Insights

Sets of keys

Fintiv Denial Despite Stipulation, PTAB Litigation Blog

Visit the PTAB Litigation Blog

On May 9, 2022, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board denied Hillman Group, Inc.’s (“Hillman’s”) three petitions for inter partes review.  See The Hillman Group, Inc. v. Hy-Ko Products Co. LLC, IPR2022-00168, -00169, and -00174.  Parallel litigation in the Eastern District of Texas between these two key-duplication competitors is scheduled to commence in July 2022. In the district court litigation, Hy-Ko Products Company LLC (“Hy-Ko”) alleges that Hillman’s products infringe U.S. Patent Nos. 9,656,332, 9,682,432 and 10,421,133 (the “’332 patent,” “’432 patent,” and “’133 patent,” respectively).  Complaint at 16, Hy-Ko Products Co. LLC v. The Hillman Group, Inc., 2-21-cv-00197 (E.D. Tex. 2021).  These patents relate generally to apparatuses and methods for duplicating keys, and more specifically, for cutting duplicate keys based on a captured image of a master key.  In addition, Hy-Ko alleges that Hillman engaged in false advertising, unlawful conversion of property or receipt of stolen property, unfair competition, and infringement of Hy-Ko’s patents through reverse engineering of an illegally-acquired Hy-Ko key-duplication machine.  Complaint at 1, Hy-Ko Products Co. LLC v. The Hillman Group, Inc., 2-21-cv-00197 (E.D. Tex. 2021).

Nicole Newman, in the Boston Office, assisted with the preparation of this Alert

Read the full article at ptablitigationblog.com.

Jones Day publications should not be construed as legal advice on any specific facts or circumstances. The contents are intended for general information purposes only and may not be quoted or referred to in any other publication or proceeding without the prior written consent of the Firm, to be given or withheld at our discretion. To request reprint permission for any of our publications, please use our “Contact Us” form, which can be found on our website at www.jonesday.com. The mailing of this publication is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. The views set forth herein are the personal views of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Firm.