Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 388-4 Filed 05/24/24 Page 1 of 15 PageID #: 35668
`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 388-4 Filed 05/24/24 Page 1 of 15 PagelD #: 35668
`
`EXHIBIT 4
`EXHIBIT 4
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 388-4 Filed 05/24/24 Page 2 of 15 PageID #: 35669
`
`
`
`
`
`CATERPILLAR INC.’S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO
`WIRTGEN AMERICA, INC.’S SECOND SET OF INTERROGATORIES (NOS. 21-31)
`
`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 responds
`
`to Plaintiff and
`
`Counterclaim-Defendant Wirtgen America, Inc.’s (“Wirtgen America”) Second Set of
`
`Interrogatories (Nos. 21-31) 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,
`
`confidentiality, competency, relevance, materiality, authenticity, admissibility of the information
`
`contained in these responses, or any other objection.
`
`
`
`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.,
`
`
`
`
`
`CATERPILLAR INC.,
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 388-4 Filed 05/24/24 Page 3 of 15 PageID #: 35670
`
`
`
`RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 22:
`
`
`
`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
`
`as premature to the extent it seeks expert testimony or expert-related materials before Caterpillar
`
`is required to identify and provide such materials under the Scheduling Order. Caterpillar also
`
`objects to this Interrogatory as compound, representing numerous requests in one. 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.
`
`Subject to and without waiving these objections, Caterpillar responds that it has produced
`
`or will produce business records pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33(d) in response to
`
`this Interrogatory, including document Bates numbered CAT-770_73666, in which responsive
`
`information may be found.
`
`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.
`
`INTERROGATORY NO. 23: Set forth and describe in detail the factual and legal basis for Your
`Second Affirmative Defense
`that “Wirtgen America
`is barred, based on statements,
`representations, and admissions made during the prosecution of the patent applications resulting
`in Wirtgen America’s Asserted Patents or related patent applications, from asserting any
`interpretation of any valid, enforceable claims of Wirtgen America’s Asserted Patents that would
`
`
`
`- 7 -
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 388-4 Filed 05/24/24 Page 4 of 15 PageID #: 35671
`
`
`
`be broad enough to cover any accused product alleged to infringe Wirtgen America’s Asserted
`Patents, either literally or by application of the doctrine of equivalents.”
`
`RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 23:
`
`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 expert testimony or expert related materials 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:
`
`A person of ordinary skill in the art “is deemed to read [claim terms] not only in the context
`
`of the particular claim in which the disputed term appears, but in the context of the entire patent,
`
`including the specification.” Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2005). “Like
`
`the specification, the prosecution history provides evidence of how the PTO and the inventor
`
`understood the patent.” Id. at 1317. When a patentee “sets out a definition and acts as his own
`
`lexicographer” or “disavows the full scope of a claim term either in the specification or during
`
`prosecution,” the patentee cannot later take a different position in litigation. Thorner v. Sony
`
`Computer Ent. Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2012); See also Pall Corp. v. PTI Techs.
`
`Inc., 259 F.3d 1383, 1392 (Fed. Cir. 2001); see also Salazar v. Procter & Gamble Co., 414 F.3d
`
`
`
`- 8 -
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 388-4 Filed 05/24/24 Page 5 of 15 PageID #: 35672
`
`
`
`1342, 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2005); Schriber-Schroth Co. v. Cleveland Trust Co., 311 U.S. 211, 220-21
`
`(1940).
`
`“Claim interpretation in view of the prosecution history is a preliminary step in determining
`
`literal infringement, while prosecution history estoppel applies as a limitation on the range of
`
`equivalents if, after the claims have been properly interpreted, no literal infringement has been
`
`found.” Southwall Techs., Inc. v. Cardinal IG Co., 54 F.3d 1570, 1578 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (citation
`
`omitted). The prosecution history of any parent or grandparent application may also be considered
`
`as intrinsic evidence in the claim construction of the child application unless an argument is
`
`expressly rescinded. See Hakim v. Cannon Avent Grp., PLC, 479 F.3d 1313 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2007); Ventana Med. Sys., Inc. v. BioGenex Labs., Inc., 473 F.3d 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2006); Biovail
`
`Corp. Int’l v. Andrx Pharms., Inc., 239 F.3d 1297 (Fed. Cir. 2001); Elkay Mfg. Co. v. Ebco Mfg.
`
`Co., 192 F.3d 973 (Fed. Cir. 1999); Jonsson v. Stanley Works, 903 F.2d 812 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A
`
`patentee’s statements during IPR proceedings may also give rise to prosecution disclaimer or
`
`prosecution history estoppel. See Aylus Networks, Inc. v. Apple Inc., 856 F.3d 1353, 1360 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2017). Likewise, a patentee’s statements during prosecution of foreign counterparts may limit
`
`the scope of the claims or the range of available equivalents. AIA Eng’g Ltd. v. Magotteaux Int’l
`
`S/A, 657 F.3d 1264 (Fed. Cir. 2011); see also Apple Inc. v. Motorola, Inc., 757 F.3d 1286 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2014); Gillette Co. v. Energizer Holdings, Inc., 405 F.3d 1367, 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2005);
`
`Caterpillar Tractor Co. v. Berco, S.P.A., 714 F.2d 1110, 1116 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
`
`It is well settled that amendments made in response to prior art rejections can result in
`
`prosecution history estoppel. This
`
`is frequently called “classical” prosecution history
`
`estoppel. Hughes Aircraft Co. v. U.S., 717 F.2d 1351, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1983); Keystone Driller Co.
`
`v. Northwest Eng’g Corp., 294 U.S. 42, 48 (1935). An applicant cannot amend the claims in
`
`
`
`- 9 -
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 388-4 Filed 05/24/24 Page 6 of 15 PageID #: 35673
`
`
`
`response to an examiner’s rejection and then use the doctrine of equivalents to try to obtain the
`
`very same subject matter that was given up to obtain the patent. See Hilgraeve Corp. v. McAfee
`
`Assoc., Inc., 224 F.3d 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2000); Sextant Avionique, S.A. v. Analog Devices, Inc., 172
`
`F.3d 817, 819 (Fed. Cir. 1999); Loral Fairchild Corp. v. Sony Corp., 181 F.3d 1313 (Fed. Cir.
`
`1999); Chemical Eng’g Corp. v. Essef Indus., Inc., 795 F.2d 1565 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Estoppel may
`
`also be created by arguments and representations made to the USPTO to obtain allowance of a
`
`patent, even without a claim amendment. Andersen Corp. v. Fiber Composites LLC, 474 F.3d 1361
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2007).
`
`Wirtgen America is barred, based on statements, representations, and admissions made
`
`during the prosecution of the patent applications resulting in Wirtgen America’s Asserted Patents
`
`or related patent applications, from asserting any interpretation of any valid, enforceable claims of
`
`Wirtgen America’s Asserted Patents that would be broad enough to cover any accused product
`
`alleged to infringe Wirtgen America’s Asserted Patents, either literally or by application of the
`
`doctrine of equivalents. Wirtgen America’s March 10, 2023 Final Infringement Contentions do
`
`not articulate or explain the bases for any theory of infringement under the doctrine of equivalents.
`
`Nor do they explicitly provide the interpretations of claim terms on which Wirtgen America relies.
`
`To the extent Wirtgen America or its experts are permitted to rely on the doctrine of equivalents,
`
`or any interpretations of claim terms that conflict with statements, representations, and admissions
`
`made during the prosecution of Wirtgen America’s Asserted Patents or related patent applications,
`
`Caterpillar reserves the right to respond and rebut Wirtgen America’s theories, including with exert
`
`opinions and expert discovery. Documents on which Caterpillar may rely include but are not
`
`limited to: WA-0001860–14268, WA-ITC_00464162–454765, WA-ITC_00455328–456582.
`
`Caterpillar may also rely on the prosecution history of Wirtgen America’s Asserted Patents, related
`
`
`
`- 10 -
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 388-4 Filed 05/24/24 Page 7 of 15 PageID #: 35674
`
`
`
`patent applications, filings from any IPR proceeding challenging Wirtgen America’s Asserted
`
`Patents or related patent applications, and the prosecution history as well as filings in any foreign
`
`proceedings challenging foreign counterparts of Wirtgen America’s Asserted Patents (e.g., EP
`
`1855899, EP 1924746, EP 1875004).
`
`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.
`
`INTERROGATORY NO. 24: Set forth and describe in detail the factual and legal basis for Your
`Third Affirmative Defense that “[t]he ’871, ’530, ’474, ’268, ’390 and ’391 patents are
`unenforceable under the doctrine of prosecution laches,” including the full factual and legal basis
`for Your allegations incorporated by reference therein and set forth under paragraphs 40, 43, 46,
`52, 59, 60, 61, and 62 of Counterclaim 4 of Your Amended Counterclaims, and identify all
`activities that You contend render the Asserted Patents unenforceable, each person with knowledge
`of the foregoing, and all documents, by Bates number, relating to the foregoing.
`
`RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 24:
`
`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
`
`as vague, ambiguous, and unduly burdensome at least as to the term “all activities” as used in this
`
`Interrogatory. Caterpillar also objects to this Interrogatory as compound, representing numerous
`
`requests in one. 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
`
`
`
`- 11 -
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 388-4 Filed 05/24/24 Page 8 of 15 PageID #: 35675
`
`
`
`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 one or more of
`
`Wirtgen America’s Asserted Patents is unenforceable under the doctrine of prosecution laches.
`
`Wirtgen America’s Asserted Patents issued after an unreasonable and unexplained delay in
`
`prosecution, and that delay in prosecution prejudiced Caterpillar, including, for example, through
`
`evidentiary and economic prejudice. 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
`
`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.
`
`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
`
`
`
`- 12 -
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 388-4 Filed 05/24/24 Page 9 of 15 PageID #: 35676
`
`
`
`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
`
`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.
`
`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
`
`
`
`- 13 -
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 388-4 Filed 05/24/24 Page 10 of 15 PageID #: 35677
`
`
`
`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 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.
`
`INTERROGATORY NO. 27: Set forth and describe in detail the factual and legal basis for
`Your Seventh Affirmative Defense that “Wirtgen America’s claims with respect to the ’268
`patent are barred, and the ’268 patent is invalid, for failure to comply with 35 U.S.C. § 251.”
`
`RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 27:
`
`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
`
`
`
`- 14 -
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 388-4 Filed 05/24/24 Page 11 of 15 PageID #: 35678
`
`
`
`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:
`
`Wirtgen America’s claims with respect to the ’268 patent are barred, and the ’268 patent is
`
`invalid, for failure to comply with 35 U.S.C. § 251. Certain reissued claims including, for example,
`
`claims 1, 14, and 34 are broader, in at least some respect, as compared to those in the original
`
`patent. Furthermore, the reissue application for the ’268 patent was filed on March 23, 2018, more
`
`than two years after the original patent (8,408,659) issued on April 2, 2013. “No reissued patent
`
`shall be granted enlarging the scope of the claims of the original patent unless applied for within
`
`two years from the grant of the original patent.” 35 U.S.C. § 251. A claim in a reissue patent
`
`which includes subject matter not covered by the original patent claims enlarges the scope of the
`
`patent claims. For example, if any amended or newly added claim in the reissue contains within
`
`its scope any conceivable product or process which would not have infringed the patent, then that
`
`reissue claim would be broader than the patent claims. Tillotson, Ltd. v. Walbro Corp., 831 F.2d
`
`1033, 1037 n.2 (Fed. Cir. 1987); In re Ruth, 278 F.2d 729, 730 (CCPA 1960); In re Rogoff, 261
`
`F.2d 601, 603 (CCPA 1958).
`
`Wirtgen GmbH, Mr. Hahn and others involved in the prosecution of the reissue application
`
`for the ’268 patent abused the reissue process by including an unreasonable number of claim
`
`amendments, which effectively buried the improper broadening claim amendments. For example,
`
`the original version of claim 1 recited “a traction drive component for driving the working drum,”
`
`whereas the reissued version of claim 1 recited a “traction drive for driving the working drum ….”
`
`The term “component” is a nonce term and would have subjected the original version of claim 1
`
`to treatment under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) as a “means-plus-function” claim with respect to the
`
`
`
`- 15 -
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 388-4 Filed 05/24/24 Page 12 of 15 PageID #: 35679
`
`
`
`“traction drive” limitation. By omitting the term “component,” claim 1 was effectively broadened
`
`to remove the limitations imposed by means-plus-function claiming. As another example, claim
`
`1 was broadened to include “in a rigid manner or.” As yet another example, the original version
`
`of claim 14 was broadened by removing the means-plus-function terms “drive element,” “output
`
`element,” and “traction element.” Worse still, the specification was amended to include new text
`
`which was not present in the earlier 8,408,659 patent. These amendments to the specification
`
`effectively broadened the scope of the claims with respect to claim terms subject to means-plus-
`
`function claiming.
`
`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.
`
`INTERROGATORY NO. 28: Identify each fact witness You expect to call to testify or whose
`testimony You expect to submit regarding any evidence that You intend to offer or may offer in
`this Action, and summarize each person’s expected testimony.
`
`RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 28:
`
`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 objects to this
`
`
`
`- 16 -
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 388-4 Filed 05/24/24 Page 13 of 15 PageID #: 35680
`
`
`
`information that is publicly available or is as equally available to Wirtgen America as it is to
`
`Caterpillar.
`
`Subject to and without waiving these objections, Caterpillar responds that it will produce
`
`business records pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33(d) in response to this
`
`Interrogatory, in which responsive information may be found. Caterpillar further responds that the
`
`PM102 Cold Planer Machine offered for inspection in Minerbio, Italy is prior art related to
`
`Caterpillar’s invalidity defenses, is evidence of non-infringing alternatives, is evidence Caterpillar
`
`may rely on to rebut willfulness, and is evidence of a commercial embodiment of the ’995 patent.
`
`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.
`
`
`
`POTTER ANDERSON & CORROON LLP
`
`By: /s/ Andrew L. Brown
`Bindu A. Palapura (#5370)
`Andrew L. Brown (#6766)
`Hercules Plaza, 6th Floor
`1313 N. Market Street
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`Tel: (302) 984-6000
`bpalapura@potteranderson.com
`abrown@potteranderson.com
`
`
`Attorneys for Defendant Caterpillar Inc.
`
`
`OF COUNSEL:
`
`James C. Yoon
`Christopher D. Mays
`WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI, P.C.
`650 Page Mill Road
`Palo Alto, CA 94304
`Telephone: (650) 493-9300
`
`Ryan R. Smith
`WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI, P.C.
`701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 5100
`Seattle, WA 98104
`Telephone: (206) 883-2500
`
`Lucy Yen
`WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI, P.C.
`1301 Avenue of the Americas, 40th Floor
`New York, NY 10019
`Telephone: (212) 999-5800
`
`
`
`
`- 26 -
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 388-4 Filed 05/24/24 Page 14 of 15 PageID #: 35681
`
`Erik J. Carlson
`WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI, P.C.
`633 West Fifth Street, Suite 1550
`Los Angeles, CA 90071
`Telephone: (323) 210-2900
`
`Dated: March 13, 2023
`10685038/11898.00005
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 27 -
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 388-4 Filed 05/24/24 Page 15 of 15 PageID #: 35682
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I, Andrew L. Brown, hereby certify that on March 13, 2023, true and correct copies of the
`
`within document were served on the following counsel of record at the addresses and in the
`
`Ryan D. Levy
`Seth R. Ogden
`William E. Sekyi
`Dominic A. Rota
`Mark A. Kilgore
`PATTERSON INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
`LAW, P.C.
`1600 Division Street, Suite 500
`Nashville, TN 37203
`wirtgen1-litigation@iplawgroup.com
`
`
`
`manner indicated:
`
`VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
`Adam W. Poff
`Pilar G. Kraman
`Samantha G. Wilson
`YOUNG CONAWAY STARGATT & TAYLOR, LLP
`Rodney Square
`1000 North King Street
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`apoff@ycst.com
`pkraman@ycst.com
`swilson@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
`Wirtgendctlit@sternekessler.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` /s/ Andrew L. Brown
`
`Andrew L. Brown
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`