Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 372 Filed 04/26/24 Page 1 of 34 PageID #: 34391
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`WIRTGEN AMERICA, INC.
`
`
`Plaintiff/Counterclaim-
`Defendant,
`v.
`
`CATERPILLAR INC.
`
`Defendant/Counterclaim
`Plaintiff.
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 17-770-JDW
`
`
`
`PLAINTIFF’S OPENING BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF
`MOTIONS FOR ENHANCED DAMAGES, ATTORNEYS’ FEES,
`INJUNCTION OR ONGOING ROYALTIES, AND OTHER RELIEF
`
`
`
`YOUNG CONAWAY STARGATT &
`TAYLOR, LLP
`
`Adam W. Poff (No. 3990)
`Samantha G. Wilson (No. 5816)
`Rodney Square
`1000 North King Street
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`(302) 571-6600
`apoff@ycst.com
`swilson@ycst.com
`
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff Wirtgen America, Inc.
`
`Dated: April 26, 2024
`
`OF COUNSEL:
`
`Ryan D. Levy
`Seth R. Ogden
`William E. Sekyi
`Mark A. Kilgore
`PATTERSON INTELLECTUAL
`PROPERTY LAW, P.C.
`1600 Division Street, Suite 500
`Nashville, Tennessee 37203
`(615) 242-2400
`rdl@iplawgroup.com
`sro@iplawgroup.com
`wes@iplawgroup.com
`mak@iplawgroup.com
`
`
`- and -
`
`
`Daniel E. Yonan
`Paul A. Ainsworth
`STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C.
`1101 K Street, NW, 10th Floor
`Washington, DC 20005
`(202) 371-2600
`dyonan@sternekessler.com
`painsworth@sternekessler.com
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 372 Filed 04/26/24 Page 2 of 34 PageID #: 34392
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`II.
`III.
`
`IV.
`V.
`
`VI.
`
`
`
`
`
`C.
`
`D.
`E.
`
`F.
`
`G.
`
`The Court should award Wirtgen enhanced damages. ........................................................ 2
`A.
`Caterpillar directly copied Wirtgen’s inventions (Read Factor 1). ........................ 3
`B.
`Caterpillar had no good-faith belief that the asserted claims were invalid or
`not infringed (Read Factor 2). ................................................................................. 5
`Caterpillar’s litigation behavior and its assertion of meritless arguments
`support enhancing damages (Read Factors 3 and 5). .............................................. 7
`Caterpillar’s size supports enhancing damages (Read Factor 4). ........................... 9
`The duration of Caterpillar’s infringement supports enhancing damages
`(Read Factor 6). ...................................................................................................... 9
`The lack of remedial actions taken by Caterpillar supports enhancing
`damages (Read Factor 7). ..................................................................................... 10
`Caterpillar was motivated to undercut Wirtgen in the cold planer machine
`industry to gain market share (Read Factor 8). ..................................................... 12
`This case is exceptional, justifying an award of Wirtgen’s reasonable attorneys’ fees. ... 14
`The Court should enjoin Caterpillar’s infringement. ........................................................ 15
`A. Wirtgen will be irreparably harmed absent an injunction because it directly
`competes with Caterpillar in the cold planer machine and rotary mixer
`markets (eBay Factor 1). ...................................................................................... 16
`Damages cannot compensate for the future harm Caterpillar’s continued
`infringement will cause (eBay Factor 2). ............................................................. 18
`The balance of hardships favors an injunction (eBay Factor 3). .......................... 20
`C.
`An injunction furthers the public interest (eBay Factor 4). .................................. 21
`D.
`Should it deny injunctive relief, the Court should award an ongoing royalty. ................. 21
`Supplemental damages and prejudgment and post-judgment interest are warranted
`for Wirtgen as the prevailing party. .................................................................................. 23
`Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 25
`
`B.
`
`
`
`- i -
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 372 Filed 04/26/24 Page 3 of 34 PageID #: 34393
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cases
`
`Acumed LLC v. Stryker Corp.,
`551 F.3d 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2008)................................................................................................19
`
`Allen Archery, Inc. v. Browning Mfg. Co.,
`898 F.2d 787 (Fed. Cir. 1990)..................................................................................................24
`
`Amado v. Microsoft Corp.,
`517 F.3d 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2008)................................................................................................22
`
`Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co.,
`735 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2013)................................................................................................16
`
`Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co.,
`809 F.3d 633 (Fed. Cir. 2015)......................................................................................16, 19, 21
`
`Applera Corp. v. MJ Rsch. Inc.,
`372 F. Supp. 2d 233 (D. Conn. 2005) ......................................................................................12
`
`ArcherDX, LLC v. Qiagen Scis., LLC,
`C.A. No. 18-1019, 2022 WL 4597877 (D. Del. Sept. 30, 2022) .........................................9, 24
`
`Arctic Cat Inc. v. Bombardier Recreational Prods., Inc.,
`No. 14-cv-62369, 2017 WL 7732873 (S.D. Fla. Jan. 3, 2017),
`aff’d, 876 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ......................................................................................23
`
`Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc. v. W.L. Gore & Assocs., Inc.,
`670 F.3d 1171 (Fed. Cir. 2012)................................................................................................14
`
`Bayer Healthcare LLC v. Baxalta Inc.,
`No. 16-cv-1122, 2019 WL 4016235 (D. Del. Aug. 26, 2019) ...........................................15, 24
`
`Broadcom Corp. v. Qualcomm Inc.,
`543 F.3d 683 (Fed. Cir. 2008)..................................................................................................21
`
`Douglas Dynamics, LLC v. Buyers Prods. Co.,
`717 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2013)................................................................................................18
`
`EagleView Techs., Inc. v. Xactware Sols., Inc.,
`522 F. Supp. 3d 40 (D.N.J. 2021) ............................................................................................13
`
`Eaves v. Cnty. of Cape May,
`239 F.3d 527 (3d Cir. 2001).....................................................................................................25
`
`
`
`- ii -
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 372 Filed 04/26/24 Page 4 of 34 PageID #: 34394
`
`eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C.,
`547 U.S. 388 (2006) ...........................................................................................................15, 18
`
`Energy Transp. Grp., Inc. v. William Demant Holding A/S,
`697 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2012)................................................................................................24
`
`Gen. Motors. Corp. v. Devex Corp.,
`461 U.S. 648 (1983) .................................................................................................................24
`
`Georgetown Rail Equip. Co. v. Holland L.P.,
`867 F.3d 1229 (Fed. Cir. 2017)..................................................................................................3
`
`Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1 v. TCL Commc’n Tech. Holdings Ltd.,
`C.A. No. 15-634, 2019 WL 1877189 (D. Del.) .......................................................................24
`
`Halo Elecs., Inc. v. Pulse Elecs., Inc.,
`579 U.S. 93 (2016) .....................................................................................................................3
`
`Hologic, Inc. v. Minerva Surgical, Inc.,
`957 F.3d 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2020)................................................................................................25
`
`i4i Ltd. P’ship v. Microsoft Corp.,
`598 F.3d 831 (Fed. Cir. 2010)..................................................................................................18
`
`Mass Engineered Design, Inc. v. Ergotron, Inc.,
`633 F. Supp. 2d 361 (E.D. Tex. 2009) .....................................................................................21
`
`Metalcraft of Mayville, Inc. v. The Toro Company,
`848 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2017)................................................................................................21
`
`nCUBE Corp. v. SeaChange Int’l, Inc.,
`313 F. Supp. 2d 361 (D. Del. 2004),
`aff’d, 436 F.3d 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ..................................................................................9, 13
`
`Novozymes A/S v. Genencor Int’l, Inc.,
`474 F. Supp. 2d 592 (D. Del. 2007) .........................................................................................12
`
`Octane Fitness, LLC v. ICON Health & Fitness, Inc.,
`572 U.S. 545 (2014) .................................................................................................................14
`
`Paice LLC v. Toyota Motor Corp.,
`504 F.3d 1293 (Fed. Cir. 2007)................................................................................................22
`
`Power Integrations, Inc. v. Fairchild Semiconductor Int’l, Inc.,
`711 F.3d 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2013)................................................................................................23
`
`Presidio Components, Inc. v. Am. Tech. Ceramics Corp.,
`702 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2012)................................................................................................16
`
`
`
`- iii -
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 372 Filed 04/26/24 Page 5 of 34 PageID #: 34395
`
`Purewick Corp. v. Sage Prods., LLC,
`666 F. Supp. 3d 419 (D. Del. 2023) .........................................................................................24
`
`Read Corp. v. Portec, Inc.,
`970 F.2d 816 (Fed. Cir. 1992)............................................................................3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 12
`
`Robert Bosch LLC v. Pylon Mfg. Corp.,
`659 F.3d 1142 (Fed. Cir. 2011)..........................................................................................15, 20
`
`Saint-Gobain Autover USA, Inc. v. Xinyi Glass N. Am., Inc.,
`707 F. Supp. 2d 737 (N.D. Ohio 2010) ....................................................................................14
`
`Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH v. Glenmark Pharms. Inc., USA,
`821 F. Supp. 2d 681 (D.N.J. 2011) ..........................................................................................19
`
`Shire Viropharma Inc. v. CSL Behring LLC,
`C.A. No. 17-414, 2021 WL 1227097 (D. Del. Mar. 31, 2021)..................................................8
`
`Spectralytics, Inc. v. Cordis Corp.,
`649 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2011)..................................................................................................6
`
`St. Clair Intell. Prop. Consultants, Inc. v. Fuji Photo Film Co., Ltd.,
`674 F. Supp. 2d 555 (D. Del. 2009) .........................................................................................25
`
`Telcordia Techs., Inc. v. Cisco Sys., Inc.,
`C.A. No. 04-876, 2014 WL 1457797 (D. Del. Apr. 14, 2014) ................................................22
`
`Vanda Pharms. Inc. v. Roxane Labs., Inc.,
`C.A. No. 13-1973, 2016 WL 4490701 (D. Del. Aug. 25, 2016) .............................................21
`
`WBIP, LLC v. Kohler Co.,
`C.A. No. 11-10374, 2014 WL 585854 (D. Mass. Feb. 12, 2014), aff’d, 829
`F.3d 1317, 1339–42 (Fed. Cir. 2016).........................................................................................3
`
`WhitServe, LLC v. Comput. Packages, Inc.,
`694 F.3d 10 (Fed. Cir. 2012)....................................................................................................23
`
`Wonderland Switzerland AG v. Evenflo Co.,
`No. 1:20-cv-00727, 2023 WL 4098571 (D. Del. June 7, 2023) ........................................16, 20
`
`Wonderland Switzerland AG v. Evenflo Co.,
`No. 1:20-cv-00727, 2023 WL 5497918 (D. Del. July 24, 2023) .............................................24
`
`Statutes
`
`28 U.S.C. § 1961 ............................................................................................................................25
`
`35 U.S.C. § 284 ..........................................................................................................................3, 23
`
`
`
`- iv -
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 372 Filed 04/26/24 Page 6 of 34 PageID #: 34396
`
`35 U.S.C. § 285 ........................................................................................................................14, 15
`
`35 U.S.C. § 298 ................................................................................................................................6
`
`Other Authorities
`
`Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d) ...........................................................................................15
`
`Seaman, C., Permanent Injunctions in Patent Litigation After eBay: An Empirical
`Study, 101 Iowa L. Rev. 1949, 1969, 1990 (2016) ..................................................................15
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- v -
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 372 Filed 04/26/24 Page 7 of 34 PageID #: 34397
`
`This case involves a pattern of willful patent infringement that is—literally—without
`
`precedent. Caterpillar knew that Wirtgen had multiple patents on its cold planer machines. But,
`
`rather than use that knowledge to avoid infringing, Caterpillar—frustrated with its abysmal
`
`performance in the cold-planer machine market—set out to systematically analyze and copy the
`
`patented features of Wirtgen’s market-leading machines.
`
`Wirtgen promptly tried to stop Caterpillar’s infringement. In 2017, it brought an action
`
`before the U.S. International Trade Commission (“ITC”) to protect its rights, and the ITC
`
`confirmed that Wirtgen’s patents were valid and that Caterpillar infringed them. Yet Caterpillar
`
`still did not stop infringing—not after an ITC ALJ found in Wirtgen’s favor; not after the ITC
`
`affirmed; and not even after the ITC issued an exclusion order prohibiting Caterpillar from
`
`importing its infringing machines. Instead, Caterpillar moved its overseas manufacturing to the
`
`United States so it could continue infringing domestically and deliberately circumvent the ITC’s
`
`remedy. It took Caterpillar years to finally redesign its machines, even then, it redesigned around
`
`only some of the patents. In the meantime, it continued selling infringing machines.
`
`So Wirtgen had to take further actions to protect its rights. After the ITC proceeding,
`
`Caterpillar’s infringement continued and Wirtgen pursued its legal remedies in this Court to
`
`bring an end to Caterpillar’s conduct. The trial revealed the same story. Indeed, Caterpillar made
`
`little effort to dispute any of its bad acts. It largely acknowledged copying, attempting instead to
`
`excuse it as routine industry practice. And it never presented a shred of evidence that it had a
`
`good-faith belief that Wirtgen’s patents were invalid or not infringed.
`
`Given Caterpillar’s disregard of Wirtgen’s patent rights, it is not surprising that the jury
`
`found that Caterpillar willfully infringed five Wirtgen patents (some of those that were before the
`
`ITC and others that were not). The same circumstances that led to that verdict counsel in favor of
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 372 Filed 04/26/24 Page 8 of 34 PageID #: 34398
`
`this Court enhancing damages and awarding attorneys’ fees.
`
`Indeed, Wirtgen submits that these unique facts compel enhancement. Wirtgen is
`
`unaware of any case where a party circumvented an exclusion order in the way Caterpillar did
`
`here. But Caterpillar’s motivation for its particularly brazen infringement is no mystery: Between
`
`October 2018 and the end of 2023, Caterpillar turned a profit of more than $96 million. This is
`
`despite its assertions at trial that it had “easy” design-around options. In short, Caterpillar
`
`decided to place its own profits over Wirtgen’s patent rights—to take Wirtgen’s market share at
`
`any cost. That is precisely the sort of behavior enhancement is designed to deter.
`
`The damage has been done. Wirtgen has suffered infringement for years despite having
`
`never licensed its patents in the past to any competitor, let alone Caterpillar. Indeed, every single
`
`cold planer machine Caterpillar has sold since 2017 has been found to infringe at least one
`
`Wirtgen patent. Enhancement and attorneys’ fees are warranted to send a message that this sort
`
`of behavior cannot be tolerated. Wirtgen also respectfully requests that the Court (i) enjoin the
`
`sale of Caterpillar’s infringing cold planer machines or, alternatively, impose an ongoing royalty
`
`2–3 times the implied royalty awarded by the jury; (ii) award prejudgment and post-judgment
`
`interest; and (iii) award supplemental damages for pre-verdict sales not presented to the jury.
`
`I.
`
`The Court should award Wirtgen enhanced damages.
`
`The jury awarded $12.9 million for Caterpillar’s infringement of five patents. The jury
`
`also found the infringement willful. Substantial evidence supported this finding. Indeed, this case
`
`involves more than the typical proof of willful infringement. Caterpillar continued to make and
`
`sell infringing machines even after the ITC ALJ found its machines infringed the ’530, ’309, and
`
`’641 patents. Even worse, Caterpillar made a calculated decision to move its manufacturing to
`
`the United States to continue making and selling infringing machines and evade the ITC’s
`
`exclusion order. In view of Caterpillar’s defiant and continuing willful infringement, Wirtgen
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 372 Filed 04/26/24 Page 9 of 34 PageID #: 34399
`
`respectfully requests that the Court treble the awarded damages to punish Caterpillar’s behavior.
`
`See 35 U.S.C. § 284; Halo Elecs., Inc. v. Pulse Elecs., Inc., 579 U.S. 93, 107 (2016).
`
`Courts typically apply the nine Read factors to guide the enhancement analysis: (1)
`
`whether the infringer deliberately copied the ideas or design of another; (2) whether the infringer
`
`investigated the patent and formed a good-faith belief that it was invalid or that it was not
`
`infringed; (3) the infringer’s behavior in the litigation; (4) the defendant’s size and financial
`
`condition; (5) the closeness of the case; (6) the duration of the defendant’s misconduct;
`
`(7) remedial action by the defendant; (8) the defendant’s motivation for harm; and (9) whether
`
`the defendant attempted to conceal its misconduct. Read Corp. v. Portec, Inc., 970 F.2d 816, 827
`
`(Fed. Cir. 1992). However, courts need not discuss every factor, as they are non-exclusive.
`
`Georgetown Rail Equip. Co. v. Holland L.P., 867 F.3d 1229, 1244–45 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
`
`As shown below, the “particular circumstances” of this case merit treble damages.
`
`Caterpillar directly copied Wirtgen’s inventions (Read Factor 1).
`
`A.
`Direct copying of a patented invention, as happened here, strongly supports enhanced
`
`damages. See WBIP, LLC v. Kohler Co., C.A. No. 11-10374, 2014 WL 585854, at *7 (D. Mass.
`
`Feb. 12, 2014), aff’d, 829 F.3d 1317, 1339–42 (Fed. Cir. 2016). This is not a case where a
`
`defendant simply knew about the patents and kept selling machines that were later determined to
`
`infringe. Caterpillar acknowledged the deficiencies in its own machines, observed the success of
`
`Wirtgen’s machines, and so systematically tore them down and copied them. That conduct is
`
`particularly egregious and justifies trebling the jury’s damages award. Halo, 579 U.S. at 106.
`
`Before Caterpillar copied Wirtgen’s machines, its legacy machines had a problem: they
`
`were outdated. Trial Transcript (“Tr.”) 1798:17–1799:1; see Tr. 1856:14–19. In fact, Caterpillar
`
`readily acknowledged that it had “limped” in the cold planer space because it had not updated its
`
`machines for years. Tr. 360:18–361:2. But, instead of coming up with its own innovative
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 372 Filed 04/26/24 Page 10 of 34 PageID #: 34400
`
`designs, Caterpillar sought a shortcut by taking Wirtgen’s functions and features and using them
`
`as a benchmark Tr. 413:12–414:10; Tr. 429:12–17; Ex. 0611.0039.
`
`Caterpillar acquired two Wirtgen machines and identified the features it wanted in
`
`include in what would become Caterpillar’s PM300, PM600, and PM800 series machines.
`
`Caterpillar tested Wirtgen’s machines, systematically broke them down, photographed and
`
`created 3D CAD models of their components, and reassembled them. Tr. 406:8–19, 408:6–11,
`
`408:24–409:17, 409:19–410:20; see also Tr. 496:22, 497:8–12, 497:17–21; Ex. 0562.0041.
`
`Caterpillar combed through the data that it had collected from its tests. Tr. 562:21–
`
`564:11; Ex. 1344.0003. And it identified several advanced technologies, which it categorized as
`
`“catch-up” features and “value match” features from Wirtgen’s machines that it wanted to copy
`
`and include in its own machines. Tr. 415:23–416:2; see also Tr. 418:7–420:17, 420:19–421:6,
`
`421:16–424:7, 427:2–8, 429:4–431:18.
`
`For example, Caterpillar made the following assessments:
`
`• The “Four-Fold Floating Axle” patented in the ’309 patent was categorized as a “Catch
`Up” feature, as of 2011. Ex. 0602.0107. Caterpillar recognized that the “PM200 has no
`active suspension system,” but the “W210 has a ‘Four-Fold Floating Axle’ suspension
`system.” Ex. 0604.0005. By 2017, Caterpillar named this feature its “Ride Control
`System,” and categorized it as a “Value Match” feature. Ex. 0611.0039.
`
`• The “Position Sensing Cylinders” patented in the ’530 patent was categorized as a “Value
`Match” feature. Ex. 0611.0039.
`
`• The “Parallel to Surface Auto Leveling Technology” patented in the ’972 patent was
`categorized as a “Catch Up” feature, as of 2011. Ex. 0602.0107. Caterpillar recognized
`that the “PM200 does not have a Parallel to Surface feature,” but the “W210 has a feature
`that automatically adjusts the rear legs while entering a cut and continuing in the cut to
`keep the machine parallel to the cutting surface.” Ex. 0604.0003. By 2017, Caterpillar
`described this feature as “Automatic Four Leg Leveling,” and categorized it as a “Value
`Match” feature. Ex. 0611.0039.
`
`• The “Infinite reverse with rotor running (using new sensors)” patented in the ’641 patent
`was categorized as a “Differentiation” feature. Ex. 0602.0107. Caterpillar observed that
`the Wirtgen “[m]achine is able to reverse indefinitely as long as the status of the sensor is
`within the desired range – need to determine exactly what this sensor is, Wirtgen use
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 372 Filed 04/26/24 Page 11 of 34 PageID #: 34401
`
`moldboard position”). Ex. 0227A.0021; see also Tr. 424:3–14, 425:12–426:24.
`
`• The “Intuitive Grade & Slope Display” patented in the ’788 patent was categorized as a
`“Superior” feature. Ex. 0611.0039; see Tr. 431:8–432:17 (Mr. Engelmann explaining that
`this feature refers to the hot swap feature).
`
`While gathering competitive intelligence may be common within the cold planer
`
`industry, Caterpillar’s systematic teardowns were not standard industry practice. Caterpillar’s
`
`engineering manager Dario Sansone testified that, although he had worked in the industry since
`
`1992 and designed other cold planer machines, he did not participate in the teardown of a
`
`competitor’s machine until he worked for Caterpillar. Tr. 1076:16–23. Indeed, Caterpillar’s
`
`teardowns specifically targeted Wirtgen’s machines. It did not tear down any other cold planer
`
`competitor’s machine. Tr. 1799:8–17. And the result of Caterpillar’s comprehensive teardowns
`
`were machines with identical functionality to Wirtgen’s machines. See Tr. 638:13–640:3; Ex.
`
`1344.0006 (noting that Caterpillar could not accomplish Wirtgen’s patented four-way floating
`
`axle arrangement “without having the exact same plumbing arrangement that the W210 has (i.e.
`
`if we have a valve to control each leg individually, we will not accomplish this feature)”).
`
`Moreover, there is no evidence that Caterpillar tried to avoid including Wirtgen’s
`
`patented features in its new machines. On the contrary, the fact that the very engineers who tore
`
`down Wirtgen’s machines, including Mr. Engelmann and Mr. Steffen, were the same engineers
`
`who designed Caterpillar’s machines undermines any argument that Caterpillar independently
`
`developed its machines or that the similarities between Caterpillar and Wirtgen’s machines were
`
`mere coincidence. Caterpillar’s brazen copying strongly favors enhancing the jury’s award.
`
`B.
`
`Caterpillar had no good-faith belief that the asserted claims were invalid or
`not infringed (Read Factor 2).
`
`Caterpillar knew of Wirtgen’s asserted patents as early as 2013. See Tr. 364:14–365:2.
`
`This was by design; four different Caterpillar witnesses testified that Caterpillar monitored all of
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 372 Filed 04/26/24 Page 12 of 34 PageID #: 34402
`
`Wirtgen’s patents and patent applications even before it started implementing those same
`
`features on its PM300, PM600, and PM800 series machines. Tr. 432:23–433:18 (Engelmann),
`
`434:4–435:3 (Engelmann), 555:9–16 (Engelmann), 564:18–565:8 (Steffen), 565:18–21 (Steffen),
`
`668:10–17 (Killion), 1076:25–1077:2 (Sansone). Indeed, other than Wirtgen’s ’530 patent, the
`
`infringed patents all issued before the Gateway 2 phase of Caterpillar’s cold planer program—
`
`the phase where Caterpillar finalized the concepts for its machines. Tr. 435:5–437:24, 438:1–20.
`
`Cf. Ex. 0001; Ex. 0003; Ex. 0004; Ex. 0005.
`
`Despite Caterpillar’s knowledge of Wirtgen’s patents, it did not investigate the scope of
`
`the patents and form a good-faith belief that they were invalid or not infringed. Caterpillar
`
`purports to have an internal policy to respect the intellectual property rights of others. Tr.
`
`556:10–13. But it presented no evidence of any investigation of Wirtgen’s patents to assess
`
`infringement risks or validity, instead withholding such materials as privileged.
`
`That was Caterpillar’s right, but the decision comes at a cost. While Caterpillar’s lack of
`
`an opinion of counsel would have been inadmissible to show willful infringement in the first
`
`instance, see 35 U.S.C. § 298, the Court may consider the lack of an adequate investigate when
`
`determining whether to enhance damages. Spectralytics, Inc. v. Cordis Corp., 649 F.3d 1336,
`
`1347 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Moreover, even if one were to presume Caterpillar—at some point—held
`
`a good-faith belief that Wirtgen’s patents were invalid or not infringed, the ITC’s determination
`
`would have disabused Caterpillar of it. The ITC found Caterpillar to infringe the ’309, ’530, and
`
`’641 patents. Tr. 237:9–14. But Caterpillar continued to infringe and indeed moved its
`
`manufacturing to the United States to avoid the ITC’s exclusion order. Tr. 441:3–442:21; see
`
`also Tr. 219:20–21, 219:25–220:20, 438:22–442:22, 556:10–557:1.
`
`Caterpillar didn’t stop there. After the ITC finding, Caterpillar released new cold planer
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 372 Filed 04/26/24 Page 13 of 34 PageID #: 34403
`
`builds for the PM300, PM600, and PM800 series machines using the same infringing
`
`technology. Tr. 369:3–15, 370:14–371:24, 372:6–373:25, 375:2–12, 375:14–376:23, 377:2–11,
`
`381:14–17, 381:23–382:2. Even just last year—in 2023—Caterpillar released the infringing
`
`RM600 and RM800 rotary mixer machines that use the same sensing technology in its leg
`
`cylinders that both the ITC and the jury here found infringe Wirtgen’s patents. Tr. 451:16–452:8.
`
`In short, Caterpillar presented no evidence of any good-faith belief that Wirtgen’s patents
`
`were invalid or not infringed, and when faced with the ITC’s findings of infringement,
`
`Caterpillar flouted those determinations and implemented the infringing features on new builds
`
`and new machines. Read factor 2 also favors enhancing the jury’s award.
`
`C.
`
`Caterpillar’s litigation behavior and its assertion of meritless arguments
`support enhancing damages (Read Factors 3 and 5).
`
`Caterpillar litigated this case unreasonably, needlessly multiplying the proceedings by
`
`maintaining factually and legally meritless arguments. Three examples illustrate the point.
`
`First, after Wirtgen moved for summary judgment of infringement of claims 5 and 22 of
`
`the ’530 patent and claim 29 of the ’309 patent (three claims that the ITC found infringed),
`
`Caterpillar opposed, citing its experts’ opinions that (i) the Caterpillar machines did not have a
`
`lifting sensor with two points of attachment to the lifting column (relevant to infringement of the
`
`’530 patent), see D.I. 239 at 5; (ii) the magnet in the Caterpillar machines is not part of the lifting
`
`sensor (also relevant to infringement of the ’530 patent), see id. at 6; and (iii) Wirtgen had not
`
`established that the Caterpillar machines have a four-sided stability pattern in the location
`
`required by the ’309 patent, see id. at 10–11. At trial, however, Caterpillar’s experts dropped all
`
`non-infringement arguments regarding these patents, see Tr. 1732:16–19—likely because they
`
`were weak to the point of being frivolous. Caterpillar should not have opposed summary
`
`judgment based on expert opinions it had no intention of offering at trial.
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 372 Filed 04/26/24 Page 14 of 34 PageID #: 34404
`
`Second, Caterpillar accused Wirtgen of infringing a patent on a water-spray system that
`
`requires a road-construction machine with “a water reservoir mounted on the frame and
`
`configured to enclose water.” D.I. 272 at 16. But the machines Caterpillar accused do not have a
`
`water tank mounted on the machine frame: “Wirtgen’s water reservoir is made from a void in the
`
`frame, so the reservoir isn’t mounted on the frame; it’s part of the frame.” Id. at 17. It appears
`
`Caterpillar knew this. Its expert Dr. Sorini candidly admitted at his deposition that he had no
`
`opinions about how the tank was mounted. Dr. Sorini maintained his infringement opinion only
`
`by relying on a facially implausible construction of “mounted on” to mean simply “at the top of.”
`
`D.I. 272 at 16. As the Court observed in granting Wirtgen’s motion for summary judgment of
`
`non-infringement, that construction reads the word “mounted” out of the claim altogether. Id.
`
`Third, Caterpillar wasted both the Court’s and Wirtgen’s time by improperly proffering
`
`so-called “expert” testimony on willfulness from a lawyer named Paul Bartowski. D.I. 283 at 4–
`
`5. As the Court held, those opinions were inadmissible. Expert testimony on the law is useless—
`
`judges decide what the law is, not expert witnesses—and experts cannot properly testify about “a
`
`party’s subjective state of mind.” Id. at 5; see, e.g., Shire Viropharma Inc. v. CSL Behring LLC,
`
`C.A. No. 17-414, 2021 WL 1227097, at *5 (D. Del. Mar. 31, 2021) Caterpillar’s pattern of
`
`vexatious litigation conduct further supports enhancement.1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 Caterpillar also brought a “retaliatory” ITC investigation against Wirtgen and accused it of
`infringing three patents of its own. 337-TA-1088. All of the Caterpillar patents asserted,
`however, were found to be not infringed or invalid.
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 372 Filed 04/26/24 Page 15 of 34 PageID #: 34405
`
`Caterpillar’s size supports enhancing damages (Read Factor 4).
`
`D.
`Caterpillar is a multinational corporation with vast financial means. Caterpillar brings in
`
`billions of dollars in revenue and profits each year. Indeed, the jury’s damages award represents
`
`a mere fraction of a percent of Caterpillar’s 2022 construction industry revenue. Caterpillar “will
`
`not be materially impacted by an award of enhanced damages,” which weighs in favor of
`
`enhancement. nCUBE Corp. v. SeaChange Int’l, Inc., 313 F. Supp. 2d 361, 390 (D. Del. 2004),
`
`aff’d, 436 F.3d 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2006); see ArcherDX, LLC v. Qiagen Scis., LLC, C.A. No. 18-
`
`1019, 2022 WL 4597877, at *17 (D. Del. Sept. 30, 2022) (finding this factor to favor
`
`enhancement when “[t]rebling the jury’s award [resulted in a figure] less than 0.1% of
`
`[defendant’s] 2020 net sales of $1.87 billion.”).
`
`E.
`
`The duration of Caterpillar’s infringement supports enhancing damages
`(Read Factor 6).
`
`Caterpillar has infringed Wirtgen’s asserted patents for years. Caterpillar launched the
`
`first infringing machine in 2016. After careful review of that machine, Wirtgen notified
`
`Caterpillar of its infringement in June 2017 and requested that Caterpillar remove the infringing
`
`features. See Tr. 225:18–226:10.