DCT

4:18-cv-04619

Kilbourne v. Apple Inc

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 4:17-cv-03283, S.D. Tex., 03/05/2018
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged based on Defendant Apple, Inc. having regular and established physical places of business, specifically its retail stores, within the Southern District of Texas.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that the August Smart Lock, sold and promoted by Defendant for use with its Apple HomeKit framework, infringes a patent directed to a universal adapter for remotely operating pre-existing deadbolt locks.
  • Technical Context: The technology resides in the home automation market, specifically focusing on "retrofittable" smart locks that add remote control and keyless entry features to existing, conventional door hardware without requiring full replacement.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff provided Defendant with a physical sample of his patented product, marked with the patent number, in 2014 as part of an app submission process, years before filing suit. Subsequent to the filing of this complaint, an Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceeding (IPR2019-00233) was initiated against the patent-in-suit. The IPR resulted in the cancellation of method claims 11-17 and a disclaimer of method claims 18-20, narrowing the scope of the present dispute to the surviving system claims 1-10.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2004-12-07 ’795 Patent Priority Date
2008-05-20 ’795 Patent Issue Date
2014-09-30 Plaintiff ships patented "Remotizer" hardware to Apple
2014-10-03 Apple receives Plaintiff's "Remotizer" hardware
2018-03-05 Complaint Filing Date
2018-11-07 IPR against '795 Patent Filed (IPR2019-00233)
2021-10-07 IPR Certificate issues, canceling claims 11-17

II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis

U.S. Patent No. 7,373,795 - “Universal Remote Deadbolt Adapter,” issued May 20, 2008

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section identifies a need for a keyless entry system that avoids the cost, inconvenience, and potential prohibitions (e.g., in rental properties) associated with removing and replacing an existing deadbolt lock and key mechanism ('795 Patent, col. 2:8-15).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a self-contained, battery-powered adapter unit that mounts over the interior thumb-turn of a pre-existing deadbolt. As depicted in the patent's figures, the device attaches to the door using the deadbolt’s own mounting screws, and a motor-driven mechanism inside the adapter engages the deadbolt's tailpiece to electronically lock or unlock the door upon receiving a signal from a remote transmitter ('795 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:35-40, FIG. 5). The system is designed to be "universal," meaning it can be installed on and removed from standard deadbolts without permanently altering the door or the original lock ('795 Patent, col. 1:54-57).
  • Technical Importance: The described solution provides a non-destructive and reversible method for adding remote-control functionality to the large installed base of conventional deadbolt locks, a feature particularly valuable for renters or users seeking a simple upgrade path ('795 Patent, col. 7:6-9).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint does not specify which claims are asserted, alleging infringement of "one or more claims" (Compl. ¶26). The surviving independent system claims are 1 and 8.
  • Independent Claim 1 recites a system comprising:
    • a pre-existing deadbolt lock;
    • a signal transmitter;
    • a housing remote from the transmitter, "configured to be mounted utilizing only the existing mounting screws of said pre-existing deadbolt lock";
    • within the housing, a motor and a signal receiver; and
    • a "reversible elongated member" that directly contacts the tailpiece of the pre-existing lock, such that motor activation causes the member to rotate the tailpiece, extending or retracting the deadbolt.
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The August Smart Lock (the “Accused Product”) (Compl. ¶23).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint describes the August Smart Lock as "a system for remotely opening and closing a pre-existing deadbolt lock" (Compl. ¶23). It is offered for sale by Apple and is designed to work within the "Apple HomeKit" framework, allowing Apple devices to control the lock via the "August Home" application (Compl. ¶¶22-24). The allegations position the product as a retrofittable device that adds smart functionality to existing door locks, a direct parallel to the purpose of the patented invention (Compl. ¶23).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that the August Smart Lock infringes the ’795 Patent but does not provide a detailed mapping of product features to claim limitations in the body of the complaint. It refers to an external "Exhibit B" for this purpose, which was not included with the filed document (Compl. ¶¶26, 39). The narrative theory of infringement is that the August Smart Lock is a retrofittable device that mounts to a pre-existing deadbolt and uses an internal motor to electronically actuate the lock's tailpiece, thereby practicing the patented system (Compl. ¶23). To support its pre-suit notice allegations, the complaint includes a photograph of the plaintiff's product packaging, which was allegedly sent to Apple, clearly marked with "Pat. No.: US7373795B2" (Compl. p. 5).

  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: A primary issue for the court will be whether the August Smart Lock’s installation method meets the claim limitation of being "mounted utilizing only the existing mounting screws of said pre-existing deadbolt lock." The manner in which the accused device physically attaches to the door will be a central point of factual and legal dispute.
    • Technical Questions: The complaint does not provide technical details on the internal mechanism of the August Smart Lock. This raises the question of what evidence will be presented to show that the accused product contains a "reversible elongated member" that performs the specific function of engaging and rotating the deadbolt tailpiece as required by claim 1 of the ’795 Patent.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "mounted utilizing only the existing mounting screws of said pre-existing deadbolt lock" (Claim 1)

    • Context and Importance: The construction of this phrase is critical, as it defines the method of attachment, a core feature of the invention's non-destructive and universal nature. Practitioners may focus on this term because infringement may turn on whether the August Smart Lock requires any hardware for installation beyond the two screws that hold a standard deadbolt's interior and exterior halves together.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent's overall objective is to provide a non-damaging, retrofittable adapter ('795 Patent, col. 5:56-65). A party could argue that the term should be interpreted functionally to cover any mounting method that relies principally on the existing hardware and does not require permanent alteration, even if minor, ancillary components are used.
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The use of the word "only" is facially restrictive. The specification repeatedly describes a process where the adapter's template is secured via the conventional deadbolt bolts ('795 Patent, col. 4:45-56; col. 7:49-55). This could support an interpretation limiting the claim to devices that attach using exclusively the deadbolt's structural screws and nothing else.

  • The Term: "reversible elongated member" (Claim 1)

    • Context and Importance: This term describes the mechanical interface between the adapter's motor and the deadbolt's tailpiece. Its definition will determine what types of actuator mechanisms are covered by the patent.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party might argue that "reversible elongated member" should be construed functionally to mean any component that connects the motor to the tailpiece and can be adapted to fit different tailpiece designs, consistent with the patent's goal of universality ('795 Patent, col. 12:50-col. 13:5).
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification discloses a specific embodiment of this element as a "splined stem" with different slot formations on each end to fit different tailpiece shapes (e.g., a "half oval face" or "cross-slot formation") ('795 Patent, col. 7:32-39, FIG. 6C). This specific disclosure could be used to argue that the term requires a physically reversible, shaft-like structure, rather than any generic actuator.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement based on Apple providing the HomeKit framework and the August Home app, which allegedly instruct and encourage customers to use the Accused Product in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶37). Contributory infringement is alleged on the basis that the Accused Product is intended for the infringing purpose of remotely moving a deadbolt and has "no other substantial non-infringing uses" (Compl. ¶38).
  • Willful Infringement: The willfulness allegation is grounded in alleged pre-suit knowledge of the ’795 Patent. The complaint specifically alleges that Apple received actual notice when Plaintiff shipped it a "Remotizer" product, with packaging marked "Pat. No. 7373795B2," in October 2014 at Apple's request (Compl. ¶¶19-20, p. 5). The complaint also alleges continued infringement after the filing of the lawsuit as a basis for willfulness (Compl. ¶37).

VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case

The resolution of this dispute may depend on the court's answers to several key questions:

  • A central issue will be one of claim scope and attachment method: does the August Smart Lock mount "utilizing only the existing mounting screws" of a deadbolt as strictly required by claim 1, or does its installation method require additional components that place it outside this potentially narrow limitation?
  • A second key question will be evidentiary and technical: what is the precise internal mechanism by which the August Smart Lock engages and turns a deadbolt's tailpiece, and does this mechanism meet the structural and functional definition of the "reversible elongated member" as described and claimed in the ’795 Patent?
  • Finally, the case is shaped by the impact of the post-filing IPR proceedings. With all method claims (11-20) cancelled or disclaimed, the dispute is now focused exclusively on the system claims, centering the infringement analysis on the physical structure of the accused device rather than on its method of use by the end-user.