Bobcat has initiated a sweeping series of patent infringement actions against Caterpillar, escalating a major legal confrontation between two of the industry’s most recognisable brands. The filings, made simultaneously across the United States, Germany and the European Union, centre on 14 Bobcat patents that underpin key functions in modern compact equipment; including manoeuvrability, power management, hydraulic precision, and machine efficiency.
The company confirmed that legal complaints have been submitted to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC), German district courts, and the Unified Patent Court (UPC). If successful, the actions could lead to injunctions, recalls, market bans, and significant damages affecting Caterpillar’s compact equipment portfolio.
In a statement shared with CMME, Bobcat spokesperson Lukas Jungbauer said: “Bobcat Company is taking these legal actions to protect our patented technologies, defend fair competition, and safeguard the innovation and craftsmanship that have defined our company for more than 65 years.
“The 14 Bobcat patents at issue enable functions like manoeuvrability, power, performance and efficiency. They’re foundational to our machines’ strength, versatility and precision, as well as the future of Bobcat innovation, driving advancement across our product lineup and making each machine worthy of carrying the Bobcat brand.”
Major U.S. Filings Target Caterpillar’s Compact Machinery
In the Eastern District of Texas, Bobcat alleges that Caterpillar has directly and indirectly infringed multiple patents related to tracked utility vehicles, lift-arm zone control, hydraulic drive systems, hydraulic power prioritisation and variable engine control technology. The complaint outlines a long history of Bobcat innovation dating back to the Keller brothers’ original compact loader in the 1950s and asserts that Caterpillar entered the skid-steer loader market decades later.
Bobcat claims that Caterpillar has repeatedly analysed and reverse-engineered competitor machines as part of its product development process, including through teardown procedures, instrumented testing and the production of CAD reconstructions of competitor components. According to the complaint, these practices have resulted in Caterpillar adopting features covered by Bobcat patents.
The Texas lawsuit seeks a permanent injunction, findings of willful infringement, compensatory and enhanced damages, and ongoing royalties.
ITC Filing Seeks Import Ban on Multiple Caterpillar Models
Bobcat has also taken its case to the U.S. International Trade Commission, seeking a limited exclusion order that would block Caterpillar from importing infringing skid-steer loaders, compact track loaders, excavators, wheel loaders, dozers and related components into the United States.
The complaint asserts that the technologies at issue enhance machine precision, reduce manual intervention, prevent equipment damage, and improve operating efficiency — all central to the capabilities of modern compact equipment. In addition to an import ban, Bobcat is requesting permanent cease-and-desist orders and a bond requirement for any covered Caterpillar products during the ITC’s Presidential review period.
If granted, these measures could have significant implications for Caterpillar’s U.S. supply chain and product availability.
European Actions Expand the Dispute Globally
Bobcat’s European filings further widen the scope of the dispute.
At the Unified Patent Court, two actions allege infringement of patents covering drive-control systems and hydraulic or electrical conduit couplers. Defendants include Caterpillar and several affiliated Zeppelin entities.
In Germany, Bobcat has filed three additional complaints covering patents related to off-board control systems, backhoe and carrier control systems, and lift-arm operational safety zones. Across all European filings, Bobcat is seeking injunctions, product recalls, removal and destruction of infringing equipment, and declarations of entitlement to damages.
A High-Stakes Battle in the Compact Equipment Market
The actions highlight the intensifying competition in the compact equipment segment — one long shaped by Bobcat’s leadership in skid-steers, compact track loaders and small excavators. Bobcat’s filings emphasise its role in originating the category and accuse Caterpillar of benefiting from technologies developed through decades of Bobcat innovation.
Caterpillar has not yet issued a public response.
Together, the U.S. and European filings represent one of the broadest multi-jurisdiction patent offensives in the sector in recent years, with potential consequences for machine availability, competitive strategy and OEM technology roadmaps across both markets.
CMME will continue to track developments as the cases proceed through U.S. and European courts.
A summary of Bobcat’s complaints against Caterpillar
“CAT was a late arrival to the skid-steer loader market. It did not begin manufacturing skid-steer loaders until 1999, roughly 40 years after Bobcat created the market.”
“Rather than innovate itself, CAT has chosen to take the innovations of Bobcat to attempt to unfairly compete with Bobcat in the skid-steer and broader compact equipment market. This has unfortunately been a pattern for CAT.”
“As revealed in other litigations, CAT closely monitors its competitors’ products, including tearing them down as part of its ‘new product introduction process’ […] As described by its own engineers, CAT uses a ‘low-cost producer process,’ whereby in addition to tearing down competitive products, it inspects, operates, and tests the functionality of those competitive products.”
“CAT extensively documents these processes, including doing instrumented testing to identify the signals from the sensors in competitors’ products and photographing every part of the teardown process. […] CAT even makes CAD drawing of individual components of its competitors’ machines.”
“CAT works to identify “advanced technologies” in its competitors’ products, and potentially emulate them. […] CAT’s process is “not just looking to mimic the quality of the – of just a single bolt on a machine, [it is] looking at the whole system.”
“CAT’s use of so many of Bobcat’s patented technologies is consistent with its pattern and practice of identifying and emulating the key features in its competitors’ products.”
“CAT has a practice of monitoring competitors and their patents. […] CAT regularly received reports on competitor patents, ‘review[s] competitive patents as they come in’ and conducts ‘a monthly review as well.’”
“Defendants’ infringing conduct has and continues to be willful, deliberate, and intentional misconduct beyond typical infringement…”
