Quarterly report pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d)

Commitments and Contingencies

Commitments and Contingencies
3 Months Ended
Mar. 28, 2020
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]  
Commitments and Contingencies
6. Commitments and Contingencies:

The Company self-insures its product liability, automotive, workers' compensation, and general liability losses up to $250 per occurrence. Catastrophic coverage has been purchased from third party insurers for occurrences in excess of $250 up to $60,000. The two risk areas involving the most significant accounting estimates are workers' compensation and automotive liability. Actuarial valuations performed by the Company's outside risk insurance expert were used by the Company's management to form the basis for workers' compensation and automotive liability loss reserves. The actuary contemplated the Company's specific loss history, actual claims reported, and industry trends among statistical and other factors to estimate the range of reserves required. Risk insurance reserves are comprised of specific reserves for individual claims and additional amounts expected for development of these claims, as well as for incurred but not yet reported claims. The Company believes that the liability of approximately $1,932 recorded for such risks is adequate as of March 28, 2020.

As of March 28, 2020, the Company has provided certain vendors and insurers letters of credit aggregating $19,401 related to our product purchases and insurance coverage for product liability, workers’ compensation, and general liability.

The Company self-insures group health claims up to an annual stop loss limit of $250 per participant. Historical group insurance loss experience forms the basis for the recognition of group health insurance reserves. Provisions for losses expected under these programs are recorded based on an analysis of historical insurance claim data and certain actuarial assumptions. The Company believes that the liability of approximately $2,495 recorded for such risks is adequate as of March 28, 2020.

On June 3, 2019, The Hillman Group, Inc. ("Hillman Group") filed a complaint for patent infringement against KeyMe, LLC ("KeyMe"), a provider of self-service key duplication kiosks, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas (Marshall Division). Hillman Group’s complaint alleges that KeyMe’s self-named and “Locksmith in a Box” key duplication kiosks infringe U.S. Patent Nos. 8,979,446 and 9,914,179, which are assigned to Hillman Group, and seeks damages and injunctive relief against KeyMe. After the United States Patent and Trademark Office issued U.S. Patent No. 10,400,474 to Hillman Group on September 3, 2019, Hillman Group filed a motion the same day to amend its initial complaint to add the new patent to the litigation. The Texas court granted the motion on September 13, 2019. KeyMe filed two motions in the case on July 25, 2019, the first seeking to dismiss Hillman Group's complaint under Rule 12(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for improper venue, or in the alternative, to move the case from Marshall, Texas to the Southern District of New York. KeyMe’s second motion seeks to transfer the venue of the case from Texas to New York under 28 U.S.C. § 1404. Subsequently, Hillman Group filed a motion on September 4, 2019 to disqualify KeyMe's counsel Cooley LLP from the litigation due to Cooley's concurrent and prior representation of Hillman Group and predecessor-in-interest MinuteKey Holdings, Inc ("MinuteKey"). Hillman Group served its initial infringement contentions for the patents-in-suit on KeyMe on September 6, 2019, and KeyMe served its initial invalidity and unenforceability contentions for the patents-in-suit on Hillman Group on November 15, 2019. The parties filed a joint claim construction statement with the Court on January 31, 2020, setting forth the disputed constructions of terms and phrases recited in the asserted claims of the patents-in-suit. On February 14, 2020, the Court granted Hillman Group’s motion to disqualify Cooley LLP, and denied KeyMe’s pending venue-related motion to dismiss and motion to transfer without prejudice to refiling. The case was stayed until March 30, 2020 to permit KeyMe to retain new legal counsel. The parties filed a joint status report on March 25, 2020, and on March 27, 2020, the Texas Court set a new case schedule with a trial in early December 2020.
On August 16, 2019, KeyMe filed a complaint for patent infringement against Hillman Group in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. KeyMe alleges that Hillman’s KeyKrafter key duplication machines and MinuteKey self-service key duplication kiosks infringe KeyMe’s U.S. Patent No. 8,682,468 when those machines are used in conjunction with Hillman’s KeyHero system. KeyMe seeks damages and injunctive relief against Hillman Group. Hillman Group filed an answer to KeyMe’s complaint on October 23, 2019, and asserted counterclaims seeking declaratory judgments of invalidity and noninfringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,682,468. As of March 28, 2020, the Delaware Court has not yet issued a Scheduling Order in the case.
Management and legal counsel for the Company are of the opinion that KeyMe's claim is without merit and the Company should prevail in defending the suit. The Company is unable to estimate the possible loss or range of loss at this early stage in the case.
On March 2, 2020, Hillman Group filed a second complaint for patent infringement against KeyMe in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas (Marshall Division), alleging that KeyMe’s key duplication kiosks infringe Hillman Group’s U.S. Patent No. 10,577,830. As of March 28, 2020, KeyMe has not yet answered the new Complaint and has indicated its intention to seek consolidation of the two Texas litigations.
In addition, legal proceedings are pending which are either in the ordinary course of business or incidental to the Company's business. Those legal proceedings incidental to the business of the Company are generally not covered by insurance or other indemnity. In the opinion of the Company's management, the ultimate resolution of the pending litigation matters will not have a material adverse effect on the consolidated financial position, operations, or cash flows of the Company.