On what basis do patented lock manufacturers claim that it is illegal to clone their keys without authorization?
<p>Locks are <a href="https://www.amazon.ca/Israeli-IDF-High-Security-Padlock/dp/B019S1V7US?ref_=d6k_applink_bb_marketplace" rel="nofollow noreferrer">often sold</a> with the claimed advantage of their keys being impossible to legally copy without manufacturer authorization:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>The key is two-sided, with US patent no. 8,336,350. Benefits of the LOCXIS cylinder, by RB-LOCKS: Patented until 2030</p>
</blockquote>
<p>And another example of <a href="https://blog.dormakaba.com/3-reasons-to-use-patent-protected-keys/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">such advertising</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Patent-protected key systems ensure that no one other than the provider – or a third party appointed by the provider – can produce keys or key blanks.
Attempting to copy patent-protected keys have consequences not unlike violating copyright laws. Duplicating a patent-protected key without expressed permission of the owner or organization can face severe financial penalties</p>
</blockquote>
<p>But is there actual case law that supports the manufacturers legal theory? To me it seems odd that a patent on a lock system would be sufficient to forbid making copies of the keys, rather than of the lock itself.</p>

<p>Locks are tricky. As the LPL will tell you, half the security a lock offers is in having a good keyway. The more obscure, the more secure it can be. <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GncYzuRMtb8" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Like the LPL's 10 nastiest</a>. But while picking is one way to open a door that needs skill and training and in some states a license as a locksmith, the good old-fashioned way is to get a key. But how do companies make sure not everybody gets their hands on blanks and the tooling to make afterkeys to make these devices somewhat secure?!</p>
<p>While the patent for exampe the Dimple Lock was given out in <a href="https://patents.google.com/patent/US4098104A/en" rel="nofollow noreferrer">1975/1976 to DOM</a> the key part in controlling the making after keys is <strong>obtaining the key blanks</strong>.</p>
<p>Keys are usually patentee as a package together with the lock they belong to: a key alone can not do anything, a lock without a key doesn't open, the two need t be designed and work together. Making afterkeys is just the same as making faked locks, as long as the patent runs (as long as it's a valid one!) But what if the patent runs out? That's when the Trademarks come into play. For example Abus owns the Trademark <a href="https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=79246136&amp;caseType=SERIAL_NO&amp;searchType=statusSearch" rel="nofollow noreferrer">SmartX (79246136)</a>, which is trademarked among others in the category:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>IC 006. US 002 012 013 014 023 025 050. G &amp; S: locks of metal, keys of metal for locks, metal key holders, metal key blanks</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Yes, USPTO allows to trademark the shape and style of key blanks, at least the non-functional parts of them. The special shape of a key can after all be an identifier of the source of a product. And indeed, two of the non-named marks Abus owns are <a href="https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=79234697&amp;caseType=SERIAL_NO&amp;searchType=statusSearch" rel="nofollow noreferrer">79234697</a> &amp; <a href="https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=79236119&amp;caseType=SERIAL_NO&amp;searchType=statusSearch" rel="nofollow noreferrer">79236119</a> - the literal crosssection of two of their keys! This could make it virtually impossible to make replacement keys without incurring liability for at least a trademark violation if you can manage to get into the extremely tight tolerances (because of which there are only a few companies that do it and only for very popular keys).</p>
<p>At least that's what the Key manufacturers want. Caselaw is a little more tricky and tells us, that at least Best Universal Lock Co has had no easy game so far:</p>
<p><a href="http://openjurist.org/362/f2d/221/falcon-lock-co-v-best-universal-lock-co" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Falcon Locks Co v Best Universal Lock Co</a> seems utterly confusing: Best won on the unfair competition part, but also lost in that Falcon could make lock housings for the patented Best lock...</p>
<p><a href="https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-federal-circuit/1133009.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Best Universal Locks v ILCO Unican Corp</a> held in 1993 that the patent of Best was invalid because of prior art and that the <a href="https://patents.google.com/patent/USD327636" rel="nofollow noreferrer">'636</a> &quot;design patent was invalid because the shape of the blank key blade was dictated by its function.&quot; That patent has the <em>full</em> key blade though, and the crosssection is not necessarily a part of the function, while the rest of the key blade is functional.</p>
<p>The two Abus trademarks on the <em>aesthetic</em> of the keyway to denote these are Abus made locks might or might not stand over time, but so far they are valid.</p>

patents