Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 388-5 Filed 05/24/24 Page 1 of 14 PageID #: 35683
`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 388-5 Filed 05/24/24 Page 1 of 14 PagelD #: 35683
`
`EXHIBIT 5
`EXHIBIT 5
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 388-5 Filed 05/24/24 Page 2 of 14 PageID #: 35684
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
` C.A. No. 17-770-JDW-MPT
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL-
`OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS’ EYES
`ONLY
`
`)))))))))))))
`
`WIRTGEN AMERICA, INC.,
`Plaintiff/Counterclaim-Defendant,
`
`v.
`CATERPILLAR INC.,
`Defendant/Counterclaim-Plaintiff.
`
`CATERPILLAR INC.’S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO
`WIRTGEN AMERICA, INC.’S SECOND SET OF INTERROGATORIES (NOS. 23-26
`AND 29)
`
`Pursuant to Rules 26 and 33 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules
`
`of the United States District Court for the District of Delaware (“Local Rules”), Defendant and
`
`Counterclaim-Plaintiff Caterpillar Inc. (“Caterpillar”) hereby supplements its responses to Plaintiff
`
`and Counterclaim-Defendant Wirtgen America, Inc.’s (“Wirtgen America’s”) Second Set of
`
`Interrogatories (Nos. 23-26 and 29) as follows.
`
`RESERVATION OF RIGHTS
`
`Caterpillar’s responses are based on information currently available to Caterpillar.
`
`Caterpillar reserves all rights to supplement, revise, and/or amend these responses should
`
`additional information become available through the discovery process or by other means.
`
`Caterpillar also reserves the right to produce or use any information or documents that are
`
`discovered after service of these responses in support of or in opposition to any motion, in
`
`depositions, or at hearings or trial. In responding to Wirtgen America’s Second Set of
`
`Interrogatories, Caterpillar does not waive any objection on the grounds of privilege,
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 388-5 Filed 05/24/24 Page 3 of 14 PageID #: 35685
`
`that is not within Caterpillar’s possession, custody, or control, and are not reasonably accessible
`
`to Caterpillar upon reasonable diligence.
`
`RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES
`
`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
`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
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 388-5 Filed 05/24/24 Page 4 of 14 PageID #: 35686
`
`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
`
`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);
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 388-5 Filed 05/24/24 Page 5 of 14 PageID #: 35687
`
`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 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,
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 388-5 Filed 05/24/24 Page 6 of 14 PageID #: 35688
`
`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
`
`expert 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
`
`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.
`
`SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 23:
`
`Subject to and without waiving the foregoing Objections, Caterpillar supplements its
`
`response as follows: Wirtgen America bears the burden of proving infringement. Caterpillar
`
`reserves the right for it or its experts to rely on prosecution history estoppel based on the positions
`
`taken by Wirtgen America’s experts. For example, to the extent that Wirtgen America or its
`
`experts opine on the literal scope of any claim of Wirtgen America’s Asserted Patents, Caterpillar
`
`reserves the right to present rebuttal evidence—either extrinsic or intrinsic—through its own
`
`experts showing how that claim scope is inappropriate or has otherwise been disclaimed through
`
`prosecution history estoppel. Caterpillar also reserves the right to rely on rebuttal evidence that
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 388-5 Filed 05/24/24 Page 7 of 14 PageID #: 35689
`
`its experts may locate or identify with their respective Rule 26 reports. To that end, Caterpillar
`
`incorporates by reference its forthcoming expert reports, the evidence cited therein, and also
`
`Wirtgen America’s Asserted Patents and their respective file histories.
`
`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
`
`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
`10
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 388-5 Filed 05/24/24 Page 8 of 14 PageID #: 35690
`
`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.
`
`SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 24:
`
`Subject to and without waiving the foregoing Objections, Caterpillar supplements its
`
`response as follows: Patent No. RE48,268 is unenforceable under the doctrine of prosecution
`
`laches because Wirtgen GmbH improperly and unreasonably waited until it learned of features of
`
`the accused Caterpillar PM600 and PM800 series machines before seeking a continuation. For
`
`example, the ’268 patent is a reissue of U.S. Patent Application No. 12/985,400, which was filed
`
`on January 6, 2011, and issued as U.S. Patent No. 8,408,659 (the “’659 patent”) on April 2, 2013.
`
`The application for the ’268 patent was filed on March 23, 2018, five years after the issuance of
`
`the ’659 patent and almost thirteen years after the earliest filed application to which it claims
`
`priority, which was filed on April 15, 2005, and nearly a year after Wirtgen America filed this
`
`action. This unreasonable delay caused prejudice to Caterpillar.
`
`Caterpillar reserves the right for it or its experts to rely on the deposition transcripts,
`
`exhibits, or live testimony of James Aardema, Eric Engelmann, David Falcione, Corey Hanback,
`
`Jeff Hoyle, Nathan Just, Daniel Killion, Nathan Mashek, Jason Muir, Conwell “Bud” Rife, Dario
`
`Sansone, Ben Schafer, Craig Steffen, Mark Tarvin, Jason Wilson, Sandy Draper, James McEvoy,
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 388-5 Filed 05/24/24 Page 9 of 14 PageID #: 35691
`
`Brodie Hutchins, Tim Lewis, Brad McKinney, and Jeff Wiley, and other deposition transcripts and
`
`related exhibits from proceedings between the parties.
`
`Caterpillar also hereby incorporates its forthcoming expert reports and evidence cited
`
`therein.
`
`INTERROGATORY NO. 25: Set forth and describe in detail the factual and legal basis for Your
`Fourth Affirmative Defense that “Wirtgen America’s claims regarding the ’268 patent are barred
`or limited by the doctrine of absolute and equitable intervening rights.”
`
`RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 25:
`
`Caterpillar incorporates all of its general objections and reservations of rights as if
`
`specifically set forth herein. Caterpillar objects to this Interrogatory as overly broad and unduly
`
`burdensome as seeking information related to the requested materials regardless of relevance,
`
`volume, or time, and to the extent it seeks information that is not relevant to the claim or defense
`
`of any party and is not proportional to the needs of the case. Caterpillar objects to this Interrogatory
`
`to the extent it seeks information protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege and/or
`
`work-product doctrine, or any other applicable privilege or protection. Caterpillar further objects
`
`to the extent this Interrogatory seeks a legal conclusion. Caterpillar objects to this Interrogatory as
`
`premature to the extent it seeks information before Caterpillar is required to identify and provide
`
`such information in accordance with the Scheduling Order.
`
`Subject to and without waiving these objections, Caterpillar responds that Wirtgen
`
`America’s claims regarding the ’268 patent are barred or limited by the doctrine of absolute and
`
`equitable intervening rights. Caterpillar incorporates by reference its allegations in Paragraphs 36-
`
`64 of Caterpillar’s Counterclaims (D.I. 62), dated November 18, 2021, as if fully set forth herein.
`
`Caterpillar further responds that its investigation and discovery are ongoing, and it reserves
`
`the right to amend, modify, or supplement this response as new information becomes available in
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 388-5 Filed 05/24/24 Page 10 of 14 PageID #: 35692
`
`accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Local Rules of this Court, and the
`
`Scheduling Order (D.I. 28) entered by the Court.
`
`SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 25:
`
`Subject to and without waiving the foregoing oObjections, Caterpillar supplements its
`
`response as follows: Caterpillar contends that Wirtgen America’s claims regarding Patent No.
`
`RE48,268 are barred or limited by the doctrine of absolute and equitable intervening rights because
`
`Caterpillar had already developed or was in the process of developing its Accused Products prior
`
`to the reissuance of Patent No. RE48,268. Wirtgen America’s unreasonable delay caused
`
`prejudice to Caterpillar.
`
`Caterpillar also hereby incorporates its forthcoming expert reports and evidence cited
`
`therein.
`
`INTERROGATORY NO. 26: Set forth and describe in detail the factual and legal basis for Your
`Sixth Affirmative Defense that “Wirtgen America’s claims are barred by one or more of the
`doctrines of estoppel, waiver, acquiescence, and unclean hands from enforcing, or claiming
`damages with respect to any claim of Wirtgen America’s Asserted Patents.”
`
`RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 26:
`
`Caterpillar incorporates all of its general objections and reservations of rights as if
`
`specifically set forth herein. Caterpillar objects to this Interrogatory as overly broad and unduly
`
`burdensome as seeking information related to the requested materials regardless of relevance,
`
`volume, or time, and to the extent it seeks information that is not relevant to the claim or defense
`
`of any party and is not proportional to the needs of the case. Caterpillar objects to this Interrogatory
`
`to the extent it seeks information protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege and/or
`
`work-product doctrine, or any other applicable privilege or protection. Caterpillar further objects
`
`to the extent this Interrogatory seeks a legal conclusion. Caterpillar objects to this Interrogatory as
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 388-5 Filed 05/24/24 Page 11 of 14 PageID #: 35693
`
`premature to the extent it seeks information before Caterpillar is required to identify and provide
`
`such information in accordance with the Scheduling Order.
`
`Subject to and without waiving these objections, Caterpillar responds that Wirtgen
`
`America’s claims are barred by one or more of the doctrines of estoppel, waiver, acquiescence,
`
`and unclean hands from enforcing, or claiming damages with respect to any claim of Wirtgen
`
`America’s Asserted Patents. Caterpillar incorporates by reference its allegations in Paragraphs 36-
`
`64 of Caterpillar’s Counterclaims (D.I. 62), dated November 18, 2021, as if fully set forth herein.
`
`Caterpillar also incorporates by reference its response to Interrogatory No. 23.
`
`Caterpillar further responds that its investigation and discovery are ongoing, and it reserves
`
`the right to amend, modify, or supplement this response as new information becomes available in
`
`accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Local Rules of this Court, and the
`
`Scheduling Order (D.I. 28) entered by the Court.
`
`SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 26:
`
`Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Caterpillar supplements its
`
`response as follows:
`
`Certain of Wirtgen America’s claims in this litigation are barred by collateral estoppel due
`
`to final written decisions by the Patent Trial and Appeals Board invalidating Wirtgen America’s
`
`patent claims, including, without limitation, IPR2017-02185 and IPR2017-02188, which found
`
`certain claims of Patent Nos. 7,828,309 and 9,656,530 unpatentable, and any other PTAB
`
`proceedings relating to the Asserted Patents. Additionally, Wirtgen America is estopped from
`
`asserting claims that have been denied in prior proceedings, including, without limitation, the
`
`United States International Trade Commission in Investigation No. 337-TA-1067 and Caterpillar
`
`Prodotti Stradali S.R.L. v. ITC, 847 F. App'x 893 (Fed. Cir. 2021). Wirtgen America is also
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 388-5 Filed 05/24/24 Page 12 of 14 PageID #: 35694
`
`estopped from relitigating issues from IPR2017-01091 (pertaining to U.S. Patent No. 8,308,395)
`
`as they apply to related patents asserted in this litigation claiming substantially the same invention.
`
`Wirtgen America has unclean hands for several reasons. First, when Wirtgen America
`
`filed the present U.S. lawsuit, which relates to U.S. patent rights and alleged infringement in the
`
`U.S., it sent an email proposing that Caterpillar remove the allegedly infringing features on a global
`
`basis. See CAT_00028534. Because Wirtgen America only has patent rights in the U.S., this
`
`proposal is an improper extension of its U.S. patent rights. Second, discovery in this matter has
`
`demonstrated that Wirtgen America has been improperly using Caterpillar’s confidential pricing
`
`information. See, e.g., WA-1320276 to WA-1320542; WA-0256368 to WA-0256754; WA-
`
`015037 to WA-0150454; see also, e.g., the Deposition Transcripts and Exhibits of Sandy Draper,
`
`James McEvoy, Brodie Hutchins, Tim Lewis, Brad McKinney, and Jeff Wiley; see also other
`
`deposition transcripts and related exhibits from proceedings between the parties.
`
`Caterpillar also hereby incorporates its forthcoming expert reports and evidence cited
`
`therein.
`
`INTERROGATORY NO. 29: For each Wirtgen America patent, explain the basis if any for
`Caterpillar’s contention that its infringement has not been willful and deliberate, and identify each
`person with knowledge of the foregoing and all documents, by Bates number, relating to the
`foregoing.
`
`RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 29:
`
`Caterpillar incorporates all of its general objections and reservations of rights as if
`
`specifically set forth herein. Caterpillar objects to this Interrogatory as overly broad and unduly
`
`burdensome as seeking information related to the requested materials regardless of relevance,
`
`volume, or time, and to the extent it seeks information that is not relevant to the claim or defense
`
`of any party and is not proportional to the needs of the case. Caterpillar objects to this Interrogatory
`
`to the extent it seeks information protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege and/or
`
`15
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 388-5 Filed 05/24/24 Page 13 of 14 PageID #: 35695
`
`9,624,628, and 9,644,340 shows that even Wirtgen America recognizes that infringement
`
`allegations against Caterpillar are not strong, and that Caterpillar has identified strong defenses.
`
`Caterpillar further states that it is Wirtgen America’s burden to prove willfulness.
`
`Caterpillar reserves the right to rely on or rebut any evidence presented by Wirtgen America even
`
`if such reliance or rebuttal comes from documents or evidence not specifically cited herein.
`
`Caterpillar also hereby incorporates its forthcoming expert reports and evidence cited
`
`therein.
`
`Dated: April 7, 2023
`
`WILSON SONSINI GOODRISH ROSATI,
`Professional Corporation
`
`/s/ Ian R. Liston
`Ian R. Liston (#5507)
`Jennifer A. Ward (#6476)
`222 Delaware Avenue, Suite 800
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`(302) 304-7600
`iliston@wsgr.com
`jward@wsgr.com
`
`James C. Yoon
`Ryan R. Smith
`Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, P.C.
`650 Page Mill Road
`Palo Alto, CA 94304
`Tel: (650) 493-9300
`jyoon@wsgr.com
`rsmith@wsgr.com
`
`Lucy Yen
`Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, P.C.
`1301 Avenue of the Americas, 40th Floor
`New York, NY 10019
`Tel: (212) 999-5800
`lyen@wsgr.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendant Caterpillar Inc.
`
`- 24 -
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 388-5 Filed 05/24/24 Page 14 of 14 PageID #: 35696
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`I hereby certify that on April 7, 2023, a true and correct copy of the foregoing document
`
`was served via electronic mail upon all counsel of record as follows:
`
`Ryan D. Levy
`Seth R. Ogden
`William E. Sekyi
`Scott M. Douglass
`Dominic A. Rota
`Mark A. Kilgore
`John F. Triggs
`PATTERSON INTELLECTUAL
`PROPERTY
`LAW, P.C.
`1600 Division Street, Suite 500
`Nashville, TN 37203
`rdl@iplawgroup.com
`sro@iplawgroup.com
`wes@iplawgroup.com
`smd@iplawgroup.com
`dar@iplawgroup.com
`mak@iplawgroup.com
`jft@iplawgroup.com
`
`Adam W. Poff
`Pilar G. Kraman
`YOUNG CONAWAY STARGATT &
`TAYLOR, LLP
`Rodney Square
`1000 North King Street
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`apoff@ycst.com
`pkraman@ycst.com
`
`Daniel E. Yonan
`Paul A. Ainsworth
`R. Wilson Powers III
`Kyle E. Conklin
`Deirdre M. Wells
`Davin B. Guinn
`Joseph H. Kim
`STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX,
`PLLC
`1100 New York Ave., NW, Suite 600
`Washington, DC 20005
`dyonan@sternekessler.com
`painsworth@sternekessler.com
`tpowers@sternekessler.com
`kconklin@sternekessler.com
`dwells@sternekessler.com
`dguinn@sternekessler.com
`josephk@sternekessler.com
`
`/s/ Ian R. Liston
`
`Ian R. Liston
`
`- 25 -
`
`