DCT

2:25-cv-01185

Doosan Bobcat North America Inc v. Caterpillar Inc

Log In
Key Events
Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:25-cv-01185, E.D. Tex., 12/02/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged based on Caterpillar having established places of business, including manufacturing sites, within the district, and Holt Texas operating as a major dealer with multiple locations selling the accused products within the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s skid-steer and compact track loaders infringe four patents related to vehicle control systems, remote operation, and component design for compact construction equipment.
  • Technical Context: The technology at issue involves software and hardware for controlling the drive systems, operator inputs, and attachments of compact equipment, a market segment where maneuverability and precise control are critical.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Defendant Caterpillar has a pattern and practice of monitoring and emulating competitors’ technologies, citing deposition testimony from a prior patent litigation, Wirtgen America, Inc. v. Caterpillar, Inc., to support allegations of willful infringement.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2006-08-11 U.S. Patent No. 7,831,364 Priority Date
2007-06-01 U.S. Patent No. 8,364,356 Priority Date
2008-10-15 U.S. Patent No. 8,047,760 Priority Date
1999-XX-XX Defendant CAT allegedly begins manufacturing skid-steer loaders
2010-11-09 U.S. Patent No. 7,831,364 Issues
2011-11-01 U.S. Patent No. 8,047,760 Issues
2013-01-29 U.S. Patent No. 8,364,356 Issues
2017-11-01 U.S. Patent No. 10,934,684 Priority Date
2021-03-02 U.S. Patent No. 10,934,684 Issues
2025-12-02 Complaint Filed

II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis

U.S. Patent No. 8,364,356 - Drive control system for a vehicle and method

(Issued Jan. 29, 2013)

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent background describes compact construction vehicles, such as skid steer loaders, which have independent drive systems for their right and left sides (e.g., wheels or tracks) (col. 1:24-41). Due to manufacturing tolerances, wear, or operating on uneven ground, these two sides may not operate identically, causing the vehicle to drift or "track" improperly even when the operator intends to drive straight.
  • The Patented Solution: The invention provides a method and system for an operator to make fine-tuned adjustments to the vehicle's drive system to correct for this tracking drift (col. 7:42-56). The operator can enter a special "tracking adjustment mode" and then use inputs, such as buttons on a joystick, to incrementally increase or decrease the output of one side's drive relative to the other, effectively "trimming" the vehicle's steering until it travels straight when commanded (col. 4:45-55; Fig. 8).
  • Technical Importance: This technology allows operators to customize vehicle performance in the field, improving operational precision and reducing the operator fatigue associated with constantly correcting for steering drift.

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2-12 (Compl. ¶37).
  • Independent Claim 1 recites a method with the essential elements of:
    • Receiving a first input from an operator to enter a "tracking adjustment mode".
    • Varying an "output limit" for one of the drives while in that mode to "trim" its output relative to the other drive, thereby adjusting steering for a "positive center operator control device position".
    • Controlling the drive system based on the varied output limit to produce vehicle movement.

U.S. Patent No. 10,934,684 - Control system for power machine

(Issued Mar. 2, 2021)

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent background discusses complex power machines like excavators, which have numerous functions (e.g., drive, slew, lift arm, bucket) controlled by operator inputs like joysticks (col. 1:22-30). An operator performing a specific task, such as digging a trench, may need a different set of controls than an operator performing a different task, such as backfilling and driving the machine. Using a single, static control mapping for all tasks can be inefficient and unintuitive.
  • The Patented Solution: The invention provides a control system that allows an operator to select from multiple "modes of operation" (col. 2:11-19). Each mode remaps the same physical operator inputs (e.g., two joysticks) to control a different subset of machine functions tailored to a specific task. For example, a "trench mode" maps the joysticks to control the arm, boom, bucket, and house slew, while a "backfill mode" remaps the same joysticks to control vehicle travel (forward/back, left/right) and a front-mounted blade (col. 12:25-60; Fig. 5).
  • Technical Importance: This system enhances operator efficiency and ergonomics by making the controls more intuitive for the task at hand, reducing the cognitive load on the operator.

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claims 1 and 15, along with dependent claims 2-13 and 16-19 (Compl. ¶53).
  • Independent Claim 1 recites a power machine with the essential elements of:
    • A frame, a plurality of actuators (including a slew actuator), first and second operator input devices, and a "mode selection input".
    • A controller that determines the selected "mode of operation".
    • In a first mode, the inputs control a "first sub-set" of actuators.
    • In a second mode, the inputs control a "second sub-set" of actuators.
  • Independent Claim 15 recites a similar power machine where the controller switches control between a "first sub-set of machine functions" and a "second sub-set of machine functions", and where a common function (e.g., slew) is controlled by different inputs depending on the selected mode.

U.S. Patent No. 8,047,760 - Integral power or electrical conduit coupler

(Issued November 1, 2011)

  • Technology Synopsis: The patent addresses the problem of hydraulic and electrical lines for powered attachments obstructing an operator's view (col. 1:21-26). The solution is a coupler assembly mounted on a plate and secured to the forward end of a loader's lift arm, positioning the connection points to the side of the operator's primary line of sight and allowing the conduits to be routed cleanly within the tubular structure of the lift arm itself (Abstract; col. 2:38-54).
  • Asserted Claims: Claims 1-13 (Compl. ¶68).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that certain Caterpillar products incorporate an integral power or electrical conduit coupler that infringes the ’760 Patent (Compl. ¶68).

U.S. Patent No. 7,831,364 - 'Off-board' control for a power machine or vehicle

(Issued November 9, 2010)

  • Technology Synopsis: The patent describes a system for remotely operating a power machine, which is useful in environments where it is unsafe or infeasible for an operator to be in the cab (col. 1:11-23). The invention provides a "plug and play" solution where an on-board receiver unit connects to the vehicle's existing controller area network (CAN bus) and receives commands from a separate, "off-board" (i.e., remote) transmitter unit with its own set of operator controls (Abstract; col. 2:27-41).
  • Asserted Claims: Claims 1, 2-5, 6, 7, 8-9, 11-15, and 17-20 (Compl. ¶84).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that certain Caterpillar products, when used with remote control systems, infringe the ’364 Patent (Compl. ¶84).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint identifies the accused instrumentalities as "the CAT skid-steer and compact track loader lines" (Compl. ¶26). The complaint references Exhibits 7, 9, 10, and 11, which are described as containing claim charts identifying the specific "Accused Products," but these exhibits were not filed with the public complaint.

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that Caterpillar is a direct and significant competitor to Bobcat in the compact equipment market (Compl. ¶¶ 18, 45). It alleges Caterpillar did not begin manufacturing skid-steer loaders until 1999, approximately 40 years after Bobcat introduced its first model (Compl. ¶18). The specific functionality of the accused products is not detailed in the complaint itself, but the infringement counts allege that they incorporate technologies such as adjustable drive control systems, multi-mode operator controls, integrated conduit couplers, and remote operation capabilities corresponding to the asserted patents.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not include the referenced claim chart exhibits (Exhibits 7, 9, 10, and 11). The infringement theories are summarized below based on the complaint's narrative allegations.

  • '356 Patent Infringement Theory: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ accused loaders infringe by implementing a drive control system that allows an operator to make fine-tuned adjustments to the drive outputs for each side of the vehicle, which allegedly corresponds to the claimed method of entering a "tracking adjustment mode" to "trim" the output (Compl. ¶37).
  • '684 Patent Infringement Theory: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ accused machines infringe by providing an operator with selectable control modes that remap the functions of the joysticks. This functionality is alleged to mirror the claimed system of switching between, for example, a mode for operating a work implement and a separate mode for driving the vehicle (Compl. ¶53).

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • For the ’356 Patent:
    • The Term: "tracking adjustment mode"
    • Context and Importance: This term is central to independent claim 1. The dispute may turn on whether the accused Caterpillar products possess a feature that can be properly characterized as a distinct, selectable "mode" for adjusting tracking, or if their adjustment functionality is implemented in a different manner that falls outside the scope of this term.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the concept generally as allowing a user to "adjust the flow of hydraulic fluid to the hydraulic motors" to adjust tracking (col. 4:50-55). This could support an interpretation covering any user-initiated process for fine-tuning drive output.
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent's detailed embodiment describes a specific sequence for entering the mode, namely holding a "Press to Operate Loader" button for three seconds (col. 8:10-18; Fig. 8). This specific user interface action could be argued to narrow the scope of what constitutes entering the claimed "mode."
  • For the ’684 Patent:
    • The Term: "mode of operation"
    • Context and Importance: The core of the ’684 invention is the ability to select between different modes. The infringement analysis will depend on whether the control schemes available on the accused products constitute distinct "modes of operation" that remap controls as required by the claims.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The summary describes the invention as providing a machine where a controller determines "a selected mode of operation" and controls actuators differently based on that selection (col. 2:11-25). This suggests any system with selectable control mappings could be covered.
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent's primary examples are a "trench mode" and a "backfill mode," which remap controls between operating the primary work tool (boom/arm/bucket) and operating the undercarriage (travel and blade) (col. 12:25-44; Fig. 5). This could support an argument that the term is limited to systems that switch between these specific categories of functions.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement. Inducement is based on allegations that Defendants provide "support and instruction," such as training and user manuals, that encourage customers to use the accused products in an infringing manner (e.g., Compl. ¶¶ 41, 57). Contributory infringement is based on allegations that the accused products were "especially made or adapted for use in the infringement" and have "no substantial non-infringing uses" (e.g., Compl. ¶¶ 43, 59).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement based on alleged pre-suit knowledge. It asserts that Caterpillar has a "practice of monitoring competitors and their patents," citing testimony from unrelated litigation, and identifies Bobcat as a key competitor (Compl. ¶¶ 45, 61, 76, 92). It also alleges that Caterpillar would have had notice of the patents from Bobcat's product markings (Compl. ¶¶ 46, 77, 93).

VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case

  1. A core issue will be one of definitional scope: The case for at least two of the patents may turn on claim construction. Can the term "tracking adjustment mode" in the ’356 Patent be construed to cover any user-initiated drive system calibration in the accused products, or is it limited to a discrete, selectable mode as detailed in the patent’s specific embodiments? Similarly, does any user-selectable control pattern in the accused loaders constitute a "mode of operation" under the ’684 Patent, or must it involve the specific type of functional re-mapping described?

  2. A key evidentiary question will be one of technical equivalence: The complaint alleges that Caterpillar’s products perform the patented functions, but provides limited public detail on how they do so. The case will likely require a deep technical dive into the source code, hardware, and operational logic of the accused control systems to determine if they in fact operate in a manner that meets the limitations of the asserted claims.

  3. A central question will be one of intent and knowledge: Plaintiff's willfulness allegations rely heavily on Caterpillar's alleged corporate practice of monitoring competitors. A key battleground will be whether Plaintiff can connect this general alleged practice to the specific patents-in-suit and demonstrate that Caterpillar's conduct rose to the level of deliberate or reckless disregard of Bobcat's patent rights, as opposed to independent development in a competitive field.