IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION DIEBOLD, INCORPORATED, Plaintiff

v. PPS DATA, LLC, Defendant ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CASE NO.

COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND

Plaintiff Diebold, Incorporated (Diebold), by and through its attorneys, for its Complaint (Complaint) against PPS Data, LLC (PPS) states as follows: THE PARTIES, JURISDICTION AND VENUE 1. Diebold is an Ohio corporation, with its principal place of business in North

Canton, Summit County, Ohio, in the Northern District of Ohio. 2. Upon information and belief, PPS is a Nevada limited liability company, with its

principal place of business in Salt Lake City, Utah. 3. This Complaint seeks declaratory relief under the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28

U.S.C. 2201 and 2202. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the claims in this Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1331 and 1338(a). 4. Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. 1391(b)(2). A substantial part of the events

giving rise to the claims in this Complaint occurred in this Judicial District. PPSs actions were designed to cause harm to Diebold in this Judicial District.

FACTS COMMON TO ALL COUNTS 5. herein. 6. On November 6, 2009, NetDeposit, LLC (NetDeposit) filed suit against Diebold realleges Paragraphs 1 through 4 of this Complaint as if fully rewritten

Diebold and two other defendants in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, alleging patent infringement. NetDeposit subsequently dismissed its claims against the other two defendants. 7. Rather than immediately serve its Complaint, NetDeposit engaged in settlement

negotiations with Diebold. The settlement negotiations occurred via telephone calls and emails to and from Diebold personnel located at Diebolds corporate headquarters in North Canton, Ohio. In April 2010, NetDeposit personnel, including its President Danne Buchanan, travelled to Diebolds North Canton headquarters and met with Diebold personnel regarding NetDeposits allegations of infringement of NetDeposits patents and settlement. Although NetDeposit and Diebold ultimately reached a settlement agreement, NetDeposit refused to abide by the agreedupon terms and proceeded with the litigation. 8. During the course of litigation, NetDeposit changed its name to PPS Data, LLC

and amended its Complaint (Amended Complaint) against Diebold. 9. In its Amended Complaint, PPS alleged that Diebold had willfully infringed and

was infringing United States Patent No. 7,181,430 (the 430 Patent), United States Patent No. 7,216,106 (the 106 Patent), United States Patent No. 7,386,511 (the 511 Patent), United States Patent No. 7,440,924 (the 924 Patent) and United States Patent No. 7,624,071 (the 071 Patent), attached to this Complaint as Exhibits 1 through 5 (collectively the Patents-InSuit).

10.

Diebold filed a motion to dismiss PPSs Amended Complaint for failure to state a

claim, but that motion was never decided. Diebold subsequently filed a motion to transfer venue to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio. 11. On January 5, 2012, one day before its opposition to Diebolds motion to transfer

venue was due to be filed, PPS voluntarily dismissed without prejudice its Amended Complaint against Diebold. PPSs dismissal without prejudice allows PPS to refile its patent infringement claims against Diebold. 12. Having previously filed suit against Diebold for allegedly infringing the Patents-

In-Suit, an actual case or controversy exists between Diebold and PPS as to whether Diebold infringes or has ever infringed the Patents-In-Suit. 13. Diebold denies that it infringes or has ever infringed, willfully or otherwise, any

valid claim of the Patents-In-Suit. Diebold further contends that PPSs patent infringement claims are barred by prior settlement, license and/or estoppel. COUNT ONE Declaratory Judgment of Noninfringement of the '430 Patent 14. herein. 15. An actual case or controversy exists between Diebold and PPS as to whether the Diebold realleges Paragraphs 1 through 13 of this Complaint as if fully rewritten

430 Patent is infringed by Diebold. 16. Patent. 17. Diebold is entitled to a Declaration from the Court that Diebold has not infringed Diebold has not infringed, and is not infringing, any valid claim of the 430

the 430 Patent.

COUNT TWO Declaratory Judgment of Invalidity of the '430 Patent 18. herein. 19. An actual case or controversy exists between Diebold and PPS as to whether the Diebold realleges Paragraphs 1 through 17 of this Complaint as if fully rewritten

430 Patent is valid. 20. The 430 Patent is invalid for failure to comply with the requirements of 35

U.S.C. 101, 102, 103 and/or 112. 21. Diebold is entitled to a Declaration from the Court that the 430 Patent is invalid. COUNT THREE Declaratory Judgment of Noninfringement of the '106 Patent 22. herein. 23. An actual case or controversy exists between Diebold and PPS as to whether the Diebold realleges Paragraphs 1 through 21 of this Complaint as if fully rewritten

106 Patent is infringed by Diebold. 24. Patent. 25. Diebold is entitled to a Declaration from the Court that Diebold has not infringed Diebold has not infringed, and is not infringing, any valid claim of the 106

the 106 Patent. COUNT FOUR Declaratory Judgment of Invalidity of the '106 Patent 26. herein. 27. An actual case or controversy exists between Diebold and PPS as to whether the
4

Diebold realleges Paragraphs 1 through 25 of this Complaint as if fully rewritten

106 Patent is valid. 28. The 106 Patent is invalid for failure to comply with the requirements of 35

U.S.C. 101, 102, 103 and/or 112. 29. Diebold is entitled to a Declaration from the Court that the 106 Patent is invalid. COUNT FIVE Declaratory Judgment of Noninfringement of the '511 Patent 30. herein. 31. An actual case or controversy exists between Diebold and PPS as to whether the Diebold realleges Paragraphs 1 through 29 of this Complaint as if fully rewritten

511 Patent is infringed by Diebold. 32. Patent. 33. Diebold is entitled to a Declaration from the Court that Diebold has not infringed Diebold has not infringed, and is not infringing, any valid claim of the 511

the 511 Patent. COUNT SIX Declaratory Judgment of Invalidity of the '511 Patent 34. herein. 35. An actual case or controversy exists between Diebold and PPS as to whether the Diebold realleges Paragraphs 1 through 33 of this Complaint as if fully rewritten

511 Patent is valid. 36. The 511 Patent is invalid for failure to comply with the requirements of 35

U.S.C. 101, 102, 103 and/or 112. 37. Diebold is entitled to a Declaration from the Court that the 511 Patent is invalid.

COUNT SEVEN Declaratory Judgment of Noninfringement of the '924 Patent 38. herein. 39. An actual case or controversy exists between Diebold and PPS as to whether the Diebold realleges Paragraphs 1 through 37 of this Complaint as if fully rewritten

924 Patent is infringed by Diebold. 40. Patent. 41. Diebold is entitled to a Declaration from the Court that Diebold has not infringed Diebold has not infringed, and is not infringing, any valid claim of the 924

the 924 Patent. COUNT EIGHT Declaratory Judgment of Invalidity of the '924 Patent 42. herein. 43. An actual case or controversy exists between Diebold and PPS as to whether the Diebold realleges Paragraphs 1 through 41 of this Complaint as if fully rewritten

924 Patent is valid. 44. The 924 Patent is invalid for failure to comply with the requirements of 35

U.S.C. 101, 102, 103 and/or 112. 45. Diebold is entitled to a Declaration from the Court that the 924 Patent is invalid.

COUNT NINE Declaratory Judgment of Noninfringement of the '071 Patent 46. herein. 47. An actual case or controversy exists between Diebold and PPS as to whether the
6

Diebold realleges Paragraphs 1 through 45 of this Complaint as if fully rewritten

071 Patent is infringed by Diebold. 48. Patent. 49. Diebold is entitled to a Declaration from the Court that Diebold has not infringed Diebold has not infringed, and is not infringing, any valid claim of the 071

the 071 Patent.

COUNT TEN Declaratory Judgment of Invalidity of the '071 Patent 50. herein. 51. An actual case or controversy exists between Diebold and PPS as to whether the Diebold realleges Paragraphs 1 through 49 of this Complaint as if fully rewritten

071 Patent is valid. 52. The 071 Patent is invalid for failure to comply with the requirements of 35

U.S.C. 101, 102, 103 and/or 112. 53. Diebold is entitled to a Declaration from the Court that the 071 Patent is invalid.

COUNT ELEVEN Declaratory Judgment That PPSs Claims of Patent Infringement Are Barred 54. herein. 55. An actual case or controversy exists between Diebold and PPS as to whether Diebold realleges Paragraphs 1 through 53 of this Complaint as if fully rewritten

PPSs patent infringement claims are barred by settlement, license and/or estoppel. 56. estoppel. 57. Diebold is entitled to a Declaration from the Court that PPSs patent infringement PPSs patent infringement claims are barred by prior settlement, license and/or

claims are barred by settlement, license and/or estoppel.

WHEREFORE, Diebold prays that this Court: A. B. C. D. E. F. G. H. I. J. K. L. M. N. Declare that Diebold has not infringed any valid claims of the 430 Patent; Declare that the claims of the 430 Patent are invalid; Declare that Diebold has not infringed any valid claims of the 106 Patent; Declare that the claims of the 106 Patent are invalid; Declare that Diebold has not infringed any valid claims of the 511 Patent; Declare that the claims of the 511 Patent are invalid; Declare that Diebold has not infringed any valid claims of the 924 Patent; Declare that the claims of the 924 Patent are invalid; Declare that Diebold has not infringed any valid claims of the 071 Patent; Declare that the claims of the 071 Patent are invalid; Declare that PPSs claims are barred by prior settlement, license and/or estoppel; Find that this is an exceptional case; Grant judgment for Diebold and award Diebold its costs and attorney fees; and Grant such other relief as this Court deems proper and equitable.

JURY DEMAND Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 38(b), plaintiff hereby requests a trial by jury on all issues triable thereby.

Respectfully submitted, /s/ Patrick J. Norton Patrick J. Norton, Ohio Bar No. 0069978 Sasha Markovic, Ohio Bar No. 0078228 JONES DAY 901 Lakeside Avenue Cleveland, Ohio 44114 Phone: (216) 586-3939 Fax: (216) 579-0212 E-mail: pjnorton@JonesDay.com E-mail: smarkovic@JonesDay.com

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF DIEBOLD, INCORPORATED

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on January 6, 2012 a copy of the COMPLAINT was filed electronically with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system. Notice of this filing will be sent to all parties as indicated below: Via hand delivery: CSC Services Of Nevada, Inc. Registered Agent for PPS Data, LLC 2215-B Renaissance Dr. Las Vegas, NV 89119 PPS Data, LLC 3949 South 700 East Salt Lake City, Utah 84107 Zions Bancorporation One South Main Street, 11th Floor Salt Lake City, UT 84111

/s/ Patrick J. Norton Patrick J. Norton One of the Attorneys for Plaintiff Diebold, Incorporated

10