); Ex. 10 (’530 2016-12-22 preliminary amendment); Ex. 11
`
`(’530 2017-01-17 amendment) at 2.
`
`11.
`
`This limitation came early during the prosecution of the first application in the
`
`family (the ’592 patent) after the Patent Office cited a Caterpillar prior art patent application
`
`(Davis) disclosing Caterpillar’s design with legs that are linked “so that they act together as if they
`
`were a single central jack.” See Ex. 39 (’592 file history June 3, 2010 office action) at 4-5; Ex. 13
`
`(Davis] at ¶ 0033, claim 4. In response, Wirtgen added the modifier “each” to the existing
`
`“individually adjustable” language, thereby narrowing the claim. See Ex. 5 (’592 FH Sept. 28,
`
`2010 office action response) at 4-5.
`
`C.
`
`12.
`
`Caterpillar’s PM600 Series Cold Planers
`
`In 2016, eight years after Wirtgen filed for the first patent in the ’530 Family and
`
`while the ’530 patent application was pending, Caterpillar announced the release of a new
`
`generation of cold planer machines that included its accused PM620 and PM622 products. See
`
`Engelmann Decl. ¶¶ 5-8; Ex. 14 (November 2016 press release).6 As with Caterpillar’s earlier
`
`machines, the rear legs of the PM620 and PM622 are not each “individually adjustable” because
`
`6 Although not yet released, the PM800 series was fully designed and nearing its future release
`date at the time the ’530 claims were broadened. Like the PM600 series, Caterpillar had already
`invested millions of dollars and thousands of hours in the PM800 series at the time the ’530 claims
`were unexpectedly broadened. See Engelmann Decl. ¶¶ 6-7.
`
`-6-
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 366 Filed 04/12/24 Page 12 of 28 PageID #: 33288
`
`they raise or lower “in unison.” See id.; Ex. 15 (CAT0004149) at 4159. As such, on the day they
`
`were released, these machines did not infringe either the ’592 or ’871 patent, and were not covered
`
`by the claim language of the then-pending ’530 application.
`
`13.
`
`In December 2016, Wirtgen bought a PM620. See Exs. 26-27 (Trial Exs. 5241,
`
`5244) (“The Caterpillar showed up today”); Ex. 16 (Wiley 2018 ITC Dep. Tr.) at 142:17-144:17.7
`
`Then, on March 14, 2017, Wirtgen bought another one of the accused machines – this time a
`
`PM622 from Europe. See Ex. 29 (Trial Ex. 5295) (“RE: Cat 622” “Bernd bought one from a
`
`customer”). Nine days later, after inspecting and undertaking other unknown analysis, Wirtgen
`
`made a broadening amendment in the ’530 patent application, for the very first time dropping the
`
`requirement that the legs be “individually adjustable.” Ex. 17 (2017-03-23 office action) at 2
`
`(striking out “individually”). Under the broadened claim, each claimed machine’s legs need only
`
`be “adjustable,” not “individually adjustable.”
`
`14.
`
`The change was significant, and the timing suggests that Wirtgen did it to target
`
`Caterpillar’s new products after their release into the market. This is clear because Wirtgen could
`
`have attempted to include the broader claims from the ’530 patent in the predecessor patent
`
`applications, but never did so until a new generation of cold planers launched.
`
`III. WIRTGEN’S REISSUED ’268 PATENT CLAIMS SIGNIFICANTLY POSTDATE
`CATERPILLAR’S SUBSTANTIAL INVESTMENT IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF
`PM600 AND PM800 MACHINES
`
`15.
`
`Because the jury found the only asserted claim of the ’268 patent (claim 32) to be
`
`invalid and not infringed, the Court need only consider enforceability if it overturns the jury’s
`
`verdict in response to any JMOL motion filed by Wirtgen.
`
`7 Wirtgen obtained a third Caterpillar machine on November 28, 2017. See Ex. 28 (Trial Ex.
`5294).
`
`-7-
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 366 Filed 04/12/24 Page 13 of 28 PageID #: 33289
`
`A.
`
`16.
`
`The Predecessor ’659 Patent and the Reissued ’268 Patent
`
`The ’268 Patent, issued on October 20, 2020, is a reissue of the ’659 Patent, issued
`
`on April 2, 2013. Ex. 20 (’268 Patent) at 1. In this litigation, Wirtgen asserted claim 32 (which
`
`depends on claim 14) against Caterpillar. In litigation between the parties in Italy, Wirtgen’s claim
`
`1 of EP ’004 – which is comparable to original claim 14 from predecessor ’659 patent – was
`
`invalidated over Caterpillar’s PM565 machine. See Klopp Decl. ¶¶ 8-14 (summarizing
`
`proceedings in Italy)8; id. at ¶ 15, Table 1 (comparing claim language); Ex. 21 (’268 FH excerpts
`
`(Milan Action – Court Appointed Expert’s Final Opinion) (WA-0013562)) at -645 (“the PM565
`
`machine deprives [claim 1 of] EP 004 of novelty”).
`
`17.
`
`Subsequently, on March 23, 2018, Wirtgen filed the reissue application. During
`
`trial, Wirtgen’s expert admitted that Wirtgen filed the ’268 patent to narrow the claims from
`
`the ’659 patent and avoid Caterpillar’s PM465 and PM565 machines. See D.I. 354 (Trial Tr.) at
`
`823:16-824:4 (acknowledging that Wirtgen “narrow[ed] the patent because [it] found out about
`
`the PM465 and the PM565”).
`
`IV.
`
`INVALIDATED CLAIM 1 OF THE ’395 PATENT IS INDISTINGUISHABLE
`FROM CLAIM 5 OF THE ’788 PATENT UNDER WIRTGEN’S
`INFRINGEMENT THEORY ADVANCED AT TRIAL
`
`A.
`
`18.
`
`The ’395 and ’788 Patents
`
`The ’395 and ’788 patents both relate to a sensor-switching feature. The ’395 patent
`
`is a “child” patent of the ’788 patent. See Smith Decl. ¶ 5 n.7.9 Thus, the two patents share a
`
`common specification and common inventors. See id. ¶ 19. Additionally, as discussed in greater
`
`detail below, certain of the claims are substantively identical.
`
`8 The Klopp Decl. is incorporated by reference in its entirety.
`9 The Smith Decl. is incorporated by reference in its entirety.
`
`-8-
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 366 Filed 04/12/24 Page 14 of 28 PageID #: 33290
`
`19.
`
`On May 24, 2018, Caterpillar filed an IPR petition challenging the validity of claim
`
`1 and other claims of the ’395 Patent over the prior art references Davis and Brabec. See Ex. 25
`
`(Case No. IPR2018-01091-2) at 24-40. On November 27, 2019, the PTO issued a Final Written
`
`Decision invalidating claim 1 and several other claims of the ’395 patent as obvious. See Ex. 23
`
`(Case No. IPR2018-01091-49) at 20-41; Smith Decl. ¶ 18.
`
`B.
`
`Claim 5 of the ’788 Patent Presents the Identical Issue of Invalidity as
`Invalidated Claim 1 of the ’395 Patent
`
`1.
`
`Claims 1 of the ’788 and’395 Patents Are Identical
`
`20.
`
`As a preliminary matter, because asserted claim 5 of the ’788 patent depends on
`
`claim 1, the analysis begins there. As explained in detail in Dr. Smith’s declaration and as
`
`demonstrated below, claim 1 of the ’788 patent and claim 1 of the ’395 patent recite the same
`
`structural components, and any differences in language are superficial and materially insignificant.
`
`See Smith Decl. ¶¶ 18-49.
`
`-9-
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 366 Filed 04/12/24 Page 15 of 28 PageID #: 33291
`
`Smith Decl. ¶ 23, Fig. 1 (annotated). Based on an element-by-element comparison, Dr. Smith
`
`concluded that “the device recited by claim 1 of the ’395 patent is at least substantially the same
`
`(if not identical) to the device recited by claim 1 of the ’788 patent.” Id. at ¶ 48. Dr. Smith further
`
`concluded that “to the extent that the Court finds that the devices recited by claim 1 of the ’395
`
`patent and claim 1 of the ’788 patent are not identical or substantially the same, the device recited
`
`by the ’395 patent would certainly have been obvious to a PHOSITA in view of the ’788 Patent
`
`specification and claims.”10 Id. at ¶ 49.
`
`2.
`
`Claim 5 of the ’788 Patent Adds Only Obvious Limitations to Claim 1
`of the ’788 Patent
`
`21.
`
`Claim 5 of the ’788 patent, which depends on claim 1, reads as follows:
`
`10 “The ultimate issue of obviousness is a legal determination.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550
`U.S. 398, 427 (2007).
`
`-10-
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 366 Filed 04/12/24 Page 16 of 28 PageID #: 33292
`
`5. The road construction machine of claim 1, wherein:
`
`the switchover device and the one of the indication and setting devices associated
`with the replacement sensor are operable to pre-select the replacement sensor and
`to pre-set the operating parameter of the replacement sensor prior to effecting the
`switchover.
`
`As quoted above, claim 5 of the ’788 patent adds two limitations to claim 1 of the ’788 patent: (1)
`
`the ability to “pre-select” a replacement sensor and (ii) the ability to “pre-set” the sensor’s
`
`operating parameter. Id. ¶ 61. However, according to Wirtgen, those additional limitations are
`
`insignificant.
`
`22.
`
`In particular, to establish infringement at trial, Wirtgen’s expert witnesses (Drs.
`
`Rahn and Valerdi) testified that the additional limitations of claim 5 of the ’788 patent are met if
`
`at any point prior to the end of a sensor switchover the system selects or sets a replacement sensor.
`
`D.I. 354 (Trial Tr.) at 770:8-19, 773:4-6, 774:12-21, 769:12-14, 782:15-24, 820:7-821:13; Smith
`
`Decl. ¶¶ 66-73. In effect, Wirtgen’s expert replaced “pre-set” and “pre-select” with “set” and
`
`“select.” But claim 1 of the ’788 patent already includes requirements for “set[ting]” and
`
`“select[ing]” a sensor: “indication and setting devices being operable to . . . set a set value for the
`
`operation parameter sensed by it associated sensor” and “switchover from control based upon the
`
`first selected subset of selectable sensors to control based upon the second selected subset of
`
`selectable sensors” where “the second selected subset” includes “at least one replacement sensor.”
`
`See claim 1, ’788 patent.
`
`CATERPILLAR’S PROPOSED CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
`
`-11-
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 366 Filed 04/12/24 Page 17 of 28 PageID #: 33293
`
`I.
`
`WIRTGEN IS JUDICIALLY ESTOPPED FROM TAKING INCONSISTENT
`POSITIONS ON THE ’309 PATENT
`
`A.
`
`1.
`
`Legal Standards for Judicial Estoppel
`
`“[W]here a party assumes a certain position in a legal proceeding, and succeeds in
`
`maintaining that position, he may not thereafter, simply because his interests have changed, assume
`
`a contrary position, especially if it be to the prejudice of the party who has acquiesced in the
`
`position formerly taken by him.” New Hampshire v. Maine, 532 U.S. 742, 749 (2001). This rule
`
`applies equally to positions taken before an agency (including the patent office). See Trs. in Bankr.
`
`of N. Am. Rubber Thread Co. v. United States, 593 F.3d 1346, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2010); Biogen Int’l
`
`GmbH v. Mylan Pharms. Inc., No. 1:17-cv-116, 2020 WL 3317105, at *8 n.15 (N.D. W.Va. June
`
`18, 2020) (applying judicial estoppel to IPR proceedings). The Third Circuit11 looks at various
`
`factors in evaluating judicial estoppel, including whether the party’s position is clearly inconsistent
`
`with an earlier position, whether the party changing position would obtain an unfair advantage
`
`from the change in position, and whether judicial estoppel would be tailore