Case 2:19-cv-00209-JRG Document 142 Filed 05/12/20 Page 1 of 37 PageID #: 4241
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`
`THE HILLMAN GROUP, INC.,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`v.
`
`KEYME, LLC,
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 2:19-cv-00209-JRG
`
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`PLAINTIFF THE HILLMAN GROUP, INC.’S
`OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00209-JRG Document 142 Filed 05/12/20 Page 2 of 37 PageID #: 4242
`
`
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Introduction ..........................................................................................................................1
`
`The Law Governing Claim Construction .............................................................................2
`
`III.
`
`Disputed Claim Terms .........................................................................................................3
`
`A.
`
`The So-Called “Identical” Terms .............................................................................3
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`The Specifications Establish That Strict Identicality Is Not
`Required .......................................................................................................4
`
`The Claim Language Defeats KeyMe’s Strict Identicality Position ............7
`
`KeyMe’s Strict Identicality Limitation Would Expressly Exclude
`an Embodiment in Contravention of Governing Law ..................................8
`
`KeyMe’s Dictionary Definitions Cannot Override the Intrinsic
`Record ..........................................................................................................9
`
`Claim Constructions Laden With Superlatives Are Routinely
`Rejected......................................................................................................10
`
`B.
`
`Key Analysis System .............................................................................................12
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Overview of the “Key Analysis System” ...................................................13
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶6 Does Not Apply .........................................................13
`
`a)
`
`b)
`
`c)
`
`The Claim Language Connotes Structure ......................................14
`
`The Prosecution History Confirms that §112, ¶6 Does Not
`Govern............................................................................................17
`
`KeyMe Fails to Meet Its Burden to Overcome the
`Presumption that § 112, ¶6 Does Not Govern ...............................19
`
`3.
`
`The Specification Discloses Mechanical, Optical, and Electronic
`Structures Corresponding to the “Key Analysis System” ..........................21
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`Matches Preselected Key Types ............................................................................22
`
`Queue .....................................................................................................................23
`
`Key Duplicating System ........................................................................................25
`
`1.
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶6 Does Not Apply .........................................................25
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00209-JRG Document 142 Filed 05/12/20 Page 3 of 37 PageID #: 4243
`
`
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`The Claimed “Key Duplicating System” Connotes Structure ...................26
`
`KeyMe Includes Structure that Is Not Linked to the Claimed
`Function .....................................................................................................28
`
`KeyMe’s “Mechanical Trace-Cutting” Characterization
`Contravenes Express Disclosure in the Specification ................................29
`
`IV.
`
`Conclusion .........................................................................................................................30 
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00209-JRG Document 142 Filed 05/12/20 Page 4 of 37 PageID #: 4244
`
`
`
`Federal Cases
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`Am. Piledriving Equip., Inc. v. Geoquip, Inc.,
`637 F.3d 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2011)..................................................................................................2
`
`Apex Inc. v. Raritan Comput., Inc.,
`325 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2003)..........................................................................................14, 26
`
`Apple Inc. v. Motorola, Inc.,
`757 F.3d 1286 (Fed. Cir. 2014)........................................................................................ passim
`
`Avid Tech. v. Harmonic, Inc.,
`2013 WL 12334592 (D. Del., April 15, 2013)...................................................................22, 30
`
`Aylus Networks, Inc. v. Apple Inc.,
`856 F.3d 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2017)..................................................................................................2
`
`Blitzsafe Tex., LLC v. Subaru Corp.,
`2018 WL 6504174 (E.D. Tex., Dec. 11, 2018) ..................................................................14, 20
`
`Budde v. Harley-Davidson, Inc.,
`250 F.3d 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2000)................................................................................................22
`
`Charles E. Hill & Assoc. v. Amazon.com,
`2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 45414 (E.D. Tex., Oct. 7, 2005) ....................................................8, 29
`
`Colorquick, LLC v. Eastman Kodak Co.,
`2008 WL 5771324 (E.D. Tex., June 25, 2008) ........................................................................11
`
`Free Stream Media Corp. v. Alphonso Inc.,
`2017 WL 1165578 (E.D. Tex., Mar. 29, 2017) ...........................................................15, 16, 26
`
`Genzyme Corp. v. Atrium Medical Corp.,
`212 F.Supp.2d 292 (D. Del. 2002) ...........................................................................................22
`
`Gestion Proche, Inc. v. Dialight Corp.,
`2017 WL 2834695 (E.D. Tex., June 30, 2017) ........................................................................11
`
`Inventio AG v. ThyssenKrupp Elevator Americas Corp.,
`649 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2011)..........................................................................................17, 27
`
`Ishida Co. v. Taylor,
`221 F.3d 1310 (Fed. Cir. 2000)................................................................................................22
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00209-JRG Document 142 Filed 05/12/20 Page 5 of 37 PageID #: 4245
`
`
`
`Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc.
`52 F.3d 967 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (en banc) ..............................................................................18, 26
`
`Medtronic, Inc. v. Advanced Cardiovascular Sys., Inc.,
`248 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2001)................................................................................................23
`
`Nichia Corp. v. Everlight Elecs. Co.,
`2014 WL 7149169 (E.D. Tex., Dec. 12, 2014) ........................................................................11
`
`Northrop Grumman Corp. v. Intel Corp.,
`325 F.3d 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2003)................................................................................................29
`
`Optis Wireless Tech., LLC v. Huawei Device Co.,
`2018 WL 476054 (E.D. Tex., Jan. 18, 2018) .............................................................................9
`
`Panoptis Patent Mgmt., LLC v. Blackberry Ltd.,
`2017 WL 497571 (E.D. Tex., Feb. 7, 2017) ............................................................................16
`
`PerdiemCo, LLC v. IndusTrack, LLC,
`2016 WL 3633627 (E.D. Tex., July 7, 2017) ..........................................................................20
`
`Personalized Media Commc’ns., LLC v. Motorola, Inc.,
`2011 WL 4591898 (E.D. Tex., Sept. 30, 2011) .......................................................................11
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) ..................................................................................2
`
`Rockwell Automation, Inc. v. 3-S Smart Software Solutions, GMBH,
`2016 WL 5811485 (E.D. Tex., Oct. 5, 2016) ..........................................................................20
`
`TEK Global, S.R.L. v. Sealant Sys. Int’l,
`920 F.3d 777 (Fed. Cir. 2019)............................................................................................17, 18
`
`Uniloc 2017 LLC v. Google LLC,
`2020 WL 512605 (E.D. Tex., Jan. 30, 2020) ...........................................................................23
`
`United States Surgical Corp. v. Ethicon, Inc.,
`103 F.3d 1554 (Fed. Cir. 1997)................................................................................................23
`
`Va. Innovation Scis., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc.,
`2019 WL 4259020 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 9, 2019) ..........................................................................20
`
`Wenger Mfg. v. Coating Mach. Sys., Inc.,
`239 F.3d 1225 (Fed. Cir. 2001)................................................................................................30
`
`Federal Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶6 ................................................................................................................ passim
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00209-JRG Document 142 Filed 05/12/20 Page 6 of 37 PageID #: 4246
`
`
`I.
`
`Introduction
`
`The parties before the Court compete in the market for machines that copy keys. The
`
`competing machines at issue in this litigation are fully contained, self-service kiosks located in
`
`hardware stores, grocery stores, home improvement stores, and other commercial retail locations.
`
`Hillman’s Minute Key “v3” Machine 
` 
`
`KeyMe’s Locksmith in a Box Machine 
`
` 
`
` 
`The parties are currently before the Court on claim construction. There are three patents in suit,
`
`Hillman’s U.S. Patent Nos. 8,979,446 (Ex. 1) (Fig. 1 shown below); 9,914,179 (Ex. 2); and 10,400,474
`
`(Ex. 3). The inventions claimed in these patents solve a number of
`
`challenging problems. Legacy key cutting technologies, machines, and
`
`processes required a great deal of labor and capital. Keys needed to be cut by
`
`trained technicians using specialized equipment. Hardware stores needed to
`
`maintain square footage for key cutting machines and a massive inventory of
`
`different types of key blanks to service their customers. And consumers
`
`needed to tolerate long lines, inconvenient hours and locations, and sometimes
`
`even faulty keys (mis-cuts) made by rushed or novice technicians.
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00209-JRG Document 142 Filed 05/12/20 Page 7 of 37 PageID #: 4247
`
`
`
`The inventions and the machines involved in this litigation represent the culmination of years
`
`of technological advances aimed at automating the once cumbersome and inconvenient key cutting
`
`process. The patents involve not only core technical innovations that enable the accurate cutting of
`
`keys, but also critical innovations that enable an acceptable user experience. With the advent of these
`
`technologies, the key cutting process has been automated and incorporated into a convenient, easy to
`
`use, self-service kiosk. Everything from managing the inventory of the key blanks to be cut, to
`
`monitoring the machine for maintenance issues, to setting the consumer at ease during the cutting
`
`process, to taking payment from the customer, to actually cutting new keys has been automated and
`
`incorporated into the machines. The patent claims involved in this dispute are directed to the
`
`fundamental technologies that have enabled the significant advance from the cumbersome legacy key
`
`cutting process to the now convenient state-of-the-art experience.
`
`II.
`
`The Law Governing Claim Construction
`
`The words of a patent claim are generally given their ordinary and customary meaning.
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). “Ordinary and customary
`
`meaning” is “the meaning that the [claim language] would have to a person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`at the time of the invention.” Am. Piledriving Equip., Inc. v. Geoquip, Inc., 637 F.3d 1324, 1332 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2011). The patent specification is often the “single best guide to the meaning of a disputed term.”
`
`Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1315. The prosecution history also serves as important intrinsic evidence of the
`
`meaning of claim terms. Aylus Networks, Inc. v. Apple Inc., 856 F.3d 1353, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
`
`Extrinsic evidence, such as dictionary definitions, may be considered but is “less significant than the
`
`intrinsic record.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1317.
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00209-JRG Document 142 Filed 05/12/20 Page 8 of 37 PageID #: 4248
`
`
`III. Disputed Claim Terms
`A.
`
`The So-Called “Identical” Terms
`
`Conjuring the image of prosecutor James Trotter III’s farcical argument in the cult classic
`
`comedy, My Cousin Vinny, (“I--DENTICAL”), KeyMe argues that the Court should impose the term
`
`“identical” on six different claim limitations across all three patents-in-suit, despite that the term
`
`“identical” appears nowhere in the claims or even the specification. The following six disputed claim
`
`elements involve some variation of the claim language “replicate” or “duplicate” as applied to the
`
`customer’s original or master key. The only dispute between the parties for these six terms is whether
`
`the elements require a “copy” (Hillman’s position) or an “identical copy” (KeyMe’s position).1
`
`Ref. No.2
`1
`
`3
`
`
`13
`
`’446 claim term
`“configured to
`replicate the tooth
`pattern of the blade of
`said key inserted in
`said key receiving
`entry” [all asserted
`claims]
`
`“at least one
`duplicate” [all asserted
`claims]
`’179 claim term
`“configured to cut the
`selected key blank to
`duplicate a key tooth
`pattern of the master
`key” [all asserted
`claims]
`
`Hillman’s Construction
`“configured to make a copy
`of the tooth pattern of the
`blade of the customer’s key
`inserted into said key-
`receiving entry”
`
`KeyMe’s Construction
` “configured to make an identical
`copy of the tooth pattern of the
`blade of the customer’s key
`inserted into said key-receiving
`entry”
`
`“at least one copy of”
`
`Plain and ordinary meaning
`
`Hillman’s Construction
`“configured to cut the
`selected key blank to make
`a copy of a key tooth pattern
`of the master key”
`
`KeyMe’s Construction
`“configured to cut the selected
`key blank to make an identical
`copy of a key tooth pattern of the
`master key”
`
`
`1Two weeks ago, KeyMe changed its construction for three of these terms from “identical copy” to
`“plain and ordinary meaning.” Compare Dkt. No. 116 with Dkt. No. 135. But KeyMe would neither
`accept Hillman’s proposed construction nor otherwise disavow its earlier position that the claims
`require strict identicality. So the dispute regarding the appropriate scope of these terms remains,
`notwithstanding KeyMe’s belated switch to “plain and ordinary meaning.”
`
`2The Ref. Nos. in this brief correspond to those used in the P.R. 4-3 disclosures (Dkt. Nos. 116, 135).
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00209-JRG Document 142 Filed 05/12/20 Page 9 of 37 PageID #: 4249
`
`
`
`
`21
`
`22
`
`26
`
`’474 claim term
`“configured to . . . cut
`the determined bitting
`pattern into a key
`blank” / “the
`determined bitting
`pattern” [claims 1-19]
`
`Hillman’s Construction
`“configured to … make a
`copy of the tooth pattern of
`the existing key determined
`by the imaging system” /
`“the tooth pattern of the
`existing key determined by
`the imaging system”
`
`“key duplication
`process” [claims 1-19]
`
`“process of making a copy
`of a key”
`
`“duplicated key”
`[claims 7, 19]
`
`“a copy of a key”
`
`KeyMe’s Construction
`“configured to … make an
`identical copy of the tooth pattern
`of the existing key determined by
`the imaging system” / “the tooth
`pattern of the existing key
`determined by the imaging
`system”
`Plain and ordinary meaning
`
`Plain and ordinary meaning
`
`Hillman’s proposed constructions require that the claimed “duplication” or “replication” must
`
`result in a “copy” of the customer’s original or master key. Consistent with the specifications of all
`
`three patents, the copy has to work in that it has to be able to operate the same lock as the master key.
`
`Beyond that, it need not be a perfect copy, an exact copy, or an identical copy. KeyMe’s addition of
`
`the superlative “identical” before the word “copy” in all of these otherwise agreed upon constructions
`
`reflects (six times over) a thinly veiled non-infringement position. KeyMe contends that its machines
`
`do not “duplicate” or “replicate,” even though they make a copy of a key that will open the same lock
`
`as the original master key, because KeyMe’s experts will be able to find some nominal variation or
`
`other difference when comparing the original key to the copy under a microscope. But the claim
`
`construction required to support KeyMe’s non-infringement argument—strict identicality—is at odds
`
`with the entire intrinsic record.
`
`1.
`
`The Specifications Establish That Strict Identicality Is Not Required
`
`The specifications describe the level of similarity required between the operative “tooth
`
`pattern” or “bitting pattern” of a master key and that of a “duplicated” or “replicated” key. Namely, a
`
`key (or its tooth pattern) has been effectively “duplicated” or “replicated” according to the claimed
`
`inventions if the copy can open the same lock as the master key. This common-sense understanding of
`
`the inventions is explicitly confirmed by the specification of the ’474 patent, which explains that a key
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00209-JRG Document 142 Filed 05/12/20 Page 10 of 37 PageID #: 4250
`
`
`blank includes “blade 12 with a single relatively thinner lengthwise outer edge 46 that is configured to
`
`be notched in a particular pattern (shown in phantom lines as notches 49) corresponding to the lock
`
`intended to receive blade 12 . . .” Ex. 3 (’474 col. 3:66-4:2) (emphasis added).
`
`
`Id. (Fig. 1A) (annotated). Naturally, keys are consistently disclosed as being directly associated with
`
`their attendant locks: “a user generates torque within blade 12, causing an associated lock to turn and
`
`open or close.” Id. (col. 3:57-58). And the specific pattern of notches to be cut into a key blank,
`
`shown by the phantom lines in Fig. 1A above, are also consistently disclosed as corresponding to a
`
`lock: “the pattern being variable and corresponding to the lock intended to receive blade 12.” Id. (col.
`
`4:17-18) (emphasis added).
`
`The phantom lines corresponding to the lock are described “notches” or “patterns of bitting
`
`notches” that are cut into key blanks based on information derived from the master key. Specifically,
`
`data regarding the master key is collected by the “identification module” from cameras, lasers,
`
`scanners, or other techniques. See, e.g., Ex. 3 (’474 col. 9:49-10:14; 10:48-59). The identification
`
`module measures “the pattern of existing notches 49 [] in the master key.” Id. (col. 17:52). Then the
`
`fabrication system “make[s] desired patterns of bitting notches 49 within the key blanks based on
`
`identification data received form the identification module.” Id. (col. 11:42-45).
`
`Like Hillman’s proposed constructions, the specification explains that this process results in
`
`copying the bitting patterns: “key making machine 100 [] can be used to create within key blade 12 a
`
`new bitting pattern or a copied bitting pattern of an existing key.” Id. (col. 7:14-15) (emphasis added).
`
`The duplicated key is described as having a “copied bitting pattern” or as being a “match” of the
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00209-JRG Document 142 Filed 05/12/20 Page 11 of 37 PageID #: 4251
`
`
`master key, with the expressly stated goal in all instances being “to ensure that the duplicate key
`
`functions in the same manner as the master key.” Id. (col. 7:25-27; 18:4-49; 22:26-27). This common-
`
`sense functional standard does not require strict identicality, exact matches, or perfect measurements.
`
`The disputed claim language of the ’474 patent merely requires a “bitting pattern” that will operate the
`
`associated lock, nothing more. Neither the concept of identicality, nor even the term, are mentioned
`
`anywhere in the three specifications.
`
`
`
`Simply put, a “duplicated” or “replicated” key (or “tooth pattern” or “bitting pattern” as the
`
`case may be) in accordance with the disclosed inventions is a copy that opens the associated lock.
`
`That is what the ’474 patent specification means when it discloses bitting patterns that “correspond to
`
`the lock” and keys that “function in the same manner as the master key.” The goal as described in the
`
`specification is to avoid “mis-cuts” (“keys that do not function” and must be returned), not to achieve
`
`some other strict metaphysical identicality with the master key. Id. (col. 15:32; 19:18-19; 20:21-31).
`
`The specifications of the ’179 and ’446 patents are in complete accord with the disclosure of
`
`the ’474 patent. They speak of customers using the claimed automated kiosk to “obtain accurate
`
`duplicate keys,” not strictly identical duplicate keys. Ex. 2 (’179 col. 2:19); Ex. 4 (U.S. Patent
`
`Publication No. 2008/0145163 (“the ’163” or “the ’163 application”) at [0007]);3 Ex. 1 (’446 col.
`
`12:33-36). The disputed claim language of the ’179 and ’446 patents (reciting a replicated or
`
`duplicated “tooth pattern”) is repeatedly characterized in the specifications of those patents as merely
`
`requiring a “tooth pattern” that is cut “in accordance with the tooth pattern” of the master key. Ex. 2
`
`(’179 col. 3:6-8; 5:39-41; 7:55-57; 10:64-66); Ex. 4 (’163 [0010], [0022], [0033], [0065]). The
`
`language “in accordance with” in no way suggests or implies strict identicality in every sense (i.e.,
`
`something more than a copy that opens the same lock). The duplicated or replicated tooth patterns
`
`3 KeyMe concedes, correctly, that the ’163 application is part of the specification of the ’446 patent.
`See, e.g., KeyMe P.R. 4-3 disclosures at Dkt. No. 135 at Appx. C (“U.S. Patent Publication No.
`2008/0145163, incorporated by reference at 12:33-36 of the ’446 patent”).
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00209-JRG Document 142 Filed 05/12/20 Page 12 of 37 PageID #: 4252
`
`
`need not be perfect copies, identical copies, exact copies, or any other type of superlative copies.
`
`Rather, they have to be “accurate” in that they work the lock (i.e., not “mis-cuts”).
`
`
`
`There is no reasonable reading of any of the specifications that would demand strict identicality
`
`between master keys and copies in some other aspect (i.e., beyond that they open the same lock). The
`
`word “identical” is nowhere to be found in any of the specifications when addressing duplicated keys,
`
`tooth patterns, or bitting patterns. And there is nothing else, not even an exemplary embodiment,
`
`requiring such a strict identicality standard. If anything, the specifications all point in the other
`
`direction—disclosing that a duplicate must be able to open the lock, but expressly contemplating non-
`
`identicality in all other aspects. For instance, the ’446 specification discloses that a customer can
`
`choose from “different styles [of keys] (plain brass, colored flag pattern, colored flower pattern, etc.).”
`
`Ex. 1 (’446 col. 6:10-13; 13:36-38). Similarly, the ’474 specification discloses that customers can
`
`chose from different graphic designs, colors, and shapes for the “duplicate key’s head.” Ex. 3 (’474
`
`col. 7:61-66). And the ’179 specification discloses that key blanks will be stocked in different colors.
`
`Ex. 2 (’179 col. 3:18-20). Given that all three specifications expressly contemplate a variety of
`
`different style and color choices for the duplicated key, KeyMe’s position requiring strict identicality
`
`between the master key and the duplicate lacks credibility. By the express disclosure in the
`
`specifications, a painted American Flag key is still a claimed “duplicate key” (even if the master key
`
`was a plain brass key), as long as it opens the same lock despite its differences, cosmetic or otherwise.
`
`
`
`All embodiments in all three specifications demonstrate that strict identicality is not required.
`
`According to the specifications, where a copy opens the same lock as the original, it possesses the
`
`requisite similarity with the original to meet the “replicate” or “duplicate” limitations of the claims.
`
`2.
`
`The Claim Language Defeats KeyMe’s Strict Identicality Position
`
`Unsurprisingly, the claims are consistent with the specifications in the fundamental
`
`understanding that the claimed “tooth pattern” or “bitting pattern” need not be strictly identical with
`
`that of the master key. In particular, the claims of the ’446 patent establish that the claimed “replicated
`7
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00209-JRG Document 142 Filed 05/12/20 Page 13 of 37 PageID #: 4253
`
`
`tooth pattern” is not strictly identical to the tooth pattern of the master key for the additional reason
`
`that a “replicated tooth pattern” has imperfections known as flashes and burrs. Ex. 1 (’446 col. 6:29-
`
`30; 17:23-24, 45-52); Ex. 4 (’163 [0090] (“the cleaning wheel . . . remove[s] flashes and burrs from the
`
`trailing edge of the newly cut duplicate key”)). Dependent claim 11 adds a limitation for
`
`“automatically de-burring the tooth pattern replicated on the blade.” Ex. 1 (’446 col. 22:16-19). This
`
`narrowing limitation, while not requiring strict identicality, nevertheless results in a copy that is closer,
`
`in comparison, to the original master by including a new limitation for removing certain imperfections
`
`in the copy. But by requiring strict identicality in the independent claims, KeyMe’s construction
`
`improperly “moots these dependent claims by resulting in a construction of the independent claims
`
`which is actually more narrow than the dependent claims.” Charles E. Hill & Assoc. v. Amazon.com,
`
`2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 45414, *38-39 (E.D. Tex., Oct. 7, 2005). Because the claims expressly
`
`demonstrate that the “replicated tooth pattern” in the ’446 patent can have imperfections when
`
`compared to the master key, a construction requiring “replicated tooth pattern” to be strictly identical
`
`to the tooth pattern of the master key would be facially incorrect.
`
`3.
`
`KeyMe’s Strict Identicality Limitation Would Expressly Exclude an
`Embodiment in Contravention of Governing Law
`
`
`
`The ’446 patent discloses an embodiment where the master key is “analyzed and matched to an
`
`original code that is then used to control the cutting of the duplicate key(s), rather than using the
`
`master key as a real-time pattern for cutting the duplicate.” Ex. 1 (’446 col. 20:65-21:2). It has long
`
`been well-known in the art that the tooth pattern of a master key is represented by a numerical or
`
`alphanumeric “code” that signifies the depths and locations of cuts along the tooth pattern.4 The
`
`
`4 See, e.g., Ex. 5 (U.S. Patent No. 2,731,087 (col. 1:22-23) (disclosing an invention “to cut keys after
`an established pattern or code with regard to the depth and location of the bits to be formed on the key
`blank”)); Ex. 6 (U.S. Patent No. 5,271,698 (col. 35:28-31) (“creating a duplicate key by using factory
`numerical or alphanumeric key duplicating codes”)); Ex. 7 (U.S. Patent No. 5,676,504 (describing
`extensive art relating to creating “a duplicate key” using code-cutting from numerical codes associated
`with the master key (col. 1:5-2:64) and disclosing a “key cutting machine [that] can electronically
`(continued on next page)
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00209-JRG Document 142 Filed 05/12/20 Page 14 of 37 PageID #: 4254
`
`
`disclosed embodiment in the ’446 patent employs “code-cutting” where the master key’s code is
`
`determined and used as the basis for the duplicate. Ex. 1 (’446 col. 20:65-21:2). Because the master
`
`key is not used “as a real-time pattern for cutting the duplicate,” any slight imperfections or nominal
`
`deviations in the master key from wear, usage, etc., will not be present in the code-cut duplicate. Yet
`
`KeyMe’s construction—requring strict identicality with the master key—completely eviscerates the
`
`disclosed code-cutting embodiment. Because it excludes the code cutting embodiment (as well as the
`
`other embodiments contemplating differences between the duplicated key and the master key),
`
`KeyMe’s construction contravenes the established claim construction cannon that counsels against
`
`excluding disclosed embodiments. Optis Wireless Tech., LLC v. Huawei Device Co., 2018 WL
`
`476054, *11 (E.D. Tex., Jan. 18, 2018) citing Accent Packaging, Inc. v. Legget & Platt, Inc., 707 F.3d
`
`1318, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (“Huawei’s construction, which requires ‘only,’ can be read to exclude the
`
`disclosed coding embodiment. A construction that excludes embodiments is rarely correct.”).
`
`4.
`
`KeyMe’s Dictionary Definitions Cannot Override the Intrinsic Record
`
`Lacking evidentiary support from the intrinsic record, KeyMe proffers a host of general
`
`purpose dictionaries for the terms “replicate” and “duplicate.” Dkt. No. 135, Appx. C. Unsurprisingly,
`
`some of these definitions are consistent with the concept of strict identicality. But for every general
`
`purpose dictionary definition suggesting strict identicality, there is another suggesting the opposite.
`
`For example, Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary includes the following definitions for
`
`the term “duplicate”: “one that resembles or corresponds to another”; “to make a copy of <a cell ~
`
`itself when it divides>”; and “to produce something equal to <trying to ~ last year’s success.” Ex. 11.
`
`And the same dictionary defines “replicate” as “to undergo replication,” where “replication” is defined
`
`(continued from previous page)
`duplicate a bit notch pattern defined by a key code without reference to the master key bit notch
`pattern” (col. 3:5-7))); Ex. 8 (Marc Weber Tobias, Locks, Safes, and Security, An International Police
`Reference, 160, § 4.3.3 “Duplicating Keys by Code” (2nd ed. 2000)); Ex. 9 (Lockwiki); Ex. 10
`(Wikipedia).
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00209-JRG Document 142 Filed 05/12/20 Page 15 of 37 PageID #: 4255
`
`
`as “the action or process of reproducing or duplicating.” Id. None of these definitions require strict
`
`identicality. And all of them support Hillman’s position that “duplicate” and “replicate” are properly
`
`understood as requiring a “copy,” nothing more. If dictionary definitions are helpful at all, the more
`
`pertinent Professional LOCKSMITH Dictionary defines “duplicate” as “to copy.” Ex. 12. In other
`
`words, strict identicality is not a concept found in pertinent special purpose dictionaries.
`
`Moreover, to the extent that extrinsic evidence is necessary to determine whether a person of
`
`skill in the art would understand the claim language as requiring strict identicality, KeyMe’s own
`
`disclosures in its own patents on that exact issue are far more instructive than KeyMe’s proffered
`
`general purpose dictionary definitions. In KeyMe’s invention entitled “SYSTEMS AND METHODS
`
`FOR DUPLICATING KEYS” the inventors (including KeyMe’s founder and CEO along with four
`
`other KeyMe engineers) unquestionably recognize that a “duplicated key” is not strictly identical to the
`
`original. Ex. 13 (U.S Patent No. 8,682,468). This is readily apparent as KeyMe expressly illustrates
`
`differences and flaws between the “original key” and the “duplicated key” in the ’468 patent:
`
`
`
`Id. (’468 Fig. 8). So the argument that a person of skill in the art would understand the term
`
`“duplicate” to require strict identicality is belied not only by both general purpose and special purpose
`
`dictionaries, but also by KeyMe’s own use of the term in its ’468 patent.
`
`5.
`
`Claim Constructions Laden With Superlatives Are Routinely Rejected
`
`
`
`As a factual matter, experts at trial will need to evaluate the original and copied keys against
`
`some standard to determine whether they achieve the requisite level of similarity to meet the
`
`“duplicate” or “replicate” limitations. Hillman submits that the standard is supplied by the
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00209-JRG Document 142 Filed 05/12/20 Page 16 of 37 PageID #: 4256
`
`
`specification (i.e., whether the copy works the lock), and that Hillman’s proposed constructions—
`
`requiring “copies”—properly captures the scope of the invention. “Copy” already presupposes a high
`
`degree of similarity. Adding a superlative (“identical copy”) merely stacks the deck in KeyMe’s favor
`
`in a way that is inconsistent with the disclosed inventions.
`
`KeyMe’s strategy has