Case 2:19-cv-00209-JRG Document 219 Filed 11/06/20 Page 1 of 6 PageID #: 10409
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`
`THE HILLMAN GROUP, INC.,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`v.
`
`KEYME, LLC,
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`THE HILLMAN GROUP, INC.,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 2:19-cv-00209-JRG
`
`(LEAD)
`
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`Case No. 2:20-cv-00070-JRG
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`v.
`
`KEYME, LLC,
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION AND PREHEARING STATEMENT
`
`Pursuant to Rule of Practice for Patent Cases P.R. 4-3, Plaintiff The Hillman Group, Inc.
`
`(“Hillman”) and Defendant KeyMe, LLC (“KeyMe”) hereby jointly file this Joint Claim
`
`Construction and Prehearing Statement for claim terms in the asserted claims of the three patents
`
`from Member Case No. 2:20-cv-00070-JRG (U.S. Patent Nos. 10,577,830, 10,628,813, and
`
`10,737,336; collectively, the “-070 Patents”) that were recently added into this consolidated
`
`litigation.
`
`I.
`
`P.R. 4-3(a)(1): AGREED CLAIM CONSTRUCTIONS
`
`The parties have agreed on the following claim constructions:
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00209-JRG Document 219 Filed 11/06/20 Page 2 of 6 PageID #: 10410
`
`Patent
`’830
`
`’830
`’830
`
`’830
`
`’813
`
`all
`17-30
`
`17-21
`
`all
`
`’813
`
`5
`
`
`
`Claim(s)
`all
`
`Claim Term/Element
`“channel profile”
`
`“bitting pattern”
`“the determined bitting
`pattern”
`“configured to exchange
`communications”
`“a guard adjacent to the
`key insertion slot to protect
`the portion of the master
`key protruding from said
`insertion slot from accidental
`contact”
`“a controllable drive coupled
`to said magazine”
`
`Proposed Construction
`“the shapes, sizes, and/or
`locations of channels”
`“tooth pattern”
`“the tooth pattern determined
`by the imaging system”
`“configured to send and
`receive information”
`“a guard adjacent to the key
`insertion slot to protect the
`portion of the master key
`protruding from said insertion
`slot from being bumped during
`a key duplication process”
`“a drive motor selectively
`energized to control the
`movement of said magazine”
`
`II.
`
`P.R. 4-3(a)(2): DISPUTED CLAIM CONSTRUCTIONS
`
`
`
`In Lead Case No. 2:19-CV-209-JRG (the “-209 case”), the Court issued a July 2, 2020
`
`Claim Construction Order and Memorandum (Dkt. No. 159) setting forth the Court’s
`
`construction of certain terms that appear in U.S. Patent Nos. 8,976,446, 9,914,179 and
`
`10,400,474 (the “-209 Patents”), including:
`
` “queue of key duplication events” (’474 patent);
`
` “cut the determined bitting pattern into a key blank” (’474 patent);
`
` “a key analysis system within said housing configured to analyze the blade of a key
`
`inserted in said key receiving entry to determine whether the inserted key matches one of
`
`a group of preselected key types and, if so, which preselected key type is matched” (’446
`
`patent);
`
` “a key duplicating system within said kiosk configured to replicate a tooth pattern of the
`
`blade of the master key on the blade of the extracted matching key blank” (’813 patent);
`
` “configured to replicate the tooth pattern of the blade of said key inserted in said key
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00209-JRG Document 219 Filed 11/06/20 Page 3 of 6 PageID #: 10411
`
`receiving entry” (’446 patent); and
`
` “configured to cut the selected key blank to duplicate a key tooth pattern of the master
`
`key” (’179 patent) (the “-209 Disputed Claim Terms”).
`
`The parties wish to fully preserve their rights to appeal the claim constructions adopted
`
`by the Court in the -209 case to the extent the Court did not adopt their respective proposed
`
`constructions. The -070 Patents, which are related to the -209 Patents, present many of the same
`
`or similar claim construction issues, namely the claim terms:
`
` “a queue of key duplication events” (’830 patent);
`
` “cut the determined bitting pattern of the existing first key” (’830 patent);
`
` “a key analysis system within said housing configured to analyze grooves on each side of
`
`the blade of the master key inserted the key insertion slot to determine whether the master
`
`key matches one of a group of preselected key types and, if so, which preselected key
`
`type is matched” (’813 patent);
`
` “a key duplicating system within said housing configured to replicate a tooth pattern of
`
`the blade of the master key on the blade of the extracted matching key blank” (’813
`
`patent);
`
` “configured to replicate a tooth pattern of the blade of the master key” (’813 patent); and
`
` “configured to cut the selected key blank to duplicate a key tooth pattern of the master
`
`key” (’336 patent) (the “Common ‘070 Disputed Claim Terms”), as reflected in
`
`Appendix A.
`
`Rather than ask the Court to decide many of the same or similar claim construction issues
`
`presented by the -070 Patents, the Parties intend to stipulate for the purposes of this consolidated
`
`action to the Court’s claim constructions reflected in Dkt. No. 159 and do stipulate and agree that
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00209-JRG Document 219 Filed 11/06/20 Page 4 of 6 PageID #: 10412
`
`each party may raise on appeal its proposed constructions for the -070 Disputed Claim Terms
`
`and may rely for that purpose on all intrinsic and extrinsic evidence submitted for a same or
`
`similar term in connection with the -209 Patents as well as any additional intrinsic evidence in
`
`the -070 Patents and their prosecution histories. The Parties expressly incorporate by reference
`
`Appendices B-C (Dkt. Nos. 146-1 and 146-2, respectively) to the May 15, 2020 Amended Joint
`
`Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement (Dkt. No. 146.)
`
`
`
`In view of this stipulation, the Parties do not believe further briefing on claim
`
`construction or a second Markman Hearing are necessary.
`
`III.
`
`P.R. 4-3(a)(3): LENGTH OF CLAIM CONSTRUCTION HEARING
`
`
`
`In view of the parties’ stipulation above, it is believed no claim construction hearing is
`
`required. Should the Court order a hearing, the parties will meet and confer on the length of their
`
`respective presentations.
`
`IV.
`
`P.R. 4-3(a)(4): LIVE WITNESS TESTIMONY
`
`
`
`In view of the parties’ stipulation above, it is believed no claim construction hearing is
`
`required. Even if a hearing were ordered, the parties do not anticipate any live witness testimony.
`
`V.
`
`P.R. 4-3(a)(5): OTHER ISSUES
`
`
`
`No other issues pertaining to claim construction are believed to exist. The parties believe
`
`that deadlines in the Proposed Consolidated Docket Control Order, filed concurrently today with
`
`this paper, that pertain to claim construction briefing, the P.R. 4-5(d) Joint Claim Construction
`
`Chart, and the Markman Hearing may be removed from the calendar, pending the Court’s
`
`approval.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00209-JRG Document 219 Filed 11/06/20 Page 5 of 6 PageID #: 10413
`
`Dated: November 6, 2020
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`By: /s/ Eric H. Findlay
`
`Eric H. Findlay (Bar No. 00789886)
`Roger B. Craft (Bar No. 04972020)
`FINDLAY CRAFT, P.C.
`102 North College Avenue, Suite 900
`Tyler, TX 75702
`(903) 534-1100
`(903) 534-1137 (fax)
`efindlay@findlaycraft.com
`bcraft@findlaycraft.com
`
`
`Of Counsel:
`
`Christopher P. Isaac (admitted pro hac vice)
`Ryan P. O’Quinn (admitted pro hac vice)
`FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT
` & DUNNER, L.L.P.
`1875 Explorer Street, Suite 800
`Reston, VA 20190
`(571) 203-2700
`(202) 408-4400 (fax)
`chris.isaac@finnegan.com
`oquinnr@finnegan.com
`
`Gerald F. Ivey (admitted pro hac vice)
`John M. Williamson (admitted pro hac vice)
`Kelly C. Lu (admitted pro hac vice)
`Cara E. Regan (admitted pro hac vice)
`FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT
` & DUNNER, L.L.P.
`901 New York Avenue, N.W.
`Washington, DC 20001
`(202) 408-4000
`(202) 408-4400 (fax)
`gerald.ivey@finnegan.com
`john.williamson@finnegan.com
`kelly.lu@finnegan.com
`cara.regan@finnegan.com
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`The Hillman Group, Inc.
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`/s/ Eric H. Huang
`Deron R. Dacus (Bar No. 00790553)
`THE DACUS FIRM, P.C.
`821 ESE Loop 323, Suite 430
`Tyler, TX 75701
`(903) 705-1177
`(903) 581-2543 (fax)
`ddacus@dacusfirm.com
`
`
`
`
`Of Counsel:
`
`Sean S. Pak (pro hac vice)
`Jeff Nardinelli (pro hac vice)
`Zachary Flood (pro hac vice)
`QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART
` & SULLIVAN, LLP
`50 California Street, 22nd Floor
`San Francisco, CA 94111-4788
`(415) 875-6600
`(415) 875-6700 (fax)
`seanpak@quinnemanuel.com
`jeffnardinelli@quinnemanuel.com
`zackflood@quinnemanuel.com
`
`David A. Nelson (pro hac vice)
`QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART
` & SULLIVAN, LLP
`191 N. Wacker Drive, Suite 2700
`Chicago, IL 60606-1881
`(312) 705-7400
`(312) 705-7401 (fax)
`davenelson@quinnemanuel.com
`
`Eric Hui-chieh Huang (pro hac vice)
`Sean T. Gloth, II (pro hac vice)
`QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART
` & SULLIVAN, LLP
`51 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor
`New York, NY 10010-1601
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00209-JRG Document 219 Filed 11/06/20 Page 6 of 6 PageID #: 10414
`
`(212) 849-7000
`(212) 849-7100 (fax)
`erichuang@quinnemanuel.com
`seangloth@quinnemanuel.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendant KeyMe, LLC
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that the foregoing document was filed electronically on November 6,
`
`
`
`2020 pursuant to Local Rule CV-5(a) and has been served on all counsel who are deemed to
`
`have consented to electronic service.
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Eric H. Findlay
`Eric H. Findlay
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`