Case 2:19-cv-00209-JRG Document 208 Filed 10/16/20 Page 1 of 11 PageID #: 10176
`
`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
`AT DKT. NO. 206
`
`DEFENDANT KEYME LLC’S MOTIONS IN LIMINE
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00209-JRG Document 208 Filed 10/16/20 Page 2 of 11 PageID #: 10177
`
`REDACTED VERSION OF DOCUMENT FILED UNDER SEAL
`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`
`Exhibit
`
`Document
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`HGTX00260715
`
`HGTX00590545
`
`HGTX00590404
`
`HGTX00590506
`
`HGTX00590540
`
`HGTX00226835
`
`KEYME-053152
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00209-JRG Document 208 Filed 10/16/20 Page 3 of 11 PageID #: 10178
`
`REDACTED VERSION OF DOCUMENT FILED UNDER SEAL
`
`Defendant KeyMe LLC (“KeyMe”) respectfully requests that the Court grant its Motions
`
`in Limine identified below.
`
`I.
`
`MIL NO. 1: TO PRECLUDE EVIDENCE OR ARGUMENT REGARDING
`ALLEGATIONS OF SAFETY OR SECURITY CONCERNS MADE AGAINST
`KEYME’S
`UNACCUSED MOBILE
`APPLICATION
`AND
`RFID
`FUNCTIONALITY
`
`Plaintiff The Hillman Group, Inc. (“Hillman”) should be precluded from offering any
`
`testimony (including expert opinions), evidence, or argument regarding any past or current
`
`allegations as to the safety or security of KeyMe’s unaccused mobile application—including as
`
`to long-since disabled functionality for ordering a key based on images captured through a user’s
`
`mobile device—or to unaccused RFID functionality.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Similarly, Hillman’s
`
`trial exhibit list also includes a reproduction of a news article referencing security concerns
`
`related to the purported ease with which KeyMe kiosk could allow users to duplicate RFID
`
`“proximity cards” commonly used to gain access to secure building.1 See Ex. 2
`
`(HGTX00590545). As a preliminary matter, these references are inadmissible hearsay. Fed. R.
`
`Evid. 802. Moreover, allegations related to negative press and security concerns are not
`
`probative to any issue in this case and would be unduly prejudicial. Fed. R. Evid. 401, 402, 403;
`
`see also ContentGuard Holdings, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., No. 2:13-CV-01112-JRG, 2015 WL
`
`11089489, at *3 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 24, 2015) (excluding any reference or press concerning
`
`unrelated issues as to Apple’s manufacturers or assertions concerning the payment of taxes).
`
`These alleged security concerns relate to KeyMe's mobile application and RFID duplication
`
`1 Notably, Hillman does not accuse this RFID duplication functionality of infringement.
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00209-JRG Document 208 Filed 10/16/20 Page 4 of 11 PageID #: 10179
`
`REDACTED VERSION OF DOCUMENT FILED UNDER SEAL
`
`functionality, neither of which is accused here, and are completely unrelated to the accused
`
`functionality in this case.2 They should be excluded because they are irrelevant, and serve no
`
`other purpose than to prejudice KeyMe in the eyes the jury.
`
`II.
`
`MIL NO. 2: TO PRECLUDE EVIDENCE OR ARGUMENT REGARDING TO
`PREVIOUS CLASS ACTION LITIGATION RELATING TO KEYME’S
`ALLEGED COLLECTION OF BIOMETRIC INFORMATION
`
`Pursuant to Federal Rules of Evidence 402, 403, and 802 the Court should preclude
`
`Hillman from referencing the completely unrelated litigation and settlement in the case of
`
`Rafidia v. KeyMe, Inc. That case, which was promptly settled in 2018, involved unproven
`
`allegations that KeyMe had improperly collected biometric information without users’ written
`
`consent. Hillman’s exhibit list contains at least three documents referencing this unrelated
`
`litigation—two news articles and a copy of the class action settlement webpage. See Ex. 3
`
`(HGTX00590404), Ex. 4 (HGTX00590506), Ex. 5 (HGTX00590540). The allegations from the
`
`Rafidia case related to the purported collection of biometric information, which is unrelated to
`
`any of Hillman’s asserted claims here. Thus, that litigation is completely irrelevant to any
`
`allegations in this case, is likely to confuse the jury, and will unduly prejudice KeyMe. Courts in
`
`this District—including this Court—routinely exclude reference to this kind of wholly unrelated
`
`litigation. See ContentGuard, 2015 WL 11089489, at *1 (excluding “any argument, evidence,
`
`testimony, insinuation, reference, or assertion relating to any litigations, rulings, or accusations
`
`against Defendant in unrelated legal proceedings”); Mobile Telecoms. Techs., LLC v. Zte (USA)
`
`Inc., No. 2:13-CV-946-JRG, 2016 WL 8260584, at *2 (E.D. Tex. July 22, 2016) (excluding “any
`
`references, evidence, testimony (including expert testimony), or argument regarding unrelated
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00209-JRG Document 208 Filed 10/16/20 Page 5 of 11 PageID #: 10180
`
`REDACTED VERSION OF DOCUMENT FILED UNDER SEAL
`
`litigations, investigations, or accusations involving the parties”); Realtime Data LLC v. Echostar
`
`Corp., No. 6:17-CV-00084-JDL, 2018 WL 10466786, at *2 (E.D. Tex. Dec. 17, 2018) (same).
`
`III. MIL NO. 3:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00209-JRG Document 208 Filed 10/16/20 Page 6 of 11 PageID #: 10181
`
`REDACTED VERSION OF DOCUMENT FILED UNDER SEAL
`
`IV. MIL NO. 4: TO PRECLUDE EVIDENCE OR ARGUMENT REGARDING ANY
`EXCLUSION OF THE TESTIMONY OF ANY TESTIFYING EXPERT IN ANY
`UNRELATED PROCEEDING
`
`Pursuant to Federal Rules of Evidence 402 and 403, the Court should preclude Hillman
`
`from presenting evidence or argument related to any prior order excluding the testimony of
`
`KeyMe’s experts in any prior litigation. Hillman has not challenged the admissibility of any
`
`opinion offered by KeyMe’s expert’s in this case. Any reference to prior exclusion orders from
`
`other cases would serve only to distract from the testimony of KeyMe’s experts and would be
`
`unduly prejudicial. See Whirlpool Corp. v. TST Water, LLC, No. 2:15-CV-1528-JRG, 2017 WL
`
`2931403, at *4 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 3, 2017) (granting motion in limine to exclude all evidence and
`
`argument regarding expert witness’s exclusion in prior cases); Radware, Ltd. v. F5 Networks,
`
`Inc., No. 13-CV-02024-RMW, 2016 WL 590121, at *16 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 13, 2016), (excluding
`
`evidence of prior Daubert challenges for all expert witnesses).
`
`V.
`
`MIL NO. 5: TO PRECLUDE EVIDENCE, ARGUMENT, OR REFERENCE TO
`THE DISQUALIFICATION OF PREVIOUS COUNSEL
`
`Pursuant to Federal Rules of Evidence 402 and 403, the Court should preclude Hillman
`
`from referencing or arguing—in any manner—the disqualification of KeyMe’s prior counsel.
`
`See Dkt. 119. The disqualification of KeyMe’s prior counsel is completely irrelevant to any
`
`substantive issue in this case and came about through no fault of KeyMe. See id. Any argument
`
`regarding or reference to the disqualification would only serve to prejudice KeyMe before jury
`
`through implication and should be precluded. Fed. R. Evid. 403.
`
`VI. MIL NO. 6: TO PRECLUDE ANY CHARACTERIZATION OF KEYME AS
`HAVING ENGAGED IN STEALING, COPYING, PIRATING, OR TRESPASSING
`
`Pursuant to Federal Rules of Evidence 402 and 403, the Court should preclude Hillman
`
`from characterizing any KeyMe actions as “stealing,” “copying,” “pirating,” or any other
`
`pejorative words suggesting that KeyMe improperly took Hillman or Minute Key property or
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00209-JRG Document 208 Filed 10/16/20 Page 7 of 11 PageID #: 10182
`
`REDACTED VERSION OF DOCUMENT FILED UNDER SEAL
`
`technology. See Intellectual Ventures II LLC v. FedEx Corporation, No. 2:16-CV-00980-JRG,
`
`2018 WL 10638138, at *6 (E.D. Tex. April 26, 2018) (excluding the use of “any derogatory or
`
`pejorative terms” including “stealing,” “copying,” “pirating,” “or any other charged words
`
`suggesting an improper taking from [plaintiff].”).
`
`VII. MIL NO. 7: TO PRECLUDE REFERENCE TO ANALOGIES AS TO THE CLEAR
`AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE STANDARD IN OTHER LEGAL SITUATIONS
`
`Pursuant to Federal Rules of Evidence 402 and 403, the Court should preclude Hillman
`
`from referencing the Texas Family Code when discussing the “clear and convincing” standard
`
`for invalidity. The Texas Family Code employs a “clear and convincing” standard, including at
`
`Chapter 161.001(b), which permits the court to “order termination of the parent-child
`
`relationship if the court finds by clear and convincing evidence” that a parent has committed
`
`certain acts. The Family Code defines “clear and convincing evidence” at Section 101.007 as
`
`“the measure or degree of proof that will produce in the mind of the trier of fact a firm belief or
`
`conviction as to the truth of the allegations sought to be established.” It would be highly
`
`prejudicial to permit Hillman to invoke the Family Code in a federal patent litigation, and to do
`
`so would be inflammatory. See also Implicit, LLC v. NetScout Sys., Inc., No. 2:18-CV-00053-
`
`JRG, 2019 WL 6873030, at *2 (E.D. Tex. Nov. 21, 2019) (granting agreed motion in limine that
`
`the parties “will not refer to the Texas Family Code when referencing or describing any clear and
`
`convincing burden of proof”).
`
`VIII. MIL NO. 8: TO PRECLUDE EVIDENCE, ARGUMENT, OR REFERENCES
`CONCERNING THE RELIGIOUS OR POLITICAL BELIEFS OF ANY PARTY
`OR WITNESS
`
`Pursuant to Federal Rules of Evidence 402 and 403, and 802 the Court should preclude
`
`Hillman from referencing the religious or political beliefs of any KeyMe expert, employee, or
`
`witness. A person’s religious or political beliefs have no relevance to any claim or defense in
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00209-JRG Document 208 Filed 10/16/20 Page 8 of 11 PageID #: 10183
`
`REDACTED VERSION OF DOCUMENT FILED UNDER SEAL
`
`this case. The introduction of such evidence could only serve to improperly prejudice the jury,
`
`and not to cast any probative evidence on any disputed issue relating to any claim or defense.
`
`See also Whirlpool Corp. v. TST Water, LLC, No. 2:15-CV-1528-JRG, 2017 WL 2931403, at *4
`
`(E.D. Tex. Mar. 3, 2017) (parties agreed not to “introduce evidence or testimony or make
`
`arguments, insinuations, references, or assertions concerning the religious or political beliefs, or
`
`sexual orientation of any party or witness.”).
`
`IX. MIL NO. 9: TO PRECLUDE EVIDENCE, ARGUMENT, OR REFERENCE THAT
`DEFENDANT HAD A DUTY TO OBTAIN AN OPINION OF COUNSEL, OR TO
`THE RESULTS OF ANY SUCH OPINION
`
`Pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 502, the Court should preclude Hillman from
`
`presenting argument or evidence that KeyMe had a duty to obtain opinion of counsel, or any
`
`speculation of the results of any infringement opinion.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` under 35 U.S.C. § 298, 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.” Likewise, Hillman should be precluded from offering any speculation on why KeyMe
`
`did not seek an opinion of counsel or offer an opinion-of-counsel defense, or speculative
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00209-JRG Document 208 Filed 10/16/20 Page 9 of 11 PageID #: 10184
`
`REDACTED VERSION OF DOCUMENT FILED UNDER SEAL
`
`evidence concerning what the opinion of counsel would have been. See, e.g., Contentguard,
`
`2015 WL 12915561, at *1 (granting a motion in limine that the defendant “is precluded from
`
`presenting any argument, evidence, testimony, insinuation, reference, or assertion (1) that
`
`Defendant had a duty to obtain opinion of counsel, or (2) speculating as to the results of any
`
`infringement opinion”); Imperium IP Holdings (Cayman), Ltd. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., No. 4:14-
`
`CV-371, 2016 WL 3902447, at *1 (E.D. Tex. Feb. 1, 2016) (“Plaintiff is not to present any
`
`argument, evidence, or testimony regarding Defendants' decision to not obtain an opinion of
`
`counsel with respect to willfulness.”).
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00209-JRG Document 208 Filed 10/16/20 Page 10 of 11 PageID #: 10185
`
`REDACTED VERSION OF DOCUMENT FILED UNDER SEAL
`
`DATED: October 13, 2020
`
`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
`
`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
`
`Attorneys for Defendant KeyMe, LLC
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00209-JRG Document 208 Filed 10/16/20 Page 11 of 11 PageID #: 10186
`
`REDACTED VERSION OF DOCUMENT FILED UNDER SEAL
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that all counsel of record who have consented to
`
`electronic service are being served with a copy of this document via electronic mail on October
`
`13, 2020. I also hereby certify that all counsel of record who have consented to electronic service
`
`are being served with a notice of filing of this document, under seal, pursuant to L.R. CV-5(a)(7)
`
`on October 13, 2020.
`
` /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
`
`9
`
`