DCT
1:25-cv-11062
Ikeyless LLC v. PMK Technology LLC
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: iKeyless, LLC (Kentucky)
- Defendant: PMK Technology LLC (Illinois) and Smart Box Technology, LLC d/b/a Pair My Key (Illinois)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Gray Ice Higdon, PLLC
- Case Identification: 1:25-cv-11062, N.D. Ill., 09/15/2025
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper based on Defendants being incorporated in Illinois and having a regular and established place of business in the Northern District of Illinois, where they have allegedly committed acts of infringement.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ "PMK Programming Device" for vehicle keys infringes patents related to systems and methods for remotely programming replacement vehicle keys.
- Technical Context: The technology addresses the automotive aftermarket sector, specifically the need for non-specialists to program replacement electronic vehicle keys without requiring costly, on-site locksmith services.
- Key Procedural History: Plaintiff alleges it provided Defendants with notice of the ’661 Patent via email on April 19, 2024, and notice of both the ’661 and ’818 Patents via a formal letter from counsel on June 19, 2025, prior to filing suit.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2017-11-08 | Priority Date for ’661 and ’818 Patents |
| 2022-01-25 | ’661 Patent Issued |
| 2024-04-19 | Plaintiff allegedly sent email notice of ’661 Patent to Defendants |
| 2025-04-15 | ’818 Patent Issued |
| 2025-06-19 | Plaintiff allegedly sent letter providing notice of ’661 and ’818 Patents |
| 2025-09-15 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 11,232,661 - "Remote Programming System and Method for Replacement Vehicle Keys", issued Jan. 25, 2022
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent’s background describes the difficulty and expense of programming replacement electronic keys for modern vehicles. This process typically requires an individual with specialized training, such as a locksmith, to travel to the vehicle's location with costly hardware, which can lead to delays and high costs for vehicle owners or entities like repossession companies ('661 Patent, col. 1:36-54).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a three-part system designed to allow remote programming. It consists of: (1) an onboard diagnostic (OBD) interface device that plugs into the vehicle; (2) a mobile, handheld device (e.g., a smartphone) that communicates with the OBD device; and (3) a remote "back end programming machine" that communicates with the handheld device over a network. The handheld device acts as a conduit, sending vehicle-specific information to the remote machine, which in turn determines and sends back the necessary programming instructions to program a new key via the OBD interface ('661 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 1).
- Technical Importance: This architecture separates the complex programming logic (housed in the remote server) from the on-site hardware, potentially reducing the cost of the field equipment and centralizing the technical expertise required for multi-vehicle support ('661 Patent, col. 10:4-13).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶25).
- Claim 1 is a method claim requiring the following essential steps:
- Communicatively linking an onboard diagnostic interface device with a vehicle’s engine control unit and with a mobile, handheld device.
- Communicatively linking the handheld device with a back-end programming machine that is remotely located from the vehicle via a communication network.
- Communicating identifying information about the vehicle to the programming machine.
- Determining, at the programming machine, the actions and programming information needed to program the vehicle to accept a replacement key.
- Sending these actions and information from the machine to the handheld device.
- Programming the vehicle's engine control unit to accept the replacement key using the information.
U.S. Patent No. 12,277,818 - "Remote Programming System and Method for Replacement Vehicle Keys", issued Apr. 15, 2025
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: As a continuation of the same patent family, the ’818 Patent addresses the same technical problem as the ’661 Patent: the high cost and logistical complexity of programming replacement vehicle keys ('818 Patent, col. 1:43-54).
- The Patented Solution: The solution is based on the same three-part architecture as the ’661 Patent, utilizing an OBD interface, a mobile electronic device, and a remote programming machine to facilitate key programming ('818 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 1). The key distinction in the asserted claim lies in its focus on the user interaction guided by the mobile device.
- Technical Importance: The technical approach is consistent with that of the ’661 Patent, aiming to simplify the on-site process for the end-user by leveraging a remote expert system.
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶39).
- Claim 1 is a method claim with the following essential steps:
- Communicatively linking an interface device to a vehicle and to a mobile electronic device with an installed software application.
- Communicatively linking the mobile device with a remote programming machine.
- Communicating identifying vehicle information to the programming machine.
- Storing programming information received from the remote machine on the mobile device.
- Based on the stored information, programming the vehicle to accept a second key by displaying prompts on the mobile device that direct an operator to "press or otherwise physically engage with at least one interactive physical element of the vehicle."
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The accused product is the "PMK Programming Device" (Compl. ¶19).
Functionality and Market Context
The complaint alleges that the Accused Product is used to program replacement vehicle keys (Compl. ¶19). Its functionality, when used as instructed by Defendants, is alleged to embody the patented inventions (Compl. ¶19). The complaint provides visual evidence showing Plaintiff’s own commercial products, the "Key Genius" and "Universal EZ Installer," which are covered by the patents-in-suit and operate in the same market space as the Accused Product (Compl. p. 5). A screenshot of Plaintiff's website shows the '661 and '818 patents listed as covering these products (Compl. p. 5).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint references claim charts in "Exhibit E" that were not provided with the filing (Compl. ¶27). The following analysis is based on the narrative allegations of infringement.
’661 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| communicatively linking an onboard diagnostic interface device with an engine control unit of a vehicle and with a mobile, handheld device | The PMK Programming Device system is alleged to involve an interface that links with a vehicle's ECU and a user's handheld device. | ¶27 | col. 15:48-52 |
| communicatively linking...the handheld device with a back-end programming machine that is remotely located from the vehicle | The accused system allegedly links the user's handheld device to a remote server or machine over a network. | ¶27 | col. 15:53-57 |
| communicating identifying information about the vehicle to the programming machine | The system allegedly sends vehicle data from the handheld device to the remote machine. | ¶27 | col. 15:58-62 |
| determining, at the programming machine, one or more actions and programming information needed to program the engine control unit | The remote machine in the accused system allegedly processes the vehicle data to determine the correct programming procedure. | ¶27 | col. 15:63-67 |
| sending the one or more actions and programming information from the programming machine to the handheld device | The accused system allegedly transmits the determined programming information back to the user's handheld device. | ¶27 | col. 16:1-4 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: Does the accused system utilize a "back-end programming machine that is remotely located" as that term is used in the patent? The interpretation of "remotely located" may be a point of dispute—whether it requires geographic separation or simply being external to the vehicle and handheld device.
- Technical Questions: What is the specific architecture of the accused "PMK Programming Device" system? The complaint does not detail whether it is a self-contained device or a multi-component system involving a user's mobile phone and a remote server, as claimed.
’818 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| communicatively linking an interface device to a vehicle... [and] with a mobile electronic device | The PMK Programming Device system allegedly links an interface device with both the vehicle and a user's mobile device. | ¶41 | col. 15:51-57 |
| communicatively linking...the mobile electronic device with a programming machine | The user's mobile device, as part of the accused system, allegedly connects to a remote programming machine over a network. | ¶41 | col. 15:58-61 |
| storing programming information received from the programming machine | The software application in the accused system allegedly stores information sent from the remote machine. | ¶41 | col. 16:4-8 |
| programming the vehicle...wherein programming includes displaying...prompts directing an operator to press or otherwise physically engage with at least one interactive physical element of the vehicle | The instructional materials for the Accused Product allegedly direct users to follow prompts that require physical interaction with vehicle components (e.g., pressing buttons, turning the ignition) to complete the programming sequence. | ¶41 | col. 16:10-18 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: What constitutes an "interactive physical element of the vehicle"? The breadth of this term will be critical, as it could cover anything from a dashboard button to the key itself in the ignition.
- Technical Questions: What specific sequence of actions do the instructions for the Accused Product direct users to perform? Infringement of this claim appears to depend heavily on whether those instructions require the specific type of physical engagement recited.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
For the ’661 Patent
- The Term: "back-end programming machine that is remotely located"
- Context and Importance: This term defines the core architecture of the claimed system. The infringement analysis will depend on whether the accused system includes a component that meets this definition. Practitioners may focus on this term to determine if the defendant's server architecture falls within the claim's scope.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the machine as potentially being "software running on cloud-based computing devices," which could support a broad interpretation covering various remote server or cloud-based architectures ('661 Patent, col. 5:61-63).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides geographically distant examples for "remotely located," such as "in another building, in another ZIP code, in another city, in another county, in another state, or in another country" ('661 Patent, col. 5:44-47). This language could be used to argue for a more limited construction requiring significant physical separation.
For the ’818 Patent
- The Term: "prompts directing an operator to press or otherwise physically engage with at least one interactive physical element of the vehicle"
- Context and Importance: This is the central, distinguishing limitation of the asserted claim. Infringement hinges on whether the accused method includes prompts that direct this specific type of user action. The dispute may turn on what actions qualify as "physical engagement" with an "interactive" element.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term "physically engage" is general and could arguably cover a wide range of actions, from inserting a key to pressing a button.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides specific examples of action sequences, such as "turning on the hazard lights," "turning the replacement key...in the ignition," and "pressing an unlock button on the replacement key," which involve distinct, interactive vehicle controls ('661 Patent, col. 6:7-24, specification identical to '818 Patent). An argument could be made that the term should be limited to these types of explicit user interactions with the vehicle's controls, rather than passive actions.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement for each patent (Compl. ¶¶24-37, 38-51). The basis for inducement is the allegation that Defendants provide "Instructional Materials" such as advertising, user manuals, and website content that "instruct and encourage users to operate the Accused Product" in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶¶26, 40). Contributory infringement is alleged on the basis that the Accused Product is a material part of the invention, is not a staple article of commerce, and is specially adapted for an infringing use (Compl. ¶¶32, 34-35, 46, 48-49).
- Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on Defendants’ purported actual knowledge of the patents and their infringement. This knowledge is alleged to have been established by an email notice regarding the ’661 Patent on April 19, 2024, and a subsequent formal letter regarding both patents on June 19, 2025 (Compl. ¶¶53-54).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of system architecture: Can Plaintiff establish that the accused "PMK Programming Device" operates as a three-part system, including an OBD device, a handheld mobile device, and a "remotely located back-end programming machine," as required by the asserted claims? The factual evidence regarding how the accused system is designed and functions will be paramount.
- A second central issue will be one of user action: Does the use of the Accused Product, as directed by Defendants' instructional materials, require users to follow prompts and "physically engage" with "interactive physical elements" of the vehicle? This question highlights a potential mismatch between the specific, action-oriented language of the ’818 Patent's claim and the actual steps a user of the accused system must perform.
- A key evidentiary question will be one of proof: Without detailed infringement contentions or claim charts in the complaint, the case will depend on discovery to reveal the precise operation of the accused system and the content of its associated instructional materials, which will be necessary to substantiate the infringement allegations.