Background
Bissell, Inc. filed a complaint with the United States International Trade Commission alleging that Tineco Intelligent Technology Co., Ltd. violated Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 by importing and selling wet dry surface cleaning devices that infringed claims of United States Patent Numbers 11,076,735 and 11,071,428. The Commission barred the importation of original accused products found to infringe but determined that redesigned products did not infringe specific claims because they failed to meet the limitation requiring the battery charging circuit to remain disabled during an unattended automatic cleanout cycle. Bissell appealed the no violation finding regarding the redesigned products, while Tineco cross-appealed regarding the finding of a technical domestic industry.
The court’s reasoning
The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the Commission’s Final Determination in full. The court found no error in the Administrative Law Judge’s factual findings regarding the disabled battery limitation, the recovery pathway, and the suction nozzle configuration. The court accepted the determination that the redesigned products did not practice the disabled battery limitation as required by the patent claims and that the doctrine of equivalents did not apply. The court also affirmed the finding that Bissell supported a technical domestic industry based on evidence that its domestic products practiced the disabled battery limitation.
What it means going forward
The decision maintains the exclusion order against the original accused products while allowing the importation of the redesigned products, confirming the scope of patent protection for surface cleaning apparatus with specific battery charging behaviors.