The U.S. International Trade Commission will investigate Doosan Bobcat North America’s accusations that Caterpillar infringed upon its patents when importing certain construction equipment components.
Caterpillar says the case is one filed by a “South Korean conglomerate” that if granted would affect nearly all its construction equipment, harm the U.S. economy and undermine infrastructure projects.
Doosan Bobcat cites fairness and its large U.S. manufacturing presence and says Caterpillar is relying on a “too big to ban” defense.
Before its decision to investigate, some members of Congress filed letters of support either for Caterpillar or for Bobcat, citing the companies’ significant presence in their home areas. Texas Gov. Greg Abbott, whose state became Caterpillar’s corporate headquarters in 2022, also weighed in.
Doosan Bobcat North America filed the complaint December 2, along with a federal lawsuit against Caterpillar alleging infringement on components in equipment manufactured outside the U.S. and imported here.
Bobcat says Caterpillar infringed upon patents for certain skid steers, compact track loaders, excavators, wheel loaders, dozers and components in violation of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930. {For more details on the complaint, see Bobcat Sues Cat – Alleges Patent Infringement on Skid Steers, CTLs, Excavators}
The Trade Commission complaint requests a limited exclusion order and a cease-and-desist order.
A limited exclusion order bars the import of products to the U.S. determined by the commission to violate section 337. A cease-and-desist order directs a company to stop any actions that violate the statute.
In announcing its investigation, the commission notes that it has “not yet made any decision on the merits of the case.”
Political Leaders Weigh In
Ahead of its decision to investigate, the Trade Commission received letters of support from members of Congress for both Bobcat and Caterpillar. Each cited the companies’ large investments and jobs in their respective areas.
Those supporting Bobcat included Rep. Michelle Fishbach, Minnesota Republican, and Pat Harrigan, North Carolina Republican. They did not advocate a particular decision in the case but cited the company’s origins in the U.S. and its impact in providing jobs and investments in their districts.
“I do not take a side in this dispute, but I encourage the ITC to consider the broader public interest in maintaining strong and reliable intellectual property protections,” wrote Harrigan, R-N.C. “Bobcat holds hundreds of active U.S. patents and has been granted more than a thousand since its founding. Protecting these patents is not simply a legal matter – it is essential to ensuring that American companies can continue to innovate, compete globally and provide stable jobs.”
Those for Caterpillar included Republican Reps. Brad Knott, Addison McDowell and David Rouzer of North Carolina; Republican Rep. Bruce Westerman of Arkansas; Democratic Rep. Nikki Budzinski of Illinois; and Republican Rep. Jake Ellzey of Texas, as well as Texas Gov. Greg Abbott, a Republican.
Letters supporting Caterpillar said the complaint would hurt competition and innovation and raise construction costs. It would also impact Caterpillar’s ability to grow its U.S. manufacturing operations. It noted Doosan Bobcat is owned by a “South Korean conglomerate.”
“Doosan Bobcat’s requested exclusion orders would reduce consumer choice and may increase prices for construction equipment,” wrote Westerman, R-Arkansas. “This would reduce innovation and raise construction costs, and impact existing or planned construction projects.”
“If the Commission were to exclude imported parts and components needed by Caterpillar to make that equipment domestically,” he added, “there could be adverse consequences to Caterpillar’s ability to continue to grow its U.S. manufacturing footprint.”
Caterpillar Responds
In its response to the Trade Commission complaint, Caterpillar cited its 100 years of operation as a U.S.-based company.
It said the accused products comprise nearly all its construction equipment, and most of the products are made in the U.S.
Doosan Bobcat’s complaint is “an effort to exert undue pressure on Caterpillar through coercive litigation, without any previous notification to Caterpillar of its purported concerns,” the response says.
Bobcat’s requested relief would “threaten the public interest by jeopardizing our country’s ability to rebuild and maintain its infrastructure, which would impact every facet of public health, safety and welfare,” the response adds.
It would also lead to a drop in U.S.-made construction equipment supply. “Eliminating Caterpillar’s Accused Products could leave a supply gap, causing shortages, slowing down productivity while driving up construction costs (thereby raising prices for consumers), and potentially benefitting non-US manufacturers who attempt to establish inroads to the U.S. market.”
Caterpillar’s response further states that Bobcat’s requested relief would harm competition and U.S. consumers and hinder research and development.
“Doosan Bobcat also argues, again without support, that U.S. consumers would see a ‘positive’ impact from the sweeping relief it seeks, but it would instead undermine a U.S. fixture solely to benefit the bottom line of a foreign conglomerate,” the response says. “… Caterpillar has spent billions of dollars investing in U.S. R&D. Doosan Bobcat’s requested relief would undermine U.S. investments in intellectual property with no benefit to the American public.”
Bobcat States Its Position
Doosan Bobcat responded to the Congress members’ letters and Caterpillar’s response by saying they “present a distorted view of the U.S. construction equipment market.
“They rely on the incorrect premise that enforcing patent rights to seek remedial relief against Caterpillar would cripple U.S. infrastructure and the U.S. economy.”
It denies the dispute is one of “foreign vs. domestic,” citing Bobcat’s “massive U.S. manufacturing footprint and decades-long status as a key U.S. employer.”
It adds that the response “ignores the existence of a robust, competitive market filled with alternative suppliers, including Bobcat.”
“The Commission should not allow Caterpillar’s ‘too big to ban’ defense to shield it from the consequences of patent infringement,” Bobcat’s response says. “… This investigation is about construction equipment, not unique, lifesaving products with no substitutes. In investigations like this, the public interest strongly favors the enforcement of Bobcat’s intellectual property rights.”
What’s Next?
Having announced its investigation January 2, the Trade Commission’s chief administrative law judge will assign the case to an administrative law judge, who will hold an evidentiary hearing.
After the hearing, the judge will make an initial determination if there has been a violation. The commission will review that determination to make a decision.
As to the federal lawsuit Doosan Bobcat has filed against Caterpillar, the court has granted Caterpillar an extension until February 9 to file its response.
Doosan Bobcat has also filed a similar claims against Caterpillar in Europe with the United Patent Court and with the German District Court.
