Case 1:17-cv-00770-RGA-MPT Document 55 Filed 11/04/21 Page 1 of 22 PageID #: 9545
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`
`
`
`WIRTGEN AMERICA, INC.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff/Counterclaim-Defendant,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CATERPILLAR INC.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendant/Counterclaim-Plaintiff.
`
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`
`
`C.A. No. 17-770-RGA
`
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`
`
`OPENING BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF/COUNTERCLAIM-
`DEFENDANT WIRTGEN AMERICA, INC.’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`DEFENDANT/COUNTERCLAIM-PLAINTIFF CATERPILLAR INC.’S THIRD AND
`FOURTH COUNTERCLAIMS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM UPON WHICH
`RELIEF CAN BE GRANTED
`
`
`
`
`
`YOUNG CONAWAY STARGATT & TAYLOR, LLP
`Adam W. Poff (No. 3990)
`Pilar G. Kraman (No. 5199)
`Rodney Square
`1000 North King Street
`Wilmington, Delaware 19801
`(302) 571-6600
`apoff@ycst.com
`pkraman@ycst.com
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff Wirtgen America, Inc.
`
`
`
`Dated: November 4, 2021
`
`
`OF COUNSEL:
`
`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, Tennessee 37203
`(615) 242-2400
`rdl@iplawgroup.com
`sro@iplawgroup.com
`wes@iplawgroup.com
`smd@iplawgroup.com
`dar@iplawgroup.com
`mak@iplawgroup.com
`jft@iplawgroup.com
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-RGA-MPT Document 55 Filed 11/04/21 Page 2 of 22 PageID #: 9546
`
`Daniel E. Yonan
`Paul A. Ainsworth
`R. Wilson Powers III
`Kyle E. Conklin
`Deirdre M. Wells
`Joseph H. Kim
`STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX, PLLC
`1100 New York Ave., NW, Suite 600
`Washington, DC 20005
`(202) 371-2600
`dyonan@sternekessler.com
`painsworth@sternekessler.com
`tpowers@sternekessler.com
`kconklin@sternekessler.com
`dwells@sternekessler.com
`josephk@sternekessler.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- ii -
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-RGA-MPT Document 55 Filed 11/04/21 Page 3 of 22 PageID #: 9547
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................. 1
`
`
`I.
`
`II. STATEMENT ON NATURE AND STAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS ........................ 3
`
`III. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ............................................................................................ 3
`
`IV. CONCISE STATEMENT OF FACTS ................................................................................ 4
`
`V. ARGUMENT ......................................................................................................................... 5
`
`A. Legal Standard for Motions to Dismiss Under Rule 12(b)(6) .................................... 5
`
`B. The Third Counterclaim Fails to State a Plausible Claim for Relief Because the
`
`Allegations Are Conclusory and Unsupported by the Very Documents Upon Which
`
`Caterpillar Relies ................................................................................................................. 6
`
`C. The Fourth Counterclaim Fails to State a Plausible Claim for Relief by Merely
`
`Pleading an Element-by-Element Recitation of Prosecution Laches ............................ 11
`
`VI. CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................... 14
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- iii -
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-RGA-MPT Document 55 Filed 11/04/21 Page 4 of 22 PageID #: 9548
`
`
`Cases
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Arsus, LLC v. Tesla Motors, Inc., No. 20-cv-00313,
`
` 2020 WL 5552868, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 14, 2020) ............................................................... 10
`
`Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) ................................................................................... 1, 5, 6
`
`Astrazeneca Pharms. LP v. Apotex Corp., No. CIV 10-338 RBK/KW,
`
` 2010 WL 5376310, at *9 (D. Del. Dec. 22, 2010) ..................................................................... 6
`
`Axcess Int’l, Inc. v. Genetec (USA) Inc.,
`
` 375 F. Supp. 3d 533, 535 (D. Del. 2019) ................................................................................... 5
`
`Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) ................................................................ 1, 5
`
`Boston Sci. Corp. v. Nevro Corp., C.A. No. 18-644-CFC,
`
` 415 F. Supp. 3d 482, 489 (D. Del. 2019) ................................................................................... 8
`
`Cancer Rsch. Tech. Ltd. v. Barr Lab’ys, Inc., 625 F.3d 724, 728 (Fed. Cir. 2010).......... 11, 13, 14
`
`CG Tech. Dev., LLC v. William Hill U.S. Holdco, Inc.,
`
` 404 F. Supp. 3d 842, 845 (D. Del. 2019) ................................................................................... 5
`
`Feit Elec. Co., Inc. v. Beacon Point Cap., LLC, No. 13-CV-09339,
`
` 2015 WL 557262, at *3 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 9, 2015) ...................................................................... 13
`
`Finjan, Inc. v. ESET, LLC, No. 17-CV-00183-CAB-BGS,
`
` 2017 WL 3149642, at *3 (S.D. Cal. July 24, 2017) ................................................................. 13
`
`Finjan, Inc. v. Juniper Network, Inc., No. C 17-05659 WHA,
`
` 2018 WL 5454318, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 29, 2018) ................................................................ 14
`
`Fowler v. UPMC Shadyside, 578 F.3d 203, 211 (3d Cir. 2009) ................................................... 14
`
`Healthier Choices Mgmt. Corp. v. Philip Morris USA, Inc., No. 1:20-CV-4816-TCB,
`
` 2021 WL 3121487, at *6 (N.D. Ga. July 23, 2021) ................................................................. 10
`
`
`
`- iv -
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-RGA-MPT Document 55 Filed 11/04/21 Page 5 of 22 PageID #: 9549
`
`In re Bill of Lading Transmission & Processing Sys. Patent Litig.,
`
` 681 F.3d 1323, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ........................................................................................ 8
`
`In re Burlington Coat Factory Sec. Litig., 114 F.3d 1410, 1426 (3d Cir. 1997) ............................ 6
`
`Mosaic Brands, Inc. v. Ridge Wallet LLC, No. 2:20-cv-04556,
`
` 2020 WL 5640233, at *4 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 3, 2020) ................................................................. 10
`
`Nomadix, Inc. v. Hosp. Core Servs. LLC, No. CV 14-08256 DDP VBKX,
`
` 2015 WL 3948804, at *11 (C.D. Cal. June 29, 2015) .............................................................. 13
`
`Promos Techs., Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., No. CV 18-307-RGA,
`
` 2018 WL 5630585, at *4 (D. Del. Oct. 31, 2018) ...................................................................... 2
`
`report and recommendation adopted, No. CV 14-1330-RGA,
`
` 2016 WL 4581078 (D. Del. Sept. 1, 2016) .............................................................................. 13
`
`Santiago v. Warminster Twp., 629 F.3d 121, 130 n.7 (3d Cir. 2010) ............................................. 6
`
`Secured Mail Solns. LLC v. Universal Wilde, Inc., 873 F.3d 905, 913 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ............... 6
`
`SIPCO, LLC v. Streetline, Inc., C.A. No. 16-830-RGA,
`
` 230 F. Supp. 3d 351, 353 (D. Del. 2017) ................................................................................... 8
`
`Sonos, Inc. v. D&M Holdings Inc., No. CV 14-1330-RGA-MPT,
`
` 2016 WL 4249493, at *7 (D. Del. Aug. 10, 2016)................................................................... 13
`
`Symbol Techs., Inc. v. Lemelson Med., 277 F.3d 1361, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2002) ............................ 11
`
`Symbol Techs., Inc. v. Lemelson Medical, 422 F.3d 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ........................... 11, 12
`
`SynKloud Techs., LLC v. HP Inc., 490 F. Supp. 3d 806, 809 (D. Del. 2020)................................. 5
`
`Umland v. PLANCO Fin. Servs., 542 F.3d 59, 64 (3d Cir. 2008) .................................................. 5
`
`Uniloc 2017 LLC v. Zenpayroll, Inc., No. 19-1075,
`
` 2020 WL 4260616, at *4 (D. Del. July 23, 2020) ...................................................................... 2
`
`
`
`- v -
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-RGA-MPT Document 55 Filed 11/04/21 Page 6 of 22 PageID #: 9550
`
`Wirtgen America, Inc. v. Caterpillar Prodotti Stradali S.R.L., et al.,
`
` No. 0:17-cv-02085-NEB-TNL, D.I. 46 (D. Minn. Sep. 2, 2021) ............................................... 4
`
`Statutes & Rules
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) ..................................................................................................................... 4
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6)................................................................................................................... 1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- vi -
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-RGA-MPT Document 55 Filed 11/04/21 Page 7 of 22 PageID #: 9551
`
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`
`Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), Plaintiff/Counterclaim-Defendant
`
`Wirtgen America, Inc. (“Wirtgen America”) moves to dismiss Defendant/Counterclaim-Plaintiff
`
`Caterpillar Inc.’s (“Caterpillar”) Third and Fourth Counterclaims for failure to state a claim upon
`
`which relief can be granted. Instead of pleading facts that would give Wirtgen America fair notice
`
`of the claims against it, Caterpillar’s counterclaims either merely parrot the text of the patent claims
`
`or offer factual allegations that do not demonstrate how the relevant claim element is met by the
`
`accused product. Caterpillar must meet the usual standard for notice pleading under Bell Atlantic
`
`Corp. v. Twombly and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, which require Caterpillar to plead “sufficient factual
`
`matter . . . to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662,
`
`697 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). This Caterpillar has
`
`failed to do.
`
`First, Caterpillar’s Third Counterclaim for patent infringement relies on a claim chart that
`
`fails to plausibly demonstrate where each limitation is found in the accused product. (See D.I. 43-
`
`1, at PageID #: 9474-9478). For many claim limitations, Caterpillar provides no factual allegations
`
`as to how the limitation is met by the accused product and instead parrots the claim language.
`
`Caterpillar’s allegations as to claim elements [1.e] and [1.f] are exemplary:
`
`Claim Language of U.S. Patent No. 9,371,618 Covered Feature in the Accused Product
`[1.e] a pressure sensor associated with the main
`The Accused Products include a pressure
`spray manifold and configured to provide a
`sensor associated with the main spray
`pressure signal indicative of a pressure of the
`manifold and configured
`to provide a
`pressurized water within
`the main spray
`pressure signal indicative of a pressure of the
`manifold;
`pressurized water within the main spray
`manifold.
`The Accused Products a first control valve
`fluidly disposed between the main spray
`manifold and the first spray manifold, the
`first control valve
`selectively
`fluidly
`connecting the main with the first spray
`
`[1.f] a first control valve fluidly disposed
`between the main spray manifold and the first
`spray manifold, the first control valve selectively
`fluidly connecting the main with the first spray
`manifold in response to a valve signal;
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-RGA-MPT Document 55 Filed 11/04/21 Page 8 of 22 PageID #: 9552
`
`
`
`(D.I. 43-1, at PageID #: 9476). Caterpillar’s Third Counterclaim should be dismissed. See Promos
`
`manifold in response to a valve signal.
`
`Techs., Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., No. CV 18-307-RGA, 2018 WL 5630585, at *4 (D. Del. Oct.
`
`31, 2018) (Andrews, J.) (dismissing plaintiff’s complaint for “fail[ing] to move beyond the legal
`
`conclusions that [the accused infringer’s] products infringe the… patents because they are
`
`comprised of all elements in the claim….”); see also Uniloc 2017 LLC v. Zenpayroll, Inc., No. 19-
`
`1075-CFC-SRF, 2020 WL 4260616, at *5 (D. Del. July 23, 2020) (recommending granting motion
`
`to dismiss complaint that “parrots the language of [the patent claim]” and, consequently, does not
`
`plausibly demonstrate how the defendant infringes), report and recommendation adopted sub nom.
`
`Uniloc 2017 LLC v. Zen Payroll, Inc., No. CV 19-1075-CFC/SRF, 2020 WL 5077416 (D. Del.
`
`Aug. 27, 2020); N. Star Innovations, Inc. v. Micron Tech., Inc., No. CV 17-506-LPS-CJB, 2017
`
`WL 5501489, at *2 (D. Del. Nov. 16, 2017) (recommending granting motion to dismiss because
`
`the complaint “d[id] little more than parrot back the language of these claim elements and then
`
`state[] that the accused product is comprised of such elements.”), report and recommendation
`
`adopted, No. CV 17-506-LPS-CJB, 2018 WL 11182741 (D. Del. Jan. 3, 2018).
`
`Second, Caterpillar’s Fourth Counterclaim for a declaration of unenforceability due to
`
`prosecution laches fails to provide any factual allegations that support a prima facie case. No
`
`factual allegations show that: (1) there was an unreasonable and unexplained delay by Wirtgen
`
`America in the prosecution of the patents-at-issue; (2) even if there were an unreasonable and
`
`unexplained delay, that the delay resulted in prejudice to Caterpillar; and, (3) even if there were
`
`prejudice to Caterpillar, that the prejudice is demonstrated by intervening rights. Caterpillar’s
`
`failure to provide any factual allegations for just one of these elements supports dismissal. Here,
`
`Caterpillar’s Fourth Counterclaim fails as to all three, and it should be dismissed.
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-RGA-MPT Document 55 Filed 11/04/21 Page 9 of 22 PageID #: 9553
`
`
`II. STATEMENT ON NATURE AND STAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS
`Wirtgen America filed an Amended Complaint alleging that Caterpillar has infringed one
`
`or more claims of thirteen Wirtgen America patents (the “Asserted Patents”), and Caterpillar
`
`responded by asserting four counterclaims. (See D.I. 33, at PageID #: 2369-70 (¶14); D.I. 43).
`
`Relevant here, Caterpillar’s third counterclaim alleges that Wirtgen America’s products infringe
`
`one or more claims of U.S. Patent No. 9,371,618 (the “’618 Patent”) (the “Third Counterclaim”)
`
`(See D.I. 43, at PageID #: 9406-08 (¶¶27-35)). Caterpillar’s fourth counterclaim alleges that certain
`
`Asserted Patents are unenforceable under the doctrine of prosecution laches (the “Fourth
`
`Counterclaim”): U.S. Patent Nos. 9,010,871 (the ’871 Patent”), 9,656,530 (the “’530 Patent”),
`
`8,690,474 (the ’474 Patent”), RE48,268 (the “’268 Patent”), 9,879,390 (the “’390 Patent”), and
`
`9,879,391 (the ’391 Patent”). (See D.I. 43, at PageID #: 9409 (¶¶36-41)). Wirtgen America now
`
`moves this Court to dismiss Caterpillar’s Third and Fourth Counterclaims, pursuant to Rule
`
`12(b)(6).
`
`III. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
`
`
`Pursuant to D. Del. LR 7.1.3(c)(1)(D), Wirtgen America hereby submits the legal
`
`propositions upon which it relies in moving this Court to dismiss Caterpillar’s Third and Fourth
`
`Counterclaims under Rule 12(b)(6):
`
`1. Caterpillar’s factual allegations of infringement in the Third Counterclaim are conclusory
`
`and unsupported, either merely parroting the language of the claims without identifying the
`
`features on the accused product, or failing to connect the claim elements to the features on the
`
`accused product; and
`
`2. Caterpillar pled no factual allegations in the Fourth Counterclaim sufficient to establish
`
`any of the three required elements for prosecution laches: (1) that there was an unreasonable or
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-RGA-MPT Document 55 Filed 11/04/21 Page 10 of 22 PageID #: 9554
`
`
`unexplained delay in prosecution, (2) that such delay has resulted in prejudice to Caterpillar, or (3)
`
`that any such prejudice to Caterpillar is demonstrated by intervening rights.
`
`Because Caterpillar’s conclusory and formulaic allegations do not meet the plausibility
`
`standard in Iqbal and Twombly, the Court should dismiss the Third and Fourth Counterclaims.
`
`IV. CONCISE STATEMENT OF FACTS
`On June 16, 2017, Wirtgen America filed its original Complaint, accusing Caterpillar of
`
`infringing one or more claims of twelve Wirtgen America patents. (See D.I. 1, at PageID #: 5
`
`(¶11)). Concurrently with the filing, Wirtgen America filed complaints in the District of Minnesota
`
`and the United States International Trade Commission (“ITC”). (See D.I. 8-1; D.I. 8-2).
`
`Subsequently, the Court granted the parties’ joint motion to stay this action pending resolution of
`
`the ITC proceeding, administratively closing the case on August 29, 2017. (See D.I. 10).
`
`After resolution of the ITC proceeding, related inter partes review (IPR) proceedings, and
`
`appeals therefrom, (see D.I. 33, at PageID #: 2381-85 (¶¶53-76)), on May 17, 2021, this Court
`
`lifted the stay with respect to all but one patent. (See D.I. 25). Wirtgen America agreed with
`
`Caterpillar to litigate in Delaware and voluntarily dismissed its complaint in the District of
`
`Minnesota. See Wirtgen America, Inc. v. Caterpillar Prodotti Stradali S.R.L., et al., No. 0:17-cv-
`
`02085-NEB-TNL, D.I. 46 (D. Minn. Sep. 2, 2021). After four years of litigating this dispute at the
`
`ITC and PTAB, Wirtgen America filed its Amended Complaint, accusing Caterpillar of infringing
`
`one or more claims of the Asserted Patents. (See D.I. 33, at PageID #: 2370-71 (¶14)).
`
`Within hours of providing notice of Wirtgen America’s infringement allegations,
`
`Caterpillar filed its Answer to Amended Complaint and Counterclaims, which included the Third
`
`and Fourth Counterclaims. (See D.I. 43, at PageID #: 9406-09 (¶¶27-41)). Wirtgen America moves
`
`this Court to dismiss the Third and Fourth Counterclaims because they fail to state a claim upon
`
`which relief can be granted.
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-RGA-MPT Document 55 Filed 11/04/21 Page 11 of 22 PageID #: 9555
`
`
`V. ARGUMENT
`
`
`This Court should dismiss Caterpillar’s Third and Fourth Counterclaims because the
`
`factual allegations therein are conclusory and present nothing more than an element-by-element
`
`recitation of the claims. The Third and Fourth Counterclaims fail to allege sufficient factual matter
`
`to state a facially plausible claim for relief under Rule 8(a)(2) as required under Twombly and
`
`Iqbal. Caterpillar should not receive the privilege of extensive discovery on the subject matter
`
`arising from the threadbare factual allegations, nor should Wirtgen America be burdened with
`
`responding to discovery requests on Caterpillar’s overreaching claim assertions.
`
`
`
`A.
`
`Legal Standard for Motions to Dismiss Under Rule 12(b)(6)
`
`Any claim for relief must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that
`
`the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). While detailed factual allegations are not
`
`required, a pleading “must provide more than labels, conclusions, or a ‘formulaic recitation’ of the
`
`claim elements.” CG Technology Development, LLC v. William Hill U.S. Holdco, Inc., 404 F.
`
`Supp. 3d 842, 845 (D. Del. 2019) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). Although this Court “must
`
`‘accept as true all factual allegations in the [pleading] and view them in the light most favorable
`
`to the [pleader,]’” the pleading must still contain “sufficient factual matter to state a facially
`
`plausible claim to relief.” SynKloud Technologie., LLC v. HP Inc., 490 F. Supp. 3d 806, 809 (D.
`
`Del. 2020) (quoting Umland v. PLANCO Financial Services., 542 F.3d 59, 64 (3d Cir. 2008));
`
`Axcess Int’l, Inc. v. Genetec (USA) Inc., 375 F. Supp. 3d 533, 535 (D. Del. 2019) (citing Iqbal,
`
`556 U.S. at 678). Only when this Court can “draw the reasonable inference that the [accused party]
`
`is liable for the misconduct alleged” is the plausibility standard satisfied. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678.
`
`While documents outside the pleadings are typically not considered in a Rule 12(b)(6)
`
`motion, this Court “may consider extraneous documents if the [pleading that states a claim for
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-RGA-MPT Document 55 Filed 11/04/21 Page 12 of 22 PageID #: 9556
`
`
`relief] references the documents or if the documents are integral to the [pleader’s] claims.”
`
`Astrazeneca Pharmaceuticals LP v. Apotex Corp., No. CIV 10-338 RBK/KW, 2010 WL 5376310,
`
`at *9 (D. Del. Dec. 22, 2010) (citing In re Burlington Coat Factory Sec. Litig., 114 F.3d 1410,
`
`1426 (3d Cir. 1997)), aff’d, 669 F.3d 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2012). This Court “need not accept as true
`
`allegations that contradict matters properly subject to judicial notice or by exhibit, such as the
`
`claims and patent specification.” Secured Mail Solutions LLC v. Universal Wilde, Inc., 873 F.3d
`
`905, 913 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (internal quotations omitted).
`
`The Third Circuit takes a three-pronged approach in analyzing Rule 12(b)(6) motions. See
`
`Santiago v. Warminster Township., 629 F.3d 121, 130 n.7 (3d Cir. 2010). First, the Court must
`
`identify the elements of the claim. Santiago, 629 F.3d at 130 (citing Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 675).
`
`Second, the Court must identify and reject conclusory allegations. Santiago, 629 F.3d at 130 (citing
`
`Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679). And, finally, the Court should assume the veracity of well-pleaded factual
`
`allegations, determining “whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement for relief.” Santiago,
`
`629 F.3d at 130 (citing Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679). Determining the adequacy of pleadings is a context-
`
`specific task, “draw[ing] on [the Court’s] judicial experience and common sense.” Iqbal, 556 U.S.
`
`at 679.
`
`B.
`
`The Third Counterclaim Fails to State a Plausible Claim for Relief Because
`the Allegations Are Conclusory and Unsupported by the Very Documents
`Upon Which Caterpillar Relies
`
`Caterpillar’s factual assertions that Wirtgen America infringes at least one claim of the
`
`’618 Patent are conclusory and unsupported. Caterpillar sets out its infringement allegations for
`
`claim 1 of the ’618 Patent in a claim chart attached as Exhibit 6 to its Answer to Amended
`
`Complaint and Counterclaims. (See D.I. 43-1, at PageID #: 9474-78). For multiple claim elements,
`
`Exhibit 6 completely fails to identify where the elements are present in the Wirtgen America
`
`W 210 Fi cold planer machine (“Accused Product”). Instead, Caterpillar baldly asserts that the
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-RGA-MPT Document 55 Filed 11/04/21 Page 13 of 22 PageID #: 9557
`
`
`Accused Product includes the recited subject matter but do not identify any facts or reasoning
`
`supporting the conclusion. For other claim elements, Caterpillar cites portions of documents that
`
`do not plausibly support its allegations.
`
`Throughout Exhibit 6, Caterpillar defaults to rote recitations of the claim elements when
`
`mapping the purportedly infringing features of the Accused Product and fails to point to any
`
`applicable feature in the Accused Product. An exemplary list of these claim-element recitations is
`
`set forth in the table below, with identical language underlined.
`
`Claim Language of ’618 Patent
`[1.e] a pressure sensor associated with the
`main spray manifold and configured to provide
`a pressure signal indicative of a pressure of the
`pressurized water within the main spray
`manifold;
`[1.f] a first control valve fluidly disposed
`between the main spray manifold and the first
`spray manifold,
`the
`first control valve
`selectively fluidly connecting the main with
`the first spray manifold in response to a valve
`signal;
`[1.g] an electronic controller associated with
`the cold planer and configured to receive a
`plurality of operating signals indicative of an
`operating condition of the cold planer, the
`electronic controller disposed to:
`
`[1.m] determine the pump signal based on the
`desired main spray pressure, and send the
`pump signal to the pump;
`
`[1.n] activate the first control valve by sending
`the valve signal to the first control valve when
`it is determined that the primary rotor spray
`bank should be activated; and
`
`[1.o] maintain the desired main spray manifold
`pressure by adjusting the pump signal based on
`the pressure signal as a primary control
`parameter continuously during operation.
`
`Covered Feature in the Accused Product
`The Accused Products include a pressure
`sensor associated with the main spray manifold
`and configured to provide a pressure signal
`indicative of a pressure of the pressurized
`water within the main spray manifold.
`The Accused Products a first control valve
`fluidly disposed between the main spray
`manifold and the first spray manifold, the first
`control valve selectively fluidly connecting the
`main with the first spray manifold in response
`to a valve signal.
`The Accused Products include an electronic
`controller associated with the cold planer and
`configured to receive a plurality of operating
`signals indicative of an operating condition of
`the cold planer, the electronic controller
`disposed to.
`The electronic controller determines the pump
`signal based on the desired main spray
`pressure, and send[sic] the pump signal to the
`pump.
`The electronic controller activates the first
`control valve by sending the valve signal to the
`first control valve when it is determined that
`the primary rotor spray bank should be
`activated.
`The electronic controller maintains the desired
`main spray manifold pressure by adjusting the
`pump signal based on the pressure signal as a
`primary control parameter continuously during
`operation. For example, the pump signal is
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-RGA-MPT Document 55 Filed 11/04/21 Page 14 of 22 PageID #: 9558
`
`
`
`(See D.I. 43-1, at PageID #: 9476, 9478). Even if a patentee need not plead facts showing “that
`
`adjusted if the pressure sensor indicates that
`the pressure has reached a threshold range.
`
`each element of an asserted claim is met” to provide notice, at the very least “a [patentee] must
`
`generally do more than assert that the product infringes the claim; it must show how the [accused
`
`infringer] plausibly infringes by alleging some facts connecting the allegedly infringing product
`
`to the claim elements.” Nalco Co. v. Chem-Mod, LLC, 883 F.3d 1337, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2018)
`
`(quoting In re Bill of Lading Transmission & Processing System Patent Litig., 681 F.3d 1323,
`
`1335 (Fed. Cir. 2012)); Boston Scientific Corp. v. Nevro Corp., 415 F. Supp. 3d 482, 489 (D. Del.
`
`2019) (emphasis in original) (citing SIPCO, LLC v. Streetline, Inc., 230 F. Supp. 3d 351, 353 (D.
`
`Del. 2017)).
`
`Exhibit 6 also advocates a portrayal of the W 210 Fi’s functionality that is not supported
`
`by the cited documents. Caterpillar’s counterclaims explicitly incorporate by reference Exhibit 6
`
`and the publicly available information cited therein: (i) a W 210 Fi Brochure (referred to herein as
`
`the “Brochure,” and attached as Exhibit 1 to Declaration of Caitlin Carter (“Carter Decl.”),
`
`included as Exhibit A);1 and (ii) a W 210 Fi Video (referred to herein as the “Video,” screenshots
`
`of which are attached as Exhibit 2 to Carter Decl.).2 (See D.I. 43-1, at PageID #: 9474-78). The
`
`portions of the Video and Brochure that Caterpillar relies on do not actually show where or how
`
`the referenced claim elements are met. These very documents upon which Caterpillar relies
`
`demonstrate its failure to satisfy the Iqbal/Twombly plausibility standard.
`
`Caterpillar’s citations to purported evidence fail to cure these deficiencies. For example,
`
`
`1 For ease of this Court’s review, Wirtgen America has added page numbers at the footer of the
`Brochure. These page numbers appear in red color.
`2 For ease of this Court’s review, Wirtgen America has added page numbers at the footer of each
`screenshot of the Video. These page numbers appear in black color.
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-RGA-MPT Document 55 Filed 11/04/21 Page 15 of 22 PageID #: 9559
`
`
`nothing in the Video shows a “pump [that] is configured to pressurize the water to a variable
`
`pressure in response to a pump signal.” (D.I. 43-1, at PageID #: 9476). Instead, Caterpillar relies
`
`on unsupported attorney argument for that allegation, as shown by the underlined language below.
`
`Claim Language of the ’618 Patent
`[1.d] wherein the pump is configured
`to pressurize the water to a variable
`pressure in response to a pump signal;
`
`Covered Feature in the Accused Product
`The pump for the Accused Products is configured to
`pressurize the water to a variable pressure in response
`to a pump signal. As shown below, the operator may
`deactivate portions of the spray bank to reduce water
`consumption:
`
`
`See W 210 Fi Video at 0:22. The water pressure is
`variable depending on which portion(s) of the spray
`bank are active and/or the speed of the pump.
`
`
`
`
`(D.I. 43-1, at PageID #: 9476). The Video never addresses variable pressures, nor does Caterpillar
`
`articulate how the Video shows variable pressures. See Video, at 3-10. Likewise, nothing in the
`
`Video shows that the Accused Product “determines a desired manifold pressure based on [an]
`
`estimated amount of pressurized water.” (D.I. 43-1, at PageID #: 9477-78); see Video, at 3-10. The
`
`twenty-three-second video clip lacks any explanatory audio and, at best, only supports
`
`Caterpillar’s allegation that “[t]he water pressure is variable depending on which portion(s) of the
`
`spray ban are active and/or the speed of the pump.” (D.I. 43-1, at PageID #: 9476). And, the
`
`Brochure that Caterpillar relies on for other elements suggests the opposite—that the Accused
`
`Product maintains a single operating pressure: 261 psi (18 bar). See Exhibit 1, at 38 (discussing as
`
`standard equipment a “[h]igh-pressure water system with automatic on/off function, 261 psi (18
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-RGA-MPT Document 55 Filed 11/04/21 Page 16 of 22 PageID #: 9560
`
`
`bar), 17 gal/min (67 l/min)”); see also id. at 32, 37 (discussing control of the quantity of water
`
`used and not varying the pressure); e.g., Healthier Choices Management Corp. v. Philip Morris
`
`USA, Inc., No. 1:20-CV-4816-TCB, 2021 WL 3121487, at *6 (N.D. Ga. July 23, 2021) (dismissing
`
`the plaintiff’s claim for infringement where the plaintiff “cherry-pick[ed] from the exhibit without
`
`fairly reading
`
`the clear
`
`thrust of
`
`the document….”). Despite Caterpillar’s attorneys’
`
`characterization of the Video or the Brochure, neither supports the inference that a controller in
`
`the Accused Product determines a desired pressure (element [1.l]) or maintains a desired pressure
`
`(element [1.o]), functions that both require a controller to be “configured to” vary the pressure.
`
`Accordingly, Caterpillar’s claim chart fails to provide notice to Wirtgen America as to how the
`
`Accused Product meets these claim elements of the ’618 Patent.
`
`Even viewed in their most favorable light, Caterpillar’s factual allegations fail to connect
`
`the claims of the patent with the features of the Accused product.3 Mosaic Brands, Inc. v. Ridge
`
`Wallet LLC, No. 2:20-cv-04556-AB, 2020 WL 5640233, at *4 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 3, 2020)
`
`(dismissing a claim for patent infringement were the plaintiff “fail[ed] to plausibly identify in [a]
`
`claim chart multiple limitations of [a claim of the patent]….”); see also Arsus, LLC v. Tesla
`
`Motors, Inc., No. 20-cv-00313, 2020 WL 5552868, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 14, 2020) (dismissing a
`
`claim for patent infringement because the plaintiff failed to show that the defendant’s product
`
`contained a key feature of the patent claim). Here, there is no dispute that Caterpillar provides no
`
`factual allegations at all for claim elements [1.e], [1.f], [1.g], [1.m], [1.n], and [1.o]. Caterpillar’s
`
`
`3 Where a patentee has not adequately pleaded factual allegations for direct infringement, other
`theories of infringement must also be dismissed. “It is axiomatic that ‘[t]here can be no inducement
`or contributory infringement without an underlying act of direct infringement.’” In re Bill of
`Lading, 681 F.3d at 1333 (quoting Linear Tech. Corp. v. Impala Linear Corp., 379 F.3d 1311,
`1326 (Fed. Cir. 2004)); see also Dynacore Holdings Corp. v. U.S. Philips Corp., 363 F.3d 1263,
`1272 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“Indirect infringement, whether inducement to infringe or contributory
`infringement, can only arise in the presence of direct infringement....”).
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-RGA-MPT Document 55 Filed 11/04/21 Page 17 of 22 PageID #: 9561
`
`
`Third Counterclaim should be dismissed.
`
`C.
`
`The Fourth Counterclaim Fails to State a Plausible Claim for Relief by Merely
`Pleading an Element-by-Element Recitation of Prosecution Laches
`
`Caterpillar’s Fourth Counterclaim does not contain any factual allegations demonstrating
`
`
`
`that the listed patents are unenforceable due to prosecution laches. The counterclaim contain