throbber
Case 1:17-cv-00770-RGA-MPT Document 68 Filed 12/02/21 Page 1 of 14 PageID #: 10023
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`
`
`
`C.A. No. 17-770-RGA
`
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`
`
`
`WIRTGEN AMERICA, INC.,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff/Counterclaim-Defendant,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CATERPILLAR INC.,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendant/Counterclaim-Plaintiff.
`
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`
`
`PLAINTIFF/COUNTERCLAIM-DEFENDANT WIRTGEN AMERICA, INC.’S
`ANSWER TO DEFENDANT/COUNTERCLAIM-PLAINTIFF CATERPILLAR INC.’S
`COUNTERCLAIMS
`
`
`
`Plaintiff/Counterclaim-Defendant Wirtgen America, Inc. (“Plaintiff” or “Wirtgen
`
`America”), by its undersigned counsel, answers Defendant/Counterclaim-Plaintiff Caterpillar
`
`Inc.’s (“Defendant” or “Caterpillar”) counterclaims set forth in Defendant’s First Amended
`
`Answer to Amended Complaint and Counterclaims (the “Counterclaims”) (see D.I. 62) as follows.
`
`To the extent not specifically admitted in the following paragraphs, the allegations in Defendant’s
`
`Counterclaims are denied.
`
`NATURE OF THE ACTION1
`
`1.
`
`Wirtgen America admits that Defendant purports to bring an action for declaratory
`
`relief under the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201-2202, and the patent laws of the
`
`United States, 35 U.S.C. §§ 101 et seq., but Wirtgen America denies that Defendant has any viable
`
`or enforceable rights against Wirtgen America. Wirtgen America denies the remaining allegations
`
`
`1 For ease of reference, Wirtgen America incorporates the outline headings used in Defendant’s
`First Amended Answer to Amended Complaint and Counterclaims. (See D.I. 62). To the extent
`that such headings make factual allegations, Wirtgen America does not adopt or admit such
`statement and, instead, denies them.
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-RGA-MPT Document 68 Filed 12/02/21 Page 2 of 14 PageID #: 10024
`
`in Paragraph 1 of the Counterclaims.
`
`PARTIES
`
`2.
`
`Wirtgen America lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about
`
`the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 2 of the Counterclaims, and therefore denies the same.
`
`3.
`
`Wirtgen America admits the allegations in Paragraph 3 of the Counterclaims.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`4.
`
`Wirtgen America admits that Defendant purports to bring an action under the patent
`
`laws of the United States and the Declaratory Judgment Act, but Wirtgen America denies that
`
`Defendant has any viable or enforceable rights against Wirtgen America. Wirtgen America admits
`
`that this Court has subject matter jurisdiction, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338, but denies
`
`the remaining allegations in Paragraph 4 of the Counterclaims.
`
`5.
`
`Wirtgen America denies the allegations in Paragraph 5 of the Counterclaims. For
`
`purposes of this action only, Wirtgen America consents to personal jurisdiction of this Court with
`
`respect to Wirtgen America’s claims for patent infringement against Defendant.
`
`6.
`
`Wirtgen America denies the allegations in Paragraph 6 of the Counterclaims.
`
`COUNTERCLAIM 1
`(Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,523,995)
`
`7.
`
`Wirtgen America incorporates by reference its answers to Paragraphs 1-6 of the
`
`Counterclaims as if fully set forth herein.
`
`8.
`
`Wirtgen America admits that what purports to be a copy of U.S. Patent No.
`
`7,523,995 (the “’995 Patent”) was attached to the Counterclaims as Exhibit 1. Wirtgen America
`
`admits that, on its face, Exhibit 1 is entitled “Milling Machine,” states that it issued on April 28,
`
`2009, and lists Federico B. Rio, Dean R. Potts, Gregory H. Dubay, and Dario Sansone as inventors.
`
`Wirtgen America is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-RGA-MPT Document 68 Filed 12/02/21 Page 3 of 14 PageID #: 10025
`
`the remaining allegations in Paragraph 8 of the Counterclaims, and therefore Wirtgen America
`
`denies the same.
`
`9.
`
`Paragraph 9 of the Counterclaims contains legal conclusions to which no response
`
`is required. To the extent a response is required, the ’995 Patent speaks for itself. Wirtgen America
`
`lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the remaining
`
`allegations in Paragraph 9 of the Counterclaims, and therefore denies the same.
`
`10.
`
`Paragraph 10 of the Counterclaims contains legal conclusions to which no response
`
`is required. To the extent a response is required, the ’995 Patent speaks for itself. Wirtgen America
`
`lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the remaining
`
`allegations in Paragraph 10 of the Counterclaims, and therefore denies the same.
`
`11. Wirtgen America denies the allegations in Paragraph 11 of the Counterclaims.
`
`12. Wirtgen America denies the allegations in Paragraph 12 of the Counterclaims.
`
`13. Wirtgen America denies the allegations in Paragraph 13 of the Counterclaims.
`
`14. Wirtgen America admits that a claim chart was attached to the Counterclaims as
`
`Exhibit 2, but Wirtgen America denies the remaining allegations in Paragraph 14 of the
`
`Counterclaims.
`
`15. Wirtgen America denies the allegations in Paragraph 15 of the Counterclaims.
`
`16. Wirtgen America denies the allegations in Paragraph 16 of the Counterclaims.
`
`COUNTERCLAIM 2
`(Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 9,975,538)
`
`17. Wirtgen America incorporates by reference its answers to Paragraphs 1-16 of the
`
`Counterclaims as if fully set forth herein.
`
`18. Wirtgen America admits that what purports to be a copy of U.S. Patent No.
`
`9,975,538 (the “’538 Patent”) was attached to the Counterclaims as Exhibit 3. Wirtgen America
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-RGA-MPT Document 68 Filed 12/02/21 Page 4 of 14 PageID #: 10026
`
`admits that, on its face, Exhibit 3 is entitled “Milling Machine Fuel Efficiency Control System,”
`
`states that it issued on May 22, 2018, and lists James A. Aardema as an inventor. Wirtgen America
`
`is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining
`
`allegations in Paragraph 18 of the Counterclaims, and therefore Wirtgen America denies the same.
`
`19.
`
`Paragraph 19 of the Counterclaims contains legal conclusions to which no response
`
`is required. To the extent a response is required, the ’538 Patent speaks for itself. Wirtgen America
`
`lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the remaining
`
`allegations in Paragraph 19 of the Counterclaims, and therefore denies the same.
`
`20.
`
`Paragraph 20 of the Counterclaims contains legal conclusions to which no response
`
`is required. To the extent a response is required, the ’538 Patent speaks for itself. Wirtgen America
`
`lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the remaining
`
`allegations in Paragraph 20 of the Counterclaims, and therefore denies the same.
`
`21. Wirtgen America denies the allegations in Paragraph 21 of the Counterclaims.
`
`22. Wirtgen America denies the allegations in Paragraph 22 of the Counterclaims.
`
`23. Wirtgen America denies the allegations in Paragraph 23 of the Counterclaims.
`
`24. Wirtgen America admits that a claim chart was attached to the Counterclaims as
`
`Exhibit 4, but Wirtgen America denies the remaining allegations in Paragraph 24 of the
`
`Counterclaims.
`
`25. Wirtgen America denies the allegations in Paragraph 25 of the Counterclaims.
`
`26. Wirtgen America denies the allegations in Paragraph 26 of the Counterclaims.
`
`COUNTERCLAIM 3
`(Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 9,371,618)
`
`27. Wirtgen America incorporates by reference its answers to Paragraphs 1-26 of the
`
`Counterclaims as if fully set forth herein.
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-RGA-MPT Document 68 Filed 12/02/21 Page 5 of 14 PageID #: 10027
`
`28. Wirtgen America admits that what purports to be a copy of U.S. Patent No.
`
`9,371,618 (the “’618 Patent”) was attached to the Counterclaims as Exhibit 5. Wirtgen America
`
`admits that, on its face, Exhibit 5 is entitled “Cold Planer Spray System and Method,” states that
`
`it issued on June 21, 2016, and lists Daniel H. Killion and Eric S. Engelmann as inventors. Wirtgen
`
`America is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the
`
`remaining allegations in Paragraph 28 of the Counterclaims, and therefore Wirtgen America denies
`
`the same.
`
`29.
`
`Paragraph 29 of the Counterclaims contains legal conclusions to which no response
`
`is required. To the extent a response is required, the ’618 Patent speaks for itself. Wirtgen America
`
`lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the remaining
`
`allegations in Paragraph 29 of the Counterclaims, and therefore denies the same.
`
`30. Wirtgen America denies the allegations in Paragraph 30 of the Counterclaims.
`
`31. Wirtgen America denies the allegations in Paragraph 31 of the Counterclaims.
`
`32. Wirtgen America denies the allegations in Paragraph 32 of the Counterclaims.
`
`33. Wirtgen America admits that a claim chart was attached to the Counterclaims as
`
`Exhibit 6, but Wirtgen America denies the remaining allegations in Paragraph 33 of the
`
`Counterclaims.
`
`34. Wirtgen America denies the allegations in Paragraph 34 of the Counterclaims.
`
`35. Wirtgen America denies the allegations in Paragraph 35 of the Counterclaims.
`
`COUNTERCLAIM 4
`(Prosecution Laches)
`
`36. Wirtgen America incorporates by reference its answers to Paragraphs 1-35 of the
`
`Counterclaims as if fully set forth herein.
`
`37. Wirtgen America denies the allegations in Paragraph 37 of the Counterclaims.
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-RGA-MPT Document 68 Filed 12/02/21 Page 6 of 14 PageID #: 10028
`
`The ’871 and ’530 Patents
`
`38. Wirtgen America admits that that, on its face, U.S. Patent No. 9,010,871 (the “’871
`
`Patent”) lists two German patent applications filed on September 12, 2005, and September 15,
`
`2005, as foreign application priority data. Wirtgen America admits that, on its face, U.S. Patent
`
`No. 8,113,592 (the “’592 Patent”) states that it issued on February 14, 2012. Wirtgen America
`
`admits that, on its face, the ’871 Patent states that it is a continuation of a patent application, now
`
`the ’592 Patent. Wirtgen America denies the remaining allegations in Paragraph 38 of the
`
`Counterclaims.
`
`39. Wirtgen America denies the allegations in Paragraph 39 of the Counterclaims.
`
`40. Wirtgen America denies the allegations in Paragraph 40 of the Counterclaims.
`
`41. Wirtgen America admits that, on its face, U.S. Patent No. 9,656,530 (the “’530
`
`Patent”) states that it is a continuation of a patent application, now the ’871 Patent. Wirtgen
`
`America denies the remaining allegations in Paragraph 41 of the Counterclaims.
`
`42. Wirtgen America denies the allegations in Paragraph 42 of the Counterclaims.
`
`43. Wirtgen America admits that Wirtgen America has alleged, in the Amended
`
`Complaint, that Caterpillar began importing certain infringing road milling machines in 2016 or
`
`2017, which is before the ’530 patent issued in May 2017. (See D.I. 33, at 5 (¶12)). Wirtgen
`
`America denies the remaining allegations in Paragraph 43 of the Counterclaims.
`
`The ’474 Patent
`
`44. Wirtgen America admits that, on its face, U.S. Patent No. 8,690,474 (the “’474
`
`Patent”) lists a German patent application filed on April 27, 2006, as foreign application priority
`
`data. Wirtgen America admits that, on its face, the ’474 Patent states that it is a continuation of a
`
`patent application, now U.S. Patent No. 8,511,932 (the “’932 Patent”). Wirtgen America admits
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-RGA-MPT Document 68 Filed 12/02/21 Page 7 of 14 PageID #: 10029
`
`that, on its face, the ’474 Patent states that its application was filed on July 3, 2013. Wirtgen
`
`America denies the remaining allegations in Paragraph 44 of the Counterclaims.
`
`45. Wirtgen America denies the allegations in Paragraph 45 of the Counterclaims.
`
`46. Wirtgen America denies the allegations in Paragraph 46 of the Counterclaims.
`
`The ’268 Patent
`
`47. Wirtgen America admits that, on its face, U.S. Patent No. RE48,268 (the “’268
`
`Patent”) states that it is a reissue of U.S. Patent Application No. 12/985,400, filed on January 6,
`
`2011. Wirtgen America admits that, on its face, the ’268 Patent states that U.S. Patent Application
`
`No. 12/985,400 issued as U.S. Patent No. 8,408,659 (the “’659 Patent”) on April 2, 2013. Wirtgen
`
`America denies the remaining allegations in Paragraph 47 of the Counterclaims.
`
`48. Wirtgen America admits that, on its face, the ’268 Patent states that its application
`
`was filed on March 23, 2018. Wirtgen America admits that, on its face, the ’268 Patent lists a
`
`German patent application filed on April 15, 2005, as foreign application priority data. Wirtgen
`
`America denies the remaining allegations in Paragraph 48 of the Counterclaims.
`
`49. Wirtgen America is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief
`
`as to the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 49 of the Counterclaims, and therefore Wirtgen
`
`America denies the same.
`
`50. Wirtgen America admits that, on its face, the ’268 Patent states that the original
`
`version of claim 1 recited a “traction drive component for driving the working drum,” and the
`
`reissued version of claim 1 of the ’268 Patent recites “a traction drive for driving the working
`
`drum….” Wirtgen America denies the remaining allegations in Paragraph 50.
`
`51. Wirtgen America denies the allegations in Paragraph 51 of the Counterclaims.
`
`52. Wirtgen America admits that Wirtgen America has alleged, in the Amended
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-RGA-MPT Document 68 Filed 12/02/21 Page 8 of 14 PageID #: 10030
`
`Complaint, that Caterpillar began importing certain infringing road milling machines in 2016 or
`
`2017, which is before the ’268 patent issued. (See D.I. 33, at 5 (¶12)). Wirtgen America denies the
`
`remaining allegations in Paragraph 52 of the Counterclaims.
`
`The ’390 and ’391 Patents
`
`53. Wirtgen America admits that, on their face, U.S. Patent Nos. 9,879,390 (the “’390
`
`Patent”) and 9,879,391 (the “’391 Patent”) list a German patent application filed on December 22,
`
`2006, as foreign application priority data. Wirtgen America denies the remaining allegations in
`
`Paragraph 53 of the Counterclaims.
`
`54. Wirtgen America admits that, on its face, the ’390 Patent states that its application
`
`was filed on December 12, 2016. Wirtgen America admits that, on its face, the ’390 Patent states
`
`that it is a continuation of a patent application, now U.S. Patent No. 9,523,176 (the “’176 Patent”).
`
`Wirtgen America admits that, on June 20, 2017, a preliminary amendment was filed in connection
`
`with the application that issued as the ’390 Patent. Wirtgen America denies the remaining
`
`allegations in Paragraph 54 of the Counterclaims.
`
`55. Wirtgen America denies the allegations in Paragraph 55 of the Counterclaims.
`
`56. Wirtgen America admits that, on its face, the ’391 Patent states that its application
`
`was filed on June 16, 2017. Wirtgen America admits that, on its face, the ’391 Patent states that it
`
`is a continuation of a patent application, now the ’176 Patent. Wirtgen America admits that the
`
`original Complaint in this civil action was filed on June 16, 2017. (See D.I. 1). Wirtgen America
`
`denies the remaining allegations in Paragraph 56 of the Counterclaims.
`
`57. Wirtgen America denies the allegations in Paragraph 57 of the Counterclaims.
`
`58. Wirtgen America denies the allegations in Paragraph 58 of the Counterclaims.
`
`59. Wirtgen America admits that Wirtgen America has alleged, in the Amended
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-RGA-MPT Document 68 Filed 12/02/21 Page 9 of 14 PageID #: 10031
`
`Complaint, that Caterpillar began importing certain infringing road milling machines in 2016 or
`
`2017, which is before the ’390 and ’391 patents issued. (See D.I. 33, at 5 (¶12)). Wirtgen America
`
`denies the remaining allegations in Paragraph 59 of the Counterclaims.
`
`Wirtgen’s “New” Prosecution Strategy
`
`60. Wirtgen America is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief
`
`as to the truth of the remaining allegations in Paragraph 60 of the Counterclaims, and therefore
`
`Wirtgen America denies the same.
`
`61. Wirtgen America denies the allegations in Paragraph 61 of the Counterclaims.
`
`62. Wirtgen America denies the allegations in Paragraph 62 of the Counterclaims.
`
`63. Wirtgen America denies the allegations in Paragraph 63 of the Counterclaims.
`
`64. Wirtgen America denies the allegations in Paragraph 64 of the Counterclaims.
`
`DEMAND FOR A JURY TRIAL
`
`Wirtgen America admits that Defendant purports to demand a trial by jury as to all issues
`
`so triable. Wirtgen America demands a trial by jury as to all issues so triable, pursuant to Rule 38
`
`of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and D. Del. LR 38.1.
`
`PRAYER FOR RELIEF
`
`Wirtgen America denies that Defendant is entitled to any relief whatsoever, whether
`
`requested or not, in the Prayer for Relief of the Counterclaims.
`
`WIRTGEN AMERICA’S AFFIRMATIVE AND OTHER DEFENSES
`
`Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (each, a “Rule”) 8(c), by way of further answer to
`
`Defendant’s Counterclaims and as affirmative and non-affirmative defenses, and without prejudice
`
`to the denials in this answer to Defendant’s Counterclaims and without assuming any burden that
`
`it would not otherwise bear, Wirtgen America denies that Wirtgen America is liable to Defendant
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-RGA-MPT Document 68 Filed 12/02/21 Page 10 of 14 PageID #: 10032
`
`on any of the claims alleged in the Counterclaims, and Wirtgen America denies that Defendant is
`
`entitled to relief whatsoever, whether requested or not, and states as follows:
`
`FIRST DEFENSE
`(Failure to State a Claim for Prosecution Laches)
`
`Defendant’s Fourth Counterclaim for prosecution laches fails to state a claim upon which
`
`relief can be granted at least because, inter alia, the doctrine of prosecution laches is not applicable
`
`to patents claiming priority to patent applications filed on or after June 8, 1995.
`
`SECOND DEFENSE
`(Improper Venue)
`
`Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(3), venue is not proper in this judicial district with respect to
`
`Defendant’s Counterclaims at least because Wirtgen America does not reside in this judicial
`
`district. Wirtgen America does not have a regular and established place of business in this judicial
`
`district, as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b) and interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court in TC
`
`Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Grp. Brands LLC, 137 S. Ct. 1514 (2017). In the event this judicial
`
`district is a proper venue for Defendant’s Counterclaims, this judicial district is not the most
`
`convenient venue for Defendant’s Counterclaims, and Wirtgen America expressly reserves its
`
`right to move for transfer to a more convenient venue.
`
`THIRD DEFENSE
`(No Infringement)
`
`Wirtgen America has not infringed, and does not infringe, literally or pursuant to the
`
`
`
`doctrine of equivalents, under any theory of infringement (including directly (whether individually
`
`or jointly) or indirectly (whether contributorily or by inducement)), any valid, enforceable claim
`
`of the ’995 Patent, the ’538 Patent, or the ’618 Patent (collectively, the “Counter-Asserted
`
`Patents”).
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-RGA-MPT Document 68 Filed 12/02/21 Page 11 of 14 PageID #: 10033
`
`FOURTH DEFENSE
`(Invalidity)
`
`Each asserted claim of the Counter-Asserted Patents is invalid for failure to comply with
`
`
`
`one or more of the requirements of the patent laws, including, without limitation, 35 U.S.C. §§
`
`101-103 and 112, and the rules, regulations, and laws pertaining thereto.
`
`FIFTH DEFENSE
`(Non-Statutory Double Patenting)
`
`The claims of the ’995 Patent are invalid based on non-statutory double patenting
`
`including, but not limited to, obviousness-type double patenting because the claims are not
`
`patentably distinct from the claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,140,693 (the “’693 Patent”).
`
`SIXTH DEFENSE
`(Issue Preclusion)
`
`Defendant’s claims of infringement of the claims of the ’995 Patent are barred, in whole or
`
`in part, by the doctrine of issue preclusion or collateral estoppel, because, inter alia, the claims are
`
`not patentably distinct from the claims of the ’693 Patent.
`
`
`SEVENTH DEFENSE
`(Prosecution History Estoppel)
`
`By reason of proceedings in the United States Patent and Trademark Office during the
`
`
`
`prosecution of the applications that ultimately led to the issuance of the Counter-Asserted Patents,
`
`Defendant is estopped from asserting any claim of the Counter-Asserted Patents is infringed by
`
`Wirtgen America, either literally or by application of the doctrine of equivalents.
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-RGA-MPT Document 68 Filed 12/02/21 Page 12 of 14 PageID #: 10034
`
`EIGHTH DEFENSE
`(Waiver, Acquiescence, Estoppel, and/or Unclean Hands)
`
`Defendant’s claims of infringement of the Counter-Asserted Patents are barred, in whole
`
`
`
`or in part, by the doctrine of waiver, acquiescence, estoppel, and/or unclean hands.
`
`NINTH DEFENSE
`(Limitation on Damages)
`
`Defendant’s claims for damages, if any, against Wirtgen America are limited by 35 U.S.C.
`
`§§ 286-287.
`
`TENTH DEFENSE
`(No Injunctive Relief)
`
`Defendant is not entitled to injunctive relief concerning its claim of infringement of the
`
`Counter-Asserted Patents, and Defendant has not suffered irreparable injury. To the extent Wirtgen
`
`America is liable for infringing one or more claims of the Counter-Asserted Patents, Defendant is
`
`not entitled to injunctive relief because adequate remedies are available at law.
`
`ELEVENTH DEFENSE
`(No Exceptional Case)
`
`Defendant is not entitled to attorneys’ fees or other fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285.
`
`
`
` RESERVATION OF ALL AFFIRMATIVE AND OTHER DEFENSES
`
`Wirtgen America hereby gives notice that Wirtgen America intends to reply upon any other
`
`matter constituting an avoidance or affirmative defense as set forth in Rule 8(c) of the Federal Rule
`
`of Civil Procedure, and that it reserves the right to seek leave to amend this answer to Defendant’s
`
`Counterclaims to add to, amend, withdraw, or modify these affirmative and other defenses as
`
`Wirtgen America’s investigation continues and as discovery may require.
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-RGA-MPT Document 68 Filed 12/02/21 Page 13 of 14 PageID #: 10035
`
`
`
`
`
`YOUNG CONAWAY STARGATT & TAYLOR, LLP
`
`
`/s/ Adam W. Poff
`Adam W. Poff (No. 3990)
`Samantha G. Wilson (No. 5816)
`Rodney Square
`1000 North King Street
`Wilmington, Delaware 19801
`(302) 571-6600
`apoff@ycst.com
`swilson@ycst.com
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff Wirtgen America, Inc.
`
`Dated: December 2, 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
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-RGA-MPT Document 68 Filed 12/02/21 Page 14 of 14 PageID #: 10036
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I, Adam W. Poff, Esquire, hereby certify that on December 2, 2021, I caused the
`
`foregoing document to be served by email upon the following counsel:
`
`Bindu A. Palapura
`POTTER ANDERSON & CORROON, LLP
`1313 N. Market Street, 6th Floor
`Wilmington, Delaware 19801
`bpalapura@potteranderson.com
`
`James C. Yoon
`Ryan R. Smith
`WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI
`650 Page Mill Road
`Palo Alto, CA 94304
`jyoon@wsgr.com
`rsmith@wsgr.com
`
`Lucy Yen
`WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI
`1301 Avenue of the Americas
`40th Floor
`New York, NY 10019
`lyen@wsgr.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendant Caterpillar, Inc.
`
`Dated: December 2, 2021
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`YOUNG CONAWAY STARGATT & TAYLOR, LLP
`
`/s/ Adam W. Poff
`Adam W. Poff (No. 3990)
`Samantha G. Wilson (No. 5816)
`Rodney Square
`1000 North King Street
`Wilmington, Delaware 19801
`(302) 571-6600
`apoff@ycst.com
`swilson@ycst.com
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff Wirtgen America, Inc.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket