Case 2:19-cv-00209-JRG Document 181 Filed 09/16/20 Page 1 of 35 PageID #: 8614
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`C.A. No. 2:19-cv-00209-JRG
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`PUBLIC VERSION OF
`DOCUMENT FILED
`UNDER SEAL
`
`)))))))))))))
`
`THE HILLMAN GROUP, INC.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`KEYME, LLC,
`
`Defendant.
`
`HILLMAN’S OPPOSITION TO KEYME’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`OF NON-INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 10,400,474
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00209-JRG Document 181 Filed 09/16/20 Page 2 of 35 PageID #: 8615
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`III.
`
`IV.
`
`V.
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................. 1
`
`HILLMAN’S RESPONSE TO KEYME’S STATEMENT OF ISSUES ............... 1
`
`HILLMAN’S RESPONSE TO KEYME’S STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED
`MATERIAL FACTS .............................................................................................. 2
`
`Hillman’s Responses and Objections to KeyMe’s “Undisputed” Facts ................. 2
`
`Hillman’s Additional Relevant Material Facts ....................................................... 6
`
`LEGAL STANDARD ............................................................................................. 9
`
`KEYME’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD BE DENIED ........ 10
`
`At Least a Genuine Issue of Material Fact Exists Regarding Whether
`KeyMe Literally Infringes the Asserted Claims of the ’474 Patent ...................... 10
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Dr. Schonfeld’s Declaration Misstates Documentary Evidence and
`Is Contradicted by Other KeyMe Testimony ............................................ 12
`
`KeyMe’s Motion Ignores Evidence of Infringement Under Their
`Own Improper Application of the Plain Meaning of the Disputed
`Claim Term ............................................................................................... 14
`
`Like the Slot Opening Disclosed and Claimed in the ’474 Patent,
`KeyMe’s Slot Opening Requires Shank-First Insertion of an
`Existing Key Such that Only the Shank May Be Received ...................... 16
`
` 17
`
`....................................................................................................... 19
`
` .......................... 20
`
`KeyMe Has Admitted that the Plain and Ordinary Meaning of “A
`Slot Opening in the Housing Configured to Receive Only the
`Shank of an Existing Key” Is a Slot that May Also Receive a
`Shoulder of an Existing Key ..................................................................... 22
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00209-JRG Document 181 Filed 09/16/20 Page 3 of 35 PageID #: 8616
`
`C.
`
`At Least a Genuine Issue of Material Fact Exists Regarding Whether
`KeyMe Infringes the Asserted Claims of the ’474 Patent Under the
`Doctrine of Equivalents ........................................................................................ 24
`
`VI.
`
`CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................... 26
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00209-JRG Document 181 Filed 09/16/20 Page 4 of 35 PageID #: 8617
`
`Federal Cases
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Adickes v. S.H. Kress & Co.,
`398 U.S. 144 (1970) ...................................................................................................................9
`
`Advanced Steel Recovery, LLC v. X-Body Equip., Inc.,
`808 F.3d 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2015)................................................................................................10
`
`Amazon.com, Inc. v. Barnesandnoble.com, Inc.,
`239 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2001)................................................................................................17
`
`Amgen Inc. v. Hoechst Marion Roussel, Inc.,
`314 F.3d 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2003)................................................................................................19
`
`Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.,
`477 U.S. 242 (1986) ...................................................................................................................9
`
`Asetek Holdings, Inc. v. CoolIT Sys., Inc.,
`No. C-12-4498 EMC, 2014 WL 4090400 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 19, 2014).....................................18
`
`Brilliant Instruments, Inc. v. GuideTech, LLC,
`707 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2013)................................................................................................25
`
`Charles Mach. Works, Inc. v. Vermeer Mfg. Co.,
`723 F.3d 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2013)..........................................................................................10, 25
`
`Cioffi v. Google, Inc.,
`No. 2:13-cv-0103, 2017 WL 490367 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 9, 2017) .........................................10, 14
`
`Cioffi v. Google, Inc.,
`No. 2:13-cv-0103, 2017 WL 478051 (E.D. Tex. Feb. 6, 2017) ...............................................10
`
`Conroy v. Reebok Int’l, Ltd.,
`14 F.3d 1570 (Fed. Cir. 1994)..................................................................................................10
`
`Crown Packaging Tech., Inc. v. Rexam Beverage Can Co.,
`559 F.3d 1308 (Fed. Cir. 2009)................................................................................................10
`
`Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc.,
`509 U.S. 579 (1993) ...........................................................................................................11, 26
`
`Duncan Parking Techs., Inc. v. IPS Grps., Inc.,
`914 F.3d 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2019)................................................................................................24
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00209-JRG Document 181 Filed 09/16/20 Page 5 of 35 PageID #: 8618
`
`FILED UNDER SEAL PURSUANT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER
`
`Flexuspine, Inc. v. Globus Med., Inc.,
`No. 6:15-cv-00201, 2016 WL 9279998 (E.D. Tex. Jul. 7, 2016) ......................................10, 14
`
`GeoTag, Inc. v. Frontier Commc’ns Corp.,
`No. 2:10-CV-00265-JRG, 2014 WL 341802 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 30, 2014) .................................11
`
`Graver Tank & Mfg. Co. v. Linde Air Prods. Co.,
`339 U.S. 605 (1950) .................................................................................................................24
`
`KAIST IP US LLC v. Samsung Elecs. Co.,
`439 F. Supp. 3d 860 (E.D. Tex. 2020) ...............................................................................25, 26
`
`Oyster Optics, LLC v. Coriant Am. Inc.,
`No. 2:16-CV-1302-JRG, 2018 WL 3067727 (E.D. Tex. June 21, 2018) ..........................16, 18
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) ................................................................................14
`
`Smartflash LLC v. Apple, Inc.,
`No. 6:13-cv-00447, 2015 WL 660755 (E.D. Tex. Feb. 13, 2015) ...........................................10
`
`SmithKline Diagnostics, Inc. v. Helena Labs. Corp.,
`859 F.2d 878 (Fed. Cir. 1988)..................................................................................................17
`
`Topalian v. Ehrman,
`954 F.2d 1125 (5th Cir. 1992) ...................................................................................................9
`
`U.S. Ethernet Innovations, LLC v. Texas Instruments Inc.,
`No. 6:11-CV-491, 2014 WL 2740383 (E.D. Tex. June 15, 2014)...........................................18
`
`Vasudevan Software, Inc. v. MicroStrategy, Inc.,
`782 F.3d 671 (Fed. Cir. 2015)..................................................................................................10
`
`VirnetX, Inc. v. Cisco Sys., Inc.,
`767 F.3d 1308 (Fed. Cir. 2014)................................................................................................16
`
`Warner-Jenkinson Co. v. Hilton Davis Chem. Co.,
`520 U.S. 17 (1997) ...................................................................................................................10
`
`Wisconsin Alumni Research Found. v. Apple, Inc.,
`905 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2018)................................................................................................14
`
`Rules and Regulations
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a) ........................................................................................................................9
`
`Fed. R. Evid. 702 ...........................................................................................................................11
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00209-JRG Document 181 Filed 09/16/20 Page 6 of 35 PageID #: 8619
`
`Exhibit
`
`EXHIBITS
`
`Document
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`August 4, 2020 Letter from Ryan O’Quinn to Counsel of Record Regarding
`Asserted Claims
`
`U.S. Patent No. 10,400,474 to Grice et al.
`
`Deposition Transcript of Dr. Joshua Phinney (Excerpted)
`
`Reprint of Hillman Catalog Website
`
`Corrected Opening Expert Report of Joshua W. Phinney, Ph.D., P.E. Regarding
`Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 10,400,474 (Excerpted)
`
`KEYME-124158
`
`Deposition Transcript of Dr. Dan Schonfeld (Excerpted)
`
`Deposition Transcript of Mr. Mark O’Neill (Excerpted)
`
`Expert Report of Bob Sturges, Ph.D., Regarding the Validity of the Asserted
`Claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,979,446; 9,914,179; and 10,400,474 (Excerpted)
`
`Deposition Transcript of Dr. Robert Sturges (Excerpted)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,101,990 to Mutch et al.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,682,468 to Marsh et al.
`
`KEYME-261718
`
`Deposition Transcript of Mr. Kristopher Borer (Excerpted)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,807,042 to Almblad et al.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,588,995 to Wills et al.
`
`Rebuttal Expert Report of Joshua W. Phinney, Ph.D., P.E. Regarding Validity
`of U.S. Patent No. 10,400,474 (Excerpted)
`
`Hy-Ko KID+ User’s Manual, Model No. KZA-200, HYKO-EDTX-000130-
`149
`
`U.S. Patent No. 3,172,969 to Haggstrom
`
`Deposition Transcript of Mr. Michael Schmidt (Excerpted)
`
`v
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00209-JRG Document 181 Filed 09/16/20 Page 7 of 35 PageID #: 8620
`
`FILED UNDER SEAL PURSUANT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER
`
`21
`
`22
`
`
`
`IPR2020-0128, Paper 1, Petition (Excerpted)
`
`IPR2020-0128, Ex. 1003, Declaration of Lloyd Seliber in Support of Petition
`(Excerpted)
`
`
`
`vi
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00209-JRG Document 181 Filed 09/16/20 Page 8 of 35 PageID #: 8621
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Rather than revealing issues that are ripe for disposition as a matter of law, KeyMe’s
`
`Motion seeking summary judgment of non-infringement of U.S. Patent No. 10,400,474 (the
`
`“’474 patent”) frames classic disputes of material fact between the parties. Each side has offered
`
`expert testimony supporting their infringement positions: Dr. Joshua Phinney for Hillman and
`
`Dr. Dan Schonfeld for KeyMe. The experts disagree. Indeed,
`
`
`
`. The victor of this “battle of experts” should be
`
`decided by the jury at trial. Viewing the evidence and resolving all inferences in the light most
`
`favorable to Hillman, a reasonable jury could and should return a verdict in Hillman’s favor
`
`finding KeyMe infringes claims 7-9 and 20 of the ’474 patent either literally or under the
`
`doctrine of equivalents. KeyMe’s Motion should be denied, and the dispute should proceed to
`
`trial.
`
`II.
`
`HILLMAN’S RESPONSE TO KEYME’S STATEMENT OF ISSUES
`
`Hillman disagrees with KeyMe’s framing of the issues to be decided by the Court, and
`
`restates them as follows:
`
`• Whether there is a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the Accused
`Products literally infringe the asserted claims of the ’474 patent; and
`
`• Whether there is a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the Accused
`Products infringe the asserted claims of the ’474 patent under the doctrine of
`equivalents.
`
`Because the answer to both questions is yes, Hillman respectfully submits that summary
`
`judgment should be denied.
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00209-JRG Document 181 Filed 09/16/20 Page 9 of 35 PageID #: 8622
`
`III.
`
`HILLMAN’S RESPONSE TO KEYME’S STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED
`MATERIAL FACTS
`
`A.
`
`Hillman’s Responses and Objections to KeyMe’s “Undisputed” Facts
`
`Certain of KeyMe’s purported undisputed material facts are disputed. Hillman responds
`
`to the proffered facts paragraph-by-paragraph as presented by KeyMe.
`
`1.
`
`Hillman agrees that it asserts that claims 7, 8, 9, and 20 of the ’474 patent are
`
`infringed by the Accused Products. Ex. 1 (August 4, 2020 Letter from Ryan O’Quinn to counsel
`
`of Record).
`
`2.
`
`No dispute, except that the full recitation of the excerpted claim language that
`
`KeyMe provides is “a key making machine, comprising: a housing; an identification system,
`
`wherein the identification system includes: a slot opening in the housing configured to receive
`
`only the shank of an existing key . . .” Ex. 2 (’474 patent) at claims 1, 20.
`
`3.
`
`Hillman disputes that the term “shank” is “clearly” defined or described in the
`
`specification of the 474 patent. Hillman does not dispute that the ’474 patent specification and
`
`drawings depict certain embodiments that refer to a feature termed a “shank.” E.g., Ex. 2 (’474
`
`patent) at col. 4:22-23; Fig. 2A.
`
`4.
`
`Hillman disputes that “blade 12” and “head 14” are the only two “identifiable
`
`components” of the exemplary “key assemblies” of Figs. 1A-1C of the ’474 patent, but otherwise
`
`does not dispute KeyMe’s references to the specification and drawings, which speak for
`
`themselves. Ex. 2 (’474 patent) at col. 3:39-4:19; Figs. 1A-1C.
`
`5.
`
`Hillman disputes this paragraph to the extent it suggests that Figs. 2A-2C are
`
`representative of every contemplated embodiment of the invention. Figs. 2A-2C are described in
`
`the specification as “front and side view illustrations of an exemplary disclosed key blade that
`
`forms a portion of the key assembly of FIG. 1A.” Ex. 2 (’474 patent) at col. 3:1-3. The paragraph
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00209-JRG Document 181 Filed 09/16/20 Page 10 of 35 PageID #: 8623
`
`is also disputed to the extent it cites deposition testimony of Hillman’s expert Dr. Joshua Phinney
`
`out of context.1
`
`
`
`. As can be
`
`seen in Fig. 2A, the key blade shown is a “66,” which is Hillman’s proprietary code for a key
`
`blank matching a Kwikset KW1 existing key. Ex. 4 (Hillman website snapshot,
`
`https://www.hillmangroup.com/us/en/Custom-Solutions/Keys/Decorative-
`
`Keys/Wackey/WacKey-Home-Key-Blank/p/89060, last visited September 12, 2020).
`
`6.
`
`Hillman disputes this paragraph to the extent it suggests that Figs. 2A-2C are
`
`representative of every contemplated embodiment of the invention. Figs. 2A-2C are described in
`
`the specification as “front and side view illustrations of an exemplary disclosed key blade that
`
`forms a portion of the key assembly of FIG. 1A.” Ex. 2 (’474 patent) at col. 3:1-3. As can be
`
`seen in Fig. 2A, the key blade shown is a “66,” which is Hillman’s proprietary code for a key
`
`blank matching a Kwikset KW1 existing key. Ex. 4. Fig. 2A also includes a “transition region
`
`20” with brackets overlapping those of both “head portion 16” and “shank 18.” Ex. 2 (’474
`
`patent) at col. 4:23-24; Fig. 2A.
`
`7.
`
`Hillman disputes this paragraph to the extent that the “square shaped base end 22”
`
`is described in the ’474 patent as being part of the “transition region 20” that overlaps “head
`
`portion 16” and “shank 18,” not as being part of the “head portion 16” as KeyMe asserts. Ex. 2
`
`(’474 patent) at col. 4:33-37; Fig. 2A.
`
`8.
`
`Hillman disputes this paragraph. Figure 11B depicts a “key blank,” not a “blank
`
`key” as KeyMe asserts. See Ex. 2 (’474 patent) at col. 15:29-16:25. Key blanks are the uncut
`
`1 Hillman notes for the record that as of the date of filing of this Opposition (and by extension,
`the date that KeyMe’s Motion was filed), the 30-day period for Dr. Phinney to review and sign
`the transcript of his August 18, 2020 deposition and provide any errata has not yet expired.
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00209-JRG Document 181 Filed 09/16/20 Page 11 of 35 PageID #: 8624
`
`brass workpieces that the fabrication system of a key duplication machine uses to create
`
`duplicates of existing keys. A key blank is not “an existing key” itself, and is thus not relevant to
`
`the claim language of the asserted claims.
`
`9.
`
`10.
`
`No dispute.
`
`Hillman disputes that “the insertion slot in a KeyMe kiosk is configured to receive
`
`the shank, the base end/shoulders, and additional portions of the head of a key.”
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`11.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`. See ¶ 10, supra.
`
`12.
`
`Hillman disputes this paragraph to the extent that it characterizes
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00209-JRG Document 181 Filed 09/16/20 Page 12 of 35 PageID #: 8625
`
`13.
`
`Hillman disputes this paragraph to the extent that
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`14.
`
`Hillman disputes this paragraph to the extent that
`
`15.
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00209-JRG Document 181 Filed 09/16/20 Page 13 of 35 PageID #: 8626
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`16.
`
`Hillman disputes this paragraph. KeyMe’s “neural network imaging software” is
`
`undefined, and also irrelevant to the hardware configuration of the key insertion slot. The cited
`
`paragraph from the Declaration of Dan Schonfeld (D.I. 169-10) does not provide any support for
`
`this statement,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` there is a clear factual dispute between the parties about what the “neural
`
`network software” is and is not able to do.
`
`B.
`
`17.
`
`Hillman’s Additional Relevant Material Facts
`
`The Accused Products in this case include KeyMe kiosks known as Generations
`
`3.1, 3.2, 4.0, and 4.1.
`
`
`
`.”
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00209-JRG Document 181 Filed 09/16/20 Page 14 of 35 PageID #: 8627
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`18.
`
`
`
`
`
`19.
`
`20. Mutch discloses that:
`
`…[A] master key 22 or key blank 24 may be placed and retained in
`the slot 20 in the retention mechanism panel 21 such that the blade
`32 is positioned within the machine 10 and in the imaging zone. As
`best seen in FIG. 6, an optical imaging device 50 is mounted
`within the machine 10 and positioned such that it captures an
`optical image of a key 22 and 24 secured in the slot 20. The image
`of the key 22 and 24 may generally include the blade 32 of the key
`22 and 24, the key shoulder 30, and at least a portion of the head
`26.
`
`Ex. 11 (Mutch) at col. 7:65-8:7.
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00209-JRG Document 181 Filed 09/16/20 Page 15 of 35 PageID #: 8628
`
`22. Marsh discloses that:
`
`
`
`Key detector 106 can be any suitable mechanism for detecting the
`bitting pattern and/or the blank type of a key. For example, the key
`detector can be any suitable device that detects the bitting pattern
`and/or blank type of a key using any suitable technology such as
`optical technologies, mechanical technologies, electrical
`technologies, and/or any other technology, as described further
`below. More generally, key detector 106 can detect geometric
`information about a key. For example, key detector 106 can detect
`the dimensions of a key (e.g., length, width, height, profile,
`shoulder shape, etc.) and features of the key.
`
`Ex. 12 (Marsh) at col. 4:6-16.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`25.
`
`The specification of the ’474 patent discloses a “key-receiving assembly 110”
`
`that may be “configured to receive an existing key in a particular orientation (e.g., lying
`
`horizontally with the shank thereof pointed inward toward the module) and at a particular
`
`location. Imaging system 112 may be configured to generate images of the existing key (or
`
`portions thereof) after it is received within key receiving assembly 110...” Ex. 2 (’474 patent) at
`
`col. 7:46-52.
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00209-JRG Document 181 Filed 09/16/20 Page 16 of 35 PageID #: 8629
`
`
`
`26.
`
`One of the disclosed components of the “key receiving assembly 110” is an
`
`“opening 114,” described as a “transversely elongated slot.” Ex. 2 (’474 patent) at col. 8:30-32.
`
`The components of the key receiving assembly “may cooperate to receive the existing key as it is
`
`inserted by a user shank-first through opening 114.” Id. at col. 8:36-38.
`
`27.
`
`KeyMe’s Accused Products also contain a key receiving assembly including an
`
`“opening” in the form of an elongated slot. See KeyMe Fact 9.
`
`28.
`
`The slot opening in the key receiving assembly of KeyMe’s Accused Products
`
`permits insertion of an existing key shank-first for “identification and duplication” of that
`
`existing key via imaging of the portion of the existing key that the slot opening receives. See
`
`KeyMe Fact 9. KeyMe’s slot opening is in no way configured to permit insertion of an existing
`
`key in a “head-first” orientation.
`
`IV.
`
`LEGAL STANDARD
`
`Summary judgment is only proper “if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute
`
`as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P.
`
`56(a). All reasonable inferences to be drawn from the underlying facts must be viewed in the
`
`light most favorable to the party opposing the motion, and any doubt must be resolved in its
`
`favor. See, e.g., Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986) (citing Adickes v. S.H.
`
`Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144, 158-59 (1970)). A dispute about a material fact is “genuine” when
`
`the evidence is “such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.” Id.
`
`at 248. The nonmovant can satisfy its burden by tendering depositions, affidavits, and other
`
`competent evidence to buttress its claims. Topalian v. Ehrman, 954 F.2d 1125, 1131 (5th Cir.
`
`1992). In deciding a motion for summary judgment, the Court does not weigh the evidence;
`
`rather, it will determine only whether a genuine issue of material fact exists. Anderson at 248-49.
`
`“As a general rule, summary judgment is inappropriate where an expert’s testimony supports the
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00209-JRG Document 181 Filed 09/16/20 Page 17 of 35 PageID #: 8630
`
`non-moving party’s case.” Flexuspine, Inc. v. Globus Med., Inc., No. 6:15-cv-00201, 2016 WL
`
`9279998, at *4 (E.D. Tex. Jul. 7, 2016) (citing Vasudevan Software, Inc. v. MicroStrategy, Inc.,
`
`782 F.3d 671, 683 (Fed. Cir. 2015)); see also Cioffi v. Google, Inc., No. 2:13-cv-0103, 2017 WL
`
`490367, at *2 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 9, 2017), report and recommendation adopted, 2017 WL 478051
`
`(E.D. Tex. Feb. 6, 2017).
`
`A determination of patent infringement is a question of fact. Crown Packaging Tech.,
`
`Inc. v. Rexam Beverage Can Co., 559 F.3d 1308, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2009); see also Smartflash LLC
`
`v. Apple Inc., No. 6:13-cv-00447, 2015 WL 660755, at *2 (E.D. Tex. Feb. 13, 2015). To prove
`
`infringement, “the patentee must prove that the accused device embodies every limitation in the
`
`claim, either literally or by a substantial equivalent.” Conroy v. Reebok Int’l, Ltd., 14 F.3d 1570,
`
`1573 (Fed. Cir. 1994). Summary judgment of non-infringement is only proper when “no
`
`reasonable jury could find that every limitation recited in a properly construed claim is found in
`
`the accused device either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents.” Advanced Steel
`
`Recovery, LLC v. X-Body Equip., Inc., 808 F.3d 1313, 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Under the doctrine
`
`of equivalents, “a product or process that does not literally infringe upon the express terms of a
`
`patent claim may nonetheless be found to infringe if there is ‘equivalence’ between the elements
`
`of the accused product or process and the claimed elements of the patented invention.” Warner-
`
`Jenkinson Co. v. Hilton Davis Chem. Co., 520 U.S. 17, 21 (1997). Equivalence is a question of
`
`fact. Charles Mach. Works, Inc. v. Vermeer Mfg. Co., 723 F.3d 1376, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2013).
`
`V.
`
`KEYME’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD BE DENIED
`
`A.
`
`At Least a Genuine Issue of Material Fact Exists Regarding Whether
`KeyMe Literally Infringes the Asserted Claims of the ’474 Patent
`
`KeyMe seeks summary judgment of non-infringement based on three words: “only the
`
`shank,” as recited in independent claims 1 and 20 of the ’474 patent. Ex. 2 (’474 patent) at
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00209-JRG Document 181 Filed 09/16/20 Page 18 of 35 PageID #: 8631
`
`claims 1, 20. KeyMe insists that Hillman cannot prove infringement because the Asserted Claims
`
`of the ’474 patent “require[] a slot opening that receives just the shank and nothing more.” (D.I.
`
`169 at 8 (emphasis in original).) But that argument is premised entirely on KeyMe’s
`
`unsupported, conclusory assertion of the plain and ordinary meaning of “a slot opening in the
`
`housing configured to receive only the shank of an existing key.” KeyMe focuses on just one
`
`word of this fifteen-word claim term—“only”—at the exclusion of all others. In contrast, the
`
`evidence of record, including KeyMe’s own documents and the testimony of its own witnesses,
`
`would allow a reasonable juror to find that KeyMe’s accused kiosks meet this claim element.
`
`The expert reports of Hillman’s technical expert, Dr. Joshua Phinney, demonstrate
`
`exactly how Hillman will prove at trial that KeyMe infringes. At the very least, Dr. Phinney’s
`
`opinions, which extensively rely on and cite KeyMe documents, source code, and testimony,
`
`raise a material factual dispute. This Court has typically denied summary judgment motions
`
`when infringement contentions are bolstered by expert testimony. See, e.g., GeoTag, Inc. v.
`
`Frontier Commc’ns Corp., No. 2:10-CV-00265-JRG, 2014 WL 341802, at *2 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 30,
`
`2014). (“…the Court is reluctant to grant summary judgment over an expert’s infringement
`
`testimony unless the expert's methodology is clearly flawed, his or her conclusions are legally
`
`insufficient to support a verdict, or her conclusions are clearly unreasonable.”).
`
`Here, there has been no attack on the soundness of Dr. Phinney’s opinions; KeyMe has
`
`not filed any Daubert motion under Fed. R. Evid. 702 to exclude any portion of Dr. Phinney’s
`
`testimony. Instead, KeyMe has provided an additional declaration from its technical expert Dr.
`
`Dan Schonfeld (D.I. 169-10), who has already served two expert reports in this case. That
`
`KeyMe felt the need to provide even more expert opinions at the summary judgment stage to
`
`rebut Dr. Phinney’s opinions speaks to the factual disputes that still persist in this case. Dr.
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00209-JRG Document 181 Filed 09/16/20 Page 19 of 35 PageID #: 8632
`
`Phinney and Dr. Schonfeld have presented multiple opinions in this case, and each disputes the
`
`other’s conclusions. Their dispute should be heard by the jury.
`
`1.
`
`Dr. Schonfeld’s Declaration Misstates Documentary Evidence
`and Is Contradicted by Other KeyMe Testimony
`
`Another reason why the jury must hear the disputes between Dr. Phinney and Dr.
`
`Schonfeld at trial is to weigh the credibility of those witnesses. If Dr. Schonfeld testifies
`
`consistently at trial with his declaration submitted with KeyMe’s summary judgment motion, he
`
`will be testifying to incorrect and unsupported facts.
`
`Dr. Schonfeld puts words into Dr. Phinney’s mouth that Dr. Phinney never said and that
`
`are simply false. Dr. Schonfeld states that
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`This is simply not what Dr. Phinney’s report says, and simply not what the underlying document
`
`says.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00209-JRG Document 181 Filed 09/16/20 Page 20 of 35 PageID #: 8633
`
`Dr. Schonfeld also states that
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`KW1 key is only seen 43% of the time and asks third party engineers for help in redesigning the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`KeyMe’s summary judgment motion is heavily predicated on the declaration testimony
`
`of its technical expert, Dr. Dan Schonfeld. But Dr. Schonfeld’s declaration is rife with
`
`misstatements and distortions, and is contradicted in multiple places by other testimony and
`
`documentary evidence. Without Dr. Schonfeld’s testimony, KeyMe’s Motion should be denied
`
`outright as nothing more than attorney argument. With Dr. Schonfeld’s testimony, KeyMe’s
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00209-JRG Document 181 Filed 09/16/20 Page 21 of 35 PageID #: 8634
`
`Motion should be denied because it raises multiple disputes of fact and issues of witness
`
`credibility for the factfinder at trial.
`
`2.
`
`KeyMe’s Motion Ignores Evidence of Infringement Under
`Their Own Improper Application of the Plain Meaning of the
`Disputed Claim Term
`
`There is ample evidence in the record that would allow a reasonable juror to conclude
`
`that KeyMe’s accused kiosks literally infringe claims 7-9 and 20 of the ’474 patent. As discussed
`
`above, Dr. Phinney’s expert opinions support Hillman’s literal infringement theory, which
`
`Hillman will prove at trial. KeyMe’s expert Dr. Schonfeld disputes those opinions;
`
`
`
`In this posture, KeyMe cannot credibly argue that there are
`
`
`
`no issues for the jury to decide. See Flexuspine, 2016 WL 9279998, at *4 (denying summary
`
`judgment where determination of infringement turns on expert testimony); Cioffi, 2017 WL
`
`490367, at *2 (recommending denial of summary judgment when there was a battle of experts).
`
`As KeyMe acknowledges, the parties did not seek claim construction of the term “a slot
`
`opening in the housing configured to receive only the shank of an existing key” in independent
`
`claims 1 and 20. “Giving a term its plain and ordinary meaning does not leave the term devoid of
`
`any meaning whatsoever. Instead, the ordinary meaning of a claim term is its meaning to the
`
`ordinary artisan after reading the entire patent.” Wisconsin Alumni Research Found. v. Apple
`
`Inc., 905 F.3d 1341, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (internal quotation marks omitted) (citing Phillips v.
`
`AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc)). It is apparent that the parties
`
`dispute how the ’474 patent specification should be read.
`
`the
`
`specification states that:
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00209-JRG Document 181 Filed 09/16/20 Page 22 of 35 PageID #: 8635
`
`After the shank of the existing key is inserted into identification
`module 102, imaging system 112 may be triggered to capture one
`or more images of only the shank of the existing key.…These
`images may show a location of the tip of the key, a profile of the
`shank, and a location of shoulders at a base of the key's head (if
`shoulders are present).
`
`Ex. 2 (’474 patent) at col. 19:51-59 (emphases added);
`
`
`
`The ’474 patent teaches that images are taken of “only the shank,” and that those images
`
`may contain the shoulder. It follows that a kiosk which accepts the shoulders of an existing key
`
`would meet the disputed limitations of the ’474 claims. KeyMe disagrees, alleging without
`
`support that this embodiment “stands unclaimed.” In the end, a jury must decide how one of
`
`ordinary skill in the art would interpret this disclosure.
`
`KeyMe’s assertion that there is a consensus “ordinary meaning” of “only the shank” and
`
`that Hillman is the party seeking a “special meaning” is contradicted by the very prior art that
`
`KeyMe has asserted in this case.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` U.S. Patent No. 5,807,042 to Almblad et al.,
`
`describes a
`
`“shank extending longitudinally [i.e. upwards] from the shoulder 148 to the hip 140.” Ex. 15
`
`(“Almblad”) at col. 24:30-31; Fig. 20. On the other hand,
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,588,995 to Wills et al., directly equates the “shank” with the “blade” and uses
`
`them interchangeably. Ex. 16 (“Wills”) at col. 25:31-34.
`
`At the very least, the parties appear to fundamentally dispute whether “only the shank” of
`
`any existing key can be received by KeyMe’s insertion slot. The claim language does not require
`
`that the slot be configured to receive “only the shank” of “every” or “all” existing keys – it only
`
`requires that the slot be configured to receive “only the shank” of “an existing key.” Ex. 2 (’474
`
`15
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00209-JRG Document 181 Filed 09/16/20 Page 23 of 35 PageID #: 8636
`
`patent) at claims 1, 20 (emphasis added).
`
`
`
`Dr. Schonfeld opines that
`
`summary judgment position
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` KeyMe’s
`
` As this Court has held,
`
`infringement is “not avoided merely because a non-infringing mode of operation is possible.”
`
`Oyster Optics, LLC v. Coriant Am. Inc., No. 2:16-CV-1302-JRG, 2018 WL 3067727, at *8 (E.D.
`
`Tex. June 21, 2018) (denying summary judgment of non-infringement) (quoting VirnetX, Inc. v.
`
`Cisco Sys., Inc., 767 F.3d 1308, 1321-22 (Fed. Cir. 2014)). KeyMe is not entitled to a judgment
`
`as a matter of law that their accused kiosks categorically do not literally infringe the ’474 patent.
`
`3.
`
`Like the Slot Opening Disclosed and Claimed in the ’474
`Patent, KeyMe’s Slot Opening Requires Shank-First Insertion
`of an Existing Key Such that Only the Shank May Be Received
`
`The specification of the ’474 patent describes a “key-receiving assembly 110” that may
`
`be “configured to receive an existing key in a particular orientation (e.g., lying horizontally with
`
`the shank thereof pointed inward toward the module) and at a particular location. Imaging
`
`system 112 may be configured