`
`UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
`’
`' WASHINGTON, DC.
`
`' In thevMatter of
`
`Inv. N0. 337-TA-1067
`
`
`
`
`
`. CERTAIN'ROAD MILLING
`
`MACHINES AND COMPONENTS
`" THEREOF
`'
`
`
`
`FINAL INITIAL DETERMINATION
`
`Administrative Law Judge David P. Shaw
`
`Pursuant to the notice of investigation, 82 Fed. Reg. 40595 (Aug. 25, 2017), this is the
`
`initial determination in Certain Road Milling Machines and Components Thereof, United States
`
`International Trade Commission Investigation No. 337-TA-1067. It is held that a Violation of
`
`section 337 of the Tariff Act, as amended, has occurred in the importation into the United States,
`
`the sale for importation, or the sale Within the United States after importation, of certain road
`
`milling machines and components thereOf, with respect to US. Patent Nos, 7,828,309 and
`9,656,530. It is held thatxa Violation has not occurred With respect to US. Patent Nos. 7,530,641
`
`and 9,644,340.
`
`
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`Table of Contents
`
`Table of Abbreviations ..........................................I............................................~...........ii. ........'........ iv
`
`1.
`
`Background ...............................,.................................................I.........................................g 1
`
`A. '
`B. I
`C.
`D.
`
`Institution ofthe Investigation............................................ ...........i ....... ...... ..... .1
`Procedural History ................ ................................................................I. . . . .'. ........... 2
`The Private Parties..................-.................-...........'.................................................... 5
`The Accused Products ......
`..... _............................................. 7
`
`The Domestic Industry Products ............................................................................. 9
`V E.
`Technological Background '...........................................................I........................ 1 2
`F.
`Jurisdiction and Standing ...................................................................................... . ........... 14
`
`II.
`
`A.
`
`B. '
`
`C. '
`
`Personal and‘Subject Matter Jurisdiction ....... 14
`
`In Rem Jurisdiction .............................................................'.................................. 15
`
`The Importation Requirement .......................... 15
`
`D. Standing ............................................................................. 24
`
`III.
`
`General Principles ofLaw ...................................................
`
`.............. 28
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Claim Construction............ .................................................................
`
`.............. 28
`
`Infringement ......i................................................... ,................................................. 3 O
`
`C.‘ \' Validity ..................... 34
`
`D.
`
`DomesticIndustry............................................‘ ......... _. ........................................... 39
`
`IV. US Patent No. 7,828,309 ................................................................................................. 41
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`F.
`
`G.
`
`Overview ofthe ‘309 Patent (JX-0005)............................ .................................... 41'
`
`Claim Construction .......
`
`............................. 44
`
`Infringement .................~......................................................................................... 55
`
`Domestic Industry (Technical Prong) ............
`
`.......................... 81
`
`Obviousness — Swisher and Neumeier....‘..'.................. .....i.....................-...........'..... 94
`Obviousness — Swisher, Neumeier, and Frey ..................................................... 120'
`
`Obviousness — Secondary Considerations ............................._................. 130
`
`V.
`
`US. Patent No. 7,530,641 ...................... L ....................... _. .......'......................................... 137
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`D.
`
`E.
`
`Overviewflofthe ‘641 Patent (IX-0004) .................................'
`
`................ 137
`
`Claim Construction ..................................................................................'........... 139
`
`Infringement . . . .. ................................................................................................... 1 53
`Domestic Industry (Technical Prong) ...............A................ 176,
`
`Anticipation— PM-565 .......i
`
`................................................................. 190
`
`
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`F.
`
`G.
`
`H.
`
`I.
`
`Anticipation — PM-465 .........'........................................................ . ..................... 208
`
`.
`,
`' Obviousness f “PM-565 combined with the
`. knowledge of a POSITA and/or PM-465” .......................................................... 225
`Obviousness — “PM 465 alone and in combination
`,
`'
`'
`with the knowledge ofa POSITA”
`.............................................. ... 237
`
`ObviOUSness—Secondary Considerations ......
`
`............... 242
`
`v1.
`
`U. s Patent No 9,644340 ............................................... 247
`9 A,
`Overview ofthe ‘340 Patent (JX-0001).............................................................. 247 4
`B.
`Claim Construction...........................; ............................I..................................... 250
`
`C.
`D.
`E.
`F.
`
`G.
`H.
`
`I.
`
`J.
`
`-
`
`Infringement.....................................-v............................................................ .......254
`Domestic lndustry — Technical_Prong............................................. _. ................... 272
`Obviousness — Marini MP 1300 .............. ................'........................................... 285 ‘
`Obviousness — Marini MP 1300 in View of Overto‘n ......‘................................... 310
`
`............................................................ 316
`Obviousness—PM-565 .......
`Obviousness—PM-5651n View ovaerton .................
`335
`
`Obviousness — “combination of the PM—565 with MP 1300” ...........................'. 339
`
`Obviousness — SecondaryConsiderations .................................................. :.. ..... 340
`
`VII.
`
`* U. S. Patent No. 9,656,530 .................. 343
`A.
`Overview of the ‘530 Patent (IX—0003) .............................................................. 343
`
`B.
`
`C.
`D.
`E.
`
`F.
`
`G.
`g
`H.
`
`Claim Construction ...........
`
`....................................
`
`............................... 346
`
`Infringement .....................................................' .......... ,
`................ 351
`Domestic IndUstry (Technical Prong) .................I................................................ 366
`Obviousness — “Roadtec RX-500 (alone. .),
`'
`
`in combination with Davis” ..............................,.................................................. 370
`
`I
`
`. in view of Glasson),
`Obviousness — “Roadtec RX-500 (. .
`in combination withDavis” .............................. 388
`Obviousness — “Roadtec RX—500 (alone or in view of Glasson),
`.
`_ in combination with Davis and Hosseini” .......................................................... 391
`Obviousness — “Obvious over RoadteC'RX—SOO
`
`'
`
`(alone or in View of Glasson)” (without Davis) ................_.................................. 395
`
`I
`J.
`
`K.
`
`L.
`
`M.
`
`’ Obviousness— “Swisher1n Combination With Glasson” .............i...................... 3 99
`Obviousness — “Swisher1n Combination With GlaSson and Hosseini”
`.......
`410
`
`Obviousness — “Swisher1n Combination With Glasson and Davis” .................. 412
`
`Obviousness — Secondary Considerations .........................._.............
`
`............. 416
`
`‘ Indefiniteness
`
`.....................
`
`......................i............................ . ...................... 423
`
`VIII.
`
`Domestic Industry—Economic Prong ....................................'...... 424 I
`
`ii'
`
`
`
`> PUBLIC VERSION
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`. Investment in Plant and Equipment .............................................'.................L ..... 425
`
`Labor orCap1tal ......................
`
`.......................... 7....429
`
`IX.
`
`‘ XI.
`
`Conclusions of Fact and Law ................................................................ '. ..........
`.......... 435
`Order Concerning Proposed Redactionsfor Public Version .......................................... 438
`
`Initial Determination on Violation...................§ .................... ~. ......................................... 439
`
`iii '
`
`
`
`. PUBLIC VERSION
`
`Table of Abbreviations .
`
`I The following abbreviations may be used in this Initial Determination:
`
`»
`
`gABBREVIATION
`-—
`
` Administrative Law Judge
`_ -
`Complainant:s DemonstrativeExhibit
`'—
`_—“
`__*
`
`
`
`
`
`__
`_—
`—_
`
`_—
`
`_‘_
`
`—
`
`
`
`—
`
`
`
`___—
`
`'iV
`
`
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`I.
`
`· Background
`
`A.
`
`Institution of the Investigation
`
`On July 19, 2017, complainant Wirtgen America, Inc. ("Wirtgel?-" or "Wirtgen America,"
`
`depending on the context) filed a complaint alleging that the Caterpillar respondents unlawfully
`
`import "certain road milling machines and components thereofl:.]" Compl., ~ 2. The _complaint
`
`asserted the following five patents:
`
`• U.S. Patent No. 7,530,641 (the "'641 Patent") (JX-0004);
`
`• U.S. Patent No. 7,828,309 (the "'309 Patent") (JX-0005);
`
`• U.S. Patent No. 9,624,628 (the "'628 Patent");
`
`•
`
`·u.S. Patent No. 9,644,340 (the "'340 Patent") (JX-0001); and
`
`• U.S. Patent No. 9,656,530 (the "'530 Patent") (JX-0003).
`
`Id.
`
`By publication of a notice in the Federal Register on August 25, 2017, pursuant to
`
`subsection (b) of section 33 7 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, the Commission instituted
`
`this investigation to determine:
`
`[W]hether there is a violation of subsection (a)(l )(B) of section 337
`in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, or
`the sale within the United States after importation of certain road
`milling machines and components thereof by reason of infringement
`of one or more of claims 1-5, 7-12, and 14-17 of the '340 patent;
`claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 9-22, and 27-29 of the '628 patent; claims 1-7,
`13-24, and 26 of the '530 patent; claims 1, 2, 4, 6-8, 11, 12, and 15-:-
`17 of the '641 patent; and claims 1-3, 5-24, and 26-36 of the '309
`patent; and whether an industry in the United States exists as
`required by subsection (a)(2) ofsection 337;
`
`82 Fed. Reg. 40595 (Aug. 25, 2017). The Commission did not direct the administrative law
`
`judge to take evidence or hear argument regarding the public interest. See id.; 19 C.F .R.
`
`§ 210.50(b )(1 ).
`
`1
`
`
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`The Commission named Wirtgen America, Inc. as complainant. The Commission named
`
`Caterpillar Bitelli SpA, Caterpillar Prodotti Stradali S.r.L., Caterpillar Americas CV, Caterpillar
`
`Paving Products, Inc., and Caterpillar. Inc. as respondents._ The Office of Unfair Import
`Investigations (“Staff”) Was also named a party to the investigation, although the Staff later
`
`withdrew from the investigation.J
`
`B.
`
`.
`
`Procedural History
`
`The administrative law judge issued the procedural schedule on October 5, 2017. See
`
`Order No. 6 (Procedural Schedule). The procedural schedule set a target date of December 26,
`2018, which is approximately 16 months after institution. Id; see also Order No. 4 (Setting
`Target Date); 1-9 C.F.R. § 210.51(a); 19 C.F.R. § 210.42(a)(1)(i);\19 OER. § 201.14(a).
`In accordance with the procedural schedule, the parties filed initial claim construction
`briefs in December 2017,.reply claim construction briefs in January 2018, and supplemental
`briefs in March 2018. See Order No, 6 (Procedural Schedule); Order No. 14 (granting joint
`
`motion to amend the procedural schedule).
`
`»
`
`On October, 31, 2017, the Staff filed a “Notice ofNon-Participation” that stated “OUII
`
`will cease to participate” in the investigation.
`
`On December 4, 2017, Wirtgen filed an unopposed motion seeking to terminate
`
`respondent Caterpillar Bitelli SpA based on thewithdrawal of the complaint as to that
`
`respondent. The administrative law judge granted the motion in an initial determination, which
`
`issued on December 19, 2107. See Order No. 11 (initial determination not reviewed per.
`
`Commission Notice (EDIS Doc. ID No. 634173)).
`
`
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`On December 5, 2017,. Wirtgen filed a motion seeking a summary determination that it
`has satisfied the economic prong 01‘the domesticindustry requirement. The administrative law
`: judge denied Wirtgen’s motion on January 19, 2018. See Order No. 16.
`I
`
`On January 29, 2018, Wirtgen filed an unopposed motion seeking to terminate the '
`investigation as to multipleclaims from the ‘340, ‘628, ‘530, ‘309, and ‘641 Patents. The
`administrative lawjudge granted the motion in an initial determination, which issued on
`
`Pebruary 5, 2018. See Order No. 20 (initial determination not reviewed per Commission Notice .
`
`(EDIS Doc. ID No. 638181)).
`
`1 On January 23, 2018, Wirtgen filed a motion seeking aisummary determination that it has
`met the importation requirement. The administrative lawjudge granted Wirtgen’s motion in
`
`part. See Order No. 23 (initial determination not reviewed per Commission Notice (EDIS Doc.
`
`ID No. 639371)). The initial determination held “that Wirtgen has shown Caterpillar Paving,
`
`Caterpillar Prodotti, and‘Caterpillar Inc. have met the importation requiremen ” in relation to the ’
`PM312, PM620, PM622, PM820, PM822 and. PM825 cold planers. Id at 14-18. The initial
`determination further held that. the importation requirement had not been met with respect to
`
`products that contain the so—called 2018 product updates. Id. at 19.
`
`' On February 16, 2018, Caterpillar filed a motion seeking summary determination that its
`
`2018 Product Updates to the PM600 and PM800 series road milling machines do not infringe the
`‘309, ‘340, and ‘628 Patents. See Order No. 26 (March 29,2018). The administrative lawjudge
`
`declined to adjudicate the 2018 product updates on summary determination, as Caterpillar failed-
`to show that it was entitled to a summary determination as a matter of law that the 2018 product
`
`updates do not infringe the ‘309, ‘340, and ‘628 Patents. Id. at 3.
`
`_,
`
`
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`On March 14, 2018, Wirtgen filed an unopposed motion seeking to terminate the
`
`investigation as to multiple claims from thee‘340, ‘628, ‘530, ‘309, and ‘641 Patents. The
`administrative lawjudge granted the motion in an initial determination, which issued on March
`15, 2018. See Order No. 28 (initial determination not reviewed per Commission Notice (EDIS
`Doc. ID No. 641964)).
`I
`-
`On March 14, 2018, Wirtgen filed an unopposed. motion seekingto terminate the
`
`investigation as to the ‘628 Patent. The administrative law judge granted the motion in an initial
`
`determination, which-issued on March 27, 2018. See Order No. 30 (initial determination not
`
`reviewed per Commission Notice (EDIS Doc. ID No. 643454)).
`A prehearing conference was held on April 20, 2018, with the evidentiary hearing
`beginning immediately thereafter. See, e.g., Prehearing Tr. (Apr. 20, 2018); Order No. 32
`(Allocation of Hearing Time). The hearingconcluded on April 24, 2018. See, e.g. , Tr. 939-940.
`
`_
`
`The parties were requested to file post-hearing briefs not to exceed 300 pages, and to file reply
`briefs not to exceed 100 pages. ,See Pre-Hr’g Tr. 6.
`
`On May 11, 2018, Wirtgen filed its post-hearing brief, which asserts the following
`
`V claims:
`
`0 Claims 4, 5, 9, and 12 ofthe ‘340 Patent;
`
`0 Claims 2, 5, 16, and 23 of the “530 Patent;
`'
`0 Claims 1,‘ 7, 11, and 17 ofthe ‘641 Patent; and
`
`-0_ Claims 10, 29, and 36 of the ‘309 Patent.
`
`See WirtgenBr. at 11'.
`
`
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`Pursuant to Order No. 2 (Ground Rilles), the parties also submitted ajoint outline ofthe
`isSues‘to‘be decided in the Final Initial Determination. See Joint Outline ofIssues to Be Decided
`(EDIS Doc. ID No. 644951) (“Joint Outline”).
`
`-
`
`On August 9, 2018, the administrative law judgeissued an initial determinationextending
`
`the target date to February 1, 2019. See Initial Determination (Aug. 9, 2018) (not reviewed per V
`
`Commission Notice dated Aug. 30, 2018).
`
`i
`
`C.
`
`The Private Parties
`
`1.
`
`Complainant and Related Entities
`a)
`' Wirtgen
`
`Complainant Wirtgen America, Inc. (“Wirtgen” or “Wirtgen America”) is aprivately
`
`held Tennessee corporation, with a principal place of business at 6030 Dana Way, Antioch,
`
`Tennessee 37013-3116. Compl.,1l .15.
`"
`b)
`Wirtgen GmbH-Land Wirtgen Group
`
`Wirtgen_’s complaint, pre-hearing brief, post—hearing brief, and post-hearing reply I
`mention two Wirtgen-related entities, Wirtgen GmbH and Wirtgen Group, which both reside in
`
`Germany. Wirtgen does not provide much detail about these entities.
`
`Caterpillar argues that Wirtgen GmbH and Wirtgen Group are largely responsible for
`
`“designing, developing, manufacturing, servicing, and supporting the domestic induStry
`products.” Caterpillar Br. at 285. The parties do not dispute that the asserted patents were
`originally assigned to Wirtgen GmbH and that Wirtgen GmbH assigned. the asserted patents to
`Wirtgen America in May 2017, before Wirtgen America filed the complaint. See generally JX-
`0011 (assignment for the ‘340 Patent); JX-0013 (assignment for the ‘530 Patent); JX-0014
`
`(assignment for the ‘641 Patent); JX-0015 (assignment for the ,‘309 Patent).
`
`
`
`‘ PUBLIC VERSION
`
`e)
`
`_ Deere & Company
`
`Deere & Company (i. a. John Deere) acquired the Wirtgen Group in 2017. See, e.g., RX-
`
`0408C; Order No. 22 (granting motion to quash subpoena served on Deere). Apart. from
`opposing a subpoena, Deere did not participate in the investigation. See, 2.g. , Order No. 22.
`-~ 2.
`Respondents
`I
`V
`a)
`, The “Caterpillar” Respondents
`
`“Caterpillar” collectively refers to respondents Caterpillar Prodotti Stradali S.r.L.,
`
`Caterpillar Americas CV, Caterpillar Paving Products, Inc., and Caterpillar Inc.
`
`b)
`Caterpillar Bitelli SpA
`Caterpillar’s Response to the Complaint stated that “Caterpillar Bitelli does not. exist as a
`legal entity” and disputed that Caterpillar Bitelli SpA was a proper respondent. Resp. at 2-3.
`
`Caterpillar Bitelli SpA was terminated from the investigation on December 19, 2107. ‘See' Order
`No. 11 (initial determination not reviewed per commission Notice (EDIS Doc. ID No. 634173)).
`
`c)
`
`Caterpillar Prodotti Stradali S.r.L.
`
`Caterpillar Prodotti Stradali S.r.L. (“Caterpillar Prodotti”) is an Italian corporation with a
`principal place ofbusiness at Via IV Novembre2 2, I-40061 Minerbio BO, Italy. Resp. to the .
`Compl. at 12-13.
`3
`
`d)
`
`I CaterpillarAmericas CV
`
`Caterpillar Americas CV (“Caterpillar Americas”) is a Swiss corporation with a principal
`
`place of business at 76 Route de Frontenex, Boite Postale 6000, 1211 Geneva Switzerland.
`
`'Resp. to the Compl. at 13.
`
`
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`e)
`
`Caterpillar Paving Products, Inc.
`
`Caterpillar Paving Products, Inc. (“Caterpillar Paving Products”) is an Oklahoma
`
`corporation with a principal place of business at 8401 85th Avenue North, Minneapolis,
`
`Minnesota 55445. Resp. to the Compl. at 13.
`
`f)
`
`. Caterpillar Inc.
`
`Caterpillar Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business at 100 NE
`
`, Adams Street, Peoria, Illinois 61629. Resp. to the Compl. at 13. Caterpillar Inc. is the parent
`
`company of Caterpillar Prodotti, Caterpillar Americas CV, and Caterpillar Paving Products, Inc.
`
`D.
`
`The Accused-Products
`
`1.
`
`Overview
`
`The accused products are cold planers, which are large machines that remove pavement.
`
`CX-OO62C features the following image of the PM620 cold planer:
`
`
`
`CX-OO62.0007.
`
`
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`Wirtgen accuses Caterpillar’s PM600 Series (e.g.-, the PM620 and PM622 models) and ‘-
`
`PM800 Series (e.g., the PM820, PM822, and PM825 models) cold planer machines of infringing I
`the asserted claims from the asserted patents. Wirtgen Br. at 14. Wirtgen further accuses ,
`Caterpillar’s PM300 series l(e.g., the PM310, PM312, and PM313 models) cold planer machines
`of infringingthe asserted claims ofthe ‘641 Patent. Id Wirtgen submits that the parties have
`
`agreed that the PM620 model “is representative of the PM622 model and PM800 Series products
`for purpoSes ofinfringement.” Id'(citing JX-0017C (Representative Accused Products
`Stipulation)). Wirtgen also submits that the PM312 model is representative ofthe PM3__10 and
`
`PM313 models. Id. As discussed below, the administrative law judge has determined that the
`
`PM620 model is representative of the PM600 Series and PM800 Series products, and that the
`
`PM312 model is representative of the PM300 Series products.
`
`2.
`
`Products Imported “on or before December 31, 2017”
`
`Wirtgen and Caterpillar filed a stipulation agreeing that thePM620 model is
`
`representative ofthe PM600 and PM800 series products and that the PM312 model is
`
`representative of the PM3 00 series products “imported on or before December 31, 2017.” JX-
`
`0017C at 1-3.
`
`3.
`
`,
`
`Products Imported “after December 31, 2017” —the So—Called “2018
`Product Updates”
`'
`'
`
`Caterpillar argues that it has modified portions of the PM600 and PM800 series products;
`
`Caterpillar refers to the modified products as the “201 8 Product Updates.” Caterpillar argues:
`
`The parties dispute whether, for the ‘340 and ‘309 patents, the
`PM620 Model may be representative of all machines imported after _
`December 31, 2017.
`Id. Caterpillar has developed 2018 Product
`Updates for the PM600 and PM800 Series of Cold Planers (the
`“2018 Product Update Machines’_’)
`relevant
`to the alleged
`infringement of these two patents. See Caterpillar’s Motion for
`Partial Summary Determination ’of Noninfringement
`(Feb. 16,
`
`
`
`- PUBLIC VERSION
`
`_
`
`2018), EDIS Doc. ID 636793; RX-0993C (Engelmann Rebuttal
`, Witness Statement) at Q/A 4-5. Relevant to the ‘340 patent, the
`2018 Product Update Machines [
`V
`1. Id. at Q/A
`. 8; RX-0990C (Fronczak Rebuttal Witness Statement) at Q/A 64.
`And relevant to the ‘309 patent, the 2018 Product Update Machines
`[
`l
`RX—0993C at Q/A 17-18; RX-0991C (Alleyne Rebuttal Witness
`Statement) at Q/A 385-386.
`
`Caterpillar Br. at 7.1
`
`The administrative law judge addresses the 2018 products in the subsequent analysis. See '
`
`Part II(C)(4), infia.
`
`E.
`
`The Domestic Industry Products
`
`Wirtgen introduces its products as follows:
`
`_
`
`There are sixteen models of domestic-industry products (“the DI
`Products’?) that can be grouped by three size categories: small,
`compact, or large. CX-0002C (Schmidt WS) Q25-28; CX-0010C .
`(Allen WS) Q10. The small DI machines include the W50Ri and
`W60Ri (corresponding to series 1505). The compact machines
`include the W100Ri, W120Ri, W100Fi, W120Fi, W100CFi,
`W120CFi, W130CFi, W150i, and W150CFi models (corresponding
`to series 1610, 1310, 1810, 0613, and 0813). Finally, the large
`machines include the W200i, W210i, W220, W220i, and W250i
`models (corresponding to series 1420, 1520, 0522, 0722, and 0622).
`CX-0002C (Schmidt WS) Q25—28. These models are sometimes
`referred to by Series Number, as summarized below.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 Any emphasis from the parties’ briefs is generally omitted in this initial determination.
`
`
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`
`—1610
`
`
`
`_—
`
`
`
`
`'
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`The different model numbers relate to the size of the milling drum,
`and the suffixes after the model number relate to certain attributes
`of the machines that differ between the same model number. For
`instance, the suffix “i” denotes a model with a “Tier four final”
`engine (specifying that it meets certain emissions criteria). The “R”
`and “F’? suffixes indicate the direction of the conveyor—whether it
`is a rear—facing conveyer (R) or a front-facing conveyer (F). The
`final suffix. in the DI Products, “CFi,” denotes a compact front-load
`machine, or a front-load machine that has tracks instead of wheels,
`as other smaller cold-milling machines do.
`
`1
`
`. The DI products that practice various claims ofthe Asserted Patents
`are summarized below.
`
`‘340 Patent
`
`‘
`
`.
`
`
`
`
`
`W200i, W21'Oi, W220, W220i,
`W250i,W150i,W150CFi .
`
`
`
`W200i, W210i, W220, W2201,
`W250i, W50Ri, W60Ri,
`_
`
`.
`WlOORi, W120Ri, W100Fi,
`
`
`
`W120Fi, WlOOCFi, W120CFi,
`‘641 Patent
` 1, 7,11,17
`Wl30CFi, W150i, WlSOCFi'
`
`
`(Safely Driving Backward)
`
`W200i, W210i, W220, W220i,
`W250i, W50Ri, W60Ri,
`‘
`
`WlOORi, W120Ri, W100Fi,
`
`
`‘ 5 3 0, Patent
`.W120Fi, WlOOCFi, W120CFi,
`
`
`
`(Intelligent Leg Control) 2, 5,16,18, 23
`Wl30CFi, W150i, WlSOCFi
`
`
`
`
`(Improved Pivoting Scraper)
`
`4, 5, 9, 12
`
`1O
`
`
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`
`
`'
`‘309 Patent
`(Four-Way Floating Axle)
`
`I
`10, 29
`
`_ W200i, W210i, W220, W220i,
`W250i, W150i, W150CFi
`
`
`
`
`
`Wirtgen Br. at 15-16.
`
`Caterpillar introduces Wirtgen’s machines as follows:
`
`In the Complaint, Wirtgen identified three categories of Domestic
`Articles: 1) Large Milling Machines; 2) Small Milling Machines;
`and 3) Compact Milling Machines. Compl. at 11 94. On October 27,
`2017, Wirtgen filed its Identification of Products on Which It-Will
`Rely to Satisfy the Domestic Industry Requirement. In relevant part,
`Wirtgen identified the following machines for each of the Asserted
`Patents: 1) the ‘340 patent— W200i, W210i, W220, W220i, W250i,
`W150i, W150CFi; 2) the ‘530 patent— W200i, W200Hi, W210i,
`W220, W220i, W250i, W50Ri, W60Ri, W100Ri, W120Ri,
`W100Fi, W120Fi, WlOOCFi, W120CFi, W130CFi, W150i,
`W150CFi; 3) the ‘641 patent— W200i, W200Hi, W210i, W220,
`W220i, W250i, W50, W50DCi, W50Ri, W60Ri, W60i, W100i,
`W100Ri, W120Ri, W100Fi, W120Fi, WlOOCFi, W120CFi,
`W130CFi, W150i, W150CFi; and 4) the ‘309 patent— W200i,
`W200Hi, W210i, W220, W220i, W250i, W150i, W150CFi.
`
`the parties Submitted a Stipulation Regarding
`On January 29,
`Representative Domestic
`Industry
`products.
`JX-0019
`(Representative DI Products Stipulation). For the technical prong
`ofthe domestic industry requirement, the parties agreed that for each
`of the ‘340 and ‘309 patents: 1) the W150 CFi is representative of
`the W150i, and 2) the W210i is representative of the W200i, W220,
`W220i, and W250i.
`JX-0019.0002. The parties did not reach an ‘
`agreement on representative machines for the purposes of the ‘530
`and ‘6_41 patents.
`
`Caterpillar Br. at 9-10.2 As discussed below, the administrative law judge has determined that:
`
`o
`
`0.
`
`For the ‘309 and ‘340 Patents, the W150CFi model is representative of the W150i
`and W150CFi models; and the W210i model is representative of the W200i,
`W220, W220i, and W250i models.
`
`For the ‘641 Patent, the W100Ri/W120Ri models are representative of the
`W50Ri, W60Ri, W100Fi, W120Fi, WlOOCFi, W120CFi, and W130CFi models;
`
`,2 For the ‘530 and ‘641 Patents, Caterpillar fails to present any argument that the machines that '
`Wirtgen identified are not representative.
`‘
`-
`
`11'
`
`
`
`3,
`
`'.
`
`v =1_>UB'LIC_VERSION
`
`‘ the W150CFi model is representatiVe of the W150i and W150CFi models; and the _
`W210i model is representative of the W200i, W220, W220i, and W250i models.
`
`9
`
`«For the ‘530 Patent, the W120Ri model is representative of the WSORi W60Ri,
`. _W'100Fi,'W120Fi, W100CFi, W120CFi, W13OCFi, W100Ri, and W120Ri
`models; the W150CFi model is representative of the W150i and W150CFi
`models; and the W210i model15 representatiVe of the W200i, W2101, W220,
`W2201, and W2501 models.
`
`F.
`
`l' Technological Background
`
`The parties submitted a joint technology stipulation on January 23, 2019, which was
`received into the record as JX-0018.. ThetechnolOgy stipulation proVides the" follovving images
`
`and explanation:
`
`. The Asserted Patents relate to machines used1n road construction,
`. including road milling machines.
`
`
`
`Road milling machines are also referred to as cold planers. Road
`milling machines have a rotating milling drum (also referred to as a
`rotor) that removes or “mills” existing pavement.
`\
`
`"12
`
`
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`
`
`As the drum rotates, spike-like cutting tools (also referred to as bits)
`on the drum grind the pavement into millings. The drum is enclosed
`in a housing (also referred to as a casing or chamber) that contains
`these millings.
`
`
`
`
`Within the housing, the millings are directed toward a conveyor that
`deposits the millings into a nearby truck.
`
`13
`
`
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`Height-adjustable legs elevate the milling machine’s body above the
`ground surface. The legs are connected to propulsion units that
`move the machine forward and backwards.
`'
`
`The ‘340 patent is directed to the scraper (also referred to as the rear
`door or drum flap) that forms the rear of the housing enclosing the
`milling drum. The ‘628 patent is directed to an auxiliary drive for
`rotating the milling drum. The ‘641 patent is directed to traveling
`backwards while the engine rotates the milling drum. And the ‘530
`, and ‘309 patents are directed to the height-adjustable legs.
`'
`
`JX-0018 at 2—3.
`
`H.
`
`Jurisdiction and Standing
`
`A.
`
`Personal and Subject Matter Jurisdiction
`
`No party has contested the Commission’s personal or subject matter jurisdiction in this
`
`investigation. See Wirtgen Br. at 16; Caterpillar Br. at 10 (“Caterpillar does not contest the
`
`subject matter jurisdiction or personal jurisdiction ofthe Commission to adjudicate this
`
`Investigation”).
`
`Wirtgen has filed a complaint alleging a violation of section 337, and the Commission,
`
`therefore, has subject matter jurisdiction. See Amgen, Inc. v. United States Int 7 Trade Comm ’n,
`
`902 F.2d1532, 1535-37 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
`
`g
`
`In addition, Wirtgen and Caterpillar have appeared and participated in the investigation.
`
`The Commission, therefore, has personal jurisdiction over the parties. See, e.g., Certain Liquid
`
`Crystal Display Modules, Products Containing Same, and-Methods for Using the Same, Inv. No.
`
`337-TA-634, Final Initial and Recommended Determinations at 3 (June 12, 2009) (relevant part
`
`adopted by Commission Opinion issued July 22, 2011).3
`
`3 The Commission “adopt[ed] all of the ALJ’s findings and conclusions that are" not inconsistent
`with [its] opinion.” Comm7n Op. at 35.
`'
`
`l4
`
`
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`B.
`
`In Rem Jurisdiction
`
`The Commission has in rem jurisdictiOn when infringing articles are imported, sold for
`
`‘
`
`importation, or sold within the United States after importation by the owner, importer, or
`
`consignee. 19 U.S.C. § 1337(a)(l)(B). I“All that is required. for in rem jurisdiction to be
`
`established is the presence ofthe imported property in the United States.” Certain Male
`
`Prophylactic Devices, Inv. No. 337-TA-546, Initial Determination (June 30, 2006) (citing
`
`Certain Steel Rod TreatingApparatus and Components Thereof, Inv..No. 337-TA-97, USITC
`
`Pub. No. 1210 (Jan. 1982), Commission Opinion at 4, 11 for the proposition that presence of res
`establishes in rem jurisdiction in Section 337 actions).
`'
`
`As discussed below, there is no dispute that the accused products—excluding the 2018
`Product Updates—are manufactured abroad and imported into the United States. The
`Commission does‘not have jurisdiction over the 2018 Product Updates because Caterpillar has
`
`not imported machines including the updates into the United States. Accordingly, the
`
`administrative law judge has determined that the Commission has in rem jurisdiction over the
`accused products, but not machines that include the 2018 Product Updates.
`
`C.
`
`The Importation Requirement
`
`Section 337 of the Tariff Act makes unlawful, in certain circumstances, the “importation-
`
`into the United States, the sale for importation, or the sale within the United States after
`
`importation by the owner, importer, or consignee, of articles” that infringe a US. patent. 19
`U.S.C. § 1337(a)(l)(B). Prior decisions have referred to subsection (a)(l)(B) ofthe statute as the
`
`- “Importation Requirement.” Accord Certain Products Containing Interactive Program Guide -
`
`and Parental Control Technology, Inv. No. 337-TA—845, Comm’n Op. at 1 (Dec. '11, 2013);
`
`Certain Toner Cartridges &'Comp0nents Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-918, NotiCe of
`
`15
`
`
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`Determination Not to Review Two Initial Determinations; One Regarding the Importation
`
`Requirement; and the Other Regarding the Economic Prong of the Domestic Industry
`
`Requirement (Feb. 18, 2015) (EDIS Doc. ID No. 551684, 2015WL 13662634).
`
`1.
`
`PM312, PM620,1>M622,PM82"0, PM822,.and _PM825
`
`a)
`
`Caterpillar Paving
`
`_ Order No. 23 (Initial Determination) determined that Caterpillar Paving has imported into
`
`the United States the following products:
`
`1)_
`
`At least one PM312 cold planer;
`
`2)
`
`3)
`
`4)
`
`.5)
`
`6)
`
`At least one PM620 cold planer;
`
`I
`
`‘ At least one PM622 cold planer;
`
`At least one PM820 cold planer;
`
`At least one PM822 cold planer; and
`
`At least one PM825 cold planer.
`
`See Order No. 23 at 14—15. Caterpillar did not seek review of Order No. 23, and the Commission
`
`did not review Order No. 23. Accordingly, Wirtgen has shown that Caterpillar Paving has met
`
`the importation requirement.
`
`b)
`
`Caterpillar Prodotti
`
`Order No. 23 determined that Caterpillar Prodotti has sold for importation into the United-
`
`States:
`
`1)
`
`2)
`
`3)
`
`4)
`
`5)
`
`At least one PM312 cold planer;
`At least one PM620 cold plan