On February 9, 2016, Nautilus Hyosung Inc. of South Korea and Nautilus Hyosung America Inc. of Irving, Texas (collectively, “Nautilus”) filed a complaint requesting that the ITC commence an investigation pursuant to Section 337.
The complaint alleges that Diebold, Inc. and Diebold Self-Service Systems (collectively, “Diebold”)—both of North Canton, Ohio—unlawfully import into the U.S., sell for importation, and/or sell within the U.S. after importation certain automated teller machines, ATM modules, components thereof, and products containing same that infringe one or more claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,891,551 (the ‘551 patent), 7,950,655 (the ‘655 patent), 8,152,165 (the ‘165 patent), and 8,523,235 (the ‘235 patent) (collectively, the “asserted patents”).
According to the complaint, the asserted patents generally relate to various aspects of automated teller machines. In particular, the ‘551 patent relates to a two-stage lock structure of an automated teller machine that can prevent an operator’s hand from being injured due to a heavy unit, such as a temporary stack or an upper frame, when such unit is lifted to remove a paper media causing a jam on a paper media transfer path. The ‘655 patent relates to an apparatus and method for controlling the reception and transaction of various kinds of paper media based on detecting a defect of the paper media. The ‘165 patent relates to a paper media transfer device for an automated teller machine. Lastly, the ‘235 patent relates to a cash and check depositing apparatus that allows a user to deposit a bundle of cash and checks together.
In the complaint, Nautilus states that Diebold imports and sells products that infringe the asserted patents. The complaint specifically refers to Diebold ActivMedia, ActivCash, ActivRecycle, and Enhanced Note Acceptor modules, and cassettes therefor, as infringing products.
Regarding domestic industry, Nautilus states that its automated teller machines and/or its automated teller machine modules are covered by at least one claim of each asserted patent. Nautilus further states that it maintains facilities in Texas, California, and Ohio, where it engages in customization, service, and support for products covered by the asserted patents.
As to related litigation, Nautilus states that on February 9, 2016, it filed a complaint against Diebold in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas alleging infringement of the asserted patents.
With respect to potential remedy, Nautilus requests that the Commission issue a permanent exclusion order and permanent cease and desist orders directed at Diebold.