Not a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

Hyosung TNS Inc. v. ITC

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

June 17, 2019, Decided

2017-2563

Opinion

 [*1355]  Dyk, Circuit Judge.

Hyosung TNS Inc., Nautilus Hyosung America Inc., and HS Global, Inc., (collectively "Hyosung") appeal from a decision by the International Trade Commission ("ITC"). The ITC concluded that various automatic teller machine ("ATM") models imported by Hyosung infringed claims of two patents owned by Diebold Nixdorf, Inc., and Diebold Self-Service Systems (collectively "Diebold"), U.S. Patent Nos. 6,082,616 ('616 patent) and 7,832,631 ('631 patent).1 The ITC issued a limited exclusion order as well as [**2]  cease and desist orders.

Because the appeal has become moot as to the '616 patent, we dismiss the appeal as to the '616 patent, vacate the ITC's decision as to that patent, and remand with instructions to revise the applicable orders. We affirm the ITC's decision and orders as to the '631 patent.

Background

Hyosung and Diebold are both in the market of manufacturing and selling ATMs. Diebold owns the '616 and '631 patents directed to ATMs. Diebold filed a complaint with the ITC claiming that Hyosung's imported ATMs infringe claims in the '616 and '631 patents and their importation violates 19 U.S.C. § 1337(a)(1)(B). The ITC initiated an investigation. The patented technology generally relates to the structure and function of ATMs. The '616 patent claims an ATM rollout tray that allows for easier servicing of internal components of the ATM. The '631 patent relates to a particular method for reading magnetic ink character recognition ("MICR") data on checks (e.g., ink used for the account and routing numbers) that are inserted into an ATM regardless of their width or orientation.

The ITC concluded that Hyosung's accused products infringed both the '616 and '631 patents; that the asserted claims were not shown to be invalid; and that the domestic industry requirement was met for both patents. The ITC entered a limited [**3]  exclusion order and cease and desist orders against Hyosung.

Read The Full CaseNot a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.

926 F.3d 1353 *; 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 18056 **; 2019 U.S.P.Q.2D (BNA) 221196

HYOSUNG TNS INC., NAUTILUS HYOSUNG AMERICA INC., HS GLOBAL, INC., Appellants v. INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION, Appellee, DIEBOLD NIXDORF, INC., DIEBOLD SELF-SERVICE SYSTEMS, Intervenors

Prior History:  [**1] Appeal from the United States International Trade Commission in Investigation No. 337-TA-972.

Disposition: AFFIRMED-IN-PART, VACATED-IN-PART, DISMISSED-IN-PART, AND REMANDED.

CORE TERMS

patent, opening, moot, infringe, products, argues, orders, tray, domestic industry, imported, housing, magnetic, rollout, prong, redesigned, interior, MICR, asserted claim, machine, prior art, research and development, extending, Customs, vacate

Administrative Law, Judicial Review, Standards of Review, De Novo Standard of Review, Substantial Evidence, Civil Procedure, Preliminary Considerations, Justiciability, Mootness, Evidence, Burdens of Proof, Allocation, Business & Corporate Compliance, Infringement Actions, Patent Law, Infringement Actions, Preclusion of Judgments, Estoppel, Collateral Estoppel, Judgments, Res Judicata, Exports & Imports, Countervailing Duties, Tariff Act