Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 420 Filed 06/21/24 Page 1 of 12 PageID #: 38974
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CATERPILLAR INC.’S SUR-REPLY IN SUPPORT OF ITS OPPOSITION TO
`WIRTGEN AMERICA’S MOTIONS 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: June 21, 2024
`11573062/11898.00005
`
`
`
`
`C.A. No. 17-770-JDW
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`)))))))))
`
`
`
`WIRTGEN AMERICA, INC.,
`
`
`
`
`
`CATERPILLAR INC.,
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 420 Filed 06/21/24 Page 2 of 12 PageID #: 38975
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
` PAGE
`WIRGEN IS NOT ENTITLED TO ENHANCED DAMAGES OR FEES ........................1
`
`I.
`
`A.
`
`Enhanced Damages ..................................................................................................1
`1.
`Caterpillar Did Not Copy (Factor 1) ............................................................1
`2.
`Caterpillar Acted in Good Faith (Factor 2) ..................................................3
`3.
`The Remaining Factors Do Not Support Enhancement ...............................4
`B. Wirtgen Is Not Entitled to Attorneys’ Fees .............................................................5
`II. WIRTGEN IS NOT ENTITLED TO AN INJUNCTION ...................................................5
`
`III. WIRTGEN IS NOT ENTITLED TO AN ENHANCED RUNNING ROYALTY .............7
`
`IV. WIRTGEN IS NOT ENTITLED TO PREJUDGMENT INTEREST (“PJI”).....................7
`
`V. WIRTGEN IS NOT ENTITLED TO RELIEF ON ROTARY MIXERS ............................7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 420 Filed 06/21/24 Page 3 of 12 PageID #: 38976
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`PAGE(S)
`
`CASES
`ActiveVideo Networks, Inc. v. Verizon Commc’ns, Inc.,
`694 F.3d 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2012)............................................................................................6
`Bell Helicopter Textron, Inc. v. Airbus Helicopters,
`78 F. Supp. 3d 253 (D.D.C. 2015) .......................................................................................5
`Douglas Dynamics, LLC v. Buyers Prods. Co.,
`717 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2013)............................................................................................6
`Hardy v. City Optical Inc.,
`39 F.3d 765 (7th Cir. 1994) .................................................................................................4
`i4i Ltd. P’ship v. Microsoft Corp.,
`598 F.3d 831 (Fed. Cir. 2010)..............................................................................................5
`IGT v. Bally Gaming Int'l., Inc.,
`675 F. Supp. 2d 487 (D. Del. 2009) .....................................................................................6
`Ironburg Inventions Ltd. v. Valve Corp.,
`64 F.4th 1274 (Fed. Cir. 2023) ............................................................................................1
`Kaneka Corp. v. SKC Kolon PI, Inc.,
`198 F. Supp. 3d 1089 (C.D. Cal. 2016) ...............................................................................7
`MHL Custom, Inc. v. Waydoo USA, Inc.,
`2023 WL 5805889 (D. Del. Sept. 7, 2023) ..........................................................................7
`Milwaukee Elec. Tool Corp. v. Snap-On Inc.,
`288 F. Supp. 3d 872 (E.D. Wis. 2017) .................................................................................7
`Progressive Sterilization, LLC v. Turbett Surgical LLC,
`2020 WL 3071951 (D. Del. June 10, 2020) .........................................................................4
`Riverbed Tech. v. Silver Peak Sys., Inc.,
`2014 WL 4695765 (D. Del. Sept. 12, 2014) ........................................................................6
`TEK Glob., S.R.L. v. Sealant Sys. Int’l,
`920 F.3d 777 (Fed. Cir. 2019)..............................................................................................5
`Tex. Advanced Optoelectronic Sols. Inc. v. Renesas Elecs. Am., Inc.,
`895 F.3d 1304 (Fed. Cir. 2018)............................................................................................6
`Willis Elec. Co. v. Polygroup Ltd.,
`2024 WL 1007893 (D. Minn. Mar. 8, 2024) ...................................................................3, 4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-ii-
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 420 Filed 06/21/24 Page 4 of 12 PageID #: 38977
`
`TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS
`
`
`
`Abbreviation
`’641 patent
`’972 patent
`’474 patent
`’316 patent
`’932 patent
`’628 patent
`’340 patent
`’390 patent
`’391 patent
`’268 patent
`’309 patent
`’395 patent
`’530 patent
`’592 patent
`’659 patent
`’788 patent
`’871 patent
`CAFC
`CAT or Caterpillar
`Opp.
`
`Reply
`
`Trial Tr.
`Wirtgen
`
`Word or Phrase
`U.S. Patent No. 7,530,641
`U.S. Patent No. 8,424,972
`U.S. Patent No. 8,690,474
`U.S. Patent No. 8,118,316
`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
`U.S. Patent No. RE48,268
`U.S. Patent No. 7,828,309
`U.S. Patent No. 8,308,395
`U.S. Patent No. 9,656,530
`U.S. Patent No. 8,113,592
`U.S. Patent No. 8,408,659
`U.S. Patent No. 7,946,788
`U.S. Patent No. 9,010,871
`Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
`Caterpillar Inc.
`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 (D.I. 389)
`Plaintiff’s Reply Brief in Support of Motions for
`Enhanced Damages, Attorneys’ Fees, Injunction or
`Ongoing Royalties, and Other Relief (D.I. 413)
`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 herein is added, and all internal citations and quotations omitted unless noted.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-iii-
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 420 Filed 06/21/24 Page 5 of 12 PageID #: 38978
`
`I.
`
`WIRGEN IS NOT ENTITLED TO ENHANCED DAMAGES OR FEES
`
`What Wirtgen’s reply brief does not say speaks far louder than anything it does. Wirtgen
`
`makes no attempt to address the more than 300 previously asserted patent claims it withdrew or
`
`on which it lost; resuscitate its meritless criticisms of Caterpillar’s litigation conduct; or defend its
`
`own litigation behavior. These omissions doom its demands because the strength of Caterpillar’s
`
`defenses is a powerful factor that outweighs anything that Wirtgen can point to.
`
`A.
`
`Enhanced Damages
`1.
`
`Caterpillar Did Not Copy (Factor 1)
`
`Wirtgen’s arguments that Caterpillar copied the asserted patents depend on conclusory
`
`assertions and misstatements of the record. Wirtgen never actually states what patented features
`
`were supposedly copied, but instead relies on Caterpillar’s industry-standard competitive
`
`teardowns to imply that “something” must have been copied.
`
`The jury has not “already decided” that Caterpillar copied. See Ironburg Inventions Ltd.
`
`v. Valve Corp., 64 F.4th 1274, 1300 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (willfulness is not tantamount to copying).
`
`Wirtgen bears the burden of proof on enhancement, and so the jury’s decisions on validity (where
`
`Caterpillar had the burden) are similarly not pertinent.
`
`The testimony that Wirtgen now misleadingly cites out of context (Reply at 1) does nothing
`
`to rebut the detailed evidence presented at trial about Caterpillar’s PM-465/565 machines (Opp. at
`
`4-7). Wirtgen’s argument that these machines were not “considered” during the design of the PM-
`
`600 is both unevidenced and flatly contradicted by the record. See, e.g., Trial Tr. at 1668:9-15
`
`(Rife); id. at 1687:19-1688:3, 1683:20-24.
`
`Nor has Wirtgen shown that the torn-down version of the W 210 practiced the purportedly
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 420 Filed 06/21/24 Page 6 of 12 PageID #: 38979
`
`copied patent claims. Conclusory remarks aside, Wirtgen’s experts offered no such opinion.1
`
`Indeed, the W 210 undeniably lacked the track angle sensors of Claim 12 of the ’972 patent, and
`
`Wirtgen represented to the Court that Dr. Christopher Rahn (the ’268 and ’788 patent expert)
`
`would not offer any testimony that Wirtgen practiced the Asserted Patents. D.I. 283 at 6-7; Trial
`
`Tr. at 467:9-11. Nor does Jan Schmidt’s generalized lay testimony make the necessary showing.
`
`Without evidence that the W 210 practices the asserted claims, there is no legal copying.
`
`Wirtgen’s attempt to do patent-by-patent analysis on reply is too little, too late.
`
`’530 Patent. Wirtgen does not dispute that the PM-600/800 did not infringe any claim in
`
`the ’530 family until Wirtgen rewrote its claims after the machines were released. Wirtgen cites
`
`no legal authority permitting enhancement on this fact pattern (Reply at 2-3), one that is a basis
`
`for outright estoppel. See D.I. 365 at 9-16. Wirtgen’s claims about the “timeline” and copying
`
`“[going] the other way” are incomprehensible. The assertion that the “relevant copying is of the
`
`patented feature” is unavailing—Wirtgen does not say what that is. See Reply at 2-3.
`
`’972 Patent. Wirtgen does not dispute that Caterpillar’s prior machines had a parallel-to-
`
`surface capability or that the W 210 lacked the track sensors that formed the lynchpin of the claim.
`
`Since Wirtgen’s machines undeniably lack the patented feature, there can be no copying.
`
`’641 Patent. Eric Engelmann did not say that Caterpillar used “Wirtgen’s” reverse rotor
`
`shut off feature. Cf. Reply at 3. He said Caterpillar’s PM-465/565 had all the purportedly patented
`
`capabilities. Trial Tr. at 494:17-22, 541:19-542:8 (Engelmann). In any event, Wirtgen fails to
`
`even attempt to explain what Caterpillar copied or how it could copy a method claim.
`
`’788 Patent. Wirtgen’s arguments about an “automatic option” for the ’788 patent are
`
`
`1 Dr. John Meyer asserted that the Wirtgen machine practiced the ’641 patent but he relied on
`Schmidt and provided no analysis of his own. Trial Tr. 676:9-677:6 (Meyer). Dr. John Lumkes
`merely opined that the W 210 had a feature called “parallel to surface.” Id. at 638:10-639:25.
`
`-2-
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 420 Filed 06/21/24 Page 7 of 12 PageID #: 38980
`
`nonsensical. The functionality and design of the accused hot swap feature are fundamentally
`
`different from Wirtgen’s W 210 and trace a straight line back to Caterpillar’s PM-465 two-screen
`
`design.2 Wirtgen’s infringement theory relied entirely on a default, back-end software function
`
`that Wirtgen’s machines did not have. Wirtgen’s argument that Caterpillar could have copied the
`
`software by “observing Wirtgen’s three screens” is similarly incoherent. Reply at 3-4.
`
`’309 Patent. Wirtgen does not have a patent on a “four-fold floating axle” because Claim
`
`26 was found invalid by the Patent Office. D.I. 369-12 at 42. Caterpillar was only found to
`
`infringe Claim 29 with its specific stability pattern. However, Wirtgen offered no evidence that
`
`Caterpillar took any action to copy that pattern. Wirtgen neglects the significant evidence showing
`
`Caterpillar’s independent development of Ride Control and its different configuration and design.
`
`2.
`
`Caterpillar Acted in Good Faith (Factor 2)
`
`Contrary to Wirtgen’s arguments, there was substantial evidence of Caterpillar’s good faith
`
`belief in its conduct. The testimony described Caterpillar’s decision makers’ beliefs at “at the time
`
`of the [purported] misconduct,” not merely positions that were generated during litigation. Reply
`
`at 4. These witnesses had good reason, based on their own work, their own patents, and
`
`Caterpillar’s reliance on its prior art designs to believe that they had independently developed the
`
`accused features. See Opp. at 7-8. Moreover, what Wirtgen calls Caterpillar’s “litigation-inspired
`
`defenses” are relevant to the enhancement analysis, particularly since Wirtgen’s claim for
`
`enhancement is premised largely on post-filing conduct (such as at the ITC). Id. at 8-10. The
`
`jury’s willfulness finding is also not dispositive on enhancement. See, e.g., Willis Elec. Co. v.
`
`Polygroup Ltd., 2024 WL 1007893, at *2 (D. Minn. Mar. 8, 2024).
`
`
`2 When describing this issue in the Opposition (Opp. at 5), Caterpillar inadvertently transposed the
`numbers. To be clear, Caterpillar’s designs have always had two screens and Wirtgen three.
`
`-3-
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 420 Filed 06/21/24 Page 8 of 12 PageID #: 38981
`
`3.
`
`The Remaining Factors Do Not Support Enhancement
`
`Factor 5 (Closeness of the Case). Wirtgen’s brief concedes Caterpillar’s arguments
`
`concerning the closeness of the case, both on the facts and on the law. Indeed, aside from a single
`
`conclusory sentence on page 5 of its reply brief that also addresses Factor 3, Wirtgen says nothing
`
`at all. Wirtgen’s failure to rebut Caterpillar is a “risky tactic” that courts are free to treat as “fatal.”
`
`Progressive Sterilization, LLC v. Turbett Surgical LLC, 2020 WL 3071951, at *2 (D. Del. June
`
`10, 2020); Hardy v. City Optical Inc., 39 F.3d 765, 771 (7th Cir. 1994) (failure to respond on reply
`
`“waives [] any objections not obvious to the court to specific points urged”); see Opp. at 2, 10-12.
`
`Factor 3 (Litigation Conduct). Caterpillar rebutted Wirtgen’s (exceptionally weak)
`
`criticisms of Caterpillar’s litigation conduct. Id. at 11-12. Wirtgen does not address that rebuttal,
`
`and instead attempts to improperly shift the burden of proof to Caterpillar. See Reply at 5. All
`
`Wirtgen does is repeat the (wrong) argument that Caterpillar acted badly by dropping arguments,
`
`an argument Wirtgen contradicts on the very next page. Compare id. at 5 with id. at 6.
`
`Factor 4 (Size). This factor is irrelevant. Wirtgen ignores law that while a defendant’s
`
`small size may matter, a defendant’s large size does not. Opp. at 12.
`
`Factors 6 and 7 (Duration and Redesigns). Caterpillar has not “undisputedly been
`
`infringing since 2016.” Reply at 5. Wirtgen concedes that Caterpillar designed out multiple
`
`patents; and Wirtgen did not assert some patents until late in this litigation. Compare D.I. 1 with
`
`D.I. 33. Wirtgen’s conclusory statements on reply do nothing to rebut Caterpillar’s defenses.
`
`Factor 8 (Motivation to Harm). Wirtgen’s arguments on motivation do not distinguish
`
`Caterpillar’s conduct from the normal motivations of a competitor. See Opp. at 14. The
`
`distinctions that Wirtgen tried to draw with Caterpillar’s cases do not establish that Caterpillar had
`
`a motivation to “harm” Wirtgen.
`
`-4-
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 420 Filed 06/21/24 Page 9 of 12 PageID #: 38982
`
`B. Wirtgen Is Not Entitled to Attorneys’ Fees
`
`Wirtgen does not meaningfully try to defend its request for attorney fees. Wirtgen achieved
`
`(at best) a partial victory, as it lost again and again. It does not dispute it failed to obtain summary
`
`judgment of infringement, to obtain the damages it asked for, or to show Caterpillar took any
`
`frivolous position or engaged in misconduct. Wirtgen fails to offer any defense of its own litigation
`
`conduct. Wirtgen does not dispute it went far beyond “evad[ing]” an ITC order—it violated one.
`
`This is a case of hard-fought litigation; attorney fees are unwarranted.
`
`II. WIRTGEN IS NOT ENTITLED TO AN INJUNCTION
`
`No Irreparable Harm: Market Share and Nexus. Wirtgen effectively concedes that there
`
`is no future risk of lost sales and fails to rebut or respond to Caterpillar’s evidence. Opp. at 17-19.
`
`Evidence of past harm alone is insufficient for an injunction. See Bell Helicopter Textron, Inc. v.
`
`Airbus Helicopters, 78 F. Supp. 3d 253, 273-74 (D.D.C. 2015) (harm cannot be “entirely
`
`backwards-looking”); see also i4i Ltd. P’ship v. Microsoft Corp., 598 F.3d 831, 861–62 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2010) (the test looks “in part, at what has already occurred”). Wirtgen fails to show that the (small)
`
`market share drop 8 years ago was linked to the patents rather than a wide range of unrelated
`
`benefits (e.g., service or other technology).3 See Opp. at 17-19. That Caterpillar designed out the
`
`ITC patents without impact shows there is no causal nexus. The only non-designed out patent
`
`involved in 2016 is the ’788, involving software that Wirtgen cannot show customers knew about.
`
`Wirtgen is also wrong that the CAFC “rejected” the requirement that patented features
`
`drive demand. See TEK Glob., S.R.L. v. Sealant Sys. Int’l, 920 F.3d 777, 792–93 (Fed. Cir. 2019)
`
`(“causal nexus” requires that “the infringing feature drives consumer demand”). Wirtgen’s reply
`
`
`3 Only a few of the “1,128 ideas” generated at the time of the 2010 teardown are alleged to be
`Wirtgen’s patented technology. Trial Tr. at 412:13-15 (Engelmann).
`
`-5-
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 420 Filed 06/21/24 Page 10 of 12 PageID #: 38983
`
`ignores a raft of evidence showing the patented features do not do so. Wirtgen’s arguments about
`
`Caterpillar avoiding development costs are absurd because Wirtgen America has not introduced
`
`evidence that it spent any money in development or that Caterpillar saved anything.
`
`Delay. Wirtgen does not dispute that it delayed prosecuting its patents, did not seek a
`
`preliminary injunction, and did not assert the ’788 patent in its ITC complaints. Reply at 7.
`
`Wirtgen’s complaint that Caterpillar “skirted” the ITC exclusion order is unavailing and wrong.
`
`Id. Caterpillar complied with the ITC exclusion order, and in any event, Caterpillar’s compliance
`
`does not absolve Wirtgen of its delays.
`
`Quantified Damages. Wirtgen cites no authority that a finding of irreparable harm follows
`
`when a party can quantify its damages. See id. Wirtgen criticizes Caterpillar for citing the dissent
`
`in Douglas Dynamics, LLC v. Buyers Prods. Co., 717 F.3d 1336, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2013), but does
`
`not dispute that the relevant quote is an accurate statement of law. See, e.g., ActiveVideo Networks,
`
`Inc. v. Verizon Commc’ns, Inc., 694 F.3d 1312, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2012); IGT v. Bally Gaming Int'l.,
`
`Inc., 675 F. Supp. 2d 487, 492-93 (D. Del. 2009).
`
`Adequate Remedies at Law are Available. Wirtgen offers no evidence of a milling
`
`“ecosystem” or even that the market has any incumbency effect. Wirtgen fully quantified spare
`
`parts sales, and points to no other specific evidence of injuries that are not remediable with a
`
`royalty; thus, its cited authority is inapposite. Cf. Tex. Advanced Optoelectronic Sols. Inc. v.
`
`Renesas Elecs. Am., Inc., 895 F.3d 1304, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (plaintiff presented “case-specific
`
`facts” of irreparable harm). Wirtgen is not entitled to an injunction simply because it wants one.
`
`See Riverbed Tech. v. Silver Peak Sys., Inc., 2014 WL 4695765, at *13 (D. Del. Sept. 12, 2014).
`
`Balance of Hardships Disfavors an Injunction. Wirtgen fails to offer any evidence that it
`
`(or Wirtgen GmbH) investment anything to develop the patents. See Reply at 8-9. Wirtgen relies
`
`-6-
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 420 Filed 06/21/24 Page 11 of 12 PageID #: 38984
`
`only on a general notion that it should not compete against its patents while failing to show the
`
`required causal nexus. And its claim that Caterpillar can cheaply redesign contradicts Wirtgen’s
`
`arguments at trial. See Opp. at 22.
`
`An Injunction Would Not Serve the Public Interest. Wirtgen’s only argument is that
`
`Caterpillar can design out the patents, which contradicts Wirtgen’s own trial position that
`
`Caterpillar could not bring-to-market an acceptable non-infringing alternative. See Opp. at 22.
`
`III. WIRTGEN IS NOT ENTITLED TO AN ENHANCED RUNNING ROYALTY
`
`Wirtgen appears not to dispute any of Caterpillar’s arguments about the demand for an
`
`enhanced running royalty, arguing only that it should be entitled to some running royalty. For the
`
`reasons stated in Caterpillar’s Opposition, any running royalty should be reduced, not enhanced.
`
`IV. WIRTGEN IS NOT ENTITLED TO PREJUDGMENT INTEREST (“PJI”)
`
`Wirtgen offers only a bare denial that it delayed suing. Damages and interest accrual is
`
`sufficient prejudice. See, e.g., Milwaukee Elec. Tool Corp. v. Snap-On Inc., 288 F. Supp. 3d 872,
`
`907 (E.D. Wis. 2017); Kaneka Corp. v. SKC Kolon PI, Inc., 198 F. Supp. 3d 1089, 1124 (C.D.
`
`Cal. 2016). Unlike in MHL Custom, Inc. v. Waydoo USA, Inc., 2023 WL 5805889, at *7 (D. Del.
`
`Sept. 7, 2023), Caterpillar quickly redesigned after adverse findings (Opp. at 12-14), yet Wirtgen
`
`impeded those efforts (which Wirtgen does not rebut). PJI based on annual royalty payments is
`
`also permissible; Wirtgen still receives PJI to which it is entitled. Wirtgen’s “mid-quarterly”
`
`royalties makes no sense and has no apparent support. See D.I. 410 ¶¶ 27-36.
`
`V. WIRTGEN IS NOT ENTITLED TO RELIEF ON ROTARY MIXERS
`
`Wirtgen implicitly concedes (because it must) that it never presented a damages number
`
`for past or future damages for rotary mixers. Three times zero is zero. There is nothing to enhance
`
`or award, and not harm on which to base injunctive relief. Wirtgen fails to address the verdict
`
`form issue: the jury answered “yes” if any accused machine infringes, not that “all” machines do.
`
`-7-
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 420 Filed 06/21/24 Page 12 of 12 PageID #: 38985
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`POTTER ANDERSON & CORROON LLP
`
`
`By: /s/ Bindu A. Palapura
`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
`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: June 21, 2024
`11573062/11898.00005
`
`
`-8-
`
`