Case 2:19-cv-00209-JRG Document 173 Filed 09/02/20 Page 1 of 19 PageID #: 7422
`
`REDACTED VERSION OF DOCUMENT FILED UNDER SEAL
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`THE HILLMAN GROUP, INC.
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`KEYME, LLC
`
`Defendant.
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`Civil Action No. 2:19-cv-00209-JRG
`
`REDACTED VERSION OF
`DOCUMENT FILED UNDER SEAL
`
`KEYME’S CORRECTED MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF
`NO WILLFUL INFRINGEMENT
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00209-JRG Document 173 Filed 09/02/20 Page 2 of 19 PageID #: 7423
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`
`Page
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`Introduction ..........................................................................................................................1
`
`STATEMENT OF ISSUES TO BE DECIDED BY THE COURT ....................................2
`
`III.
`
`STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS ..................................................2
`
`IV.
`
`LEGAL STANDARD ..........................................................................................................7
`
`V.
`
`ARGUMENT .......................................................................................................................7
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`Hillman Cannot Make A Prima Facie Case For Willfulness ...................................7
`
`Hillman Does Not And Cannot Assert Pre-Suit Willfulness ...................................8
`
`Hillman Successfully Petitioned For Invalidity Before The PTAB.........................9
`
`During Reexamination, The Patent Office Has Rejected Claims 70 and 71
`Of The ’446 Patent As Obvious .............................................................................10
`
`Hillman’s Prior Statements Coupled With This Court’s Claim
`Construction Order Create A Reasonable Doubt Of Infringement As To
`All Asserted Claims ...............................................................................................11
`
`VI.
`
`CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................................13
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00209-JRG Document 173 Filed 09/02/20 Page 3 of 19 PageID #: 7424
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Page
`
`Cases
`Allure Energy, Inc. v. Nest Labs, Inc.,
` No. 9-13-CV-102, 2015 WL 11110643 (E.D. Tex. May 11, 2015) ........................................ 10
`
`
`Ericsson Inc. v. TCL Commc’n Tech. Holdings, Ltd.,
` No. 2:15-CV-00011-RSP, 2017 WL 5137401 (E.D. Tex. Nov. 4, 2017), rev’d, 955
`F.3d 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2020).......................................................................................................... 9
`
`
`Ericsson Inc. v. TCL Commc’n Tech. Holdings, Ltd.,
` No. 2:15-CV-00011-RSP, 2018 WL 2149736 (E.D. Tex. May 10, 2018), vacated on
`other grounds, 955 F.3d 1317 (quoting Halo, 136 S. Ct. at 1933) ............................................. 8
`
`
`Halo Elecs., Inc. v. Pulse Elecs., Inc.,
` 136 S. Ct. 1923, 195 L. Ed. 2d 278 (2016) ................................................................................ 7
`
`
`Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp.,
` 234 F. Supp. 3d 601 (D. Del. 2017), aff’d, 725 F. App'x 976 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ......................... 8
`
`
`Monroe v. Beaumont Reg’l Med. Ctr.,
` 105 F.3d 656 (5th Cir. 1996) ..................................................................................................... 7
`
`
`Safoco, Inc. v. Cameron Int’l Corp.,
` No. CIV A H-05-0739, 2009 WL 2424108 (S.D. Tex. July 31, 2009) ................................... 11
`
`
`Tyco Healthcare Grp. LP v. E-Z-EM, Inc.,
` No. 2:07-CV-262 TJW, 2010 WL 8545507 (E.D. Tex. June 8, 2010) .................................... 12
`
`
`Vaporstream, Inc. v. Snap Inc.,
` No. 217CV00220MLHKSX, 2020 WL 136591 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 13, 2020) ............................... 8
`
`
`WBIP, LLC v. Kohler Co.,
` 829 F.3d 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2016).................................................................................................. 9
`
`Statutory Authorities
`35 U.S.C. § 284 ............................................................................................................................... 7
`35 U.S.C. § 298 ............................................................................................................................... 9
`35 U.S.C. § 282 ............................................................................................................................... 3
`
`Rules and Regulations
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 ............................................................................................................................ 7
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00209-JRG Document 173 Filed 09/02/20 Page 4 of 19 PageID #: 7425
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Exhibit
`
`Document
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`KeyMe response to Hillman Interrogatory No. 9
`
`Hillman response to KeyMe Interrogatory No. 10
`
`Excerpted deposition transcript of Douglas Roberts
`
`Complaint in Case No. 0:15-cv-01599-JNE-KMM (D. Minn.)
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review IPR 2015-01154
`
`Email dated November 16, 2015 (KEYME-260329)
`
`Final Written Decision in IPR 2015-01154
`
`Email dated November 14, 2016 (KEYME-260439)
`
`
`
`Hillman Form 10-Q for quarter ending September 29, 2018
`
`Request for Ex Parte Reexamination of U.S. Patent No. 8,979,446
`
`Reexamination non-final office action dated July 23, 2020
`
`Letter dated September 18, 2013 (HGTX00129798)
`
`Excerpted opening report of Joshua W. Phinney, Ph.D
`
`Excerpted deposition transcript of Joshua W. Phinney, Ph.D.
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00209-JRG Document 173 Filed 09/02/20 Page 5 of 19 PageID #: 7426
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Pursuant to the Court’s Docket Control Order (Dkt. No. 136), defendant KeyMe LLC
`
`(“KeyMe)” respectfully moves the Court to grant partial summary judgment that KeyMe has not
`
`willfully infringed any of the three patents asserted by defendant The Hillman Group, Inc.
`
`(“Hillman”). Hillman did not make any assertions of infringement to KeyMe prior to filing this
`
`suit and therefore must rely on KeyMe’s knowledge of the asserted patents and continued
`
`operation following the filing of this suit, both of which are insufficient as a matter of law to
`
`support a finding of willful infringement. Moreover, based on Hillman’s own prior statements,
`
`KeyMe has a good-faith and reasonable belief that its accused kiosks do not infringe any of the
`
`three asserted patents. Specifically, Hillman has previously taken the position that a key
`
`duplicating machine does not “replicate the tooth pattern” of a customer’s key if the machine is
`
`configured to create a duplicate that accounts for wear and tear, which is the way KeyMe’s
`
`offerings operate. Hillman confirmed in testimony that it took those prior positions
`
`conscientiously, reasonably, and in good faith, rather than maliciously or in a consciously
`
`wrongful manner. Thus, Hillman must admit that KeyMe’s position on non-infringement is a
`
`good-faith, reasonable one. Finally, again based on Hillman’s own prior statements and recently
`
`bolstered by a non-final office action from the patent office, KeyMe has good-faith arguments
`
`that the asserted claims of the ’446 patent are invalid. Given the plethora of KeyMe’s good-faith
`
`defenses to both infringement and validity, weighed against the absence of any allegations or
`
`evidence that KeyMe’s alleged infringement has been atypical or egregious, no reasonable juror
`
`could find KeyMe to have willfully infringed. The Court should grant KeyMe’s motion for
`
`summary judgment.
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00209-JRG Document 173 Filed 09/02/20 Page 6 of 19 PageID #: 7427
`
`
`
`II.
`
`STATEMENT OF ISSUES TO BE DECIDED BY THE COURT
`
`Whether partial summary judgment should be granted in KeyMe’s favor on the issue of
`
`no willful infringement of the asserted patents?
`
`III.
`
`STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Hillman filed this suit on June 3, 2019.
`
`In its original complaint, Hillman asserted U.S. Pat. Nos. 8,979,446 (the “’446
`
`patent”) and 9,914,979 (the “’179 patent”). (Dkt. No. 1.)
`
`3.
`
`On September 3, 2019, U.S. Pat. No. 10,400,474 (the “’474 patent”) issued to
`
`Hillman. That same day, Hillman filed its first amended complaint in this case, adding the ’474
`
`patent. (Dkt. No. 30.)
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`Hillman did not seek a preliminary injunction in this case.
`
`Hillman’s Interrogatory No. 9 sought “when and how You first learned of each
`
`Patent-in-Suit.” In response, KeyMe wrote:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Ex. 1 at 62-63.
`
`
`
`6.
`
`KeyMe’s Interrogatory No. 10 sought Hillman’s “entire factual basis” for any
`
`contention that KeyMe willfully infringed. In its response, Hillman stated:
`
`Without waiving and subject to the foregoing objections (specific
`and general), Hillman states that
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00209-JRG Document 173 Filed 09/02/20 Page 7 of 19 PageID #: 7428
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`. Ex. 3 (Roberts Dep.)
`
`
`
`
`
`7.
`
`In a supplemental response, Hillman
`
` Ex. 2 at 38-39.
`
`8.
`
`at 68:16-69:5.
`
` Id. at 56:18-57:16.
`
`9.
`
`On March 13, 2015, Minute Key asserted the ’446 patent against KeyMe in Case
`
`No. 0:15-cv-01599-JNE-KMM (D. Minn.) (the “Minnesota Litigation”). Ex. 4 (Minnesota Dkt.
`
`1)
`
`10.
`
`On May 7, 2015, Hillman filed a petition for inter partes review (“IPR”) before
`
`the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) against claims 1, 7, 8, 11, 12, 15-18, 20, 23-26, 31,
`
`32, 38, 39, 42, 43, 46-49, 51, 54-58, 64, 65, 68, 69, 72, 74, 76, 79-84, 90, 91, 94, 95, 98, 100, and
`
`104-108 of the ’446 patent. In the petition, Hillman stated that “any sliver of daylight between
`
`the claims of the ’446 patent and the disclosure of Freeman results not from innovation in the
`
`’446 patent, but from its recitation of obvious soft features….” Ex. 5 (Hillman petition).
`
`11.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00209-JRG Document 173 Filed 09/02/20 Page 8 of 19 PageID #: 7429
`
`
`
`
`
` Id. at 207:17-208:4.
`
`12.
`
`On November 16, 2015, the PTAB instituted IPR proceedings against the ’446
`
`patent. The same day,
`
`
`
` Ex. 6 (KEYME-260329).
`
`13.
`
`In the IPR, Minute Key conceded that every challenged claim except claims 23,
`
`54, 79, 104, and 108 were unpatentable. Ex. 7 (IPR Final Written Decision) at 2, 16-17.
`
`14.
`
`On November 14, 2016, the PTAB ruled unpatentable every challenged claim in
`
`the IPR. Ex. 7 at 2, 17.
`
`(KEYME-260439).
`
`15.
`
` Ex. 8
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Ex. 9 (KEYME-000291).
`
`16.
`
`Hillman completed its acquisition of Minute Key on August 10, 2018. Ex. 10
`
`(Hillman 10-Q) at 9. Both the ’446 and ’179 patents claim priority to patent applications filed by
`
`Minute Key prior to that merger
`
`
`
`17.
`
`On December 23, 2019, KeyMe filed a request for ex parte reexamination of
`
`every claim of the ’446 patent not previously cancelled by the IPR (claims 2-6, 9, 10, 13, 14, 19,
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00209-JRG Document 173 Filed 09/02/20 Page 9 of 19 PageID #: 7430
`
`
`
`21, 22, 27-30, 33-37, 40, 41, 44, 45, 50, 52, 53, 59-63, 66, 67, 70, 71, 73, 75, 77, 78, 85-89, 92,
`
`93, 96, 97 and 101-103). Ex. 11.
`
`18.
`
`On July 23, 2020, having previously found that KeyMe’s reexamination request
`
`raised a substantial new question of patentability (SNQ) as to all challenged claims, the PTO
`
`issued a non-final action rejecting all challenged claims. Ex. 12. The PTO rejected both asserted
`
`claims—claims 70 and 71—as unpatentable, noting: “It would have been obvious to one of
`
`ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include a sensor and controller to
`
`determine if there is a malfunction in the vacuum system …. Further it would have been obvious
`
`to one of ordinary skill in the art to have the controller generate a notification of malfunction.”
`
`Ex. 12 (Non-Final Action) at 22-23.
`
`19.
`
`In 2013, Minute Key accused Hillman’s KeyKrafter machine of infringing U.S.
`
`Patent No. 8,532,809 (the “’809 patent”). Claim 1 of that patent requires “a key duplicating
`
`system within said kiosk for replicating the tooth pattern of the blade of said key inserted in said
`
`key-receiving entry, on the blade of said extracted key blank.” Ex. 13 at 1, 6.
`
`20.
`
`Claim 57 of the ’446 patent requires “a key duplicating system within said kiosk
`
`configured to replicate the tooth pattern of the blade of said key inserted in said key-receiving
`
`entry, on the blade of said extracted key blank.” The Court’s claim construction order construed
`
`that term to mean “configured to make a copy that matches the tooth pattern of the blade of the
`
`customer’s key inserted into said key-receiving entry.” (Dkt. No. 159, at 16.) The Court’s order
`
`similarly construed the asserted claims of the ’179 patent to require a machine “configured to
`
`make a copy that matches the tooth pattern of the blade of the customer’s key inserted into said
`
`key-receiving entry,” and the asserted claims of the ’474 patent to require a machine “configured
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00209-JRG Document 173 Filed 09/02/20 Page 10 of 19 PageID #: 7431
`
`
`
`to . . . make a copy that matches the tooth pattern of the existing key determined by the imaging
`
`system.” (Id. at 17-20.)
`
`21.
`
`In a letter written by Cristopher Isaac to Rosalyn Mitchell in September 2013 in
`
`response to Minute Key’s allegations concerning the ’809 patent, Hillman said of the “replicating
`
`the tooth pattern” limitation: “Hillman does not replicate the tooth pattern of the customer's key
`
`as the ’809 patent claims require. Indeed, instead of replicating a customer key that could be
`
`worn and working poorly, Hillman has developed a proprietary technique to enhance the
`
`electronic image of the customer's key to restore the cut pattern to account for wear. This is
`
`hugely significant …. Hillman's FastKey system is superior in that it is not merely replicating the
`
`cut pattern of the customer's key. FastKey takes an image of the customer’s cut pattern, but
`
`replicates a cut pattern from an enhanced image that accounts for wear.” Ex. 13 at 6-7.
`
`22.
`
`23.
`
`24.
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00209-JRG Document 173 Filed 09/02/20 Page 11 of 19 PageID #: 7432
`
`
`
`IV.
`
`LEGAL STANDARD
`
`Under 35 U.S.C. § 284, a trial court “may increase the damages up to three times the
`
`amount found or assessed.” Such an increase is appropriate only when the facts demonstrate
`
`conduct by the infringer that is “willful, wanton, malicious, bad-faith, deliberate, consciously
`
`wrongful, flagrant, or—indeed—characteristic of a pirate.” Halo Elecs., Inc. v. Pulse Elecs.,
`
`Inc., 136 S. Ct. 1923, 1932, 195 L. Ed. 2d 278 (2016).
`
`“Summary judgment is appropriate ‘if the pleadings, depositions, answers
`
`to interrogatories , and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is
`
`no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a
`
`matter of law.’” Monroe v. Beaumont Reg'l Med. Ctr., 105 F.3d 656 (5th Cir. 1996) (quoting
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 56).
`
`V.
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`A.
`
`Hillman Cannot Make A Prima Facie Case For Willfulness
`
`In its response to KeyMe Interrogatory No. 10, Hillman makes only a conclusory
`
`allegation concerning KeyMe’s post-suit infringement: “
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Ex. 2 at 38. This response does not contain any facts from
`
`which a juror could conclude that KeyMe’s infringement, even if established, represents the
`
`“egregious case[] of culpable behavior” required for enhanced damages. Ericsson Inc. v. TCL
`
`Commc'n Tech. Holdings, Ltd., No. 2:15-CV-00011-RSP, 2018 WL 2149736, at *7 (E.D. Tex.
`
`May 10, 2018), vacated on other grounds, 955 F.3d 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (quoting Halo, 136 S.
`
`Ct. at 1933). Instead, Hillman points only, at most, to KeyMe’s continued (alleged) infringement
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00209-JRG Document 173 Filed 09/02/20 Page 12 of 19 PageID #: 7433
`
`
`
`after the filing of the lawsuit, which is insufficient as a matter of law to support enhanced
`
`damages. See, e.g., Vaporstream, Inc. v. Snap Inc., No. 217CV00220MLHKSX, 2020 WL
`
`136591, at *21 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 13, 2020) (granting summary judgment of no willful infringement
`
`where defendant “failed to identify any egregious conduct or evidence of behavior beyond
`
`typical infringement”); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 234 F. Supp. 3d 601, 612
`
`(D. Del. 2017), aff'd, 725 F. App'x 976 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (holding that “[n]o reasonable jury could
`
`find willful infringement” based solely on the fact that defendant continued to update, produce,
`
`and sell the accused product after the filing of the lawsuit”).
`
`B.
`
`Hillman Does Not And Cannot Assert Pre-Suit Willfulness
`
`Hillman’s response to Interrogatory No. 10 does not assert that
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Ex. 3
`
`
`
`(Roberts Dep.) at 56:18-57:16, 68:16-69:5.
`
`At most, Hillman alleges that KeyMe had knowledge of the ’446 and ’179 patents prior
`
`to the filing of this suit.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`“knowledge of an asserted patent, without more, cannot justify enhanced damages
`
`under the Halo standard.” Ericsson Inc. v. TCL Commc'n Tech. Holdings, Ltd., No. 2:15-CV-
`
`00011-RSP, 2017 WL 5137401, at *5 (E.D. Tex. Nov. 4, 2017), rev'd, 955 F.3d 1317 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2020).
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00209-JRG Document 173 Filed 09/02/20 Page 13 of 19 PageID #: 7434
`
`
`
`Further, the ’474 patent issued the same day that it was asserted, and KeyMe had no
`
`knowledge of the patent before that date. KeyMe cannot be held liable for infringement, much
`
`less willful infringement, prior to its date of issue. “Knowledge of the patent alleged to be
`
`willfully infringed continues to be a prerequisite to enhanced damages.” WBIP, LLC v. Kohler
`
`Co., 829 F.3d 1317, 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citing Halo, 136 S. Ct. at 1932-33); Allure Energy,
`
`Inc. v. Nest Labs, Inc., No. 9-13-CV-102, 2015 WL 11110643, at *2 (E.D. Tex. May 11, 2015)
`
`(in case where plaintiff amended complaint to add patents the same day that those patents issued,
`
`plaintiff “has no claim to willful infringement prior to the dates of the amended complaint.”).1
`
`C.
`
`Hillman Successfully Petitioned For Invalidity Before The PTAB
`
`The mere institution of IPR proceedings is evidence of a “reasonable likelihood” that the
`
`challenged patent is not patentable, and on that basis is suggestive that there has been no willful
`
`infringement. Allure Energy, Inc. v. Nest Labs, Inc., No. 9-13-CV-102, 2015 WL 11110643, at
`
`*2 (E.D. Tex. May 11, 2015) (“Additionally, while it is by no means dispositive, Defendants'
`
`position is bolstered by Patent Trial and Appeal Board instituting inter partes review on all
`
`asserted claims, because there was a reasonable likelihood those claims were unpatentable”).
`
`Here, however, the facts here go well beyond the mere institution of the review. First, the
`
`petitioner, Hillman, is the plaintiff in this case. Hillman itself stated of the ’446 patent that “any
`
`sliver of daylight between the claims of the ’446 patent and the disclosure of Freeman results not
`
`from innovation in the '446 patent, but from its recitation of obvious soft features.” Ex. 5 at 1.
`
`And Hillman’s 30(b)(6) witness on the IPR proceedings testified that
`
`
`
` Ex. 3 (Roberts Dep.) at 207:16-208:4.
`
`
`1 While KeyMe does not present an opinion of counsel defense, the “failure of an infringer to
`obtain the advice of counsel with respect to any allegedly infringed patent … may not be used to
`prove that the accused infringer willfully infringed the patent or that the infringer intended to
`induce infringement of the patent.” 35 U.S.C. § 298.
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00209-JRG Document 173 Filed 09/02/20 Page 14 of 19 PageID #: 7435
`
`
`
`Second, Minute Key itself did not contest grounds 1-3 of the Hillman IPR, which covered
`
`nearly all challenged patents, which the PTAB deemed “a concession that the claims are
`
`unpatentable.” Ex. 7 at 16-17. Finally, in its Final Written Decision, the PTAB adopted
`
`Hillman’s arguments against the ’446 patent as its own, and on those grounds invalidated every
`
`challenged claim. Id.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`D.
`
`During Reexamination, The Patent Office Has Rejected Claims 70 and 71 Of
`The ’446 Patent As Obvious
`
`Since this litigation began, the patent office has instituted reexamination proceedings
`
`against every claim of the ’446 patent that was not cancelled during the IPR, including the two
`
`remaining asserted claims. As with the decision to institute IPR proceedings, the finding of a
`
`substantial new question during reexamination “militates against” a finding of willful
`
`infringement. Safoco, Inc. v. Cameron Int'l Corp., No. CIV A H-05-0739, 2009 WL 2424108, at
`
`*21 (S.D. Tex. July 31, 2009); cf. Tyco Healthcare Grp. LP v. E-Z-EM, Inc., No. 2:07-CV-262
`
`TJW, 2010 WL 8545507, at *1 (E.D. Tex. June 8, 2010) (permitting defendant to introduce
`
`evidence of reexamination to rebut allegation of willful infringement).
`
`Moreover, here the patent office has gone beyond mere institution and has preliminarily
`
`ruled that the challenged claims are invalid. In a non-final office action, the patent office has
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00209-JRG Document 173 Filed 09/02/20 Page 15 of 19 PageID #: 7436
`
`
`
`rejected asserted claims 70 and 71, stating that it “would have been obvious to one of ordinary
`
`skill in the art at the time of the invention to include a sensor and controller to determine if there
`
`is a malfunction in the vacuum system …. Further it would have been obvious to one of ordinary
`
`skill in the art to have the controller generate a notification of malfunction.” Ex. 12 at 23.
`
`E.
`
`Hillman’s Prior Statements Coupled With This Court’s Claim Construction
`Order Create A Reasonable Doubt Of Infringement As To All Asserted
`Claims
`
`Before Hillman acquired Minute Key, Hillman was accused by Minute Key of infringing
`
`the ’809 patent, which like the related ’446 patent, requires “replicating the tooth pattern of the
`
`blade of said key inserted in said key-receiving entry, on the blade of said extracted key blank.”
`
`Hillman argued that its accused product did not meet that limitation because it used a
`
`“proprietary technique … to restore the cut pattern to account for wear,” and that its system “is
`
`not merely replicating the cut pattern of the customer’s key,” but rather “takes an image of the
`
`customer’s cut pattern” and then “replicates a cut pattern from an enhanced image that accounts
`
`for wear.” HGTX00129804.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`It is undisputed that KeyMe’s kiosks, like the Hillman product according to Hillman’s
`
`characterizations of it, are configured to take an image of the key inserted by the customer and
`
`attempt to restore the tooth pattern of the key to factory specifications, thus restoring any
`
`degradations from wear and tear.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00209-JRG Document 173 Filed 09/02/20 Page 16 of 19 PageID #: 7437
`
`Ex. 15 (Phinney Dep.) at 153:6-13.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Thus, based on Hillman’s own prior statements and its expert’s acknowledgement of how
`
`KeyMe’s kiosks operate, KeyMe has a case for non-infringement of the ’446 patent that is
`
`
`
` Ex. 3 (Roberts Dep.) at 156:21-157:22.
`
`Moreover, given claim construction proceedings in this case, KeyMe’s good-faith and reasonable
`
`arguments as to non-infringement extend also to the ’179 and ’474 patent. Specifically, both
`
`parties have agreed that the claims of the ’179 and ’474 patents contain limitations analogous to
`
`the “replicate the tooth pattern” limitation of the ’446 patent (although their proposed
`
`constructions differed as to these analogous terms). The Court, through its claim construction
`
`order, confirmed that all three patents share a common requirement: the Court articulated this
`
`commonality through its finding that each asserted claim requires a machine “configured to
`
`make a copy that matches the tooth pattern” of the key inserted by the customer. Because of this
`
`commonality, KeyMe’s (and Hillman’s) good-faith arguments of non-infringement of the ’446
`
`patent translate into good-faith arguments of non-infringement of the ’179 and ’474 patents as
`
`well.
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00209-JRG Document 173 Filed 09/02/20 Page 17 of 19 PageID #: 7438
`
`
`
`VI. CONCLUSION
`
`For the foregoing reasons, KeyMe respectfully requests the Court grant KeyMe’s motion.
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00209-JRG Document 173 Filed 09/02/20 Page 18 of 19 PageID #: 7439
`
`DATED: September 1, 2020
`
`
`
`
`By /s/ Sean S. Pak
`Deron R. Dacus (Bar No. 00790553)
`The Dacus Firm, PC
`821 ESE Loop 323
`Suite 430
`Tyler, TX 75701
`Tel. 903.705.1177
`Fax 903.581.2543
`ddacus@dacusfirm.com
`
`Sean S. Pak
`Jeffrey W. Nardinelli
`Zachary C. Flood
`QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART &
`SULLIVAN, LLP
`50 California Street, 22nd Floor
`San Francisco, CA 94111-4788
`Telephone: (415) 875-6600
`Facsimile: (415) 875-6700
`seanpak@quinnemanuel.com
`jeffnardinelli@quinnemanuel.com
`zackflood@quinnemanuel.com
`
`David A. Nelson
`QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART &
`SULLIVAN, LLP
`191 N. Wacker Drive, Suite 2700
`Chicago, IL 60606-1881
`Telephone: (312) 705-7400
`Facsimile: (312) 705-7401
`davenelson@quinnemanuel.com
`
`Eric Hui-chieh Huang
`QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART &
`SULLIVAN, LLP
`51 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor
`New York, NY 10010-1601
`Telephone: (212) 849-7000
`Facsimile: (212) 849-7100
`erichuang@quinnemanuel.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendant KeyMe, LLC
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00209-JRG Document 173 Filed 09/02/20 Page 19 of 19 PageID #: 7440
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that all counsel of record who are deemed to have consented to electronic
`
`service are being served on this 1st day of September, 2020, with a copy of this document via
`
`the Court’s CM/ECF system per Local Rule CV-5(a)(3). Any other counsel of record will be
`
`served by electronic mail, facsimile transmission and/or first class mail on this same date.
`
` /s/ Zachary Flood
`Zachary Flood
`
`CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORIZATION TO FILE UNDER SEAL
`
`I hereby certify that the foregoing document and all supporting declarations and exhibits
`
`thereto are being filed under seal pursuant to the terms of the Protective Order (Dkt. 94).
`
` /s/ Zachary Flood
`Zachary Flood
`
`15
`
`