Bissell Inc. v. ITC — Federal Circuit Affirms ITC Patent Ruling on Wet-Dry Vacuum Cleaners, Finding Redesigned Products Do Not Infringe

Background

Bissell filed a complaint with the International Trade Commission alleging that Tineco Intelligent Technology Co. and related entities violated Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 by importing and selling wet-dry surface cleaning devices that infringe U.S. Patent Nos. 11,076,735 and 11,071,428. Both patents are titled “Surface Cleaning Apparatus” and share a specification describing a device with a storage tray used during a self-cleaning mode that can also recharge the device’s battery, with the key feature that battery charging is disabled during self-cleaning to prevent component degradation.

After the ITC found Tineco’s original products infringing and issued an exclusion order barring their importation, Tineco redesigned its products. The Commission then determined that the redesigned products did not infringe certain claims, and thus no exclusion order was entered for them. Bissell appealed the no-violation finding on the redesigned products, while Tineco cross-appealed, challenging Bissell’s technical domestic industry and certain infringement findings.

The Court’s Holding

The Federal Circuit affirmed the Commission’s Final Determination in full.

On Bissell’s appeal regarding the redesigned products, the court upheld the Commission’s finding that Tineco’s redesigned products do not satisfy the “self-cleaning mode” limitation of the asserted claims. The patents require that battery charging be disabled during self-cleaning, but Tineco’s redesigned products use a different approach — they draw power from an external source during self-cleaning rather than from the battery, meaning the battery charging circuit is never actually “disabled” as the claims require.

On Tineco’s cross-appeal, the court rejected Tineco’s challenge to Bissell’s technical domestic industry, finding substantial evidence supported the Commission’s determination that Bissell’s own products practice the asserted patents. The court also upheld the Commission’s infringement findings regarding the “brushroll within the recovery pathway” and “suction nozzle” limitations, noting that Tineco’s own expert concessions and demonstratives supported the Commission’s conclusions.

Key Takeaways

• Product redesigns can successfully avoid ITC exclusion orders — Tineco’s redesign, which changed how power is supplied during self-cleaning mode, was sufficient to avoid infringement of the asserted claims.
• The Federal Circuit applies substantial-evidence review to the Commission’s factual findings, and will uphold those findings even when the evidence could support contradictory conclusions, as long as a reasonable factfinder could reach the Commission’s result.
• Expert concessions during ITC proceedings can be powerful evidence — both Bissell’s domestic industry showing and Tineco’s infringement were partially established through the opposing party’s own expert testimony and demonstratives.

Why It Matters

This precedential opinion provides important guidance for companies navigating ITC patent disputes, particularly on the question of product redesigns. It confirms that redesigned products will be evaluated independently against the patent claims, and that meaningful design-arounds — even ones that achieve the same functional result through different technical means — can avoid exclusion orders. For companies in the competitive home appliance and cleaning device market, this case underscores both the power and limits of ITC enforcement: original infringing products can be blocked at the border, but respondents who invest in genuine redesigns have a viable path to continue importing.