IP Law Daily, PATENT—Fed. Cir.: ITC’s ban on Tineco’s original cleaners upheld, redesigned models cleared of infringement, (May 13, 2026)

By Ravindra Kumar Singh, B.L.

The court found substantial evidence supported ITC’s infringement and domestic industry determinations, while redesigned products no longer satisfied the disabled battery limitation.

In a precedential decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has affirmed the U.S. International Trade Commission’s (ITC) final determination in a Section 337 investigation involving wet-dry surface cleaning devices imported by Tineco Intelligent Technology Co., Ltd. and related entities. The court upheld the ITC’s limited exclusion order barring importation of Tineco’s original accused products after finding that they infringed claims of Bissell patents covering surface-cleaning apparatus technology. The court also affirmed the ITC’s determination that Tineco’s redesigned products did not infringe because their battery charging circuits no longer remained disabled throughout the unattended automatic cleanout cycle required by the asserted claims. In addition, the court rejected Tineco’s cross-appeal challenging the ITC’s domestic industry findings and infringement determinations relating to the asserted brushroll and suction nozzle limitations (Bissell, Inc. v. ITC, No. 24-1509 (Fed. Cir. May 11, 2026)).

Background. Appellant Bissell, Inc. and Bissell Homecare, Inc. manufacture household floor-cleaning products and related homecare appliances. The appellee, the ITC, is an independent federal agency. Intervenors Tineco Intelligent Technology Co., Ltd., Tineco Intelligent, Inc., and TEK (Hong Kong) Science & Technology Ltd. manufacture and import wet-dry surface-cleaning devices sold in the United States and compete directly with Bissell in the cordless floor-cleaning market.

The dispute involved U.S. Patent Nos. 11,076,735 (the ’735 patent) and 11,071,428 (the ’428 patent), both titled “Surface Cleaning Apparatus.” The patents shared a common specification and covered floor-cleaning systems incorporating a self-cleaning mode in which a rechargeable battery charging circuit remained disabled during an unattended automatic cleanout cycle. The asserted claims also addressed structural features involving a brushroll positioned within a recovery pathway and a suction nozzle configured to extract fluid and debris from the brushroll.

Bissell filed a complaint before the ITC alleging that Tineco violated Section 337 of the Tariff Act by importing and selling wet-dry surface cleaning devices that infringed several claims of the ’735 and ’428 patents. The investigation focused on Tineco’s original Floor One S3 and Floor One S5 Pro products, as well as redesigned versions introduced after the investigation was instituted. Following an evidentiary hearing, an Administrative Law Judge determined that the original accused products infringed the asserted patent claims, but found that the redesigned products did not infringe because they no longer satisfied the limitation requiring the battery charging circuit to remain disabled during the unattended cleanout cycle. The Commission adopted those findings and entered a limited exclusion order barring importation of the original infringing products. Bissell appealed the no-infringement finding concerning the redesigned products, while Tineco cross-appealed the domestic industry determination and certain infringement findings.

Redesigned products. The Federal Circuit rejected Bissell’s argument that the Commission improperly construed the claim limitation concerning the disabled battery charging circuit. The court held that the Administrative Law Judge merely applied the plain and ordinary meaning of the claim language and made factual findings after rejecting the testimony of Bissell’s expert as unpersuasive. The redesigned products performed two charging events during the 120-second self-cleaning cycle, preventing the battery charging circuit from remaining disabled during the unattended automatic cleanout cycle. The court distinguished the case from Google LLC v. EcoFactor, Inc., 92 F.4th 1049 (Fed. Cir. 2024), explaining that the Commission had not imposed any new claim boundaries or unstated limitations. Because Bissell framed its challenge solely as a legal claim construction issue and did not contest the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the factual findings, the court affirmed the Commission’s no literal infringement determination.

Doctrine of equivalents. The Federal Circuit also affirmed the Commission’s rejection of infringement under the doctrine of equivalents. Bissell argued that the Administrative Law Judge improperly relied on claim vitiation principles instead of the insubstantial differences test. The court disagreed, finding that the Commission had performed a factual analysis and permissibly concluded that a battery circuit that charged during the automatic cleanout cycle was not insubstantially different from a claim requiring the charging circuit to remain disabled throughout the cycle. The court emphasized that the Administrative Law Judge evaluated competing expert testimony and found Bissell’s expert opinions unpersuasive rather than legally barred.

Domestic industry. The Federal Circuit upheld the Commission’s finding that Bissell established a technical domestic industry. Tineco argued that Bissell’s expert improperly relied on source code that had been produced during discovery but not formally admitted into evidence. The court rejected that contention, relying on Federal Rule of Evidence 703, which permits experts to base opinions on information reasonably relied upon in the field even if the material itself is not admitted into evidence. The court observed that Tineco never disputed that the source code had been produced, never cross-examined Bissell’s expert on the issue, and never presented contrary expert testimony. The court further noted that Bissell’s internal documents corroborated the expert testimony concerning the charging cycle functionality.

Brushroll limitation. The court also affirmed the Commission’s findings that Tineco’s accused products satisfied the “brushroll within the recovery pathway” limitation. The court concluded that substantial evidence supported the finding that at least 50 percent of the brushroll was positioned inside the recovery pathway, consistent with concessions made by Tineco’s own expert witness. Citing Guangdong Alison Hi-Tech Co. v. International Trade Commission, 936 F.3d 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2019), the court reiterated that substantial evidence review only requires that a reasonable factfinder could accept the evidentiary record as adequate to support the conclusion reached.

Suction nozzle limitation. The Federal Circuit further held that substantial evidence supported the Commission’s finding that Tineco’s suction nozzle extracted fluid and debris from the brushroll. The court cited testimony from Tineco’s own expert acknowledging that the suction nozzle removed debris from both the floor and a metal blade near the brushroll. The court also relied on experiments performed by Bissell’s expert demonstrating that the suction nozzle could remove debris directly from the brushroll when the metal blade was removed. Finding no speculation or legal error in the Commission’s reasoning, the Federal Circuit affirmed the Commission’s final determination in its entirety and awarded costs to the ITC.

The Case is No. 24-1509.

Judge: Stoll, K.

Attorneys: Michael Hawes (Baker Botts LLP) for Bissell, Inc. Lynde Faun Herzbach, Office of the General Counsel, for International Trade Commission.

Companies: Bissell, Inc.

Cases: Patent FedCirNews