Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 389 Filed 05/24/24 Page 1 of 33 PageID #: 35703
`
`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 BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF ITS OPPOSITION TO WIRTGEN
`AMERICA’S MOTION FOR ENHANCED DAMAGES, ATTORNEYS’ FEES,
`INJUNCTION OR ONGOING ROYALTIES, AND OTHER RELIEF
`
`Bindu A. Palapura (#5370)
`Andrew L. Brown (#6766)
`POTTER ANDERSON & CORROON LLP
`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
`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: May 24, 2024
`11525061/11898.00005
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 389 Filed 05/24/24 Page 2 of 33 PageID #: 35704
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`PAGE
`
`I.
`II.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`4.
`5.
`6.
`
`INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................1
`ARGUMENT .......................................................................................................................1
`A.
`Enhanced Damages Are Not Warranted ..................................................................1
`1.
`Caterpillar Did Not Copy (Read Factor 1) .................................................. 2
`i. Benchmarking Is a Lawful, Standard Industry Practice ............................. 2
`ii. Caterpillar Did Not Copy Patented Wirtgen Designs ................................. 3
`Caterpillar had a Good Faith Belief that the Asserted Patents were
`Both Invalid and Not Infringed (Read Factor 2) ......................................... 7
`The Case Was Close (Read Factors 5) ...................................................... 10
`Caterpillar’s Litigation Conduct Was Exemplary (Read Factor 3) .......... 11
`Caterpillar’s Size and Financial Condition is Neutral (Read Factor 4) .... 12
`Caterpillar Promptly Redesigned After Adverse Findings Before the ITC
`(Read Factors 6 and 7) .............................................................................. 12
`There is No Evidence of Motivation for Harm (Read Factor 8) ............... 14
`7.
`Caterpillar Did Not Conceal Anything (Read Factor 9) ........................... 14
`8.
`B. Wirtgen’s Request for Fees is Meritless and Procedurally Improper ....................14
`C.
`No Permanent Injunction is Warranted..................................................................16
`1.
`Legal Standard .......................................................................................... 17
`2.
`Wirtgen Fails to Show Irreparable Harm .................................................. 17
`3.
`Adequate Remedies at Law Are Available ............................................... 20
`4.
`The Balance of Hardships Disfavors an Injunction .................................. 20
`5.
`An Injunction Would Not Serve the Public Interest ................................. 22
`Wirtgen Is Not Entitled to an Additional Ongoing Royalty ..................................23
`Pre- and Post-Judgment Interest ............................................................................24
`Wirtgen is Not Entitled to Enhanced Damages, Ongoing Royalties, or an
`Injunction on Caterpillar’s Road Reclaimers .........................................................25
`
`D.
`E.
`F.
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 389 Filed 05/24/24 Page 3 of 33 PageID #: 35705
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`CASES
`
`PAGE(S)
`
`Altair Logix LLC v. Caterpillar Inc.,
`2019 WL 3219485 (D. Del. July 17, 2019) .......................................................................16
`Ameritox, Ltd. v. Millennium Health, LLC,
`2015 WL 3825499 (W.D. Wis. June 19, 2015) .................................................................20
`Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co.,
`678 F. 3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2012).........................................................................................19
`Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co.,
`695 F.3d 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2012)..........................................................................................17
`Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co.,
`735 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2013)..........................................................................................19
`Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co.,
`809 F.3d 633 (Fed. Cir. 2015)......................................................................................18, 20
`Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co.,
`2014 WL 6687122 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 25, 2014) ..................................................................24
`ArcherDX, LLC v. Qiagen Scis., LLC,
`2022 WL 4597877 (D. Del. Sept. 30, 2022) ..................................................................2, 11
`Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc. v. W.L. Gore & Assocs., Inc.,
`670 F.3d 1171 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (Br. ) ................................................................................15
`Bioverativ Inc. v. CSL Behring LLC,
`2020 WL 1332921 (D. Del. Mar. 23, 2020) ....................................................................3, 7
`Bright Data v. Teso LT,
`584 F. Supp. 3d 193 (E.D. Tex. 2022) ...............................................................................22
`Caterpillar Prodotti Stradali S.R.L. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n,
`847 F. App’x 893 (Fed. Cir. 2021) ................................................................................9, 13
`Checkpoint Sys., Inc. v. All-Tag Sec. S.A.,
`858 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2017)..........................................................................................15
`Conceptus, Inc. v. Hologic, Inc.,
`2012 WL 44064 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 9, 2012) ..........................................................................22
`Cordance Corp. v. Amazon.com, Inc.,
`730 F. Supp. 2d 333 (D. Del. 2010) .............................................................................20, 21
`Crystal Semiconductor Corp. v. TriTech Microelectronics Int’l, Inc.,
`246 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2001)..........................................................................................25
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 389 Filed 05/24/24 Page 4 of 33 PageID #: 35706
`
`Delta–X Corp. v. Baker Hughes Prod. Tools,
`984 F.2d 410 (Fed. Cir. 1993)..............................................................................................7
`Douglas Dynamics, LLC v. Buyers Prods. Co.,
`717 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2013)....................................................................................18, 20
`eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C.,
`547 U.S. 388 (2006) .....................................................................................................17, 20
`EMC Corp. v. Zerto, Inc.,
`2017 WL 3434212 (D. Del. Aug. 10, 2017) ................................................................23, 24
`Energy Transp. Group, Inc. v. Sonic Innovations, Inc.,
`2011 WL 2222066 (D. Del. June 7, 2011) ...........................................................................7
`Extang Corp. v. Truck Accessories Grp., LLC,
`2022 WL 607868 (D. Del. Feb. 18, 2022) .......................................................................2, 3
`Extreme Networks, Inc. v. Enterasys Networks, Inc.,
`2008 WL 4756498 (W.D. Wis. 2008) ................................................................................15
`Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Sys., Inc.,
`2016 WL 3880774 (N.D. Cal. July 18, 2016),
`rev’d in part on unrelated grounds, 879 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ......................3, 11, 14
`Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Sys., LLC,
`2016 WL 6873541 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 22, 2016) ..................................................................20
`Funai Elec. Co., Ltd. v. Daewoo Elecs. Corp.,
`616 F.3d 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2010)....................................................................................10, 11
`Gaymar Indus. V. Cincinnati Sub-Zero Prods.,
`790 F.3d 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2015)..........................................................................................15
`Gen. Motors Corp. v. Devex Corp.,
`461 U.S. 648 (1983) ...........................................................................................................25
`Green Mt. Glass LLC v. Saint-Gobain Containers, Inc.,
`300 F. Supp. 3d 610 (D. Del. 2018),
`aff’d, 773 F. App’x 619 (Fed. Cir. 2019) ...........................................................................14
`Idenix Pharms. LLC v. Gilead Scis., Inc.,
`271 F. Supp. 3d 694 (D. Del. 2017) ...................................................................2, 11, 12, 14
`Joyal Prod., Inc. v. Johnson Elec. N. Am., Inc.,
`2009 WL 512156 (D.N.J. Feb. 27, 2009),
`aff’d, 335 F. App’x 48 (Fed. Cir. 2009) .............................................................................12
`Mondis Tech. Ltd v. LG Elecs., Inc.,
`2023 WL 3749992 (D.N.J. June 1, 2023) ......................................................................2, 11
`Monsanto Co. v. Geertson Seed Farms,
`561 U.S. 139 (2010) ...........................................................................................................17
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 389 Filed 05/24/24 Page 5 of 33 PageID #: 35707
`
`Nox Med. Ehf v. Natus Neurology Inc.,
`2018 WL 6427686 (D. Del. Dec. 7, 2018)...........................................................................8
`Power Integrations, Inc. v. Fairchild Semiconductor Int’l,
`2019 WL 3290369 (D. Del. July 22, 2019) .......................................................................11
`Presidio Components Inc. v. Am. Tech. Ceramics Corp.,
`723 F. Supp. 2d 1284 (S.D. Cal. 2010) (vacated on other grounds) 702 F.3d
`1351 (Fed. Cir. 2012) .........................................................................................................23
`PureWick Corp. v. Sage Prods., LLC,
`2023 WL 2734418 (D. Del. Mar. 31, 2023) ......................................................................24
`Purewick Corp. v. Sage Prods., LLC,
`666 F. Supp. 3d 419 (D. Del. 2023) .....................................................................................6
`Radware, Ltd. v. F5 Networks, Inc.,
`2016 WL 4427490 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 22, 2016) ....................................................................2
`Robert Bosch LLC v. Pylon Mfg. Corp.,
`659 F.3d 1142 (Fed. Cir. 2011)..............................................................................17, 20, 21
`Saint-Gobain Autover USA, Inc. v. Xinyi Glass N. Am., Inc.,
`707 F. Supp. 2d 737 (N.D. Ohio 2010) ..............................................................................15
`Siemens Mobility, Inc. v. Westinghouse Air Brake Techs. Corp.,
`2019 WL 3240521 (D. Del. July 18, 2019) ...............................................................2, 6, 12
`SiOnyx LLC v. Hamamatsu Photonics K.K.,
`981 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2020)..........................................................................................15
`Smartrend Mfg. Grp. (SMG), Inc. v. Opti-Luxx, Inc.,
`2024 WL 747744 (W.D. Mi. Feb. 23, 2024) .......................................................................8
`Sprint Commc’ns Co. L.P. v. Time Warner Cable, Inc.,
`2017 WL 978107 (D. Kan. Mar. 14, 2017) .......................................................................10
`State Indus. v. A.O. Smith Corp., 751 F.2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1985) ..............................................2, 4
`Sunoco Partners Mktg. & Terminals L.P. v. Powder Springs Logistics, LLC,
`2022 WL 3973499 (D. Del. Aug. 31, 2022) ......................................................................10
`Telcordia Techs., Inc. v. Cisco Sys., Inc.,
`592 F. Supp. 2d 727 (D. Del. 2009), aff’d in relevant part, vacated in part,
`612 F.3d 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2010)............................................................................................7
`U.S. Silica Co. v. Amberger Kaolinwerke Eduard Kick GmbH & Co. KG,
`2023 WL 5279146 (E.D. Tex. 2023) ...........................................................................14, 15
`Vectura Ltd. v. Glaxosmithkline LLC,
`2019 WL 4346502 (D. Del. Sept. 12, 2019) ......................................................................14
`Wash. World Inc. v. Belanger Inc.,
`666 F. Supp. 3d 808 (E.D. Wis. 2023) .......................................................................2, 3, 12
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 389 Filed 05/24/24 Page 6 of 33 PageID #: 35708
`
`Western Plastics, Inc. v. DuBose Strapping, Inc.,
`2020 WL 5752095 (E.D. N.C. 2020),
`aff’d, 2022 WL 576218 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 25, 2022) .............................................................15
`Willis Elec. Co. v. Polygroup Ltd.,
`2024 WL 1007893 (D. Minn. Mar. 8, 2024) .......................................................................8
`Wonderland Switz. Ag v. Evenflo Co.,
`2022 WL 2438750 (D. Del. July 5, 2022) .........................................................................18
`RULES
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(2)(B) ............................................................................................................16
`
`v
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 389 Filed 05/24/24 Page 7 of 33 PageID #: 35709
`
`TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS
`
`Abbreviation
`
`’309 patent
`’530 patent
`’641 patent
`’788 patent
`’972 patent
`’474 patent
`’268 patent
`’316 patent
`’592 patent
`’871 patent
`’395 patent
`’932 patent
`’628 patent
`’340 patent
`’390 patent
`’391 patent
`Br.
`
`Word or Phrase
`U.S. Patent No. 7,828,309
`U.S. Patent No. 9,656,530
`U.S. Patent No. 7,530,641
`U.S. Patent No. 7,946,788
`U.S. Patent No. 8,424,972
`U.S. Patent No. 8,690,474
`U.S. Patent No. RE48,268
`U.S. Patent No. 8,118,316
`U.S. Patent No. 8,113,592
`U.S. Patent No. 9,010,871
`U.S. Patent No. 8,308,395
`U.S. Patent No. 8,511,932
`U.S. Patent No. 9,624,628
`U.S. Patent No. 9,644,340
`U.S. Patent No. 9,879,390
`U.S. Patent No. 9,879,391
`Wirtgen America’s Opening Brief ISO
`Motions for Enhanced Damages, Attorneys’
`Fees, Injunction or Ongoing Royalties, and
`Other Relief (D.I. 374)
`Caterpillar Inc.
`Caterpillar’s Opening Brief re Estoppel
`Defenses (D.I. 365)
`Deposition Transcript
`The Declaration of Eric Engelmann in support
`of the present opposition, filed herewith
`Exhibits attached to the Declaration of
`Christopher D. Mays (“Mays Decl.”) in
`support of the present opposition, filed
`herewith
`Final Initial Determination (D.I. 226-44)
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`Caterpillar’s Opening Brief in Support of its
`Renewed Motion for Judgment as a Matter of
`Law and Motion for New Trial (D.I. 381)
`Admitted Trial Exhibits and/or Narrowed
`Trial Exhibits
`Trial Transcripts
`Wirtgen Group (including Wirtgen American
`and Wirtgen GmbH working in concert in
`connection with enforcement activities
`directed towards the asserted patents)
`*All emphases in this brief are added unless otherwise noted.
`
`CAT or Caterpillar
`CAT’s Motion on Equitable Defenses
`
`Dep. Tr.
`Engelmann Decl.
`
`Ex.
`
`FID
`PTO
`RJMOL
`
`Trial Ex.
`
`Trial Tr.
`Wirtgen
`
`vi
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 389 Filed 05/24/24 Page 8 of 33 PageID #: 35710
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`The only thing that is extraordinary about this case is the length to which Wirtgen has gone
`
`to protect its dominant market position. To date, Wirtgen asserted more than three hundred and
`
`twenty different patent claims spread across sixteen different patents. Caterpillar asserted strong
`
`defenses to each, and offered evidence of its belief in the lawfulness of its conduct. The record
`
`confirms the reasonableness of those views: Caterpillar won complete victories on the merits on
`
`six of the originally asserted patents, won partial victories on three more, and forced Wirtgen to
`
`drop hundreds of claims. The handful of claims that survived have done so by the thinnest of
`
`margins, on technical arguments about the burden of proof, or because Wirtgen has changed its
`
`position mid-litigation. As set forth in Caterpillar’s Motion on Equitable Defenses (D.I. 365) and
`
`RJMOL (D.I. 381), compelling reasons remain to set aside the jury’s verdict. Contrary to
`
`Wirtgen’s unsupported arguments about copying, Caterpillar used its own unique design for every
`
`feature at issue, the ideas for which were based on prior generations of Caterpillar machines. This
`
`case falls far short of meeting the high bar for awarding enhanced damages or attorney fees.
`
`Wirtgen’s arguments for an injunction (or a higher running royalty) are similarly meritless.
`
`Wirtgen has offered no evidence at all that in the current market the purportedly inventive features
`
`meaningfully contribute to demand for Caterpillar’s products or that Wirtgen is losing sales.
`
`Wirtgen’s market share is now higher than ever, and the evidence shows that customers buy
`
`Caterpillar machines for reasons other than the purportedly inventive features in Wirtgen’s patents.
`
`Despite Wirtgen’s claim that these features are essential, past removal of those features has not
`
`affected Caterpillar’s sales. Wirtgen’s evidence relies entirely on decade-old anecdotal evidence
`
`of the kind that the Federal Circuit has held to be insufficient.
`
`II.
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`A.
`
`Enhanced Damages Are Not Warranted
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 389 Filed 05/24/24 Page 9 of 33 PageID #: 35711
`
`Enhancement is reserved for “egregious” cases where the defendant’s conduct is
`
`“malicious or characteristic of a pirate.” Mondis Tech. Ltd v. LG Elecs., Inc., 2023 WL 3749992,
`
`at *4 (D.N.J. June 1, 2023); accord ArcherDX, LLC v. Qiagen Scis., LLC, 2022 WL 4597877, at
`
`*16 (D. Del. Sept. 30, 2022). Courts in Delaware thus routinely deny enhancement, even when
`
`some Read factors favor an award. E.g., Idenix Pharms. LLC v. Gilead Scis., Inc., 271 F. Supp.
`
`3d 694, 699 n.7 (D. Del. 2017); Siemens Mobility, Inc. v. Westinghouse Air Brake Techs. Corp.,
`
`2019 WL 3240521, at *9-10 (D. Del. July 18, 2019). Wirtgen cannot meet this high standard.
`
`1.
`
`Caterpillar Did Not Copy (Read Factor 1)
`
`The centerpiece of Wirtgen’s argument is the untrue allegation that Caterpillar “copied”
`
`Wirtgen’s patented inventions. See Br. at 3. In fact, Caterpillar’s machines do not have “identical
`
`functionality” to Wirtgen’s machines; the ideas embodied in the PM-600/800 are functionalities
`
`that long predate the tear downs; Caterpillar did independent design work on every accused feature;
`
`the designs used were different from Wirtgen’s; and Wirtgen has not carried its burden to show
`
`that the purportedly copied machines practiced the patents. Indeed, in many cases Wirtgen wrote
`
`the claims after Caterpillar’s products were already on the market. Caterpillar did not copy.
`
`i.
`
`Benchmarking Is a Lawful, Standard Industry Practice
`
`Wirtgen makes much of Caterpillar’s benchmarking against Wirtgen machines, but
`
`“keeping track of a competitor’s products and designing new and possibly better or cheaper
`
`functional equivalents is the stuff of which competition is made.” State Indus. v. A.O. Smith Corp.,
`
`751 F.2d 1226, 1235-36 (Fed. Cir. 1985); Radware, Ltd. v. F5 Networks, Inc., 2016 WL 4427490,
`
`at *6 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 22, 2016) (same); Wash. World Inc. v. Belanger Inc., 666 F. Supp. 3d 808,
`
`827-28 (E.D. Wis. 2023) (“There is nothing wrong with recognizing an attractive feature of a
`
`competitor’s product and attempting to lawfully incorporate it into one’s own products.”). Indeed,
`
`“[b]enchmarking is a common practice”—“[i]t is not inherently suspect to compare one’s product
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 389 Filed 05/24/24 Page 10 of 33 PageID #: 35712
`
`to a competitor’s product.” Extang Corp. v. Truck Accessories Grp., LLC, 2022 WL 607868, at
`
`*2 (D. Del. Feb. 18, 2022) (denying MSJ of willful infringement); see also Bioverativ Inc. v. CSL
`
`Behring LLC, 2020 WL 1332921, at *3 (D. Del. Mar. 23, 2020); see also Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat
`
`Sys., Inc., 2016 WL 3880774, at *16 (N.D. Cal. July 18, 2016), rev’d in part on unrelated grounds,
`
`879 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2018). Wirtgen’s own witnesses have admitted as much and that Wirtgen
`
`itself benchmarked. See, e.g., Trial Tr. at 355:13-356:3-10 (Schmidt); id. at 1247:4-11 (Draper);
`
`D.I. 213-21, Ex. 21 (Schmidt Dep. Tr.) at 32:17-33:21.
`
`Neither this form of benchmarking nor the jury’s finding of willful infringement means
`
`that Caterpillar “copied” Wirtgen products. See Wash. World, 666 F. Supp. 3d at 827; Extang,
`
`2022 WL 607868, at *2 (“Although [accused infringer] indeed benchmarked … that does not
`
`compel a finding that it had specific intent to copy the patented features.”).
`
`ii.
`
`Caterpillar Did Not Copy Patented Wirtgen Designs
`
`Though Wirtgen repeatedly says that Caterpillar copied Wirtgen’s patents, Wirtgen has
`
`failed to offer evidence to support its allegation. The teardown at issue was in 2010, before four
`
`of the five patents (the ’309, ’530, ’788, and ’972) had issued. Wirtgen presented no evidence that
`
`the torn down machines practiced the claims at issue. More generally, the principal purpose of the
`
`teardowns was cost engineering, not to obtain design ideas. See, e.g., Trial Tr. at 406:13-19
`
`(Engelmann); id. at 662:15-24. Cost engineering is industry standard, and part of a companywide
`
`“low cost producer” process.1 Trial Tr. at 409:12-17 (Engelmann); Engelmann Decl. ¶ 26.
`
`Tellingly, Wirtgen has done nothing to compare Caterpillar’s designs to Wirtgen’s by
`
`undertaking a feature-by-feature or patent-by-patent analysis of the competing products. Wirtgen
`
`could easily have done so—it purchased several Caterpillar machines for dissection in 2016 and
`
`1 Wirtgen’s only rebuttal is the unrepresentative experience of a single witness. See Br. at 5.
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 389 Filed 05/24/24 Page 11 of 33 PageID #: 35713
`
`2017 and has had further opportunities for inspection in this litigation. See Mays Decl. ¶ 58; Ex.
`
`34 (Zeppelin Invoice); D.I.s 369-16, 369-26, 369-27, 369-28, 369-29.2 The reason Wirtgen has
`
`not done so is that the evidence contradicts Wirtgen’s claims and shows that Caterpillar did
`
`independent design work. See generally Trial Tr. at 1680:16-1681:13 (Rife) (describing the design
`
`process); id. at 533:3-11 (Engelmann) (same). See also See State Indus., 751 F.2d at 1235, 1238
`
`(no copying where the accused product had a “quite different structure”).
`
`’530 Patent (Leg Sensors). Caterpillar could not have “copied” anything about the ’530
`
`patent because the patent had not even been filed at the time of the teardowns. See D.I. 365 at 9-
`
`15. The patent did not issue until a year after Caterpillar commercially released the PM-600/800.
`
`The absence of copying is confirmed by the fact that Wirtgen changed its claims to cover
`
`Caterpillar’s products: Wirtgen wrote claims to copy Caterpillar’s product, not the other way
`
`around. See D.I. 365 at 11-13. Moreover, Caterpillar’s design used magnetic sensors, a different
`
`type of sensor from the only disclosed embodiment in the ’530 patent (a wire-rope sensor).
`
`Compare Trial Ex. 661A at .0569 with ’530 patent Fig. 3 and 6:25-37. In fact, Caterpillar had
`
`been using those same magnetic sensors for more than a decade prior to the issuance of the ’530
`
`Patent. Trial Tr. at 523:9-524:3 (Engelmann).
`
`’972 Patent (Parallel-to-Surface). Caterpillar could not have copied either the idea for
`
`the “parallel-to-surface” feature in the abstract or Wirtgen’s specific design. As to the former,
`
`Caterpillar’s earlier generations of machines (the PM-565 and PM-465) indisputably had their own
`
`versions of parallel-to-surface, a fact that was central to Caterpillar’s successful PTO challenges.
`
`See Trial Tr. at 495:9-496:7 (Engelmann); 1186:18-1187:3, 1187:16-1190:11 (Smith); D.I.s 381-
`
`2 Incredibly, while characterizing Caterpillar’s competitive intelligence gathering as illicit,
`Wirtgen trivializes its own conduct as “merely engaged in standard competitive intelligence
`gathering using public information.” D.I. 379 at 16.
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 389 Filed 05/24/24 Page 12 of 33 PageID #: 35714
`
`1, 381-2 (’972 FWD). As to design, there is no evidence that Wirtgen ever used track angle sensors
`
`like those used on the accused machines. In fact, the Wirtgen machines that were torn down in
`
`2010—ten years before the release of the first accused machine—did not have such sensors. See
`
`Engelmann Decl. ¶¶ 30-34; Trial Tr. 603:20-604:3 (Lumkes).
`
`’641 Patent (Reverse Rotor Shut Off). As set forth in Caterpillar’s JMOL, Caterpillar’s
`
`PM-465 had a reverse rotor feature long before Wirtgen. Moreover, Wirtgen’s apparatus claim
`
`was found invalid. See D.I. 226-44 (FID) at 436; Mays Decl. ¶ 10. The only claim that went to
`
`trial was a method claim based on inducement. Wirtgen has not shown how Caterpillar did (or
`
`even could) copy inducement of a method, or what if anything the teardowns have to do with that.
`
`In any event, Caterpillar instructions to its users were unchanged from the PM-465: then and now
`
`Caterpillar tells its users to not use the method. See Trial Tr. at 716:19-22 (Meyer); id. at 1098:9-
`
`18 (Klopp); D.I. 381 at 3-5. See D.I. 381 at 3-5.
`
`’788 Patent (Hot Swap). Caterpillar did not copy its hot swap feature from Wirtgen. The
`
`PM-465 had a hot swap feature. Trial Tr. 1201:13-1206:15 (Smith). That feature worked almost
`
`identically to the way the hot swap feature works in the PM-600/800. See, e.g., id. at 1199:21-
`
`1200:13, 1202:23-1207:18. Both used a design different from Wirtgen’s—Caterpillar uses three
`
`screens instead of two and it does not allow the user manually to set the new sensor prior to starting
`
`the switchover. See id. at 1196:7-1197:19, 1198:25-1199:15. Additionally, Caterpillar does not
`
`have the claimed switch over device such as a button for initiating a swap. Id. at 1198:3-1199: 15.
`
`Wirtgen’s infringement theory was entirely based on back-end software operations, and there was
`
`no evidence that Caterpillar even had access to Wirtgen’s software. See id. at 1217:15-1218:12.
`
`’309 Patent (Ride Control). Wirtgen’s core copying argument is really based on the ’309
`
`patent, but Wirtgen’s claim that Caterpillar uses the “exact same plumbing arrangement” as
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 389 Filed 05/24/24 Page 13 of 33 PageID #: 35715
`
`Wirtgen is false. Br. at 5 (quoting Trial Ex. 1344.0006). Wirtgen inspected Caterpillar’s machines
`
`and knows that Caterpillar used different plumbing and a different configuration. The cited
`
`document discusses the benefit of a system with NO valves. In fact, Caterpillar used its own
`
`plumbing system derived from the PM-565 (later renamed the PM-201) with added valves. Trial
`
`Tr. at 572:20-573:1 (Steffen); see also Trial Ex. 1334.0006. Further, Caterpillar was critical of
`
`Wirtgen’s system, and sought to improve on it both by disabling ride control during milling and
`
`by improving the hydraulic set up. Trial Tr. at 570:24-576:20 (Steffen);3 Engelmann Decl. ¶¶ 35-
`
`38; Exs. 4, 6, 5, 16. Caterpillar obtained a patent on its design. Trial Tr. at 573:17-574:6;
`
`Engelmann Decl. ¶ 36; Mays Decl. ¶¶ 3-6; Ex. 30. Caterpillar also based the plans in part on a
`
`grape harvester patent prior art. Trial Tr. at 569:15-24 (Steffen); Engelmann Decl. ¶ 36.
`
`Nor do the cited Caterpillar planning documents demonstrate copying. See Br. at 4-5. Trial
`
`Ex. 611 is not indicative of any copying because it discussed features already designed into the
`
`PM-600 (and even says some are better than Wirtgen’s equivalents); i.e., Caterpillar was not
`
`identifying features it wanted to “copy.” See Engelmann Decl. ¶¶ 21-25, Ex. E1. Trial Ex. 602
`
`similarly does not help Wirtgen. See id. ¶¶ 26-38. The document says nothing about the ’972
`
`patent because Caterpillar was benchmarking Wirtgen against the PM-200 (which did not have
`
`parallel-to-surface) not the older PM-465 (which did). The document describes the reverse rotor
`
`shutoff feature as a differentiation feature, meaning something better than Wirtgen’s. Id. ¶¶ 30-
`
`34. As for the ’309 patent, to the extent Caterpillar caught up with Wirtgen, it did so through
`
`3 See Purewick Corp. v. Sage Prods., LLC, 666 F. Supp. 3d 419, 447 (D. Del. 2023) (finding factor
`neutral where was “critical of Plaintiff’s design and sought to design a better product”); Siemens
`Mobility, 2019 WL 3240521, at *8 (similar).
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 389 Filed 05/24/24 Page 14 of 33 PageID #: 35716
`
`original patented designs, not copying. See id. ¶¶ 35-38.4
`
`2. Caterpillar had a Good Faith Belief that the Asserted Patents were
`Both Invalid and Not Infringed (Read Factor 2)
`
`Caterpillar had a good faith belief that the asserted patents were invalid and not infringed
`
`and presented strong defenses and challenges before this Court, the PTAB, the ITC, and Italian
`
`courts. These facts strongly cut against enhanced damages. See Energy Transp. Group, Inc. v.
`
`Sonic Innovations, Inc., 2011 WL 2222066, at *16 (D. Del. June 7, 2011) (“[A]n infringer may
`
`generally avoid enhanced damages with a meritorious good faith defense and a substantial
`
`challenge to infringement.”) (quoting Delta–X Corp. v. Baker Hughes Prod. Tools, 984 F.2d 410,
`
`413 (Fed. Cir. 1993)); Telcordia Techs., Inc. v. Cisco Sys., Inc., 592 F. Supp. 2d 727, 750 (D. Del.
`
`2009), aff’d in relevant part, vacated in part, 612 F.3d 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (declining to enhance
`
`where defenses were not “frivolous and were litigated in good faith.”).
`
`First, Caterpillar’s witnesses uniformly testified that they sought to avoid infringing valid
`
`patents. See, e.g., Trial Tr. at 534:12-15 (Engelmann) (“There was a review process that we follow
`
`to try to avoid any patent infringement.”); id. at 1675:9-1676:5 (Rife) (the design process included
`
`“IP review,” to ensure Caterpillar was “not tracking on anyone else’s IP …”); id. at 1681:14-
`
`1682:5 (Rife) (similar). These efforts are reflected in the fact that, as detailed above, Caterpillar
`
`used unique designs that were based on earlier generations of Caterpillar machines. See § II.A.1.ii,
`
`supra. Caterpillar also implemented design arounds, such as intentionally designing its display
`
`screen for its RM600 and RM800 road reclaimers to not display the height of each leg to avoid
`
`infringing claim 22 of the ’530 Patent. See Trial Tr. 1695:12-1697:10 (Rife); see also id. at 545:6-
`
`4 That Caterpillar monitored Wirtgen’s patents (Br. at 5-6) is of no import – that “is not ‘copying’.
`It is competitive intelligence gathering.” Bioverativ, 2020 WL 1332921, at *3; see also D.I. 296
`at 41. Wirtgen’s own witness, Jan Schmidt, admitted Wirtgen did the same. See Trial Tr. at 354:1-
`355:2 (Schmidt).
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 389 Filed 05/24/24 Page 15 of 33 PageID #: 35717
`
`9 (Engelmann). And those same earlier generations and other publications gave Caterpillar good
`
`reason to believe the patents invalid. See id.; § II.A.1.ii, supra. This belief is underscored by the
`
`fact that Caterpillar was awarded patents on its own designs specifically over Wirtgen’s patents
`
`such as the ’641 and ’309 patents, indicating that the PTO found Caterpillar’s design novel and
`
`inventive over Wirtgen’s patents. See Mays Decl. ¶¶ 3-9; Exs. 7, 30; Trial Tr. at 518:23-520:23
`
`(Engelmann) (Caterpillar’s reverse rotor shut off patent), id. at 573:17-574:6 (Steffen) (patent issue
`
`over the ’309 patent); Mays Decl. ¶¶ 3, 7; Exs. 7, 30 (listing ’641 at 1; listing ’309 Patent at 1).
`
`Second, Caterpillar’s good faith belief is confirmed by the strong defenses and challenges
`
`it presented in this Court, the PTAB, the ITC, and related Italian litigation. See generally
`
`Smartrend Mfg. Grp. (SMG), Inc. v. Opti-Luxx, Inc., 2024 WL 747744, at *11 (W.D. Mi. Feb. 23,
`
`2024) (presentation of strong defenses “undercuts the impact of [a] willfulness finding”); Nox Med.
`
`Ehf v. Natus Neurology Inc., 2018 WL 6427686, at *3 (D. Del. Dec. 7, 2018) (IPR and other
`
`challenges are “circumstantial evidence” of a good faith belief in invalidity); Willis Elec. Co. v.
`
`Polygro